Preserving Image and Structure: Tapestry Conservation in Europe and the USA
Abstract
Tapestry weaving has been used for millennia to create a fabric in which the design is integral to the structure, but the term ‘tapestry’ is synonymous with woven pictorial hangings, the subject of this paper. Tapestries have been almost continuously cleaned and repaired since they were first created. Since the loss of warp and weft yarns affects both the image and the structure simultaneously, tapestry restoration and conservation techniques have sought to clarify the image as well as support the structure. This paper analyses the evolution of tapestry conservation techniques in
Western Europe and the USA, from the universal use of reweaving to the range of treatments currently employed.
Introduction
The conservation of Western European woven tapestry hangings forms a specialist area within the field of textile conservation. Tapestries are woven pictures; as the weaving proceeds, both image and structure are created simultaneously, so that damage to the warp or weft yarns affects the picture as well as the stability of the object. The preservation of both image and structure have been considered important since tapestries were first hung in churches and castles to provide decoration and warmth. Most tapestries have been repaired many times since they were first woven; it is extremely rare to find a tapestry that has not been previously repaired or restored.
The peak period of production was from the end of the fourteenth century to the last quarter of the eighteenth century [1-2] so that most surviving examples are several hundreds of years old, and many have been on display for extremely prolonged periods, with subsequent damage and deterioration.
The history of tapestry ‘repair’ falls into three main phases: skilled reweaving by the tapestry weavers themselves during the period when weaving was still being carried out, much more crude repairs carried out in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the development of conservation techniques since the middle part of the twentieth century. This paper will briefly describe the first two phases and their bearing on subsequent treatment, but will focus on the development of conservation treatments in Western Europe and the USA over the fifty-year period 1955-2005, through a review of the conservation literature. As a new conservation ethos began to spread among those involved in the preservation of historic textiles, the challenge of applying conservation ethics to the treatment of tapestries led to different interpretations, and distinct institutional and national trends emerged. The conservation of woven tapestry hangings has been, and continues to be, characterised by a wide range of treatments.
The vast majority of publications discuss issues surrounding conservation and restoration techniques. In this text conservation is taken to mean a concern for the long-term preservation of the tapestry, i.e. treatment aiming to stabilise the whole while not removing any of the original structure and adding as little new material as possible. Restoration implies a central concern for the image rather than the long-term stability of the tapestry; original material may be removed to facilitate restoration and, in contrast to conservation, treatments often aim to be invisible.
1

A much smaller proportion of the literature focuses on more technical issues such as cleaning and hanging methods, while in recent years there has been an expansion in the number of papers on the chemical characterisation of tapestries and the technical analysis of deterioration. Most publications are by conservators in Europe and the
USA, the major centres of tapestry collecting. This paper focuses mainly on the literature in the English language. Much important work has been carried out by conservators in
European countries other than the UK, but they have tended to publish their work in
English language publications as well as in their own countries, so their work is well represented in English. Most of the literature surveyed refers to tapestry wall hangings; there are relatively few on tapestry weave covers for upholstery [see 3, 4].
The control of the environment for storage and display is beyond the scope of this paper.
The tapestry weave technique
The technique of tapestry weaving has been used since prehistory to create a fabric in which the design is integral to the structure. Although the weave is used in many different applications, ranging from flat woven kelims to fine Chinese kesi, the term
‘tapestry’ is synonymous with woven pictorial hangings, the subject of this paper.
Specialist workshops were established in Western Europe before the fourteenth century. The weavers of the Low Countries and France were pre-eminent during the peak centuries of production from the late fourteenth to the eighteenth century, although the Mortlake and Soho manufactories in England also produced many highquality tapestries [1, 2]. Tapestries were woven by hand, following the design on a pattern or cartoon placed behind the warp yarns. The finest quality tapestries exhibit the work of first-rate artists and weavers and represent an enormous investment in labour and materials.
Tapestry weave is a technical term describing a type of weft-faced weave, usually a plain weave, where the weft yarns are packed together to completely cover the warp yarns [5]. The warp yarns are usually of wool, sometimes of linen or cotton, while the weft yarns are of wool and silk, and sometimes metal thread. The wefts are discontinuous, and do not extend from one selvedge to the other. Instead the weaver builds up small areas of the design using different coloured weft yarns; a range of techniques is used to join different colours [5], creating a variety of effects which the weavers exploited skilfully. Tapestries are usually woven so that the warps run horizontally when the tapestry is hanging, and the less tightly spun but closely packed weft yarns support the tapestry’s weight.
Tapestries often exhibit similar types of damage. The weft yarns are the most vulnerable to damage; the silk wefts used for highlights in the weave, and which often constitute large areas of the sky in eighteenth century tapestries, are particularly vulnerable to light damage. Dark brown wool weft yarns are also often particularly weak; the use of an acidic iron mordant has caused them to become degraded over time. This often has a major impact on early tapestries which depend on the dark outlines around the main design elements for the overall balance and definition of the picture. Warp yarns often survive better but may suffer mechanical or insect damage.
One of the methods used to join different colours leaves a slit in the weaving which is closed with stitching; the stitching often perishes, leading to horizontal splits which impose further damage on surrounding areas.
2

Historical repair
For many centuries repair consisted of the replacement of damaged areas by reweaving, carried out by skilled weavers in the workshops where the tapestries had originally been created [6, 7]. Weavers were also employed by the owners of large collections; the Royal Wardrobe in England employed tapestry weavers to maintain the royal collection [8]. Reweaving was employed to repair damaged areas as well as to update armorial details or modify the size. The availability of the requisite skills and materials allowed repair and restoration methods to closely match those of the original manufacture, so that it can be very difficult to identify these today as previous interventions. Today these repairs are considered an intrinsic part of the tapestry’s history and are not removed [9].
As tapestries became unfashionable in the nineteenth century and demand for the product waned, one major effect of the decline in tapestry weaving was the loss of skilled weavers able to repair tapestries as well as to create new ones [9]. The obtrusive repairs which mar the appearance of many tapestries today date from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when tapestries again became desirable commodities and were repaired for sale [6]. The break in the tapestry weaving tradition meant that many restorers did not understand the medium they were working in and the repairs they carried out were often inappropriate and ultimately damaging.
A wide range of techniques was used, often employing inappropriate materials, including reweaving and a plethora of stitched and adhesive repairs, often carried out very crudely. In the late twentieth century, and now in the twenty-first, tapestries have often required re-treatment primarily because of damage caused by old repairs, or because old repairs have failed, not because further damage has occurred [10-12].
A changing ethos: establishing a conservation tradition
Some of the earliest documented interventions which would today be recognised as textile conservation took place in Sweden and spread from Scandinavia across
Europe. Böttiger, the Surveyor of the Swedish Royal Collections from 1915 to 1936, recommended the use of vacuum suction for removing soiling from tapestries without damage, and was instrumental in developing stitching techniques for their repair [7,
13]. Finch acknowledged the influential work of Agnes Geijer at the Swedish
Museum [9], and mentioned ‘the traditions already established in Sweden [by the
1940s]. To them “conservation” meant just what the word implies – namely to conserve what was there and to make no guess-work concerning any missing part.’
[14, p. 5].
However, despite the introduction of conservation ethics to the treatment of textiles in the first half of the twentieth century, reweaving was still seen as the norm when treating tapestries belonging to museum and other collections. The Devonshire
Hunting Tapestries from the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) were treated by reweaving between 1958 and 1966. Pow describes the Haarlem Workshop weaving new weft ‘in the usual manner’ [15]. Many publications in the early conservation literature refer to ‘restorers’ and ‘restoration’ treatments [16, 17]. The influence of those treating historic tapestries for the antique trade was partially responsible; reweaving could be carried out invisibly, at least in the short term, whereas visible patches on the back demonstrated that a tapestry had been repaired, reducing the sale price [18].
3

A diversity of techniques
Development of a stitched technique in the UK
Finch wrote in the 1980s and 1990s [9, 14, 18, 19] about her experience of developing a completely different method of treating tapestries in the mid-twentieth century in the
UK: ‘this approach represented a radical break with the tradition of tapestry repair practiced in England until that time.’ [18, p. 71]. As a pioneer in the development of textile conservation techniques, she felt that traditional reweaving techniques were not appropriate for the conservation of tapestries. They were damaging because it was necessary to remove weak old weft yarns in order to begin reweaving; the conservator could not avoid imposing his or her own interpretation on the tapestry; and the repairs could not be guaranteed to remain invisible as the more modern materials changed colour at a different rate to the originals [18].
Finch’s first attempts at tapestry conservation, in the Art Work Room of the V&A in the 1950s, were in line with the purist conservation techniques recommended by
Geijer in Finch’s native Scandinavia. She used stitching techniques to support weak areas of a tapestry onto patches or a full support of linen fabric [9]. The method was further developed at the Textile Conservation Centre (TCC), founded by Finch in
1975; Bosworth introduced yarns of the same colour as the missing weft yarns [19] to help redefine the image. Spaced lines of couching stitching worked across the warp yarns were used to visually infill the design as well as to support the structure (Figure
1). Small areas of missing warp were reconstructed with the introduction of new warp yarns. Holes in areas without prominent colour changes, where warp and weft were both missing, could be infilled with suitably dyed ribbed weave fabrics emulating the texture of the tapestry weave. Weak or broken slit stitching was restitched through the support fabric, imparting additional strength to the structure. These techniques had a major visual impact, helping to redefine the image and restore the visual integrity of a tapestry [14, 20]; couching stitching could successfully be used to infill large missing areas of the design (Figure 2).
A time of experimentation
This approach was taken up by other conservators and quickly became the norm in the
UK. However in the 1950s and 1960s, at the time that Finch was developing a stitching technique, other experimental methods of treating tapestries were also used in the UK. Adhesive techniques were thought to be ‘inert and therefore safer and more ‘scientific’ than traditional stitching methods’ [21, p.40]. Marko described early experiments with adhesive treatments of tapestries at the V&A [22]. In 1985 Landi stated ‘there are still those who consider that reweaving is the only way to repair a tapestry’ but went on to detail the couching technique widely used by this period in the UK; she also advocated the use of adhesive-coated net applied to the reverse side of tapestries, in combination with stitching, to prevent the loose weft from falling out
[23, p.137].
Marko acknowledged [22] that the adhesive technique could not help to restore the image of a tapestry, and it was soon apparent that adhesive techniques were also fundamentally unsuitable as a structural support. The support fabric could only be attached to the weft yarns on the reverse of the tapestry, leaving the warps and the wefts on the front unsupported. Many tapestries needing treatment in more recent periods have borne witness to the lack of success of these treatments and to the problems in reversing them [24-29]. By 1970, in a summary of the situation in the
4

V&A Textile Conservation Department, Pow described ‘three accepted types of tapestry repair currently being carried out by museums and specialist workshops.
These are reweaving; stitching on to a backing; and the use of synthetic resins for impregnation and for adhesion to a woven support.’ She concluded that stitching was the most appropriate for tapestries in a museum collection [30].
One of the factors in the development of the stitching technique in the UK was the recognition that much previous repair and reweaving had failed aesthetically although it may have been carried out skillfully. The development of new synthetic dyes in the
19th century has left a lasting visual impact on the appearance of many tapestries today, as repairs faded relatively quickly and have often changed colour completely
(Figure 3). Finch determined that new conservation methods should only add the minimum of new material [9] to avoid this problem in the future.
Parallel developments in Europe
Similar considerations had a bearing on the development of conservation techniques in mainland Europe and on the degree of conservation intervention considered acceptable. Lemberg described reweaving the dark coloured outlines on one of the
Caesar tapestries from the Bern Historical Museum at the atelier of the Abegg
Stiftung at Riggisberg, Switzerland, opened in the mid 1960s. Nineteenth century repairs had not previously been removed because of the difficulty of finding more suitable materials to replace them, but the analysis of the original dyes and the development of more stable dyes in the later twentieth century allowed sympathetic reweaving to take place [10, 31].
In general the move from reweaving to the use of stitched support methods took place over a longer period in mainland European than in the UK. Marko visited conservation laboratories in seven European countries in 1975-6, and found that reweaving was still used throughout Europe except in the UK and in some workshops in Germany [32]. This situation gradually changed over succeeding decades. In 1989
De Boeck et al. wrote:
The Institut Royal [du Patrimoine Artistique, in Belgium] has engaged in the
treatment of tapestries for more than fifteen years. At the beginning, we followed the
classical reweaving procedure, but since that time we have gradually evolved toward
an approach of pure conservation [33, p. 113].
The ‘pure conservation’ approach tended to be interpreted differently in different countries, and from this period tapestry conservation was characterised by the broad range of techniques in use. In a summary of the early stages of the development of tapestry conservation techniques, Marko identified a ‘confusion of ideas’: restoration practices have slowly been abandoned or modified. Initially this change itself created confusion in aims and objectives. Restorers adopted the basic idea of applying a support fabric, but went on only to produce a simulation of weaving by close stitching, setting up, not surprisingly, conflicts of tension between the various parts [32, p. ii].
Two international seminars were held in mainland Europe in the early 1980s focusing on tapestry conservation issues: Technice di Conservazione degli Arazzi (Techniques
5

of Tapestry Conservation) in Florence in 1981 [34], and La Restauration et la
Conservation des Tapisseries (The Restoration and Conservation of Tapestries) in
Paris in 1984 [35]. The publications from these and other meetings [36, 37] demonstrate how a mixture of reweaving and stitching techniques was being used in mainland Europe by this time. Cussell described how:
The international seminar on tapestry conservation held in Paris was influential and crucial in the development and introduction of tapestry conservation techniques in
France. Reading the papers presented and the recorded roundtable discussions, it is apparent that curators and the few conservators present had very different expectations and understanding of what conserving a tapestry involved [38 p. 145].
She described how the ‘tradition and expertise in the use of traditional restoration techniques, such as reweaving and rewarping, was doubtless responsible for a certain reticence in adopting a conservation approach’ [38 p. 145]. However she explained how the introduction of conservation techniques added to the repertoire of treatments.
The survival of reweaving skills allowed the creation of replica border galloons to replace the missing ones on two Brussels tapestries, as well as the reconstruction of damaged areas of a 1946 Lurçat tapestry. It appears to have been generally accepted that reweaving should only be carried out if there is clear evidence of what is missing, in the tapestry itself or, for example, in a surviving cartoon or another tapestry of the same design [39, 40].
Masschelein-Kleiner and De Boeck described three different techniques in use in
1984 at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique [39]: reweaving; ‘patchwork consolidation’ which used laid and couched stitching techniques to secure damaged areas to a support fabric; and an ‘intermediate technique’ where patches or a full support of new fabric was attached and new wefts were couched across the warp yarns. They expressed a preference for reweaving as it gave optimum strength, although because of its high cost it was reserved for ‘exceptional cases’ or small damaged areas; it was acknowledged that the weaver necessarily imposed his or her own interpretation. There was a concern, shared with other conservators, that the addition of patches meant adding a completely alien structure which would react differently when the tapestry was hanging.
In Belgium Maes de Witt developed a technique whereby the conservation and restoration phases were separated; the initial impetus was a drive to reduce the lengthy treatment time and subsequent high cost of reweaving and even couching techniques. He first supported weak areas of the tapestry onto dyed, neutral-coloured consolidation fabrics with spaced lines of stitches. Bare warps were secured with stitching in neutral-coloured yarn following the direction of the twist of the warp.
Areas of loss were then visually infilled in areas where it was considered necessary for the correct reading of the design, by inserting new warps into the consolidation fabric and weaving new suitably coloured weft yarns at spaced intervals (Figure 3)
[41, 42]. He felt that this approach focused attention on the original tapestry rather than on the repaired areas.
The USA
Bennet’s foreword to the published papers delivered at a symposium on tapestry at the
Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco in 1976 explained that the symposium ‘broke
6

with tradition by including papers of a technical as well as art historical nature’ [43].
The detailed nature of Kajitani’s paper, The Preservation of Medieval Tapestries , which the foreword described as ‘an explicit manual of tapestry conservation’ indicates that she felt it necessary to explain conservation methods in use at the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (MMA), which were presumably unfamiliar to her audience of ‘tapestry specialists’[44]. She later wrote ‘We have chosen a combined approach of traditional and more recently accepted restoration/conservation methods’ [45 p. 58]. At the MMA reweaving remained the favoured option of reinstating the image where it was possible, but where there was no evidence of the original or what remained was too weak to support reweaving, the loose warps and wefts would be strengthened by stitching them onto a support fabric.
Kajitani described [45] how the responsibility for the care of the tapestries at the
MMA only slowly devolved to the textile conservation department. She mentioned
‘more than a hundred years of conservation maintenance’ in the museum but qualified this by explaining that curators looked after the tapestries in storage, only handing them over to the conservators to be prepared for exhibition. She felt this had led to the needs of the tapestries being neglected; by 1989 the textile conservation department had taken over responsibility for tapestries in the storeroom of the
Departments of American Art and Medieval Art, but had not yet been given authority over the other European tapestries in the collection. This raises the important issue of the relative involvement of curators and conservators in making decisions about conservation interventions.
The movement of staff from the UK also meant that couched techniques were taken to other workshops in both mainland Europe [46, 47] and the USA. In 1988 Ward and
Ewer wrote about the development of conservation techniques at Biltmore in North
Carolina, USA. Following consultation with conservators from the Textile
Conservation Centre in the UK they described using an amalgam of US and UK methods, demonstrating that distinctive methods were then in use in the USA [48].
Hutchison, from the Textile Conservation Laboratory at The Cathedral Church of St
John the Divine in New York, described this approach [49, 50]. He felt that reweaving in areas of well-defined loss was appropriate in many cases, and in general that it was
‘preferable to incorporate the repair into the structure of the tapestry if possible rather than attaching many little patches to the back’[49, p. 91]. He advocated the use of an
‘open tabby mend’ whereby a new yarn was woven into the surviving warps in a more spaced manner than reweaving, and was extended well into the surrounding stronger areas. He was not in favour of introducing an additional material as it would not react to environmental changes in the same way, although he did advocate adding a patched support in large areas of loss. As this technique did not strengthen the tapestry overall in the same way as a full support, he felt it was necessary to use vertical straps, or bands of fabric stitched to the tapestry at intervals, to provide the overall support.
These aimed to ‘secure the tapestry without binding it’ [49, p. 92] and allowed for a certain amount of fluctuation in the environment.
Refinement of techniques
A conference on the conservation of tapestries and embroideries at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, in Brussells, Belgium, in 1989 drew contributors from all over Europe and the USA. The associated publication provided a clear snapshot of the
7

range of methods used in the conservation of tapestries and confirmed the emergence of national trends [51].
The techniques of supporting tapestries have not changed fundamentally since the end of the 1980s, but have continued to be developed and refined, broadly following these national trends [11, 52]. Although reweaving is still sometimes used, there has been a general trend away from reweaving and towards stitched support techniques. Many publications in the UK discussed the subtleties of the stitching technique and of the decision making process [26, 53, 54]. Shephard described the evolution from restoration to conservation at Hampton Court Palace, with particular reference to a set of tapestries where stitching techniques replaced reweaving when treatment was already nearly complete [55]. This shift epitomised the change from restoration to conservation over the second half of the twentieth century.
The Textiel Restauratoren Overleg Nederland (Dutch Textile Conservators Group) organised a conference on tapestry conservation in 1994 on the subject of
‘camouflage’, a term used to describe ‘an approach aiming to achieve the most aesthetically satisfying result by using the least intrusive means’ [56]. In her paper
Lugtigheid referred to ‘conventional conservation techniques’ [57 p. 61], indicating that stitched support methods had now achieved widespread acceptance. Pertegato described techniques using inpainting onto a support fabric to visually infill missing areas [58], a technique not commonly used by conservators but which has a long history in tapestry restoration and conservation [7]. Other recent publications have also described the use of painting techniques [38, 59].
The issue of the high cost of tapestry conservation was also raised [60]. Attempts to address this important issue have been reflected in the literature; as mentioned above
[41], some developments in conservation techniques have aimed at reducing the time taken to carry out structural support while still maintaining the visual integrity of the tapestry. Laid and couched stitching is a technique frequently used by textile conservators to secure a damaged textile to a support fabric in an unobtrusive way.
Although it does not have a visual infill function, this technique has often been used on tapestries [38, 61]. It appears to be becoming increasingly common, perhaps because it is a more familiar technique to conservators with less experience of working on tapestries, but also because it is less labour intensive; several speakers mentioned using this technique at the Textile Group meeting of the UK Institute of
Conservation (ICON) on tapestry conservation in 2006. Other publications have discussed the use of volunteers to reduce costs [62, 63].
Recent developments
The most recent comprehensive survey of tapestry conservation methods, Tapestry
Conservation: Principles and Practice (2006), demonstrates that a very wide range of techniques is still used in the conservation of tapestries [64]. Contact between conservators in different countries has resulted in a greater flexibility of approach. For example, conservators in the UK are interested in the use of techniques such as the reweaving of infill patches [65] as an alternative to rewarping and couching [66, p.
136].
The last ten years have been characterised by a greater understanding of the mechanical and chemical properties of tapestries. Two papers discussing the use of
8

instrumental analytical techniques to investigate the physical properties of tapestries in the late 1980s and early 1990s are the first papers on this topic discovered in this survey [67, 68]. Several papers written in the 1990s considered the mechanical and physical properties of tapestries [69-71]. One question which has not been resolved concerns the most suitable support fabric for tapestries. It is now widely accepted that in most cases weak areas will be supported onto a new fabric. The consensus [72] is that linen is the most appropriate fabric, as it is flexible enough to mould to the back of a tapestry, and responds to changes in the environment in a similar way to the component materials. Landi challenged this view advocating the use of a synthetic material, polypropylene, as a tapestry support precisely because it does not respond to changes in humidity and so acts as a restraining mechanism for the tapestry [73].
Conservation scientists involved in the Monitoring of Damage to Historic Tapestries
(MODHT), a multi-disciplinary European-wide project completed in 2005, carried out the chemical characterisation of tapestries using a variety of instrumental analytical techniques. They aimed to bring about improved preservation of tapestries through a better understanding of their materials and their rate of degradation [74-77].
Cleaning
Although the majority of the tapestry conservation literature concerns support and image reintegration methods, there is a small body of literature concerning more technical issues, including cleaning. Hefford, a tapestry curator and historian, in her seminal paper ‘Bread, brushes and brooms…’, described methods of tapestry cleaning, mainly surface cleaning techniques, used in the mid-seventeenth to mideighteenth centuries [6], and which had presumably been in use for centuries before that. It is likely that many tapestries were also washed at some time in their history.
The development of tapestry wet cleaning techniques in more recent times is characterised by an increasing recognition of the damage that can be caused by inappropriate handling, and the development of safer methods employing less mechanical action, alongside an improvement in the quality of the water, detergents and other agents used [78]. Hartog and Cogram’s survey of methods used at the V&A since the early 1960s illustrates wider developments in the wet cleaning of tapestries
[79].
By the 1980s tapestries were almost universally wet cleaned by immersion or by using overhead sprinklers to wet out and rinse the tapestry (Figure 4) [14, 40, 49, 80].
A variety of detergents was used; those favoured varied from country to country.
More recently cleaning systems have been designed specifically to restrict the movement and duration of wet cleaning of tapestries and other large textiles. The latest systems rely on a combination of spraying with water or an aerosol to wet out the tapestry, with vacuum suction to pull the water, detergent and released soiling away from the tapestry. Advocates argue that this prevents the tapestry from becoming saturated with water and helps to avoid problems with dye bleeding and dimensional change [81-5]. In an adaptation of this technique, Francis described a method of using vacuum suction on the surface of a tapestry to remove engrained soiling in a controllable and effective manner [86]. Hayward discussed the problems of wet-cleaning a tapestry previously treated with naphthalene [87], an issue engendering health and safety concerns.
9

