“古代艺术失落的一章”:罗马埃及板画的考古检验

IF 0.8 4区 化学 0 ARCHAEOLOGY
Cecilie Brøns, Jens Stenger, Richard Newman, Caroline Cartwright, Fabiana Di Gianvincenzo, Anna Katerinopoulou, Luise Ørsted Brandt, Negar Haghipour, Laura Hendriks
{"title":"“古代艺术失落的一章”:罗马埃及板画的考古检验","authors":"Cecilie Brøns, Jens Stenger, Richard Newman, Caroline Cartwright, Fabiana Di Gianvincenzo, Anna Katerinopoulou, Luise Ørsted Brandt, Negar Haghipour, Laura Hendriks","doi":"10.1080/00393630.2023.2256132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTAncient panel paintings on wood are, with the exception of the mesmerising mummy portraits, extremely rare. However, a small corpus of other types of Romano-Egyptian panel paintings is preserved in collections worldwide. The aim of this study is to explore the technical histories of these rare and intriguing artefacts. We present a comprehensive investigation of three Romano-Egyptian panel paintings from the collections of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Denmark, including their construction, materials, pigments, binding media, and dating. The panels are examined by various methods of analysis to provide much deeper insights into the materials and techniques used for their production, and to answer questions of chronology and classification. In total, this work offers a more thorough understanding of their function, significance, and original appearance, as well as insights into the art of painting during the Roman period.KEYWORDS: Panel paintingsRoman Egyptmulti-spectral imagingwood identificationradiocarbon datingpigment identificationFTIRRaman spectroscopySEM-EDXproteomicsXRDalunite/natroalunite AcknowledgementsThis study forms part of the interdisciplinary research project ‘Sensing the Ancient World: The Invisible Dimensions of Ancient Art’, which has been generously funded by the Carlsberg Foundation. We are grateful for their support, and also grateful to the Kirsten and Freddy Johansen Foundation, who generously funded the establishment of a new laboratory at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, which has made this study possible. We would also like to take the opportunity to express gratitude to the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, conservator Rebecca Hast, and the technical staff for facilitating the study of the three panels. CB would like to express her gratitude to Marie Svoboda, Caroline Roberts, and Lucile Brunel-Duverger for sharing their immense knowledge on ancient panels paintings, in particular for enlightening discussions on the use of green and blue pigments. JS is grateful for discussions with Kaare Lund Rasmussen about oxalates and with Tom Egelund regarding the assessment of the paintings’ condition with raking light imaging. FTIR and Raman data were collected at the Center for Advanced Bioimaging (CAB) Denmark, University of Copenhagen; we are grateful for access to these facilities. Christophe Drouet, CNRS Senior scientist at the CIRIMAT Institute (University of Toulouse, France) kindly provided the raw FTIR reference data on a natroalunite-like compound. We would also like to thank Jens Soelberg from the Natural History Museum, Denmark for clarifying questions regarding acacia trees. FDG and LØB thank Meaghan Mackie for her help in analysing peptides by nanoLC-MS-MS and for her input and advice on the proteomic data. FDG and LØB would also like to thank Professor Jesper Velgaard Olsen at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research for providing access to LC-MS-MS facilities and resources at the Center for Protein Research. LH acknowledges a Branco Weiss Fellowship as well as support from Ernst Göhner. Karin Wyss Heeb is to be thanked for conducting the cellulose preparation of the wood samples, Lukas Wacker and Irka Hajdas at ETH for analysis and data reduction of the graphite measurements.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE [Perez-Riverol et al. Citation2022] partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD037269.Notes1 For example, the framed panel depicting a woman in the British Museum (no. 1889.1018.1) was recovered by William Matthew Flinders Petrie in a tomb at Hawara (Hart Citation2016, 82).2 Mathews and Muller’s corpus included five additional panels, not included by Rondot. These include the panel of Septimius Severus and family (Berlin, no. 31329), Goddess in mourning (British Museum, no. 1975.7-28.1), Fortuna-Tyche (Louvre, no. AF 10878-79), Nike from Dura-Europos (New Haven, no. 1929.288), and fragment 230 from a frame in Tebtunis. Yet, he omitted one painting of Isis and Hathor (Berlin, no. 12712), which he believed not to be a panel painting but part of a coffin or other furniture (Mathews and Muller Citation2016, Appendix 3).3 One panel at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek was for unknown reasons erroneously reported as lost by both Rondot and Mathews and Muller.4 For a thorough presentation of the find spots and archaeological sites where votive panel paintings have been recovered, see Rondot (Citation2013, 28–32). Mathews and Muller also included in their corpus the fourth-century BCE panel from Saqqara (British Museum, no. 1975.7-28.1), and the panel from 600 CE, which was recovered in Edfu in Upper Egypt (Louvre, no. AF 10878-79), both of which were excluded by Rondot.5 For example, a fourth-century Romano-Egyptian wooden sarcophagus in the J. Paul Getty Museum (no. 82.AP.75), has depictions of human subjects, painted in a tempera technique, and is very similar to contemporary panel paintings (Elston and Maish Citation2001).6 E.g. Brussels, Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, E 7409; With griffin of Nemesis: Providence, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, Museum Works of Art Fund, 59.030 (See also Tallet and Zivie-Coche Citation2012, 445).7 Examples include two portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum, acc. nos. 78.AP.262 and 74.AP.11. We are grateful to Marie Svoboda for this information.8 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliotek, Papyrus coll. no. G 807. Sörries (Citation2003, no. 37); Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, no. X 443. Sörries (Citation2003, no. 38); Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum, no. 74.AP.20-22.9 Since alunite/natroalunite is a minor phase in this particular sample, which also contained some ground material, atomic positions could not be reliably refined in the Rietveld refinement (Rietveld Citation1969), to determine the species between alunite and natroalunite. The difference between the two species relies in the amount of Na residing in the M-coordinated polyhedral in the alunite structure (Drouet et al. Citation2004; Okada, Hirabayashi, and Ossaka Citation1982). Lattice parameters of the compound’s crystal structure could be determined as a = 6.9981(5) Å and c = 16.814(2) Å.10 Kindly provided by Christophe Drouet (University of Toulouse, France).11 As an example, two of the three painted panels at the J. Paul Getty Museum, which were formerly known as part of a triptych and dated to the first century CE, were recycled from old wood as they had dowel holes and other modifications unrelated to their use as painted panels (Cartwright, Spaabæk, and Svoboda Citation2011). Another example is a fragmented panel from the fourth century CE with a painted depiction of a man from the Metropolitan Museum of Art (no. 31.8.2), which is most likely a re-used panel from a coffin.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Carlsberg Foundation under Grant CF17-0261 and by Kirsten and Freddy Johansen Foundation; L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Sciences Award 2016; and Novo Nordisk Foundation under Grant NNF14CC0001. L. Hendriks was supported by a Branco Weiss Fellowship and by the Ernst Göhner Foundation under Grant 2021-0936.","PeriodicalId":21990,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Conservation","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘A Lost Chapter of Ancient Art’: Archaeometric Examinations of Panel Paintings from Roman Egypt\",\"authors\":\"Cecilie Brøns, Jens Stenger, Richard Newman, Caroline Cartwright, Fabiana Di Gianvincenzo, Anna Katerinopoulou, Luise Ørsted Brandt, Negar Haghipour, Laura Hendriks\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00393630.2023.2256132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTAncient panel paintings on wood are, with the exception of the mesmerising mummy portraits, extremely rare. However, a small corpus of other types of Romano-Egyptian panel paintings is preserved in collections worldwide. The aim of this study is to explore the technical histories of these rare and intriguing artefacts. We present a comprehensive investigation of three Romano-Egyptian panel paintings from the collections of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Denmark, including their construction, materials, pigments, binding media, and dating. The panels are examined by various methods of analysis to provide much deeper insights into the materials and techniques used for their production, and to answer questions of chronology and classification. In total, this work offers a more thorough understanding of their function, significance, and original appearance, as well as insights into the art of painting during the Roman period.KEYWORDS: Panel paintingsRoman Egyptmulti-spectral imagingwood identificationradiocarbon datingpigment identificationFTIRRaman spectroscopySEM-EDXproteomicsXRDalunite/natroalunite AcknowledgementsThis study forms part of the interdisciplinary research project ‘Sensing the Ancient World: The Invisible Dimensions of Ancient Art’, which has been generously funded by the Carlsberg Foundation. We are grateful for their support, and also grateful to the Kirsten and Freddy Johansen Foundation, who generously funded the establishment of a new laboratory at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, which has made this study possible. We would also like to take the opportunity to express gratitude to the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, conservator Rebecca Hast, and the technical staff for facilitating the study of the three panels. CB would like to express her gratitude to Marie Svoboda, Caroline Roberts, and Lucile Brunel-Duverger for sharing their immense knowledge on ancient panels paintings, in particular for enlightening discussions on the use of green and blue pigments. JS is grateful for discussions with Kaare Lund Rasmussen about oxalates and with Tom Egelund regarding the assessment of the paintings’ condition with raking light imaging. FTIR and Raman data were collected at the Center for Advanced Bioimaging (CAB) Denmark, University of Copenhagen; we are grateful for access to these facilities. Christophe Drouet, CNRS Senior scientist at the CIRIMAT Institute (University of Toulouse, France) kindly provided the raw FTIR reference data on a natroalunite-like compound. We would also like to thank Jens Soelberg from the Natural History Museum, Denmark for clarifying questions regarding acacia trees. FDG and LØB thank Meaghan Mackie for her help in analysing peptides by nanoLC-MS-MS and for her input and advice on the proteomic data. FDG and LØB would also like to thank Professor Jesper Velgaard Olsen at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research for providing access to LC-MS-MS facilities and resources at the Center for Protein Research. LH acknowledges a Branco Weiss Fellowship as well as support from Ernst Göhner. Karin Wyss Heeb is to be thanked for conducting the cellulose preparation of the wood samples, Lukas Wacker and Irka Hajdas at ETH for analysis and data reduction of the graphite measurements.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE [Perez-Riverol et al. Citation2022] partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD037269.Notes1 For example, the framed panel depicting a woman in the British Museum (no. 1889.1018.1) was recovered by William Matthew Flinders Petrie in a tomb at Hawara (Hart Citation2016, 82).2 Mathews and Muller’s corpus included five additional panels, not included by Rondot. These include the panel of Septimius Severus and family (Berlin, no. 31329), Goddess in mourning (British Museum, no. 1975.7-28.1), Fortuna-Tyche (Louvre, no. AF 10878-79), Nike from Dura-Europos (New Haven, no. 1929.288), and fragment 230 from a frame in Tebtunis. Yet, he omitted one painting of Isis and Hathor (Berlin, no. 12712), which he believed not to be a panel painting but part of a coffin or other furniture (Mathews and Muller Citation2016, Appendix 3).3 One panel at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek was for unknown reasons erroneously reported as lost by both Rondot and Mathews and Muller.4 For a thorough presentation of the find spots and archaeological sites where votive panel paintings have been recovered, see Rondot (Citation2013, 28–32). Mathews and Muller also included in their corpus the fourth-century BCE panel from Saqqara (British Museum, no. 1975.7-28.1), and the panel from 600 CE, which was recovered in Edfu in Upper Egypt (Louvre, no. AF 10878-79), both of which were excluded by Rondot.5 For example, a fourth-century Romano-Egyptian wooden sarcophagus in the J. Paul Getty Museum (no. 82.AP.75), has depictions of human subjects, painted in a tempera technique, and is very similar to contemporary panel paintings (Elston and Maish Citation2001).6 E.g. Brussels, Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, E 7409; With griffin of Nemesis: Providence, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, Museum Works of Art Fund, 59.030 (See also Tallet and Zivie-Coche Citation2012, 445).7 Examples include two portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum, acc. nos. 78.AP.262 and 74.AP.11. We are grateful to Marie Svoboda for this information.8 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliotek, Papyrus coll. no. G 807. Sörries (Citation2003, no. 37); Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, no. X 443. Sörries (Citation2003, no. 38); Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum, no. 74.AP.20-22.9 Since alunite/natroalunite is a minor phase in this particular sample, which also contained some ground material, atomic positions could not be reliably refined in the Rietveld refinement (Rietveld Citation1969), to determine the species between alunite and natroalunite. The difference between the two species relies in the amount of Na residing in the M-coordinated polyhedral in the alunite structure (Drouet et al. Citation2004; Okada, Hirabayashi, and Ossaka Citation1982). Lattice parameters of the compound’s crystal structure could be determined as a = 6.9981(5) Å and c = 16.814(2) Å.10 Kindly provided by Christophe Drouet (University of Toulouse, France).11 As an example, two of the three painted panels at the J. Paul Getty Museum, which were formerly known as part of a triptych and dated to the first century CE, were recycled from old wood as they had dowel holes and other modifications unrelated to their use as painted panels (Cartwright, Spaabæk, and Svoboda Citation2011). Another example is a fragmented panel from the fourth century CE with a painted depiction of a man from the Metropolitan Museum of Art (no. 31.8.2), which is most likely a re-used panel from a coffin.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Carlsberg Foundation under Grant CF17-0261 and by Kirsten and Freddy Johansen Foundation; L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Sciences Award 2016; and Novo Nordisk Foundation under Grant NNF14CC0001. L. Hendriks was supported by a Branco Weiss Fellowship and by the Ernst Göhner Foundation under Grant 2021-0936.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21990,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Conservation\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Conservation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00393630.2023.2256132\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00393630.2023.2256132","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

75),描绘了人类主题,用蛋彩画技术绘制,与当代板画非常相似(Elston和Maish Citation2001)例如布鲁塞尔,mus<s:1> royaux d 'Art et d 'Histoire, E 7409;与复仇女神的格里芬:普罗维登斯,艺术博物馆,罗德岛设计学院,博物馆艺术作品基金,59.030(另见Tallet和Zivie-Coche Citation2012, 445)例如,保罗·盖蒂博物馆的两幅肖像。78.号。美联社。262和74.AP.11。我们非常感谢Marie Svoboda提供的信息维也纳,Österreichische国家图书馆,纸莎草学院。不。807 G。Sörries (Citation2003, no。37);维也纳艺术史博物馆,no。X 443。Sörries (Citation2003, no。38);马里布,保罗·盖蒂博物馆,没有。由于明矾石/钠矾石在这个特殊的样品中是一个次要的相,它还含有一些地面物质,因此在Rietveld精化中不能可靠地确定原子位置,以确定明矾石和钠矾石之间的种类。这两个物种的区别在于明矾石结构中m -配位多面体中Na的含量(Drouet et al.)。Citation2004;冈田,平林,和Ossaka Citation1982)。化合物晶体结构的晶格参数为a = 6.9981(5) Å, c = 16.814(2) Å.10由Christophe Drouet(法国图卢兹大学)提供例如,J. Paul Getty博物馆的三块彩绘板中的两块,以前被认为是三联画的一部分,可以追溯到公元一世纪,它们是从旧木材中回收的,因为它们有销钉孔和其他与它们用作彩绘板无关的修改(Cartwright, Spaabæk, and Svoboda Citation2011)。另一个例子是公元四世纪的一个碎片板,上面画着一个人的画像,来自大都会艺术博物馆(no. 591)。31.8.2),这很可能是一个从棺材上回收的面板。本研究由嘉士伯基金会资助,基金编号为CF17-0261, Kirsten and Freddy Johansen基金会;2016年联合国教科文组织“杰出女科学家奖”;和诺和诺德基金会,批准NNF14CC0001。L. Hendriks由Branco Weiss奖学金和Ernst Göhner基金会资助,赠款2021-0936。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘A Lost Chapter of Ancient Art’: Archaeometric Examinations of Panel Paintings from Roman Egypt
