06-24-2008, 06:31 PM
Mark:
About blood paint: My initial reaction on reading your response was frustration with myself, because usually I'm pretty careful about swallowing myths like that. So I did a little research, including checking out the wiki links you gave about ochre and vermilion (very interesting, BTW -- I didn't know vermilion was so expensive in Roman times). Neither seemed to specifically debunk blood, though.
I found the following link at www.painterforum.com , which claims to be "house painting advice from professionals." Granted, they're not paint chemists, but they repeat the milk-and-blood story, though they do state the primary pigment in barn paint was red iron oxide.
http://painterforum.com/milk.html
A little more authoritatively, Stanford University publishes the Journal of the American Institute for Conservation (which I take to mean in the museum sense). The following article covers methods of analysis of primitive paints and pigments, and it specifically covers the use of blood (section 7 - 7.3), though it seems to be as a proteinaceous binder.
http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/j ... 3-002.html
So, while "smelly mess" seems a likely accurate description of a blood-milk paint, it's clear that both elements were used in paint, though maybe not specifically in combination. Until I see something specifically and authoritatively debunking it (and I'd accept a "Mythbusters" episode), as far as I'm concerned, it's still a "maybe." Still, iron oxide seems a far more likely source of that red. I've lived where the earth contains red clay, and I can tell you those pigments are tenacious in staining things.
But thanks for reminding me how often "common knowledge" isn't really knowledge at all.
About blood paint: My initial reaction on reading your response was frustration with myself, because usually I'm pretty careful about swallowing myths like that. So I did a little research, including checking out the wiki links you gave about ochre and vermilion (very interesting, BTW -- I didn't know vermilion was so expensive in Roman times). Neither seemed to specifically debunk blood, though.
I found the following link at www.painterforum.com , which claims to be "house painting advice from professionals." Granted, they're not paint chemists, but they repeat the milk-and-blood story, though they do state the primary pigment in barn paint was red iron oxide.
http://painterforum.com/milk.html
A little more authoritatively, Stanford University publishes the Journal of the American Institute for Conservation (which I take to mean in the museum sense). The following article covers methods of analysis of primitive paints and pigments, and it specifically covers the use of blood (section 7 - 7.3), though it seems to be as a proteinaceous binder.
http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/j ... 3-002.html
So, while "smelly mess" seems a likely accurate description of a blood-milk paint, it's clear that both elements were used in paint, though maybe not specifically in combination. Until I see something specifically and authoritatively debunking it (and I'd accept a "Mythbusters" episode), as far as I'm concerned, it's still a "maybe." Still, iron oxide seems a far more likely source of that red. I've lived where the earth contains red clay, and I can tell you those pigments are tenacious in staining things.
But thanks for reminding me how often "common knowledge" isn't really knowledge at all.
Wayne Anderson/ Wander
