3.9 Article

Unveiling the Complexity of Japanese Metallic Threads

期刊

HERITAGE
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 4017-4039

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/heritage4040221

关键词

japanese armor; metallic threads; urushi; kinran; ATR-FTIR; SEM-EDX

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study of metallic threads from Japanese samurai armors revealed significant variability in metal foils and organic adhesives, as well as differences in the use of gold, silver, and aluminum in traditional Japanese kinran materials. The research provided a comprehensive understanding of the materials and techniques used by Japanese craftsmen over the centuries.
In the framework of an extensive survey campaign on a collection of Japanese samurai armors, metallic threads from different parts of the traditional equipment were studied by several analytical techniques. The collection of armors belongs to Museo delle Culture (Lugano, Switzerland) and it is composed of ten elements, which date back from the 15th to 20th century. Metallic threads under study come from six of ten elements of the collection and represent a complex and unique multimaterial, which shows specific characteristics in Japanese tradition (kinran). The multianalytical approach based on ATR-FTIR (Attenuated Total Reflection-Fourier Transform Infrared) spectroscopy and SEM-EDX (Scanning Electron Microscopy, Energy Dispersive X-Ray) analysis, together with a careful observation with optical and digital microscopy, permitted to obtain a complete characterization of materials, which have shown a great variability in metal foils and in organic adhesives (urushi, animal glue, starch). Gold and silver turned out to be not so largely used as scholars thought, while aluminum showed a great diffusion. Within the collection of analyzed armors, the obtained results allowed us for the first time to get a complete comprehension of materials and techniques used by Japanese craftsmen, and to observe differences in the quality of the materials and in manufacture technology over the centuries.

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

3.9
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