4.5 Article

The painting of the Etruscan Tomba della Quadriga Infernale (4th century BC), in Sarteano (Siena, Italy): technical features

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 36, 期 12, 页码 2635-2642

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2009.07.019

关键词

Etruscan tomb; Wall painting; GC/MS; FTIR; SEM-EDS; XRD; Pigments; Ochre; Tomba della Quadriga Infernale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work presents the results of an investigation of the painting technique used in the Etruscan tomb Tomba della Quadriga Infernale. This tomb was discovered in Sarteano (Siena, Italy) in October 2003 and dated back to the second half of the 4th century BC. Red, dark red, pink, yellow, white, black, and grey colours were used in the tomb in order to create paintings, which now represent a very precious record of the Etruscan art of wall painting in a hypogeal environment. The technical features of the painting were revealed by stratigraphy using optical and electronic microscopy. The components and preparatory layers of the painted areas were characterized using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis (SEM-EDS), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). XRD, SEM-EDS, and optical microscopic techniques were also used for mineralogical analysis of the rock substrate. The SEM-EDS and FTIR analyses showed that red and yellow ochre, calcite, and vegetable charcoal were used to paint the walls of the tomb: the pigments, either alone or mixed together, were utilized to produce pure colours (red, yellow, white, and black) and intermediate tonalities (pink, dark red, and grey). SEM-EDS, FTIR, and XRD highlighted that the painting was made on a preparatory layer of calcite, applied onto a levelling material made up of calcite, clay minerals, quartz, and iron oxides. GC/MS analyses revealed that egg was used as an organic binder to disperse the pigments. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据