ABSTRACTAncient panel paintings on wood are, with the exception of the mesmerising mummy portraits, extremely rare. However, a small corpus of other types of Romano-Egyptian panel paintings is preserved in collections worldwide. The aim of this study is to explore the technical histories of these rare and intriguing artefacts. We present a comprehensive investigation of three Romano-Egyptian panel paintings from the collections of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Denmark, including their construction, materials, pigments, binding media, and dating. The panels are examined by various methods of analysis to provide much deeper insights into the materials and techniques used for their production, and to answer questions of chronology and classification. In total, this work offers a more thorough understanding of their function, significance, and original appearance, as well as insights into the art of painting during the Roman period.KEYWORDS: Panel paintingsRoman Egyptmulti-spectral imagingwood identificationradiocarbon datingpigment identificationFTIRRaman spectroscopySEM-EDXproteomicsXRDalunite/natroalunite AcknowledgementsThis study forms part of the interdisciplinary research project ‘Sensing the Ancient World: The Invisible Dimensions of Ancient Art’, which has been generously funded by the Carlsberg Foundation. We are grateful for their support, and also grateful to the Kirsten and Freddy Johansen Foundation, who generously funded the establishment of a new laboratory at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, which has made this study possible. We would also like to take the opportunity to express gratitude to the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, conservator Rebecca Hast, and the technical staff for facilitating the study of the three panels. CB would like to express her gratitude to Marie Svoboda, Caroline Roberts, and Lucile Brunel-Duverger for sharing their immense knowledge on ancient panels paintings, in particular for enlightening discussions on the use of green and blue pigments. JS is grateful for discussions with Kaare Lund Rasmussen about oxalates and with Tom Egelund regarding the assessment of the paintings’ condition with raking light imaging. FTIR and Raman data were collected at the Center for Advanced Bioimaging (CAB) Denmark, University of Copenhagen; we are grateful for access to these facilities. Christophe Drouet, CNRS Senior scientist at the CIRIMAT Institute (University of Toulouse, France) kindly provided the raw FTIR reference data on a natroalunite-like compound. We would also like to thank Jens Soelberg from the Natural History Museum, Denmark for clarifying questions regarding acacia trees. FDG and LØB thank Meaghan Mackie for her help in analysing peptides by nanoLC-MS-MS and for her input and advice on the proteomic data. FDG and LØB would also like to thank Professor Jesper Velgaard Olsen at the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research for providing access to LC-MS-MS facilities and resources at the Center for Protein Research. LH acknowledges a Branco Weiss Fellowship as well as support from Ernst Göhner. Karin Wyss Heeb is to be thanked for conducting the cellulose preparation of the wood samples, Lukas Wacker and Irka Hajdas at ETH for analysis and data reduction of the graphite measurements.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe mass spectrometry proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE [Perez-Riverol et al. Citation2022] partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD037269.Notes1 For example, the framed panel depicting a woman in the British Museum (no. 1889.1018.1) was recovered by William Matthew Flinders Petrie in a tomb at Hawara (Hart Citation2016, 82).2 Mathews and Muller’s corpus included five additional panels, not included by Rondot. These include the panel of Septimius Severus and family (Berlin, no. 31329), Goddess in mourning (British Museum, no. 1975.7-28.1), Fortuna-Tyche (Louvre, no. AF 10878-79), Nike from Dura-Europos (New Haven, no. 1929.288), and fragment 230 from a frame in Tebtunis. Yet, he omitted one painting of Isis and Hathor (Berlin, no. 12712), which he believed not to be a panel painting but part of a coffin or other furniture (Mathews and Muller Citation2016, Appendix 3).3 One panel at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek was for unknown reasons erroneously reported as lost by both Rondot and Mathews and Muller.4 For a thorough presentation of the find spots and archaeological sites where votive panel paintings have been recovered, see Rondot (Citation2013, 28–32). Mathews and Muller also included in their corpus the fourth-century BCE panel from Saqqara (British Museum, no. 