A small group of Germanic tapestries is different from the broad category of Western
European tapestries in that they often have linen warps and the weft yarns are often of linen as well as wool. The extreme degradation of the linen components has caused them to be treated increasingly cautiously. Weiland mentioned wet cleaning both halves of a tapestry with linen warps in 1984 [36], but in 1989 Brutillot explained that a fifteenth century tapestry from Franconia was not wet cleaned because it would have put too much stress on the degraded linen warps [88]. The cleaning of metal threads in tapestries has been the subject of very few publications [89, 90].
Lining and hanging methods
Very little has been written about the subject of lining tapestries, although Marko discussed the topic briefly [32] and Landi and Finch both described methods of attaching linings [23, 91]. Linings have traditionally been stitched to the reverse of tapestries to act as dust barriers; they also serve to redistribute moisture trapped behind the tapestry. In the UK a separate lining, in addition to the support fabric, is still attached to serve this purpose (Figure 4). The terminology varies across Europe, so that reference might be made to a lining which in fact has a support function, much in the way that paintings are lined. Linen was traditionally used to line tapestries; in the 1970s and 1980s concerns about the weight of linen meant that it was often replaced in the UK by a cotton sateen fabric. In 1993 Hartog recommended that downproof cotton made a far more effective dust barrier than any other fabric she tested and this has led to its wide use in the UK for lining tapestries [92] (Figure 4).
In the last 25 years in the UK, tapestries have commonly been hung using a hook and loop fastener such as Velcro™ [91]. This allows the tapestry to be adjusted so that it hangs well and also permits quick release in case of emergency, while avoiding the unequal stresses caused by traditional methods such as rings and press-studs. In
Germany and France tapestries are also often mounted on sloping boards for display, a technique designed to minimise the stress caused by the tapestry’s own weight [61].
There have been some publications detailing improved methods of hanging tapestries.
Kajitani’s comprehensive instructions for textile conservation procedures included methods of hanging [45]. The Textile Conservation Studio at Hampton Court Palace was involved in major programmes of tapestry conservation and re-installation following the fires at both Hampton Court and Windsor Castle. This sparked the development of more controlled methods of installing and de-installing large tapestries, often in confined spaces, which were publicised by Shephard and Allen
[93, 94] (Figure 5). Other conservators have reported the solutions to particular problems [95, 96]. The sheer weight and size of tapestries also raises health and safety concerns [97].
Future directions
Current research at the University of Southampton is investigating the use of techniques widely used in engineering to monitor tapestry deterioration in order to pinpoint the optimum time of conservation interventions. Until recently the comparison of different conservation methods has been based on purely subjective criteria. It is envisaged that the development of engineering techniques to monitor strain in hanging tapestries will also allow a quantitative evaluation of different tapestry conservation methods. One area that would benefit from further investigation is the type of support fabric used for tapestry conservation. Landi has not yet
10

persuaded other conservators to follow her lead in using a synthetic fabric as a tapestry support. The general feeling is that it is preferable to use a material that responds to environmental changes in a similar fashion to the tapestry, but it would be interesting for this theory to be tested through computer modelling and materials testing. Engineering methods may also be helpful in providing more objective guidelines for the attachment of tapestry linings. Current methods of stitching are designed to allow the lining to respond to environmental changes in the same way as the tapestry itself, but again the exact method used depends on subjective opinion and experience.
Further research into wet cleaning techniques would also be beneficial. There are currently several different systems in operation but the effect on the tapestry’s materials and the level of soil removal have not been quantified.
Conclusion
Today some tapestries survive in the great houses for which they were originally purchased, but in the UK at least, it is likely that the houses themselves have passed into the care of one of the national conservation organisations, such as the National
Trust and English Heritage. Many tapestries now form part of museum collections.
This change of ownership, as well as the development of the conservation profession and the accompanying shift from restoration to conservation, has affected the way tapestries are perceived and the way they are presented, with the result that reweaving has been largely replaced by stitched support techniques.
Although textile conservators often have to consider the issue of image reintegration, as well as the necessity for structural support, this is a particular issue within the specialist field of tapestry conservation. The issue which has occupied most of the literature is the challenge of reconciling conservation ethics with the need to restore and redefine the image. Lugtigheid from the Werkplaats tot Herstel van Antiek
Textiel, in Haarlem (Foundation for the Repair of Antique Textiles) in the
Netherlands, wrote that she had begun by using a purist approach to the conservation of tapestries, but had not found it satisfying: ‘The tapestry’s pictorial representation can be in need of conservation in the same way as the material itself.’ [57, p. 59].
Tapestry conservation can be compared to the conservation of paintings, in that the presentation of the image is widely viewed as the main purpose of a tapestry, but tapestry conservation treatments are often more integral to the structure than the treatment of paintings. The retouching of paintings is carried out on top of a barrier layer so that it can be reversed without affecting the original paint layers. Although stitched supports are reversible in theory, it is unlikely that in practice they ever would be, or that this could be achieved without loss if it was attempted.
Tapestry conservation is an enormously diverse field which has been characterised by detailed discussion in the literature and by subtle manipulation of conservation techniques. The conservation of tapestries continues to be discussed and it is important that tapestry conservators evaluate past treatments. The Textile Group of the UK Institute of Conservation (ICON) focused on tapestry conservation at its annual forum in 2006. Until now the debate has grown out of subjective experience and opinion; it is anticipated that current and future research will provide objective
11

measures of the deterioration undergone by historic tapestries and inform the debate about the best way to treat them so that they can be preserved for as long as possible.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Susanne Bouret (née Cussell) for her information about the
French tapestry conservation literature, and my colleagues at the TCC: Dinah Eastop for commenting on the text, Mike Halliwell for preparing the images and Nell Hoare,
Director, for permission to publish. I would also like to thank the contributors to the book Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice who demonstrated the breadth of conservation techniques in use.
References
Abbreviations:
AIC American Institute for Conservation
GCI Getty Conservation Institute
ICOM-CC International Council of Museums Conservation Committee
IFROA
Institut Francais de Restauration des Oeuvres d’Art, France
IIC
SSCR
TRON
UKIC
International Institute for Conservation
Scottish Society for Conservation and Restoration
Textiel Restauratoren Overleg Nederland, The Netherlands
V&A
United Kingdom Institute for Conservation
Victoria and Albert Museum, UK
1 Thomson, W.G., A History of Tapestry from the Earliest Times until the Present
Day , Hodder and Stoughton (1930, revised 1973).
2 Thompson, F.P., Tapestry: A Mirror of History , David and Charles (1980).
3 Gill, K., ‘Tapestry as upholstery: the challenges of conserving tapestry-covered seat
Furniture’, in Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice , ed. F. Lennard and M.
Hayward, Butterworth-Heinemann (2006) 113-122.
4 Bosworth, L., ‘Tapestry on a small scale: conserving a set of Soho chair covers from
Petworth House’, in
Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice , ed. F. Lennard and M. Hayward, Butterworth-Heinemann (2006) 123-127.
5 Emery, I., The Primary Structures of Fabrics , Thames and Hudson (1966, reissued
1980).
6 Hefford, W., ‘“Bread, brushes and brooms”: aspects of tapestry restoration in
England, 1660-1760’, in Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, ed . A. Bennett, The Fine
Arts Museum of San Francisco (1979) 65-75.
7 Fiette, A., ‘Tapestry restoration: an historical and technical survey’, The
Conservator 21 (1997) 28-36.
8 Hayward, M., ‘Fit for a king? Maintaining the early Tudor tapestry collection’, in
Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice , ed. F. Lennard and M. Hayward,
Butterworth-Heinemann (2006) 13-19.
12

