06-11-2025, 08:25 AM
The story of the 'real' fake manuscript known as "Archaic Mark", or University of Chicago MS 2427, is of interest for a better understanding of how fake documents are detected in real life.
There are a few publications related to it, and I am using "Chicago’s “Archaic Mark” (ms 2427) II, Microscopic, Chemical and Codicological Analyses Confirm Modern Production", by Margaret M. Mitchell, Joseph G. Barabe and Abigail B. Quandt. Novum Testamentum 52 (2010) 101-133.
I cannot put this online due to copyright, but I can send out a few copies to interested people (PM me) as fair use. Note that this is the same Joe Barabe of McCrone who studied the Voynich MS, and this was also performed around the same time.
Online one may find further descriptions by Stephen C. Carlson, who did a critical text analysis, not included in this paper.
To summarise:
This MS includes the Gospel of Mark and was listed as 14th century with a question mark. Suspicions that it might not be a genuine old MS had arisen over time, by people studying it.
Earlier analyses in 1989 had indicated the presence of a modern pigment: Prussian Blue, first invented in 1704.
However, it was not certain if this was part of the original painting, or part of a later restoration.
In 2008 the MS was sent to McCrone, and was sampled in order to investigate precisely this question.
One sheet was also radio-carbon dated with a result of 1461 - 1640 at 95%. That is: a full 180-year range.
Some summaries of phrases from the McCrone analysis, again not to violate copyright:
- the sampling was performed under a stereomicroscope at 7.5 x magnification, to be sure that we were taking only original paint, not later restorations. Using this method we saw no evidence of retouching of any kind in the manuscript.
- The paint samples were analyzed by several methods, among others PLM, ED, SEM, XRD, and Raman spectroscopy
- Different shades of blue paint were sampled and the dominant blue pigment in the miniatures is Prussian blue. This was invented in 1704 and was commercially available by the 1720s.
- We also found trace amounts of synthetic ultramarine blue, a pigment only available commercially since the late 1820s. This material was only detected with PLM, so the pigment should be considered as most likely present, but unconfirmed.
- Analysis of a sample of the white paint unambiguously confirmed the presence of zinc white, not commonly available until about 1825.
(Skipping a lot here....)
- In summary, the McCrone Associates’ analyses determined that the codex was created some time after 1874, using materials not available until the late 19th century, on a parchment substrate dating from
about the middle of the 16th century."
Abigail Quandt's analysis:
- The surface of every leaf was intentionally abraded or scraped very heavily on both sides, presumably in an attempt to remove an older text.
- After the sheets were trimmed to size, the next step was to color the edges with a brownish-black liquid. This coloring solution may have been applied, first, to hide the evidence of the reused parchment having been
freshly cut with a knife, and second, to mimic the appearance of many Byzantine manuscripts, whose edges are
often charred from exposure to a fire.
Again, there is much, much more.
Note, specifically, that fresh cuts can be detected. Such are part of the Voynich-faked-it theory.
The essence of it all is that professionals working with the MS had already suspected that it could be a fake.
The final answer had to come from a detailed forensic analysis, which clearly indicated known aspects of modern fakes.
These are notoriously absent in the Voynich MS.
Note also that Abigail Quandt, one of the authors, has herself also studied the Voynich MS in some detail.
The text analysis positively identifies the text version in this MS as a copy of an 1860 edition of the Greek New Testament by Philipp Buttmann. This is also a very interesting read. Unfortunately, a similar analysis is not possible for the Voynich MS.
There are a few publications related to it, and I am using "Chicago’s “Archaic Mark” (ms 2427) II, Microscopic, Chemical and Codicological Analyses Confirm Modern Production", by Margaret M. Mitchell, Joseph G. Barabe and Abigail B. Quandt. Novum Testamentum 52 (2010) 101-133.
I cannot put this online due to copyright, but I can send out a few copies to interested people (PM me) as fair use. Note that this is the same Joe Barabe of McCrone who studied the Voynich MS, and this was also performed around the same time.
Online one may find further descriptions by Stephen C. Carlson, who did a critical text analysis, not included in this paper.
To summarise:
This MS includes the Gospel of Mark and was listed as 14th century with a question mark. Suspicions that it might not be a genuine old MS had arisen over time, by people studying it.
Earlier analyses in 1989 had indicated the presence of a modern pigment: Prussian Blue, first invented in 1704.
However, it was not certain if this was part of the original painting, or part of a later restoration.
In 2008 the MS was sent to McCrone, and was sampled in order to investigate precisely this question.
One sheet was also radio-carbon dated with a result of 1461 - 1640 at 95%. That is: a full 180-year range.
Some summaries of phrases from the McCrone analysis, again not to violate copyright:
- the sampling was performed under a stereomicroscope at 7.5 x magnification, to be sure that we were taking only original paint, not later restorations. Using this method we saw no evidence of retouching of any kind in the manuscript.
- The paint samples were analyzed by several methods, among others PLM, ED, SEM, XRD, and Raman spectroscopy
- Different shades of blue paint were sampled and the dominant blue pigment in the miniatures is Prussian blue. This was invented in 1704 and was commercially available by the 1720s.
- We also found trace amounts of synthetic ultramarine blue, a pigment only available commercially since the late 1820s. This material was only detected with PLM, so the pigment should be considered as most likely present, but unconfirmed.
- Analysis of a sample of the white paint unambiguously confirmed the presence of zinc white, not commonly available until about 1825.
(Skipping a lot here....)
- In summary, the McCrone Associates’ analyses determined that the codex was created some time after 1874, using materials not available until the late 19th century, on a parchment substrate dating from
about the middle of the 16th century."
Abigail Quandt's analysis:
- The surface of every leaf was intentionally abraded or scraped very heavily on both sides, presumably in an attempt to remove an older text.
- After the sheets were trimmed to size, the next step was to color the edges with a brownish-black liquid. This coloring solution may have been applied, first, to hide the evidence of the reused parchment having been
freshly cut with a knife, and second, to mimic the appearance of many Byzantine manuscripts, whose edges are
often charred from exposure to a fire.
Again, there is much, much more.
Note, specifically, that fresh cuts can be detected. Such are part of the Voynich-faked-it theory.
The essence of it all is that professionals working with the MS had already suspected that it could be a fake.
The final answer had to come from a detailed forensic analysis, which clearly indicated known aspects of modern fakes.
These are notoriously absent in the Voynich MS.
Note also that Abigail Quandt, one of the authors, has herself also studied the Voynich MS in some detail.
The text analysis positively identifies the text version in this MS as a copy of an 1860 edition of the Greek New Testament by Philipp Buttmann. This is also a very interesting read. Unfortunately, a similar analysis is not possible for the Voynich MS.