On forgery and defining authenticity
Dublin Core
Title
On forgery and defining authenticity
Subject
[no text]
Description
[no text]
Creator
[no text]
Source
[no text]
Publisher
[no text]
Date
[no text]
Contributor
[no text]
Rights
[no text]
Relation
[no text]
Format
[no text]
Language
[no text]
Type
[no text]
Identifier
[no text]
Coverage
[no text]
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
In the field of forgery and forgery detection a lot of advancements have been made in the past 70 years. These advancements favor the side of detection with the implementation of radiocarbon dating. This, along with technologies that can determine the composition of the artifact through physical and chemical analysis have proved to be equally helpful in the conservation of old objects, not just determining their authenticity.
Al-Bashaireh, ElSerogy, Hussein and Shakhatreh examined a manuscript that was claimed to be old and valuable written in medieval Hebrew on parchment. At first examination the manuscript looks very old, due to its coloration, deterioration and use of iron gaul ink. However, the uniformity in the handwriting, precision of the margins and bindings suggest it may be a more contemporaneous construction. These observations coupled with the use of UV fluorescence to search for underwriting or past conservational treatment as well as quality of the parchment in terms of uniformity and technique in scraping give a lot of evidence that this is in fact not an artifact from antiquity, however this can not be reliably ascertained until the use of technologies like radio carbon dating.
Through their studies and tests it was determined that this manuscript was created “post bomb” in which case it is a forgery. It was determined that the manuscript was probably made in the mid 20th century. Interestingly the thread used to bind the folios can be dated to 2006 which could mean this manuscript was doctored a second time. To artificially age the manuscript it was buried in the ground with animal parts so that the enzymes would deteriorate the book at a faster rate. which means the manuscript would have had to be exhumed in the early 21st century to be altered with this new thread.
In thinking of the manuscript as a living object and having value and purpose beyond its original intent, this document brings up an interesting question of what is valuable? The materials to produce this document were of the same used in medieval productions just the time of the labor and making of those materials is current. This idea of being deceived seems to take precedent in determining whether something is actually valuable. One must wonder if this book was presented as a modern artifact produced in the style of medieval scribes and illuminators, if it would be considered in a different light as an equally interesting object as one produced 500 years prior. In the same way furniture makers reproduce Shaker chairs or glassblowers replicating Italian glass from the 14th century.
Al-Bashaireh, ElSerogy, Hussein and Shakhatreh examined a manuscript that was claimed to be old and valuable written in medieval Hebrew on parchment. At first examination the manuscript looks very old, due to its coloration, deterioration and use of iron gaul ink. However, the uniformity in the handwriting, precision of the margins and bindings suggest it may be a more contemporaneous construction. These observations coupled with the use of UV fluorescence to search for underwriting or past conservational treatment as well as quality of the parchment in terms of uniformity and technique in scraping give a lot of evidence that this is in fact not an artifact from antiquity, however this can not be reliably ascertained until the use of technologies like radio carbon dating.
Through their studies and tests it was determined that this manuscript was created “post bomb” in which case it is a forgery. It was determined that the manuscript was probably made in the mid 20th century. Interestingly the thread used to bind the folios can be dated to 2006 which could mean this manuscript was doctored a second time. To artificially age the manuscript it was buried in the ground with animal parts so that the enzymes would deteriorate the book at a faster rate. which means the manuscript would have had to be exhumed in the early 21st century to be altered with this new thread.
In thinking of the manuscript as a living object and having value and purpose beyond its original intent, this document brings up an interesting question of what is valuable? The materials to produce this document were of the same used in medieval productions just the time of the labor and making of those materials is current. This idea of being deceived seems to take precedent in determining whether something is actually valuable. One must wonder if this book was presented as a modern artifact produced in the style of medieval scribes and illuminators, if it would be considered in a different light as an equally interesting object as one produced 500 years prior. In the same way furniture makers reproduce Shaker chairs or glassblowers replicating Italian glass from the 14th century.
Original Format
[no text]
Citation
“On forgery and defining authenticity,” The Living Document, accessed August 14, 2026, https://meeker544.omeka.net/items/show/10.