1975.7-28.1), and the panel from 600 CE, which was recovered in Edfu in Upper Egypt (Louvre, no. AF 10878-79), both of which were excluded by Rondot.5 For example, a fourth-century Romano-Egyptian wooden sarcophagus in the J. Paul Getty Museum (no. 82.AP.75), has depictions of human subjects, painted in a tempera technique, and is very similar to contemporary panel paintings (Elston and Maish Citation2001).6 E.g. Brussels, Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, E 7409; With griffin of Nemesis: Providence, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, Museum Works of Art Fund, 59.030 (See also Tallet and Zivie-Coche Citation2012, 445).7 Examples include two portraits in the J. Paul Getty Museum, acc. nos. 78.AP.262 and 74.AP.11. We are grateful to Marie Svoboda for this information.8 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliotek, Papyrus coll. no. G 807. Sörries (Citation2003, no. 37); Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, no. X 443. Sörries (Citation2003, no. 38); Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum, no. 74.AP.20-22.9 Since alunite/natroalunite is a minor phase in this particular sample, which also contained some ground material, atomic positions could not be reliably refined in the Rietveld refinement (Rietveld Citation1969), to determine the species between alunite and natroalunite. The difference between the two species relies in the amount of Na residing in the M-coordinated polyhedral in the alunite structure (Drouet et al. Citation2004; Okada, Hirabayashi, and Ossaka Citation1982). Lattice parameters of the compound’s crystal structure could be determined as a = 6.9981(5) Å and c = 16.814(2) Å.10 Kindly provided by Christophe Drouet (University of Toulouse, France).11 As an example, two of the three painted panels at the J. Paul Getty Museum, which were formerly known as part of a triptych and dated to the first century CE, were recycled from old wood as they had dowel holes and other modifications unrelated to their use as painted panels (Cartwright, Spaabæk, and Svoboda Citation2011). Another example is a fragmented panel from the fourth century CE with a painted depiction of a man from the Metropolitan Museum of Art (no. 31.8.2), which is most likely a re-used panel from a coffin.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Carlsberg Foundation under Grant CF17-0261 and by Kirsten and Freddy Johansen Foundation; L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Sciences Award 2016; and Novo Nordisk Foundation under Grant NNF14CC0001. L. Hendriks was supported by a Branco Weiss Fellowship and by the Ernst Göhner Foundation under Grant 2021-0936.
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
Studies in Conservation
Studies in Conservation 化学-分析化学
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
73
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in Conservation is the premier international peer-reviewed journal for the conservation of historic and artistic works. The intended readership includes the conservation professional in the broadest sense of the term: practising conservators of all types of object, conservation, heritage and museum scientists, collection or conservation managers, teachers and students of conservation, and academic researchers in the subject areas of arts, archaeology, the built heritage, materials history, art technological research and material culture. Studies in Conservation publishes original work on a range of subjects including, but not limited to, examination methods for works of art, new research in the analysis of artistic materials, mechanisms of deterioration, advances in conservation practice, novel methods of treatment, conservation issues in display and storage, preventive conservation, issues of collection care, conservation history and ethics, and the history of materials and technological processes. Scientific content is not necessary, and the editors encourage the submission of practical articles, review papers, position papers on best practice and the philosophy and ethics of collecting and preservation, to help maintain the traditional balance of the journal. Whatever the subject matter, accounts of routine procedures are not accepted, except where these lead to results that are sufficiently novel and/or significant to be of general interest.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信