Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:33:23.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XRF Study of Mexican Iron Gall Inks: Historical and Geographical Overview of their Chemistry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2014

Jocelyn Alcántara García ,
Jose Luis Ruvalcaba Sil  and
Marie Vander Meeren
Jocelyn Alcántara García*
Affiliation:
Andrew W. Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow. Johns Hopkins University. Sheridan Libraries and Museums. Department of Conservation and Preservation. Brody Learning Commons 5031 C Level. 3400 N Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
Jose Luis Ruvalcaba Sil
Affiliation:
Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Circuito de la Investigación Científica s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico DF 04510, Mexico. e-mail: sil@fisica.unam.mx
Marie Vander Meeren
Affiliation:
Coordinación Nacional del Patrimonio Cultural, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Ex Convento de Churubusco s/n esq. General Anaya. Col. San Diego Churubusco, México D. F. 04120, Mexico.
*
*Research performed while affiliated to 3.e-mail: jocelynag@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Over 2000 micro-X-Ray Fluorescence (μ-XRF) measurements of iron gall inks were collected at the General Archive of the Nation in Mexico (Archivo General de la Nación, AGN). The portable X-Ray system SANDRA permitted detection of common elements present in all iron gall inks (e.g. Ca, Fe, S, etc.) as well as characteristic traces and impurities (e.g. Cu, Ni, Zn, Pb, etc). The documents in the data set originate from all over Mexico and are dated between the 16th and 19th centuries. All manuscripts were well preserved.

Extensive statistical processing of the relative X-Ray intensities revealed common features in groups of documents with the same provenance. Among the findings, there is a progressive trend to complex mixtures from the beginning of the 16th century to the 17th. A reverse trend was observed for the following century. Zinc, lead and seldom arsenic, chromium and mercury seem characteristic for northern areas whereas manganese seems common to the vast majority of studied inks.

As a general concern in conservation research, special attention was addressed to copper, as it is known to have additive effects to the degradation of cellulose. This metal seems fairly common to Mexican inks, especially during 18th century.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first examination taken to such a large number of inks. This study contributes to the more-focused development of suitable treatments that tailor specific needs, since they are to be based on of ink’s composition. It sets a precedent for the study of these inks in the Americas and allows conservators and historians to gain further insight into the history of their usage in Mexico.

Keywords

x-ray fluorescenceelementalmetal
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1618: Symposium 8A – Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Issues in Materials Science , 2014 , pp. 31 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brown, E. J., The Iron Gall Inks Meeting Postprints (University of Northumbria, 2000).Google Scholar
Kolar, J. and Strili&ccaron, M.;, ed. Iron Gall Inks: On manufacture, characterization, degradation and stabilization, (National and University Library Ljubljana 2006).Google Scholar
Kolar, J., Strlič, M., Budnar, M., Malešič, J., Šelih, V. S and Simsi&ccaron, J;, Acta. Chimica Slov. 50, 4, 763 (2003).Google Scholar
Rouchon-Quillet, V., Remazeilles, C., Bernard, J., Wattiaux, A. and Fournes, L. Appl. Phys. A 79, 2, 389 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krekel, C., Int. J. For. Doc. Exam. 5, 1–4, 54 (1999).Google Scholar
De Feber, M. A., Havermans, J. B. and Defize, P. Restaurator 21, 204 (2000).Google Scholar
Zaccaron, S., Ganzerla, R. and Bortuzzi, M. J. Coord. Chem. 66, 1709 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcántara García, J., Ruvalcaba Sil, J. L. and Vander Meeren, Marie Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 1374 (2012).Google Scholar
Ruvalcaba Sil, J. L., Grediaga, M., González Tirado, C., Hernández Vázquez, E., Aguilar Melo, V., Ramírez Espinosa, D. and Espinosa Pesqueira, M.. Mater. Res. Symp. Proc. 1319 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nastova, O. Grupce, B. Minceva-Sukarova, S. Turan, M. Yaygingol, M. Ozcatal, V. Martinovska, Z. Jakovlevska-Spirovska J. Raman Spectr. 43, 1729 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabe, J. G., Martin, K. A., Schumacher, E. F., Swider, J. R. and Teresov, A. S. 245th American Chemical Society Spring 2013 National Meeting & Exposition. April 7-11, 2013, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Potthast, A., Henniges, U. and Banik, G., Cellulose 15(6), 849 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aceto, M., Angelo, A., Boccareli, E. and Garlanda, A. C. X-Ray Spectrom. 37(4), 286 (2008).J. Bezdicek Czech 126, 360 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neevel, H. Restaurator 16(3), 143 (1995).Google Scholar
Messner, K., Alberighi, L., Banik, G., Strebotnik, E., Sobotka, W. and Mairinger, A. Sel. Pap. Int. Biodeterior. Symp. 7th 449 (1988).Google Scholar
Lienardy, A. and Van Damme, P., Stud. Conserv. 36(3), 155 (1991).Google Scholar
Trojan-Bedynsky, M., Kalbfleisch, F., Tse, S. and Sirois, J., J. ACCR 28, 3, (2003).Google Scholar
Kolar, J. and Strilic, M. Restaurator 25, 94 (2004).Google Scholar
Kolar, J., Mozir, A., Strilič, M., de Bruin, G. and Pihlar, B., e-Preserv. Sci. 4, 19 (2007).Google Scholar
Malešic, J., Kočar, D. and Balazic Fabjan, A. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 26, 118 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strilič, M., Kolar, J. and Pihlar, B. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 73, 535 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolar, J., Sala, M., Strilič, M. and Šelih, V. S., Restaurator 26, 181 (2005).Google Scholar
Ruvalcaba Sil, J. L., Ramírez Miranda, D., Aguilar Melo, V., Picazo, F., X-Ray Spectrom. 39, 338 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchieri, M., Michela, M., Piantanida, G. and Sodo, A. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 405, 2713 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, O., Malzer, W. and Kanngieβer, B., X-Ray Spectrom 33, 234 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, O., Kanngieβer, B. and Malzer, W., Stud. Conserv. 50, 23 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ursič, M., Budnar, M., Simsič, J. and Pelicon, P., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. B 247, 342 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanngieβer, B., Hahn, O., Wilke, M., Nekat, B., Malzer, W. and Erko, A. Spectrochim. Acta B 59B, 1511 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malzer, W., Hahn, O. and Kanngieβer, B. X-Ray Spectrom. 33, 229 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, B. S., Landau, S. and Leese, M. Cluster Analysis (Oxford University Press, 2001).Google Scholar