两份科普特羊皮纸手稿碎片的保存

P. Hepworth, M. Michelozzi
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中比较了两个不同机构对两个相似的羊皮纸科普特手稿碎片的处理。这两种治疗方法都使用了一种可拆卸的修复材料——鱼鳔膜,或者一种精细的日本组织。讨论了修补原理的差异,并阐述了治疗方法的创新。本文还讨论了影响处理决策的其他因素,这些因素超出了单个碎片的保护需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信