Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:03:21.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bomb 14C on paper and detection of the Forged Paintings of T’ang Haywen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2019

Irka Hajdas Open the ORCID record for Irka Hajdas [Opens in a new window] ,
Philippe Koutouzis ,
Kate Tai ,
Laura Hendriks ,
Mantana Maurer  and
Maria Belen Röttig
Irka Hajdas*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETH Zurich, Otto-Stern-Weg 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Philippe Koutouzis
Affiliation:
T’ang Haywen Archives 曾海文檔案庫, 28 Bonham Strand, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong, SAR, China
Kate Tai
Affiliation:
T’ang Haywen Archives 曾海文檔案庫, 28 Bonham Strand, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong, SAR, China
Laura Hendriks
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETH Zurich, Otto-Stern-Weg 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Mantana Maurer
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETH Zurich, Otto-Stern-Weg 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Maria Belen Röttig
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, ETH Zurich, Otto-Stern-Weg 5, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
*
*Corresponding author. Email: hajdas@phys.ethz.ch.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The bomb-peak signal preserved in the Arches® cotton paper was used to detect art forgeries imitating the work of Chinese artist T’ang Haywen (1927–1991). The dating of seven legitimate T’ang Haywen art pieces showed that the timing of the paper production was consistent with the artist’s use of Arches® paper starting in the early 1980s. The measured F14C of the paper from the 14 suspected forged paintings shows that the support material was produced in the last decade (2008–2011), therefore the art pieces could not be genuine T’ang Haywen works.

Keywords

artbomb peak 14Cforgeriespaper
Type
Conference Paper
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 61 , Issue 6: Radiocarbon 2018 Conference Proceedings Trondheim, Norway, June 17–22, 2018 Part 2 of 2 , December 2019 , pp. 1905 - 1912
Copyright
© 2019 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

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.)

Footnotes

Selected Papers from the 23rd International Radiocarbon Conference, Trondheim, Norway, 17–22 June, 2018

References

REFERENCES

Binnqüist, CL, Quintanar-Isaías, A, Vander Meeren, M. 2012. Mexican bark paper: Evidence of history of tree species used and their fiber characteristics. Economic Botany 66:138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, F, Eastaugh, N, Ford, T, Townsend, JH. 2019. Bomb-pulse radiocarbon dating of modern paintings on canvas. Radiocarbon 61(1):39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caforio, L, Fedi, M, Mando, P, Minarelli, F, Peccenini, E, Pellicori, V, Petrucci, F, Schwartzbaum, P, Taccetti, F. 2014. Discovering forgeries of modern art by the C-14 Bomb Peak. European Physical Journal Plus 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, H. 1958. Atomic bomb effect: variation of radiocarbon in plants, shells, and snails in the past 4 years. Science 128:250–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedi, M, Caforio, L, Mando, P, Petrucci, F, Taccetti, F. 2013. May 14C be used to date contemporary art? Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 294:662–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garside, P, Wyeth, P. 2003. Identification of cellulosic fibres by FTIR spectroscopy—thread and single fibre analysis by attenuated total reflectance. Studies in Conservation 48:269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graven, HD. 2015. Impact of fossil fuel emissions on atmospheric radiocarbon and various applications of radiocarbon over this century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112:9542–9545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajdas, I. 2008. The Radiocarbon dating method and its applications in Quaternary studies. Quaternary Science Journal—Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 57:2–24.Google Scholar
Hammer, S, Levin, I. 2017. Monthly mean atmospheric D14CO2 at Jungfraujoch and Schauinsland from 1986 to 2016. heiDATA.Google Scholar
Hancock, GJ, Tims, SG, Fifield, LK, Webster, IT. 2014. The release and persistence of radioactive anthropogenic nuclides. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 395: SP395. 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, L, Hajdas, I, Ferreira, ESB, Scherrer, NC, Zumbuhl, S, Kuffner, M, Wacker, L, Synal, HA, Gunther, D. 2018. Combined 14C analysis of canvas and organic binder for dating a painting. Radiocarbon 60(1):207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, L, Hajdas, I, McIntyre, C, Kuffner, M, Scherrer, N, Ferreira, E. 2016. Microscale radiocarbon dating of paintings. Applied Physics A—Materials Science & Processing 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hua, Q, Barbetti, M. 2007. Influence of atmospheric circulation on regional 14CO2 differences. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hua, Q, Barbetti, M, Rakowski, AZ. 2013. Atmospheric radiocarbon for the period 1950–2010. Radiocarbon 55(4):2059–2072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huels, CM, Pensold, S, Pigorsch, E. 2017. Radiocarbon measurements of paper: A forensic case study to determine the absolute age of paper in documents and works of art. Radiocarbon 59(5):1553–1560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, D. 1978. Papermaking: the history and technique of an ancient craft. Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Kromer, B. 2004. The tropospheric 14CO2 level in mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (1959–2003). Radiocarbon 46(3):1261–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, I, Kromer, B, Hammer, S. 2013. Atmospheric Delta 14CO2 trend in Western European background air from 2000 to 2012. Tellus Series B—Chemical and Physical Meteorology 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, HW. 2009. Chapter 18, Starch in the paper industry. In: BeMiller, J, Whistler, R, editors. Starch. 3rd ed. San Diego (CA): Academic Press. p. 657–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, J. 1994. Science and civilisation in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and chemical technology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nicholas, AB. 2013. On paper: The everything of its two-thousand-year history. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Nydal, R, Lövseth, K. 1983. Tracing bomb 14C in the atmosphere 1962–1980. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 88:3621–3642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafter, T, Fergusson, G. 1957. Atomic bomb effect-recent increase of carbon-14 content of the atmosphere and biosphere. Science (United States):126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, P, Brown, T, Reimer, R. 2004. Discussion: Reporting and calibration of post-bomb 14C data. Radiocarbon 46(3):1299–1304.Google Scholar
Synal, HA, Stocker, M, Suter, M. 2007. MICADAS: A new compact radiocarbon AMS system. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259:7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacker, L, Nemec, M, Bourquin, J. 2010. A revolutionary graphitisation system: Fully automated, compact and simple. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 268:931–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, CN, Syvitski, JPM, Gałuszka, A, Hancock, GJ, Zalasiewicz, J, Cearreta, A, Grinevald, J, Jeandel, C, McNeill, JR, Summerhayes, C, Barnosky, A. 2015. Can nuclear weapons fallout mark the beginning of the Anthropocene Epoch? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71:46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar