Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:07:38.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bomb-pulse Radiocarbon Dating of Modern Paintings on Canvas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2018

Fiona Brock ,
Nicholas Eastaugh ,
Thierry Ford  and
Joyce H Townsend
Fiona Brock*
Affiliation:
Cranfield Forensic Institute, Cranfield University, Defence Academy of the UK, Shrivenham, SN6 8LA, United Kingdom
Nicholas Eastaugh
Affiliation:
Art Analysis and Research Inc., London, SE1 2AN, United Kingdom
Thierry Ford
Affiliation:
Conservation Dept., National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design, 0130, Oslo, Norway
Joyce H Townsend
Affiliation:
Conservation Dept., Tate Britain, Millbank, London SW1P 4RG, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author. Email: f.brock@cranfield.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Radiocarbon (14C) dating has previously been applied to modern paintings on canvas from the 20th century to identify potential modern forgeries, and dates indicate a time lag of several years between the harvesting of plant fibers for making canvas, and completion of a painting. This study investigated both the length of this time lag and the potential of 14C dating to inform about an individual artist’s mode of working (for example long-term storage or reuse of canvases, or extended reworking on a single canvas) and/or to establish a chronology for a corpus of work. Two pre-bomb and 16 post-bomb artworks by 17 mid-20th-century Scandinavian artists were 14C dated. The majority of post-bomb samples indicated a time lag of 2–5 years between the harvesting of the plants and completion of a painting, but some samples recorded lags of up to 10 years, and others produced much earlier results, potentially indicating the use of much older canvases or challenges removing contamination prior to dating. The importance of thorough pre-screening of canvas samples for both synthetic fibers and contaminants prior to dating, and selection of the most suitable calibration curve, are highlighted.

Keywords

artworkbomb-pulsecanvaspaintingradiocarbon dating
Type
Research Article
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 39 - 49
Copyright
© 2018 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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bergfjord, C, Holst, B. 2010. A procedure for identifying textile bast fibres using microscopy: flax, nettle/ramie, hemp and jute. Ultramicroscopy 110:1192–1197.Google Scholar
Brock, F, Higham, T, Ditchfield, P, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2010. Current pretreatment methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon 52(1):103–112.Google Scholar
Brock, F, Dee, M, Hughes, A, Snoeck, C, Staff, R, Bronk Ramsey, C. 2018. Testing the effectiveness of protocols for removal of common conservation treatments for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 60(1):35–50.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–360.Google Scholar
Caforio, L, Fedi, ME, Mandò, PA, Minarelli, F, Peccenini, E, Pellicori, V, Petrucci, FC, Schwartzbaum, P, Taccetti, F. 2014. Discovering forgeries of modern art by the 14C bomb peak. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 129:6.Google Scholar
Cook, GT, Ainscough, LAN, Dunbar, E. 2015. Radiocarbon analysis of modern skeletal remains to determine year of birth and death – a case study. Radiocarbon 57(3):327–336.Google Scholar
Dijs, IJ, van der Windt, E, Kaihola, L, van der Borg, K. 2006. Quantitative determination by 14C analysis of the biological component in fuels. Radiocarbon 48(3):315–323.Google Scholar
Eastaugh, N, Brock, F, Ford, T, Townsend, JH. The potential for dating canvas from mid-20th century paintings using post-bomb radiocarbon. In preparation.Google Scholar
Fedi, ME, Caforio, L, Mandò, PA, Petrucci, F, Taccetti, F. 2013. May 14C be used to date contemporary art? Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research B 294:662–665.Google Scholar
Haugan, E, Holst, B. 2013. Determining the fibrilar orientation of bast fibres with polarized light microscopy: the modified Herzog test (red plate test) explained. Journal of Microscopy 252:159–168.Google Scholar
Hendriks, L, Hajdas, I, McIntyre, C, Küffner, M, Scherrer, NC, Ferreira, ESB. 2016. Microscale radiocarbon dating of paintings. Appl. Phys. A. 122:16.Google Scholar
Hendriks, L, Hajdas, I, Ferreira, ESB, Scherrer, NC, Zumbühl, S, Küffner, M, Wacker, L, Synal, H-A, Günther, D. 2018. Combined 14C analysis of canvas and organic binder for dating a painting. Radiocarbon 60(1):207–218.Google Scholar
Hua, Q. 2009. Radiocarbon: a chronological tool for the recent past. Quaternary Geochronology 4:378–390.Google Scholar
Hua, Q, Barbetti, M, Rakowski, AZ. 2013. Atmospheric radiocarbon for the period 1950–2010. Radiocarbon 55(4):2059–2072.Google Scholar
Keisch, B, Miller, HM. 1972. Recent art forgeries: Detection by C-14 measurements. Nature 240:491–492.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Blackwell, PG, Bronk Ramsey, C, Grootes, PM, Guilderson, TP, Haflidason, H, Hajdas, I, Hatté, C, Heaton, TJ, Hoffman, DL, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kaiser, KF, Kromer, B, Manning, SW, Niu, M, Reimer, RW, Richards, DA, Scott, EM, Southon, JR, Staff, RA, Turney, CSM, van der Plicht, J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869–1887.Google Scholar
Schönhofer, F. 1989. Determination of 14C in alcoholic beverages. Radiocarbon 31(3):777–784.Google Scholar
Spalding, KL, Buchholz, BA, Bergman, L-E, DruidH, Frisén H, Frisén. 2005. Forensics: Age written in teeth by nuclear tests. Nature 437:333–334.Google Scholar
Spalding, KL, Arner, E, Westermark, PO, Bernard, S, Buchholz, BA, Bergmann, O, Blomqvist, L, Hoffstedt, J, Näslund, E, Britton, T, Concha, H, Hassan, M, Rydén, M, Frisén, J, Arner, P. 2008. Dynamics of fat cell turnover in humans. Nature 453:783–787.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Reimer, RJ, Reimer, RW. 2018. Calib 7.1 [www program]. Available at http://calib.org.Google Scholar
Tuniz, C, Zoppi, U, Hotchkis, MAC. 2004. Sherlock Holmes counts the atoms. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 213:469–475.Google Scholar
Wild, EM, Arlamovsky, KA, Golser, R, Kutschera, W, Priller, A, Puchegger, S, Rom, W, Steier, P, Vycudilik, W. 2000. 14C dating with the bomb peak: An application to forensic medicine. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172:944–950.Google Scholar
Zoppi, U, Skopec, Z, Skopec, J, Jones, G, Fink, D, Hua, Q, Jacobsen, G, Tuniz, C, Williams, A. 2004. Forensic applications of 14C bomb-pulse dating. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 223–224:770–775.Google Scholar