14.

16 Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of

Mediterranean Marbles
N Herz and E Garrison, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

14.16.1
14.16.2
14.16.3
14.16.3.1
14.16.3.1.1
14.16.3.1.2
14.16.3.1.3
14.16.3.2
14.16.3.2.1
14.16.3.2.2
14.16.3.2.3
14.16.3.2.4
14.16.3.2.5
14.16.4
14.16.5
References

Foreword
Types of Fakes
Determining Marble Provenance
Analytical Techniques
Stable isotope methodology
Electron paramagnetic resonance/electron spin resonance
A note on the use of CL in marbles
Case Studies
Excavations at Cyrene
Cyrene revisited
Deconstructing Antonia
Aphrodite
Aphrodite in the National Gallery of Art
Testing Authenticity
Summary

Now you must realize something, he said. I cant prove a painting

is genuine . . . All I do is try to prove its a fake. (Ken Follett, The
Modigliani Scandal)

14.16.1

Foreword

A catalog of a leading dealer in antiquities prominently features

a beautiful Greek marble statue of the goddess Aphrodite,
allegedly a fourth-century BC Hellenistic masterpiece. No real
provenance is given, only a statement regarding where it has
been for the past 100 years or so and this often turns out to be
the attic, basement, or closet of a Swiss chateau. The dealer has
documents that attest to this past history and also include a 21year-old report by a prominent art historian (AH) (now sadly
deceased) who vetted the statue. The Swiss find-spot removes
the embarrassing possibility of the alleged country of origin,
say Greece, Italy, or Turkey, going to court claiming Aphrodite,
if she is authentic, to be a stolen national treasure. Moreover,
Swiss law until recently made it almost impossible to repatriate
any antiquity.
In our hypothetical case, years later, Aphrodite is attacked
by an AH as a twentieth-century AD Neapolitan flea-market
fake. Discretion being the greater part of valor, the museum
removes the marble from exhibit and sends it to the basement
or to the conservation labs (often the same place) where more
analytical work will be done.
While the outside world waits breathlessly, scientists and
AHs will be testing the authenticity of our statue. High authorities may then make a decision that draws the curtain on a
chapter in the life of our statue, which may or may not be the
final word. It may rejoin the museum collections or it may go

Treatise on Geochemistry 2nd Edition

241
242
243
243
244
244
246
246
246
246
247
249
250
251
251
252

back to the basement. Arguments for and against will continue

because, unless excavated by a known archeologist or given a
well-documented and verifiable pedigree, the marble will suffer a stormy existence as the subject of fierce debates. Until
recently, these debates were settled by art connoisseurs, but
today with extensive databanks available, more and more reliance is placed on petrographic and geochemical analysis.
The moral of the story: the authenticity of an undocumented piece of art is often a work in progress.
Even if judged to be authentic, some discerning eye might
note that the piece consisted of several broken fragments, each
made of a different marble. The debate then changes
completely; it becomes one of definitions. Aphrodite has entered the realm of the pastiche where each of her parts has to be
judged separately: some may be classical Greek or Roman,
some Renaissance or even later. Some fragments might have
been collected and assembled by a sculptor who filled in the
missing pieces according to his own tastes and training. So the
age of the statue on exhibit might range, according to its
individual fragments, from fourth-century BC to twenty-first
century AD and although an AH might call it classical Greek, it
was actually produced by a latter-day Italian artisan, who assembled the pieces inspired by his own imagination.
The first opinions on the authenticity of a sculpture or a
painting are given by art connoisseurs and historians, who
often base their arguments on a gut feeling. Of course, the
gut feelings have been honed by years of experience working
with authentic, as well as fake collections, but not surprisingly,
the authorities do not always agree and strong differences of
opinion can arise. The final decision on authenticity accepted
by the scholarly community is often the one expressed most

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-095975-7.01218-3

241

242

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

eloquently and with the greatest conviction. Since hard information (a.k.a. facts) is rarely available, conclusions may be
reached that later prove erroneous.
Fakes of all types ranging from late Stone Age Venus figures
to allegedly newly discovered Salvador Dalis wend their ways
into, and out of, great museums as opinions change or new
information is uncovered. Determining the provenance and
nature of materials can discredit a piece or it can merely fall
out of favor with its adherents: AHs or museum curators and
directors. In many cases of revealed fakes, upon closer examination the decisions to accept them as authentic had been
driven by preconception or expectations.
Proving authenticity by preconception, gut feeling or connoisseurship is risky business. Take the work of the Rembrandt
commission (Koning, 1986). The commissions charge has
been to study all art works claimed to be Rembrandts and
judge if done by (a) Rembrandts hand, (b) one of his students,
or (c) someone else. Given the enormous number of extant
works, without question many alleged Rembrandts do not
belong in category (a). The New York Customs Bureau listed
9428 (!) works by the master imported into the United States
between 1909 and 1951 alone.
The Rembrandt commission started its work relying only on
connoisseurship but their experience showed a growing disillusionment with that approach. The fallibility of connoisseurship
on the one hand, and growing confidence in technical innovations on the other meant that by 1996. The means of connoisseurship will be deployed with the greatest possible reserve and
only when all other arguments have been exhausted and have
not led to a defensible hypothesis or (as occurs rarely) actual
proof. For the remainder of the project the director will call upon
a wider range of specialists, including more technical specialists.
Unless it was excavated from an archeological site, factual
information is generally lacking for classical Greek and Roman
marble and even for later artistic creations, such as who were
the artists, and where and when did they work. Conclusions
may be reached that later prove to be in error. Can science
provide a better approach to authenticity? Contrary to allegations and expectations, science is not infallible and different
scientific methodologies have shortcomings when applied to a
specific problem. No scientific test can securely prove that a
work of art was produced by a certain artist at an alleged past
time. To do so, eyewitness accounts are necessary, or better yet
the word of the artist. Unfortunately, neither is available for
anything more than a few decades old. If science cannot prove
authenticity, what exactly can it do?
Scientific tests pay no attention to sculptural style or to
esthetic judgment, which is rightfully left to the connoisseurs
and AHs. Ashmole (1961), a distinguished AH in his own right
but one who also relied much on scientific tests, quoted a talk
given by George Ortiz at the Getty Museum. Ortiz made no
concession to science. He listed the three fundamentals of
connoisseurship:
1. esthetics, the recognition of quality in art,
2. ability to discern authenticity, and
3. straightforward knowledge.
It is a personal reaction; it comes from taste; it comes from
accoutumance, being used to things, being acquainted with
them, and it is instinctive. It is like falling in love. I cannot

give you a formula for falling in love. My approach to this

question has to be entirely intuitive. However, like falling in
love, which can be blamed on blinding by emotion, bad mistakes are often made.
Therefore, in working with classical marble be forewarned
that most connoisseur opinions are not backed by scientific
data. Remember that sadly the truth is malleable and subject
to change.

14.16.2

Types of Fakes

Just defining exactly what is a fake turns out to be a very

difficult exercise. Fabricating a document, work of art, genealogy, or curriculum vitae to make it something more valuable than it is has a long and distinguished history. The
boundary between fake and original fades the farther back
in time we go. The British Museum has a document in its
collections dating back to ancient Sumerian times, 2000 BC,
which purports to be a land grant. The grant was spurious,
made for purposes of embezzlement, but that of course does
not lessen the value of the artifact. Copying older ceramics
by later generations of potters may have started in ancient
Mesopotamia and China and has continued unabated in
almost every culture and time. The world might have
known which marble was the Roman copy and which the
Greek original, but this information is lost after only a few
decades.
A number of celebrated ancient Greek sculptors produced
works have been greatly admired and copied for over 2000
years. The first art histories were written by the Greeks in the
early third century BC, which helped establish the importance
of authenticity in art. Plinys Naturalis Historia described the
works of the Greek masters, recording their masterpieces, and
making them well known to the general public as well as to
aspiring imitators. Faking was widely established by Roman
times judging by the warning against it by the poet Phaedrus
(c. 15 BC50 AD), who joked about fakes in his translation of
a fable by Aesop.
The Romans admired Greek statuary to the greatest degree
possible, and expressed their admiration by carrying off everything they could lay their hands on. Emperor Neros visit to the
oracle at Delphi was not so much to pay his respects as reportedly to make off with 500 choice statues.
By the first century BC, the supply of appropriated Greek
masterpieces was waning but public demand, if anything, was
still growing. Since the market was expanding but lacking
original works of art, Roman dealers imported Greek artists
who were well trained in their schools of sculpture. The output
of copies was so vast that in fact today much Roman art is
recognized as having been produced by Greek artists and many
Greek originals are known only through their Roman copies
(Richter, 1970, p. 177).
Although many copies were made by the pointing process
and so turned out to be almost perfect reproductions, many
AHs insist that the differences between the Greek originals and
Roman copies can still be told. Some of the criteria for distinguishing between them are that the copies missed the imperceptible variety that gave them life or that the modeling is cold
and lifeless (Richter, 1970, p. 179).

