's
Crucifix after it was nearly destroyed in the 1966 Flood of the Arno, before the 10-year restoration Many experts in the field of conservation, such as
Peter Waters, utilised their knowledge in restoring the works of art and literature ravaged by the flood. Staff from the Central Institute of Restoration and Institute of Book Pathology, for example, volunteered their time, efforts, and expertise in this enormous undertaking. New concepts, such as "phased conservation", and methods in conservation, such as mass deacidification, were conceived during this period after the flood ravaged the city of Florence.
Books and records Priorities were established during the process of conserving damaged books and records, the most critical of which became the retrieval of materials from flooded rooms. After they were rescued, books and records were typically washed and disinfected. In certain cases,
bindings were cut and sheets treated individually. Following a thorough cleansing, the materials were then dried in Florentine libraries, space permitting, or at locations outside of the city, such as
tobacco kilns and
granaries. In some circumstances, large numbers of books were covered with sawdust, as a means of drawing out moisture. When not washed prior to drying, dried mud was then scraped off the exterior of the books. One or both of two drying techniques was applied: interleaving by hand and/or drying with the aid of domestic heaters or other mechanical equipment. Interleaving involved the placement of blotting papers within the text-block of a book and replacing them once they were fully soaked; a variety of papers were used, including mimeograph paper and green blotting paper (the latter of which ultimately caused more damage). In kilns, the
humidity level was slowly lowered from ninety to forty percent. If deemed necessary, bindings were removed and dried separately. Removed pages were hung out to dry on an apparatus similar to a
clothes line. Fearing the spread of
mold, workers completed these tasks with the greatest speed possible. After they were disinfected and dried, the items were then reassembled, restored and, if necessary, rebound.
Card catalogs and in some cases, the actual books and documents were reproduced by reprinting on early
presses,
photocopying, or copying by hand.
The National Library Centers of Florence: a case study Initially the transportation of large numbers of books to other institutes (to repair and rebind) was considered, but decided against on logistical grounds. British book conservator
Anthony Cains was appointed Technical Director of Conservation for the library in 1967 and remained for six years, supervising recovery efforts. Within six months of the flood, the National Library of Florence had 144 workers on hand: three binders, eight binder trainees, two librarians, forty-two workmen, eighty-one student volunteers and eight other library staff members. Together they devised a logical and efficient method of book repair, involving nine separate and clearly defined steps: • Books were selected for treatment. The details of work to be done were recorded on a formatted card that accompanied its respective book throughout its treatment. Once work was completed, the card was permanently filed. A universal language utilising symbols, created with
foreign workers in mind, was employed in the formatting of this card. Symbols were assigned to key phrases that communicated the condition of each book and how its repair was to be conducted, such as: • historically important – only to be dealt with by experts • incomplete • medium mud • rebind • collation part missing • The book was photographed. • The book's collation was verified and its covers removed and stored in a marked case (if they were to be used in a new binding). • If necessary, the book was carefully taken apart to wash it in warm water and disinfect it with Topane (
pentachlorophenol). • In certain cases, the leaves of the book were
deacidified and buffered. • The text-block was pressed. • The text-block was dried in specially designed cabinets. • Sections of the book were then reconstructed and the text-blocks collated. • Finally, each book was wrapped in a paper sheet that had been impregnated with an antimicrobial substance, then they were set aside for any later repair or rebinding. The binding was completed in the main reading room of the library, which had been converted (temporarily) for this purpose. This methodical nine-part system enabled workers to process between seventy and a hundred books a day. The disaster also accelerated the adoption of techniques such as heat-set tissue repair, polyester encapsulation, and mass deacidification, which later became standard practices in research libraries.
Paintings Many panel paintings were critically damaged as a result of water saturating their wood, causing the glue and
gesso, which compose the priming layer, to dissolve. Consequently, the paintings' colours dissolved as well. In addition, the moisture caused paintings to buckle and crack or develop blisters, and the paint to chip and fall. Actions were taken to stabilize the problem by applying
mulberry paper to the affected paintings and storing them in cool, stable environments where humidity was slowly decreased. In extreme cases, the paint layer was extracted from the wood and gesso and then reapplied to a new support.
