29*2820 S. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60616

THE MICROSCOPE • Vol. 60:1, pp 29–36 (2012)

Revising Walter C. McCrone’s Dates for Pigment UseNicole Pizzini

McCrone Research Institute*

Through trade and technology, the pigments thathave been available for artists’ palettes have shifted

through time. Dr. Walter C. McCrone published sev-eral papers about the usefulness of a pigment timeline,most notably in “A Scientific Study of ‘Marcus AureliusBetween Philosophers,’” published in The Microscope (1).This paper discusses the prominence of forgeries anddescribes paintings as time capsules that can be de-coded by referencing the origin dates of their materi-als and their first use. Using the microscope and hisability to distinguish artist pigments, McCrone wasable to narrow the date and provenance of paintingsand artifacts based on the pigments that he identified.

The history of pigments available to artists is awell-researched subject, used by art historians, artconservators and microscopists. McCrone himself con-densed some of the most common information into auseful table, largely using Gettens and Stout’s PaintingMaterials (1966) as a reference. McCrone’s list is pub-lished in the article mentioned above and in his book,Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud (2). He found this orga-nized, quick-check table handy, and even today it isshared in each of the pigment identification coursestaught at McCrone Research Institute in Chicago.

McCrone did not only distribute his pigment listto students; many examples exist where he used pig-ment dates as evidence for and against an art works’authenticity. In an article published in The Microscope,McCrone used his list to fortify an argument for theauthenticity of a painting attributed to Giorgione(1477–1510). He found that the pigments used in MarcusAurelius Between Philosophers were indeed common to

late 15th century paintings and were consistent in“particle size, the presence of mineral impurities andthe absence of later common pigments,” (1).

In another article, he uses an artifact’s pigmentsagainst it, such as in his examination of the VinlandMap. This map of North America was thought by somescholars to have been made by the Vikings in 1400.This would be a remarkable piece of history if it weregenuine, but McCrone found that the maker of the maphad drawn lines using a yellowish variety of titaniumwhite (TiO2) — a material unknown until 1916 (3).

While McCrone’s list is useful, it required someupdating. Many respectable books about the historyof pigments have been written since McCrone’s publi-cation, and a wider survey of the literature is due. Aneffort has now been made to compile new informationabout pigments and create an annotated list of theirfirst use dates.

In addition to being a more comprehensive surveyof available literature, some other changes have beenmade. For example, on many pigment dates, McCroneused the shorthand “before 1300.” Contemporaryrecords from before that time are rare, often making itdifficult to pinpoint a first-use date. However, pigmentliterature today will often mention the earliest arti-facts discovered to contain the material, as well as ref-erences that ancient historians, like Pliny, who some-times describe a mineral’s mining or manufacture.Therefore, efforts were made in the new table to usethis information to make “before 1300” more specific.

Other specifications include regional variations onwhich pigments were available to whom and when.

30 THE MICROSCOPE 60 (2012)

Cochineal is an example of these important details. Itis a red dye made from the insect in the suborderSternorrhyncha. This dye was used in ancient Peru,but European art makers did not know or have accessto it until Spanish explorers brought it back in 1549.Pigment dates concern scholars of European andAmerican art alike, and a pigment timeline with onlyone date would ring false to one of them. The updatedpigment table includes a Remarks column to addressthese discrepancies.

Remarks also included in the passing of time be-tween when a material was first discovered to whenit was put into full manufacture. In some cases theremay have been the possibility that an artist had ac-cess to a laboratory or been given a sample of a pig-ment before it was mass-produced. In other cases, apigment could have been produced in one medium(watercolor, for example) but was not manufacturedin another medium for many years (as was the casewith oil). The Remarks column makes these changesclear for a pigment’s history.

New pigments were also added to McCrone’s origi-nal list. Pigments from around the world were in-cluded, such as Maya blue and Han blue, and somecoloring agents that are important, but not necessar-ily used in painting, are also worth mentioning: Tyrianpurple (dye) and sepia (ink) are among them. Also in-cluded are newly developed pigments that have re-cently come into artistic acceptance. Manufactured,

organic pigments especially fill this category. Many ofthese synthetic pigments have replaced traditionalpigments in modern tube colors, even those labeled tobe the same color. These additions expand McCrone’slist for slightly broader use by analysts who special-ize in different geographic regions, mediums and eras.

The updated table will be a useful quick-referenceto professionals examining and identifying pigments.If any of these specialists happen to read this articleand find discrepancies or exclusions of pigments vitalin their field, please contact the author. This list, likeMcCrone’s original, will always be subject to alter-ation and expansion.

The author would like to acknowledge theMcCrone Research Institute in Chicago for suggestingthis research project and assisting in its production.The table has already been used to great advantage incourses covering the microscopy of paint, pigmentsand other artists materials.

REFERENCES

1. McCrone, Walter C. “A Scientific Study of ‘MarcusAurelius Between Philosophers,’” The Microscope, 42 (3),pp 111–119, 1994.

2. McCrone, Walter C. Judgement Day for the TurinShroud, Chicago: Microscope Publications, 1996.

3. McCrone, Walter C. “Vinland Map,” The Micro-scope, 47 (2), pp 71–74, 1999.

See Dates for Use of Artist Pigments tables on pages 35–39, and table references on page 40.

31

NICOLE PIZZINI

32 THE MICROSCOPE 60 (2012)

33

NICOLE PIZZINI

34 THE MICROSCOPE 60 (2012)

35

NICOLE PIZZINI

36 THE MICROSCOPE 60 (2012)

PIGMENT TABLE REFERENCES

A. Eastaugh, Nicholas, et al. Pigment Compendium: A Dictionary and Optical Microscopy of Historic Pigments. Oxford:Elsevier, 2008.

B. Feller, Robert L. (Vol. 1), Ashok Roy (Vol. 2) and Elizabeth West Fitzhugh (vol. 3), eds. Artists’ Pigments: A Handbook oftheir History and Characteristics, 3 volumes. (Vol. 1, Cambridge and Washington: Cambridge University Press andNational Gallery of Art), 1986; (Vol. 2, Washington and New York: National Gallery of Art and Oxford University Press),1993; (Vol. 3, Washington and New York: National Gallery of Art and Oxford University Press), 1997.

C. Gettens, Rutherford J. and George L. Stout. Painting Materials: A Short Encyclopedia. New York: Dover Publications,1966.

D. Herbst, Willy and Klaus Hunger, Industrial Organic Pigments. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2004.

E. Keijzer, de Matthijs, “The History of Modern Synthetic Inorganic and Organic Artists Pigments,” Contributions toConservation, Research in Conservation at the Netherlands ICN, ed. Mosk J. and Tennant N., London: James & James,pp 42–54, 2002.

F. Lomax, Suzanne Quillen and Tom Learner. “A Review of the Classes, Structures, and Methods of Analysis of SyntheticOrganic Pigments.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 45, pp 107–125, 2006.

G. Mayer, Ralph and Steven Sheehan. Artist’s Handbook of Materials and Techniques. Viking, 1991.

H. Patton, Temple C. Pigment Handbook, Properties and Economics. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley, 1973.