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

Although today revealed copies are clearly labeled as such

in most museums, many remain great benchmarks of art history in lieu of the original work. Thus, Roman copies of Greek
originals are accepted as equivalent to the true works of
the Greek masters. Robert Cohon, curator of the Classical
Collections of the Nelson-Atkins Museum, estimated that art
historical scholarship and scientific tests each contribute equally
to the authentication process. Some scholars bemoan the fact
that much of the sport is gone when science intrudes with
sophisticated analyses and especially when its conclusions
are accepted over the discerning eye of the connoisseur.
Nonetheless, Cohon, as many museum curators today, appreciates this sentiment but welcomes assistance from science to
the anti-forgery arsenal: A little bit of the glamour has been
taken away, he acknowledges but Me? I take hard science
over glamour any day (2001, 2003).
One of the more popular methods to develop a convincing
ancient-looking patina is to bury the marble in a backyard
for a few months, preferably near to or in the chicken coop,
where cooperative chickens leave gobs of chicken poop.
The reddish-brown patina that subsequently develops looks
exactly what you would expect on a marble object buried in
soil for a few centuries and fools even the most highly trained
eye. The barnyard patina is best exposed in a chemical laboratory where analysis might show it to be loaded with urea
compounds.
Urea compound weathering is still a standard for fakers.
Hughes (1997), the art critic of Time Magazine, recalled
meeting an innkeeper in August 1964 while motorbiking
through Tuscany where he had gone to explore the art of the
Renaissance in crumbling churches and decrepit abbeys. One
fine morning the innkeeper, who ran a side business in fake
bronzes suggested to Hughes, Lets go piss on the gods. It
turned out that a crop of bronzes had been buried in a shallow
trench behind the inn where their patina was developing,
helped by the daily addition of human urea.

14.16.3

Determining Marble Provenance

Today, there exist a battery of what has been termed

multimethod analyses that can be used to determine marble
provenance (Van Keuren et al., 2010). These analyses can
include petrographic study, luminescence analysis (of dolomitic marbles, in particular), electron spin resonance (ESR)
spectroscopy (again, of dolomitic impurities), and stable isotope analysis of the carbon and oxygen found in the carbonate
minerals of marbles (Attanasio, 1999, 2003; Barbin et al.,
1992; Herz, 1987; Herz and Garrison, 1998). In this chapter,
we focus on the use of stable isotopes, primarily, in determining marble provenance.
The first scientific test for classical Greek and Roman marbles should be to determine the source of the stone. Most
practitioners of the gut-feeling approach either ignore this
basic fact or identify the marble source by eye. This has proven
difficult and often incorrect, especially since the ancients selectively quarried only the purest white marbles for their important monuments. Misidentifications abound: statues found on
the island of Thasos were incorrectly identified as from Paros,
the Getty kouros was first called Pentelic (from Attica to prove

243

the authorities opinions) or Naxian but it is also Thasian,

which upset the authorities. Since the major Eastern Mediterranean quarries were worked at known times in antiquity
(Dworakowska, 1975, 1983), correct identification of the marble source can help determine: (1) limiting dates of fabrication
of an object, (2) trading patterns, and (3) changing esthetic
tastes. This information can help detect forgeries if an inappropriate marble was used, for example, Roman Carrara marble
used for an alleged Greek Hellenistic statue.
Of all the tests proposed for determination of provenance,
analysis of stable oxygen and carbon isotopes has proven to be
the most powerful to identify marble sources. Because data
banks have been established and the sample size required for
analysis is so small and not destructive of the object (most
modern mass spectrometers need less than 200 mg), isotopic
analysis is now the most widely used system to establish provenance and test authenticity. The use of stable isotopic signatures, first suggested by Craig and Craig (1972), uses isotopic
patterns plotted on a d18Od13C diagram for identifying quarry
sources. The widespread acceptance of the method awaited the
development of extensive databases of ancient quarries; these
now exist making the method viable.

14.16.3.1

Analytical Techniques

Examining a marble should begin with a hand lens and a

microscope. Databases exist for accessory minerals and physical features for each classical marble quarry. The carbonate
mineral either calcite or dolomite is noted and should comprise well over 95% in statuary marble. Other features determined are maximum grain size and the kind and the amount
of accessory minerals such as micas and iron sulfides. These
simple determinations of accessory minerals can often help
identify a marble source (Capedri and Venturelli, 2004;
Stastna, et al., 2011).
Next might be more detailed physical and chemical analysis
if a thin section is available. If the marble is ancient, it should
display weathering patterns that show a transition from the
surface to the fresh interior. These studies are done with a
petrographic microscope or scanning electron microscope. If
authentic, the surface should show signs of disintegration:
opening up of spaces between crystals, allowing penetration
of rust colors, and other stains and lichens. Old root marks
leave a discolored surface not easy to remove by soaking in
water. Authentic weathering patterns vary irregularly over the
exposed surface whereas forgeries may cover the whole surface,
front and back. Fakers also rework ancient marble pieces and,
indeed, there is a thriving trade in blocks recovered from
unloading accidents, especially around the ancient Roman
docks on the Tiber River or from shipwrecks.
Since these simple tests often fail to determine marble
sources, a variety of physical analyses have been proposed.
Rybach and Nissen (1965) first tried trace elements to characterize Greek marbles. They found that the method was not
satisfactory because the trace elements varied by factors of
over 100 within the same quarry. Trace element studies of
archeological materials generally require many samples and a
statistical handling of the data to overcome the inherent variability in the material. Therefore, the chances of characterizing
a single artifact by trace element analysis appeared remote.

244

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

Statistical treatment of trace elemental analyses has improved the discriminating powers of the method (Mello and
Monna 1988; Moens et al., 1988). Other systems that show
promise include Sr isotopic ratios (Herz et al., 1982), which
appear to vary significantly between the classical quarries
tested, and cathodoluminescence (CL) of white marble
(Barbin et al., 1992). More than 500 white marble samples
from known quarrying areas in Greece, Turkey, and Italy have
now been analyzed and a cathodomicrofacies database has
been compiled (Herz, 1992). Some marbles that could not be
distinguished by isotopic signatures alone can be identified by
addition of these ancillary techniques.
Two of the most important techniques supported by extensive databases are stable isotope ratios of oxygen and carbon
and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR), discussed below.
EPR spectroscopy, also known as ESR spectroscopy, of Mn2
has been extensively studied and can now be used as a provenance discriminant for marble (Attanasio, 1999, 2003).