Nystatin, an antifungal, was sprayed on the wood to prevent mold from growing. Treatment facilities were established at locations such as the Boboli Garden Lemon-House, where over two hundred of these panel paintings were restored. Similar measures were necessary to conserve canvas paintings. First, an original canvas was relined and gauze applied to the painted surface, which was then ironed. This process is referred to as the
rintelatura, or "new canvas" method. Relatively minor surface work was often completed with a variety of solvents and/or types of
resin.
Frescoes Frescoes demanded more complicated treatment. Normally water, once it evaporates, will leave a layer of residual salt on the surface of the wall that absorbed it. In some instances, the resultant
efflorescence obscured painted images. In other cases, the impermeability of the fresco plaster caused the salt to become trapped beneath the surface, causing bubbles to form and erupt, and the paint to fall. The adhesion of the plaster to the wall was often also seriously compromised. A fresco could only be detached when fully dry. To dry a fresco, workers cut narrow tunnels beneath it, in which heaters were placed to draw out moisture from below (instead of outwards, which would have further damaged the paintings). Within a few days, the fresco was ready to be detached. Fuel oil, which coated many painted works of art, was removed by using Japanese tissue paper to apply a solvent, which dissolved the tar. An
absorbent, such as
talcum powder, was then distributed on the tissue paper.
Sculpture and other objects It became imperative to clean sculpture immediately, before it fully absorbed the oil. Flaking sculpture was sprayed with a
silicate mixture, while wooden pieces were treated with
insecticides and toxic gases to kill insects and prevent future infestation.
Weaponry, like firearms and swords, were taken apart, cleaned with
paraffin, and finally lubricated to prevent future rusting.
Bronze objects were kept in dehumidification chambers for a few weeks and cleaned with distilled water or polished. For more severely damaged pieces, experts completed "depth cleaning", which entailed the use of small drills and vacuuming. Similar measures were taken with gold. Broken objects were reassembled using photographs and other retrieved documentation.
Carolyn Price Horton was one of the "Mud Angels" sent to Florence by the Committee to Rescue Italian Art (CRIA). The
American Library Association published Horton's
Cleaning and Preserving Bindings and Related Materials in 1967, and republished it in 1969. During the next twenty years:
Comparative perspectives: Florence and Venice The floods of November 1966 affected both Florence and Venice, but the nature of damage and conservation responses differed. In Florence, the Arno River caused extensive damage to movable cultural heritage, including books, manuscripts, and artworks. Recovery efforts focused on emergency salvage and the development of large-scale conservation techniques, particularly in libraries such as the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze. In Venice, flooding associated with
acqua alta primarily affected buildings and urban infrastructure. Conservation efforts have therefore focused more on long-term environmental management, including responses to saltwater damage and ongoing flood risk. Scholars note that Florence relied heavily on international volunteers and public fundraising, including initiatives such as the Committee to Rescue Italian Art (CRIA), while Venice's response has been more closely tied to sustained governmental and infrastructural strategies. Comparative studies suggest that Florence represents a model of post-disaster recovery, whereas Venice illustrates long-term heritage risk management.
Work outstanding A significant amount of restorative work remains to be done in Florence. Due to a lack of awareness, funding, and manpower, a great number of works of art and books lie in storage, dirty and damaged. Christopher Clarkson, noted conservator, called attention to this problem in a 2007 letter, stating that the National Library still has a "warehouse" full of books to be repaired and bound; many others need cleaning or reassembling. According to a 1993 report, approximately 25% of the 80,000 items belonging to the Magliabecchi and Palatino collections had not been fully restored in the nearly thirty years since the flood. The number of conservators that work at the library presently is only about a tenth of the amount that worked there immediately after the flood. == Legacy ==