{"title":"两份科普特羊皮纸手稿碎片的保存","authors":"P. Hepworth, M. Michelozzi","doi":"10.1080/03094227.2004.9638641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary The treatments of two similar parchment Coptic manuscript fragments at two different institutions are compared in this article. Both treatments involved the use of a remoistenable mending material—fish swim bladder membrane, or a fine Japanese tissue. Differences in the mending rationales are discussed and treatment innovations elaborated. Other factors impinging on treatment decision-making, beyond the conservation needs of the individual pieces, are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":243922,"journal":{"name":"The Paper Conservator","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conservation of two Coptic parchment manuscript fragments\",\"authors\":\"P. Hepworth, M. Michelozzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03094227.2004.9638641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Summary The treatments of two similar parchment Coptic manuscript fragments at two different institutions are compared in this article. Both treatments involved the use of a remoistenable mending material—fish swim bladder membrane, or a fine Japanese tissue. Differences in the mending rationales are discussed and treatment innovations elaborated. Other factors impinging on treatment decision-making, beyond the conservation needs of the individual pieces, are also discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":243922,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Paper Conservator\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Paper Conservator\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03094227.2004.9638641\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Paper Conservator","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03094227.2004.9638641","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Conservation of two Coptic parchment manuscript fragments
Summary The treatments of two similar parchment Coptic manuscript fragments at two different institutions are compared in this article. Both treatments involved the use of a remoistenable mending material—fish swim bladder membrane, or a fine Japanese tissue. Differences in the mending rationales are discussed and treatment innovations elaborated. Other factors impinging on treatment decision-making, beyond the conservation needs of the individual pieces, are also discussed.