in very small samples of different isotopic masses of several

elements. In the newer, state-of-the-art machines, less than
5 mg of sample are needed for an analysis. The precise measurement of the isotopic ratios 18O/16O and 13C/12C in marble
is carried out after suitable chemical treatment has separated
these elements in the form of CO2 from the calcium carbonate.
After the measurements by the mass spectrometer, the data are
expressed as a deviation from a conventional standard, called
d, expressed as d13C or d18O, measured in parts per thousand
(or per mil, %) and calculated as follows:
d% R sample=R standard  11000
where R C/12C or 18O/16O.
Thus, if marble has a d18O 10%, the isotopic ratio of the
oxygen is ten parts per thousand enriched in the heavy isotope
18
O compared to the standard. The isotopic variability data are
usually expressed as a scatter plot of d18O and d13C values
(Figure 1). For a signature to be viable, it must be uniform
throughout an artifact and relatively uniform in a quarry.
Carbon and oxygen isotopes have been found to meet these
requirements.
Isotopic databases for Early Bronze Age Cycladic marble
(Herz and Doumas, 1990) and for classical marble (Attanasio
et al., 2006; Herz, 1985, 1987) have been compiled. The classical marble database is made up of analyses from 42 quarries,
which include the principal marble sources of classical Greece
and Rome. By comparison to the isotopic data of the quarries,
the provenance of many marble artifacts can be determined.
The data plots are widely used but where quarries show an
overlap in values, ancillary data may be needed. EPR is the
favored ancillary technique used today for provenance studies.
13

14.16.3.1.1 Stable isotope methodology

The most widely used system today for determining provenance is that of stable isotopic signatures, first suggested by
Craig and Craig (1972), which uses isotopic patterns plotted
on a d18Od13C diagram for identifying quarry sources. The
widespread acceptance of the method awaited the development of extensive databases of ancient quarries that now exist
and make the method viable (Attanasio et al., 2006; Herz,
1985, 1987; Herz and Doumas, 1990).
Oxygen, carbon, and strontium are abundant in marbles.
All three vary in isotopic ratios in different rocks depending on
their geological histories (Faure, 1986). Uniform isotopic compositions, a necessary feature for archeological signatures, have
been found to obtain over wide areas especially if the marble
unit is homogeneous preferably almost pure carbonate and
thick. Stone quarries are generally opened only where these
conditions are met.
Measurements of stable isotopic ratios are carried out with a
mass spectrometer, an instrument that measures proportions

14.16.3.1.2 Electron paramagnetic resonance/electron spin

resonance
Electron paramagnetic resonance also known as electron spin
resonance is a spectroscopic technique that detects and characterizes the magnetic (paramagnetic) centers present in different
materials (Garrison, 2003; Figure 2). Magnetic centers are

6
Paros

5
Ephesos

d13C ()

Marmara
Thasos

Pentelikon

Doliana

Aphrodisias

Doliana

Naxos

Naxos

Carrara
Hymettos

1
Ephesos

Ephesos

0
-1
-11

-10

-9

-8

-7

-6

-5
d18O

Figure 1 Stable isotope variation diagram of classical marbles.

-4

-3

-2

-1

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

Pen
recorder

Detector crystal
Attenuator

100 kHz
signal
amplifier

Klystron

Klystron
power
supply
Automatic
frequency
control

Magnet
power
supply

Iris
100 kHz
modulation
coils

245

100 kHz
signal
detector

Circulator (magic tee)

Waveguide
Sample cavity
Sample tube

Field
scan
drive
Electromagnet
100 kHz
power
amplifier

100 kHz
oscillator

3000

3200

3400

3600

3800

Figure 2 ESR spectrometer diagram and example spectra of Mn hyperfine splitting observed in a flint. Reproduced from Garrison E (2003)
Techniques in Archaeological Geology. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

those associated with unpaired electrons, which behave as

microscopic magnets capable of assuming different orientations in space. The orientations of unpaired electrons are randomly distributed and do not normally differ in energy
(degenerate levels) (Herz and Garrison, 1998).
In the presence of an external magnetic field, however, this
degeneracy is removed and two possible orientations of a
single unpaired electron (Zeeman splitting), parallel and antiparallel to the field, are available and no longer equivalent and
their energy differs by a quantity that is proportional to the
intensity of the field (Leute, 1987). By irradiating the sample
with electromagnetic radiation of a suitable frequency, it is
possible to induce transitions between different energy states,
producing a spectrum that is characteristic of the material
under examination. The methodology and the physical laws
that control ESR are in many ways similar to those that are
valid for nuclear magnetic resonance, which uses the spin
transitions of the hydrogen nucleus in a form of spectroscopy
important in diagnostic medicine.

The ESR spectrum has much information, which can be

quantified in at least ten parameters. In provenance studies,
certain combinations are selected by laboratory protocol that
then compares them to databanks. Six different, although correlated, variables were obtained from the spectra. They are: the
dolomitic content (DOLOM), the spectral intensity (INTENS),
the spectral integral (INTEGR), the linewidth (Way,), the doublet splitting (SPLI), and the total extension of the spectrum
(SPREAD). Some of these variables do not correspond to conventionally defined spectroscopic quantities. However, they
are conveniently used and probable source quarries can be
identified.
Dolomite is the double carbonate MgCa(CO3)2 occurring
regularly in marbles. Magnesium substitutes, as an impurity
atom, not only for Mn2 but also for Ca2 as well, the substitution ratio being variable (Figure 2). This has been studied
by Sommer (1972) in CL in carbonates. This means that
the variable DOLOM, although related to the amount of
dolomite present in the sample, does not coincide with it

246

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

(Attanasio, 1999). An additional reason for stressing this point

is that the variable value is obtained by measuring peak intensities and not integrals, as is typically done. Similar problems
arise with the variable INTENS. In this case, the choice of the
low-field line of the high-field doublet of Mn hyperfine splitting is made simply on the basis of better line resolution and
higher and the easily measured linewidth. This keeps the data
collecting process as simple as possible. To make a more
certain identification of provenance, combining the results of
EPR analysis with those obtained from stable isotope analysis
has resulted in a high degree of success.

14.16.3.1.3 A note on the use of CL in marbles

Remond et al. (1992) presented a comprehensive review of the
use of CL to the characterization of carbonates, and Barbin
et al. (1992) extended this to white marbles. CL studies have
divided white marbles into three major families based on their
luminescent properties. Calcitic marbles yield two dominant
colors orange or blue, while dolomitic marbles yield a red
luminescence. By combining CL with grain size studies and
stable isotope and EPR analyses, finer distinctions between
marbles and their sources can be ascertained.
The orange luminescence family of marbles contains examples from quarries such as Mount Pentelikon and Thasos on
mainland Greece; Paros, Naxos, and Pteleos in the Aegean
islands; Carrara and Lasa in Italy; and Dokimeion in Turkey.
Figure 3 illustrates the orange CL of a white marble.
Blue luminescensing marbles are less easy to classify because the origin of this CL is not well understood. The emission
is observed in marbles with manganese present in the calcite at
levels below 5 ppm. Red luminescence occurs in dolomitic
marbles such as those of Crevola, Italy; Villette, France; and
Naxos, Greece.

14.16.3.2

Case Studies

14.16.3.2.1 Excavations at Cyrene

Excavations carried out in the Sanctuary of Demeter at Cyrene
in modern Libya by the University Museum of the University of
Pennsylvania over a 10-year period unearthed 724 sculptural
pieces. Eighty-nine percent were made of marble; the rest were
of limestone, despite the fact that all the marble had to be
imported (White, 1981). Since no marble is found in the
region, determining the provenance of the uncovered marbles
would yield valuable information on the commercial history
of the site.

Figure 3 Orange cathodoluminescence in white marble.

In 1985, a collaborative study using stable isotope analysis

combined with stylistic analysis of 61 samples of the sculpture
from the Sanctuary of Demeter yielded information that
helped reconstruct some commercial connections of Cyrene
(Herz et al., 1985). Only six of the samples could not be
assigned a provenance with a reasonable degree of confidence.
Parian marble, the most highly prized sculptural stone of both
the Greeks and the Romans, was used for heads, statues, and
statuettes. Marble from Carrara and Penteli, the first in Roman
and the second in Greek and Hellenistic statuary, was commonly used for torsos, carved in Rome or Attica, and then
shipped to Cyrene where a head was inserted.
The conclusions of this study were that the sources for most
statuary pieces from the Cyrene Demeter Sanctuary could be
identified on the basis of isotopic analysis. This was the first
time that this system of marble identification was tried on such
a large collection. The fact that it proved so successful suggested
that isotopic analysis, already a proven technique for assembly
of fragments of sculpture and inscriptions (Herz and Wenner,
1978), should also be considered in large-scale provenance
studies.

