Steven Avery
Administrator
Fakes and Forgeries of Written Artefacts from Ancient Mesopotamia to Modern China
https://books.google.com/books?id=q-cIEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1974
Introduction
5 Identifying fakes
According to Jones (1992, 9), 'questions of motive are perhaps less important than the quality and impact of the result'. While important progress has been made in detecting fakes by scientific analysis, counterfeiters' ability to make fakes that look like authentic artefacts has been growing at the same time (- Lowenthal 1990). They now have a better understanding of the physical and chemical processes of corrosion and natural ageing, for instance (- Craddock 2009,10-12). Forgers may also be helped if they have access to radiometric data (Ira Rabin and Oliver Hahn). This explains the endless debates on certain emblematic artefacts. The Silwan ossuary, for example, which was discovered in 2002, bears an inscription suggesting that it belonged to 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus'. Numerous examinations and counter-examinations by experts have been unable to prove that it is either a forgery or an authentic ossuary.23 In other cases such as antique bamboo manuscripts acquired by Chinese public institutions in recent years, doubts concerning their authenticity have remained because the artefacts have either not been tested using scientific methods or the test reports have not been published (Michael Friedrich). In fact, in forensic science, even the experts disagree about methods and results (- Fisher 2008).
Fakes may be detected from a historical, archaeological, artistic or philological point of view or from a natural science perspective, the latter being based on tests involving a large number of technologies (Ira Rabin and Oliver Hahn). This implies the need for collaboration between disciplines. One important way of identifying a fake is by tracing its provenance back to the time it was made (-Tait 1992). Although this is obviously impossible when dealing with antique objects, an analysis of their original context is still very important. As Craddock has noted (2009,16), forgers and dealers often add an archaeological background to their creations. However, objects found during archaeological excavations need to be consistent with the archaeological layer in which they were exhumed and with the artefacts discovered in connection with them; there should not be any anachronism. The Glozel tablets were found along with a mixture of objects from very different periods (from the Neolithic onwards), and the only archaeological structure was dated to the Middle Ages (Catherine Breniquet).
https://books.google.com/books?id=q-cIEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1974
Introduction
5 Identifying fakes
According to Jones (1992, 9), 'questions of motive are perhaps less important than the quality and impact of the result'. While important progress has been made in detecting fakes by scientific analysis, counterfeiters' ability to make fakes that look like authentic artefacts has been growing at the same time (- Lowenthal 1990). They now have a better understanding of the physical and chemical processes of corrosion and natural ageing, for instance (- Craddock 2009,10-12). Forgers may also be helped if they have access to radiometric data (Ira Rabin and Oliver Hahn). This explains the endless debates on certain emblematic artefacts. The Silwan ossuary, for example, which was discovered in 2002, bears an inscription suggesting that it belonged to 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus'. Numerous examinations and counter-examinations by experts have been unable to prove that it is either a forgery or an authentic ossuary.23 In other cases such as antique bamboo manuscripts acquired by Chinese public institutions in recent years, doubts concerning their authenticity have remained because the artefacts have either not been tested using scientific methods or the test reports have not been published (Michael Friedrich). In fact, in forensic science, even the experts disagree about methods and results (- Fisher 2008).
Fakes may be detected from a historical, archaeological, artistic or philological point of view or from a natural science perspective, the latter being based on tests involving a large number of technologies (Ira Rabin and Oliver Hahn). This implies the need for collaboration between disciplines. One important way of identifying a fake is by tracing its provenance back to the time it was made (-Tait 1992). Although this is obviously impossible when dealing with antique objects, an analysis of their original context is still very important. As Craddock has noted (2009,16), forgers and dealers often add an archaeological background to their creations. However, objects found during archaeological excavations need to be consistent with the archaeological layer in which they were exhumed and with the artefacts discovered in connection with them; there should not be any anachronism. The Glozel tablets were found along with a mixture of objects from very different periods (from the Neolithic onwards), and the only archaeological structure was dated to the Middle Ages (Catherine Breniquet).
Last edited: