Skip to main content
Log in

Minerals associated with artists’ paintings and archaeological iron objects

  • Published:
Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article provides a short review of mineral-based pigments used in paintings with examples drawn from technical studies of selected historic paintings. Pigments such as azurite, natural ultramarine, orpiment, and clay earth pigments have been identified. Some examples will also be given of particular case studies which describe the alteration of selected pigments and consequences of these interactions. The second theme shows how use has been made of such interactions in evaluating the effects of environmental impact on paintings and reference is made to previous studies and the application of paint films as dosimeters. Accelerated ageing and site exposure studies are reported, and results provide information on pigment binder interactions. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) and thermogravimetric analysis (TG) have been used to characterise the behaviour of pigments in binding media and to assist in characterising samples from wall paintings. Reference is also made to the occurrence of iron-oxide based minerals present as corrosion products in archaeological iron objects. Examples are given of objects from two archaeological sites in England, the Anglo-Saxon burial site Sutton Hoo in Suffolk, and the burial site in Wetwang, East Yorkshire. It will be shown that post excavation changes occur in the objects and this information is used to inform preventive conservation of these objects, in storage and in display.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harley RD. Artists’ pigments c 1600–1835. London: Butterworths Scientific; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Feller RL, editor. Artists’ pigments, vol. 1. London: Cambridge University Press; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Roy A, editor. Artists’ pigments, vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fitzhugh EW, editor. Artists’ pigments, vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hradil D, Grygar T, Hradilova J, Bezdicka P. Clay and iron oxide pigments in the history of paintings. Appl Clay Sci. 2003;22:223–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Roy A, Spring M, Piazotta C. Raphael’s early work in the National Gallery paintings before Rome. Natl Gallery Tech Bull. 2004;25:62–72.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Roy A. The National Gallery Van Dycks: technique and development. Natl Gallery Tech Bull. 1999;20:5–83.

    Google Scholar 

  8. McKim-Smith G, Anderson-Bergdoll G, Newman R. Examining Velázquez. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1988. ISBN 0-300-03615-9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sheldon L, Woodcock S, Wallert A. Orpiment overlooked: expect the unexpected in 17th century workshop practice. In: Preprints ICOM Committee for Conservation, vol. 1. 14th Triennial Meeting, The Hague, 12–16 September 2005, p. 529.

  10. Selwyn L. Overview of archaeological iron: the corrosion problems, key factors affecting treatment, and gaps in current knowledge. In: Proceedings of metal 2004, National Museum of Australia ACT, 4–8 October 2004, p. 294–306.

  11. Thickett D. The use of infra-red and Raman spectroscopies for iron corrosion products. In; Postprints 6th Infrared Users’ Group, Florence, Prato, Padua 2005, p. 86–93.

  12. Watkinson D, Lewis MT. Desiccated storage of chloride-contaminated archaeaological iron objects. Stud Conserv. 2005;50:241–52.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Turgoose S. Post excavation changes in iron antiquities. Stud Conserv. 1982;27:92–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen NS, Odlyha M, Campana R, Foster GM. Dosimetry of Paintings:determination of the degree of chemical change in museum exposed test paintings(lead white tempera) by thermal analysis and infrared spectroscopy. Thermochim Acta. 2000;365:45–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Odlyha M, Cohen NS, Foster GM, West RM. Dosimetry of paintings: determination of the degree of chemical change in museum exposed test paintings (azurite tempera) by thermal and spectroscopic analysis. Thermochim Acta. 2000;365:53–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. van den Brink O. Molecular changes in egg tempera paint dosimeters as tools to monitor the museum environment. Ph.D thesis, University of Amsterdam, 2001. http://www.amolf.nl/.

  17. Musumarrra G, Fichera M. Chemometrics and cultural heritage. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 1998;44:363–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Colombini MP, Modugno F, Giacomelli A. Two procedures for suppressing interference from inorganic pigments in the analysis by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry of proteinaceous binders in paintings. J Chromatogr A. 1999;846:101–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Odlyha M. Introduction to the preservation of cultural heritage. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2011;104:399–403.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Odlyha.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Odlyha, M., Thickett, D. & Sheldon, L. Minerals associated with artists’ paintings and archaeological iron objects. J Therm Anal Calorim 105, 875–881 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-011-1636-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-011-1636-0

Keywords

Navigation