9 Finch, K., ‘Evolution of tapestry repairs: a personal experience’, in
Seminaire
International la Restauration et la Conservation des Tapisseries, IFROA (1984) 125-
132.
10 Lemberg, M., ‘The problem of brown wool in medieval tapestries: the restoration of the fourth Caesar tapestry’, in Studies in Textile History. In Memory of Harold B.
Burnham , ed. V. Gervers, Royal Ontario Museum (1977) 178-183.
11 Kajitani, N., ‘Conservation of
Courtiers in a Rose Garden , a fifteenth-century tapestry series’, in
Conservation Research: Studies of Fifteenth- to Nineteenth-
Century Tapestry, ed. L. Stack, National Gallery of Art, Washington (1993) 79-103.
12 Bosworth, D., ‘Tapestry repairs: for better or for worse’, in Textiles Revealed.
Object Lessons in Historic Textile and Costume Research , ed. M. Brooks, Archetype
(2000) 89-92.
13 Granlund, L., ‘Bottiger’s legacy’,
Hali 37 (1988) 16-21.
14 Putnam, G., (ed.) The Conservation of Tapestries Research Report , Textile
Conservation Centre (1984) unpublished report.
15 Pow, V., ‘The Haarlem Workshops’ method of re-weaving’, in G. Wingfield
Digby, The Devonshire Hunting Tapestries , V&A (1971) 82.
16 Diehl, J.M., ‘The workshop for the restoration of ancient texiles, Haarlem’, in
Delft Conference on the Conservation of Textiles, IIC (1964) 105-108.
17 Fusek, J., ‘An attempt to regain the original colour and structure of an old tapestry’ in Delft Conference on the Conservation of Textiles, IIC (1964) 109-112.
18 Finch, K., ‘Tapestries: conservation and original design’, in
The Conservation of
Tapestries and Embroideries, ed. K. Grimstad, GCI (1989) 67-74.
19 Finch, K., ‘The history and development of tapestry conservation’, in
‘The Misled
Eye…’Reconstruction and camouflage techniques in tapestry conservation, ed. J .
Barnett, and S. Cok, TRON (1996) 45-58.
20 Borg Clyde, N., ‘The
Roman de la Rose tapestry’ in The Art of the Conservator , ed. A. Oddy, The British Museum (1992) 151-162.
21 Finch, K., ‘Problems of tapestry conservation’,
V&A Conservation Newsletter 16
(1982) 40-43.
22 Marko, K., ‘Experiments in supporting a tapestry using the adhesive method’,
The
Conservator 2 (1978) 26-29.
23 Landi, S., The Textile Conservator’s Manual . Butterworth-Heinemann (1985, revised 1992).
13

24 Finch. K., ‘Changing attitudes – new developments – full circle’, in
Conservazione e Restauro dei Tessili (Conservation and Restoration of Textiles) , ed. F. Pertegato,
Centro Italiano per lo Studio della Storia del Tessuto, Milan (1982) 82-6.
25 Finch, K., ‘Problems of tapestry preservation’, in
Tecniche di Conservazione degli
Arazzi , ed. L.S. Olschki, Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’,
Firenze (1986) 39-45.
26 Marko, K., ‘Two case histories: a seventeenth-century Antwerp tapestry and an eighteenth-century English Soho tapestry’, in The Conservation of Tapestries and
Embroideries, ed. K. Grimstad, GCI (1989) 95-101.
27 Seth-Smith, A. and Wedge, T., ‘Animal glue removal from 16 th century Flemish tapestry fragments: a comparative study of three cleaning methods’,
Conservation
News 59 (1996) 65-67.
28 Leach, M., ‘Blickling Mortlake tapestry – adhesive removal treatment’, in
Textiles in Trust , ed. K. Marko, Archetype and the National Trust (1997) 176-178.
29 Langley, R. and Sanders, P., ‘Developing a practical method for the removal of previous adhesive treatments from large scale textiles’, in
Dust, Sweat and Tears:
Recent Advances in Cleaning Techniques, ed. L. Dawson and M. Berkouwer, UKIC
Textile Section (2003) 3-13.
30 Pow, C.V., ‘The conservation of tapestries for museum display’,
Studies in
Conservation 15 (1970) 134-153.
31 Flury-Lemberg, M., Textile Conservation and Research , Abegg Stiftung (1988).
32 Marko, K., ‘Tapestry conservation – a confusion of ideas’ in Lining and Backing: the Support of Paintings, Paper and Textiles, UKIC (1995) i-iv.
33 De Boeck, J., De Bruecker, M., Carpentier, C. and Housiaux, K., ‘The treatment of two sixteenth-century tapestries at the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique’, in The
Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries, ed. K. Grimstad, GCI (1989) 113-117.
34 Olschki , L.S. (ed.), Tecniche di Conservazione degli Arazzi , Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere ‘La Colombaria’, Firenze (1986).
35 Seminaire International la Restauration et la Conservation des Tapisseries,
IFROA, Paris (1984).
36 Weiland, E., ‘A fifteenth century tapestry of Nürnberg. The different state of the two halves of one piece, which had been divided in the 19 th
century. State of preservation and restoration
’, in Preprints of the 7 th
Triennial Meeting Copenhagen, ed . D. de Froment, ICOM-CC (1984) 9.55-6.
37 Dolcini, L., ‘Integrazione delle lacunae negli arazzi: etica e unità metodogica’, in
Conservazione e Restauro dei Tessili (Conservation and Restoration of Textiles) , ed.
F. Pertegato, Como (1982) 107-113.
14

38 Cussell, S., ‘Tapestry conservation techniques at Chevalier Conservation’, in
Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice , ed. F. Lennard and M. Hayward,
Butterworth-Heinemann (2006) 145-152.
39 Masschelein-Kleiner, L. and De Boeck, J., ‘Contribution to the study of the conservation of monumental tapestries’, in Preprints of the 7 th Triennial Meeting
Copenhagen, ed . D. de Froment, ICOM-CC (1984) 9.33-37.
40 Dolcini, L., ‘The tapestries of the Sala dei Duecento in the Palazzo Vecchio’, in
The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries, ed. K. Grimstad, GCI (1989) 81-
87.
41 Maes, Y., ‘The conservation/restoration of the sixteenth-century tapestry The
Gathering of the Manna
’, in
The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries, ed. K.
Grimstad, GCI (1989) 103-112.
42 Delmarcel, G., Van Tichelen, I., Volckaert, A. and Maes, Y., Golden Weavings.
Flemish Tapestries of the Spanish Crown , Gaspard de Wit Foundation (1993).
43 Bennett, A. (ed.), Acts of the Tapestry Symposium, The Fine Arts Museum of San
Francisco (1979).
44 Kajitani, N., ‘The preservation of medieval tapestries’, in Acts of the Tapestry
Symposium, ed. A. Bennett , The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco (1979) 45-63.
45 Kajitani, N., ‘Conservation maintenance of tapestries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art’, in
The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries, ed. K. Grimstad, GCI
(1989) 53-66.
46 Drysdale, L., ‘Conservation of a 16 th century Flemish tapestry in the Poldi Pezzoli
Museum, Milan’,
V&A Conservation Newsletter 17 ( 1983) 34-39.
47 Cousens, S., ‘The effects of old repairs on the choice of conservation treatment of tapestry’, in
Seminaire International la Restauration et la Conservation des
Tapisseries, IFROA (1984) 138-143.
48 Ward, S. and Ewer, P., ‘Tapestry conservation at Biltmore House’,
The
International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship 7 (1988) 381-388.
49 Hutchison, R.B., ‘ Gluttony and Avarice : two different approaches’, in The
Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries, ed. K. Grimstad, GCI (1989) 89-94.
50 Hutchison, R.B., ‘From restoration to conservation: parallels between the traditions of tapestry conservation and carpet conservation’,
Textile Museum Journal 29-30
(1990-91) 9-12.
51 Grimstad, K. (ed.), The Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries, GCI (1989).
15

52 Masschelein-Kleiner, L., ‘Study and treatment of tapestries at the Institut Royal de
Patrimoine Artistique’, in
Conservation Research: Studies of Fifteenth- to Nineteenth-
Century Tapestry, ed. L. Stack, National Gallery of Art, Washington (1993) 71-77.
53 Blyth, V., ‘Restoration of the
Unicorn tapestry’, SSCR Journal 3 (2) (1992) 10-11.
54 Marko, K. (ed.), Textiles in Trust , Archetype and the National Trust (1997).
55 Shephard, L., ‘The conservation treatment of two partially restored 18 th
century
Brussels tapestries’, in
Preprints of ICOM-CC 11 th
Triennial Meeting Edinburgh, ed.
J. Bridgland, James and James (1996) 721-725.
56 Barnett, J. and Cok, S. (ed.), ‘The Misled Eye…’Reconstruction and Camouflage
Techniques in Tapestry Conservation , TRON (1996).
57 Lugtigheid, R., ‘The eye deceived: camouflage techniques used at the ‘Werkplaats tot Herstel van Antiek Textiel’ in Haarlem’, in ‘The Misled Eye…’ Reconstruction and Camouflage Techniques in Tapestry Conservation, ed. J. Barnett and S. Cok ,
TRON (1996) 59-67.
58 Pertegato, F., ‘Painting in tapestry conservation: is it heresy? In ‘
The Misled
Eye…’Reconstruction and Camouflage Techniques in Tapestry Conservation, ed . J .
Barnett, and S. Cok, TRON (1996) 97-109.
59 Aguirre, C., ‘Moïse devant Pharoan: Exemple de conservation d’une tapisserie’, in
Coré, Section Française de l’Institut International de Conservation, 16 (2006) 22-27.
60 Clarke, A. and Hartog, F., ‘The cost of tapestry conservation’, in ‘The Misled
Eye…’Reconstruction and Camouflage Techniques in Tapestry Conservation, ed . J .
Barnett, and S. Cok, TRON (1996) 69-72.
61 Brutillot, A., ‘Conservation of a fifteenth-century tapestry from Franconia’, in
The
Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries, ed. K. Grimstad, GCI (1989) 75-79.
62 Biddulph, F., ‘Point counterpoint. Behind the scenes at Hatfield House,
Hertfordshire, skilled volunteers conserve the finest early 17 th
century English tapestries’,
Traditional Interior Decoration April-May (1988) 108-116.
63 Marko, K., ‘All or nothing – or something. A flexible approach to tapestry conservation’, in Compromising Situations: Principles in Everyday Practice ed.
F.Lennard, UKIC Textile Section (1993) 33-34.
64 Lennard, F. and Hayward, M., Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice ,
Butterworth-Heinemann (2006).
65 Cichrova, K., ‘Tapestry restoration in the Czech Republic using the ‘extra little loom’’, in Home and Away: Approaches to Textile Conservation around the World, ed . V. Allan, UKIC Textile Section (2002) 14-17.
66 Langley, R. and Saunders, P., ‘The visual reintegration of missing areas in
16

