Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Vortrag (3)
- Zeitschriftenartikel (1)
- Buchkapitel (1)
- Beitrag zu einem Sammelband (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (6)
Referierte Publikation
- nein (6)
Schlagworte
- Forgery (6) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (3)
At the end of the sixteenth century, a number of relics and artefacts were discovered in Granada, Spain. They included what became known as the Lead Books of the Sacromonte, twenty-one written artefacts made of circular lead leaves engraved in archaic Arabic characters. The authorship was attributed to some Arab disciples of St James the Greater considered to be the first evangelisers of the Iberian Peninsula. The texts, the materiality and the circumstances of the discoveries fuelled a debate surrounding their authenticity that lasted more than two centuries, a debate so fierce and controversial that not even papal condemnation in 1682 was able to stop it. Soon after the discoveries were made public, scholars highlighted the many contradictions and errors of a historical, linguistic and theological nature present in the texts, identifying members of the local Morisco community as possible forgers. This article focuses on how the scholarly community of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries handled these findings and looks at the methods employed by the scholars to evaluate the authenticity of the artefacts. It will also look at how the particular interests of the various authorities involved influenced the acceptance or dismissal of relevant academic results.
This paper addresses the sensitive issue of authentication of the un-provenanced manuscripts of high monetary value if certified to be genuine.
Over the last decade the popularity of material studies of manuscripts using non-destructive technologies (NDT) has increased enormously. In the case of suspicious writings these studies are held in especially high esteem due to the methodological rigor they are reputed to contribute to debate. Moreover, audiences from a humanities background often tend to disregard the technical details and treat any published interpretation of instrumental analysis as an objective finding.
The paper will discuss the currently available methods and testing protocols for writing materials stressing the advantages and limitations of the non-invasive analysis. As an example we will consider the recent announcement of the possibility of non-invasive dating of carbon inks focusing on the validation required for a testing method.
We will make clear that material analysis alone cannot prove that the object is genuine. We should rather adopt the effective approach for testing suspicious artifacts that has been established by the forensic science. Here, not the authentication, but the determination of the forgery stands in the focus of the work.
This paper addresses the role of material analysis in the current discussion on the authenticity of unprovenanced fragments. It will show that material analysis alone, especially its non-destructive variety, cannot prove that the object is genuine. The best material analysis can do, after all appropriate tests have been conducted, is to announce that nothing has been found that contradicts the assumption of genuineness. Moreover, the results of the material analysis can never be used as the only justification of authentication in cases of composite objects such as manuscripts or epigraphs.
The most effective approach for testing suspicious artifacts has been established by forensic science. Not limited to non-invasive analysis, this approach relies on validated techniques that usually require the extraction of samples and comparison with reference materials and are capable of delivering unambiguous results. In contrast, the analysis of suspicious manuscripts has to overcome additional obstacles such as the heterogeneity of historical material, the scarcity of suitable reference standards, and restriction to strictly non-invasive techniques.
We discuss the reliability of the testing protocol based on the non-destructive multi-instrumental approach developed by the BAM for the investigation of writing materials. In the case of the DSS, it relies on comparison with the genuine DSS fragments studied over the last 10 years.
The lecture will discuss the sensitive issue of authentication of the objects of cultural heritage of immense cultural and monetary value if certified to be genuine. It will be made clear that material analysis alone, especially its non-destructive variety conducted by specialists in a single technique, can not prove that the object is genuine. The best material analysis can do, after all appropriate tests have been conducted, is to announce that nothing has been found that contradicts the assumption of genuineness. Moreover, the results of the natural analysis can never be used as the only justification of the authentication in the cases of composite objects such as manuscripts or epigraphs. A certification always requires the expertise of the specialist in the field (be it a historian, paleographer, epigrapher, etc.), whose judgment can be at the most supported by appropriate material analysis.
The most effective approach for testing suspicious artifacts has been established by the forensic science. Here, not the authentication, but the determination of the forgery stands in the focus of the work. Investigation protocols developed within 150 years and constantly improved include a clear statement of the analysis purpose and the definition of plausibility criteria for the possible outcome. The younger sister of the forensics, archaeometry has to overcome additional obstacles such as the heterogeneity of historic material coupled with the scarcity of suitable reference material. Over the last two decades the popularity of archaeometric studies has increased enormously, with the industry-driven development of so-called non-destructive technologies (NDT) that do not require sampling. Further technological developments led to the appearance of NDT methods with extremely small interaction windows (µm range). Each of these methods has limitations that have to be carefully considered when planning the tests of a heterogeneous and often partially degraded historical material. This approach is inherently multi-instrumental, therefore archaeometric and forensic departments unite a number of specialists who work together defining the tasks and the methods involved for their successful completion.
Confronted with indications that the SNML could be a forgery, we reviewed data from our previous analyses again and supplemented it with additional readings. Again, we were short of time. During the first measurement campaign we employed X-ray fluorescence analysis to identify specific trace elements and thereby characterize different writing and drawing materials. In the new measurement campaign, we once again carried out an extensive X-ray fluorescence analysis. In addition, this time we also employed reflection infrared spectroscopy and confocal microscopy.
As with earlier measurement campaigns, we were determined not to take samples. Throughout the process, we have continued to regard the object in question as unique, and as such not to he physically altered in any way. Throughout the analysis, however, it has been clear that non-destructive testing provides less comprehensive results than methods that require testing physical samples. The examinations described below were carried out not only on the SNML, but also on reference objects. The most important of these in this framework was the SN Graz, which is generally accepted as authentic. The following illustrates the results of the analysis in detail.