3.8 Article

Learning from history: the case of the San Carlone colossus after the test of time

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE INSTITUTE OF CONSERVATION
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 18-35

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19455224.2021.2024445

关键词

holistic conservation; scientific diagnostics; metals; colossus; San Carlone; Arona

资金

  1. European Copper Institute (ECI)
  2. Helmut-Fischer-Stiftung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article investigates the preservation status of the Colossus of San Carlo Borromeo in Arona, Italy, and emphasizes the importance of a holistic approach to preserving cultural heritage. Despite being exposed to atmospheric agents that could cause corrosion, both the copper and iron elements of the statue remain well preserved. Through the study of documents, information, and diagnostic analyses, the factors contributing to the relatively good condition of the statue are identified.
The investigation of the state of preservation of the Colossus of San Carlo Borromeo in Arona, Italy, San Carlone, offered the opportunity to consider the preservation of cultural heritage through a holistic approach. The scientific interest of the statue arises from the observation of the reasonable state of conservation of its metallic materials. The statue, inaugurated in 1698, consists of an outer layer of embossed copper sheets fixed to an iron armature. It is exposed to atmospheric agents with favourable conditions for galvanic corrosion between the two metals. Despite this, both the copper and iron elements show a fairly good state of preservation. The study of documents and information about selected materials, construction events, transformations and restoration interventions are fundamental to understanding those factors-environmental, technical, physical, historical-that have led to the relatively good condition of the statue. These studies were complemented with diagnostic analyses to provide some initial conclusions regarding the continued preservation of the statue.

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

3.8
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