tapestries’, in Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice , ed. F. Lennard and M.
Hayward, Butterworth-Heinemann (2006) 131-137.
67 Cooke, W.D. and Howell, D., ‘Diagnosis of deterioration in a tapestry using scanning electron microscopy’,
The Conservator 12 (1988) 47-51.
68 Hansen, E. F. and Derelian, S., ‘Conservation I: effects of wet cleaning on silk tapestries (Getty Conservation Institute)’,
Museum Management and Curatorship
10 (1) (1991) 93-96.
69 Howell, D., ‘Some mechanical effects of inappropriate humidity on textiles’, in
Preprints of ICOM-CC 11 th
Triennial Meeting Edinburgh, ed.
J. Bridgland, James and James (1996) 692-698.
70 Bilson, T., Cooke, B and Howell, D., ‘Mechanical aspects of lining “loose hung” textiles’, in Fabric of an Exhibition: An Interdisciplinary Approach – Preprints ,
Canadian Conservation Institute (1997) 63-69.
71 Ballard, M., ‘Hanging out: strength, elongation, and relative humidity: some physical properties of textile fibres’, in Preprints of ICOM-CC 11 th
Triennial Meeting
Edinburgh, ed.
J. Bridgland, James and James (1996) 665-669.
72 Hofenk de Graaff, J. and Boersma, F., Tapestry Conservation. Support Methods and Fabrics for Tapestries, Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage (Part 1, 1996;
Part 2, 1997; Part 3, 1998) unpublished report.
73 Landi, S., ‘Polypropylene: a fresh approach to the problem of support for tapestries’, in
International Perspectives on Textile Conservation , ed. A. Timar-
Balazsy and D. Eastop, Archetype (1998) 13-17.
74 Carr, C. M.; Mitchell R. and Howell, D., ‘Surface chemical investigation into the cleaning procedure of ancient tapestry materials’,
Journal of Materials Science 39
(2004) 7317-7325.
75 Hacke, A-M.; Carr, C.M. and Brown, A., ‘Characterisation of metal threads in
Renaissance tapestries’, in Scientific Analysis of Ancient and Historic Textiles:
Informing Preservation, Display and Interpretation , ed. R. Janaway and P. Wyeth,
Archetype (2005) 71-78.
76 Hallett, K. and Howell, D., ‘Size exclusion chromatography as a tool for monitoring silk degradation in historic tapestries’, in Scientific Analysis of Ancient and Historic Textiles: Informing Preservation, Display and Interpretation , ed. R.
Janaway and P. Wyeth, Archetype (2005) 143-150.
77 Hulme, A. N., McNab H., Peggie, D.A.and Quye, A., ‘The application of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and accelerated light ageing for the analytical identification of yellow flavonoid dyes in historical tapestries’, in Scientific Analysis of Ancient and Historic Textiles: Informing Preservation, Display and Interpretation , ed. R. Janaway and P. Wyeth, Archetype (2005) 208-213.
17

78 Marko, K., Blyth, V. and Kendall, J., ‘Three methods of handling and washing large tapestry hangings’,
The Conservator 5 (1981) 1-8.
79 Hartog, F. & Cogram, C., ‘A brief history of tapestry wet cleaning systems at the
Victoria and Albert Museum’ in
Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice , ed.
F.Lennard & M. Hayward, Butterworth-Heinemann (2006) 62-67.
80 Haldane, E. A., ‘So that’s why Textile Conservation has such a big studio!’,
V&A
Conservation Journal 32 (1999) 17-20.
81 Barnett, J., ‘The use of a domestic water extracting vacuum cleaner in the wet cleaning of carpets and tapestries’, in
International Perspectives on Textile
Conservation , ed. A. Timar-Balazsy and D. Eastop, Archetype (1998) 29-31.
82 Maes, Y., ‘Tapestry cleaning by aerosol suction’, in International Perspectives on
Textile Conservation , ed. A. Timar-Balazsy and D. Eastop, Archetype (1998) 32-35.
83 Cussell, S., ‘Chevalier Conservation: past and present developments in the cleaning of tapestries’, in
Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice , ed.
F.Lennard & M. Hayward, Butterworth-Heinemann (2006) 68-73.
84 Maes De Wit, Y., ‘Cleaning antique and modern tapestries by aerosol suction: thirteen years later – the characteristics, comparative advantages and limitations of this system’, in
Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice , ed. F.Lennard & M.
Hayward, Butterworth-Heinemann (2006) 74-80.
85 Hartog, F., ‘An away day to Belgium – washing tapestries’,
V&A Conservation
Journal 48 (2004) 6-7.
86 Francis, K., ‘Tapestry cleaning; characterisation and removal of soils’, in
Strengthening the Bond: Science and Textiles, Preprints of the North American
Textile Conservation Conference, ed. V. Whelan, NATCC (2002) 47-53.
87 Hayward, M., ‘Napthalene’,
Conservation News 49 (1992) 40-3.
88 Brutillot, A., ‘Conservation of a fifteenth-century tapestry from Franconia’, in
The
Conservation of Tapestries and Embroideries, ed. K. Grimstad, GCI (1989) 75-79.
89 Columbus, J. and Miller, B., ‘Treating a tapestry containing tarnished silver’, in
Conservazione e Restauro dei Tessili. Convegno Internazionale Como 1980 , ed. F.
Pertegato, Centro Italiano per lo Studio della Storia del Tessuto Sezione Lombardia
(1982) 168-172.
90 Hacke, A., Carr, C. Brown, A. and Howell, D., ‘Investigation into the nature of metal threads in a Renaissance tapestry and the cleaning of tarnished silver by
UV/Ozone (UVO) treatment’,
Journal of Materials Science 38 (2003) 3307-3314.
91 Finch, K and Putnam, G., The Care and Preservation of Textiles , Batsford (1985).
92 Hartog, F., ‘Tapestry linings’, Conservation News 51 (1985) 48.
18

93 Shephard, L., ‘Coping with fire and its aftermath’, in
Coping with Emergencies , ed. F. Lennard, UKIC Textile Section (1995) 2-7.
94 Allen, R., ‘Some observations on the display of large scale tapestries: project planning, attrition management and object longevity’, in
Solutions- the Influence of
Locations on Treatments, ed. S.Howard, UKIC Textile Section (1999) 36-43.
95 Windsor, D., ‘A view from the top: reinstallation of the Rhode Island State House tapestries’,
AIC Textile Specialty Group Postprints (1991) 7-16.
96 Kociemba, M., ‘A cradle system for tapestry installation’,
AIC Textile Specialty
Group Postprints (1997) 89-92.
97 C.Paine (ed.), Standards in the Museum Care of Costume and Textile Collections ,
Museums & Galleries Commission (1998).
Biography
Frances Lennard gained the Postgraduate Diploma in Textile Conservation from the
Textile Conservation Centre (TCC) & The Courtauld Institute of Art in 1985. She worked for the Conservation Services Department of the TCC until 1990, then worked as a freelance textile conservator in partnership with Fiona Hutton in the south-west of England. She was Chair of the United Kingdom Institute for
Conservation (UKIC) Textile Section from 1994-1997. Since 2001 she has worked as a lecturer and leader of the MA Textile Conservation programme at the TCC. She has recently co-edited the book Tapestry Conservation: Principles and Practice with
Maria Hayward.
Frances Lennard
Programme Leader, MA Textile Conservation
The Textile Conservation Centre
Winchester School of Art
University of Southampton
Park Avenue, Winchester
SO23 8DL
Tel: 023 8059 7100
Fax: 023 8059 7101
Email: fjl@soton.ac.uk
8541 words excluding abstract and biography
19