14.16.3.2.2 Cyrene revisited

In the plus 20-year interval of the first study, the EPR analytical
technique was developed to determine the provenance of
classical marble. We knew that isotopic ratio analysis gave
good results, but left many important artifacts unidentified.
The new testing program using a combined approach of isotopic analysis and EPR on samples from the Sanctuary of Demeter
was appropriate for comparison to the previous study. In
Table 1, taken from Attanasio et al. (2007), using discriminant
function analysis of 12 isotopic, EPR and petrographic variables, the 22 sculptures provenance were reassessed.
The new study refined the distribution. The most striking
change was the reassignment of the samples from a Carrara
provenance to Paros. This preserved the predominantly Greek
nature of the city. These reassignments to a Parian provenance
solved the problem of a long-standing unknown marble type,
postulated to be from a missing island between Thasos and
Proconnessus. The Paros/Chorodaki Valley marble quarries
were largely missing from the earlier Parian database and
supplied much more stone than previously thought. A conclusion of the new study is that stable isotope analysis and ESR
used in conjunction are best for most accurately determining
marble provenance (Attanasio et al., 2007).

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

247

Table 1
Summary of EPR/morphological, isotopic, and final provenance for 22 reassessed marble sculptures from the Sanctuary of Demeter and
Persephone at Cyrene
Label

EPR/provenance

Isotopic provenance

Final assignment

SK1
SK2
SK3
SK4
SK5
SK6
SK7
SK8
SK9
SK10
SK11
SK12
SK13
SK14
SK15
SK16
SK17
SK18
SK19
SK20
SK21
SK22

Pa/Ma
Thassos
Pa/Chor; Pa/Ma
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor; Pa/Ma
Pa/Chor
Pa/Chor
Pa/Ma
Pentelikon
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor
Thassos D
Pentelikon; Carrara
Pa/Ma
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor; Pa/Ma
Pa/Ma
Thassos D

Pa/Ma
Pa/Chor
Pa/Chor
Afyon
Pa/Chor
Pa/Chor
Pa/Chor
Pa/Chor
Pentelikon
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor
Afyon
Pa/Chor
Thassos D
Pentelikon
Pa/Ma
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor
Pa/Ma
Thassos D

Pa/Ma
Pa/Chor
Pa/Chor
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor
Pa/Chor
Pa/Chor
Pa/Chor
Pentelikon
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor
Thassos D
Pentelikon
Pa/Ma
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor
Pentelikon
Pa/Chor
Pa/Ma
Thassos D

Abstracted from Table 3; Attanasio et al. (2007).

Pa/Ma, Paros/Marathi; Pa/Chor, Paros/Chorodaki.

14.16.3.2.3 Deconstructing Antonia

Antonia Minor, a distinguished Roman lady, had a most remarkable pedigree. Born around 35 BC, died 37 AD, she
seemed to be related in one way or another to all the important
people of the empire. Because she was depicted on numerous
coins and in marble and bronze portraits, there is no question
of what she looked like. Such fine details as how she arranged
her hair and wore her clothes and how those fashions changed
as she grew older is well documented and dated by the coins.
Each time a new hairstyle appeared in ponytail, hair loops, or
braided knots the women of the Empire followed suit, establishing a hair chronology that allows AHs to date or authenticate much Roman statuary. However, one Antonia, the Wilton
House, which happens to be among her best-known marble
portraits, has a serious problem (Figure 4; Erhart, 1978).
The marble was brought into England to become part of the
Arundel collection, the oldest collection of antiquities in the
country. In 1678, the collection was broken up and Antonia
was brought to Wilton House where it rested for over two
centuries.
In 1972, the portrait was purchased by a fund in memory of
John Randolph Coleman III, Harvard College Class of 1964,
and given to the university where it rests today in Harvards
Fogg Museum (Figure 4).
In 1978, Patricia Erhart, then an Assistant Professor of Art
History at the University of Georgia, published an exhaustive
study of the iconography of Antonia Minor in which she
tabulated numerous sculptural, numismatic, and engraved
portraits in museums and private collections in Europe and
North America. Since Antonia closely matches the many coin
portraits struck by her son the Emperor Claudius, there is little
argument over her identification.

The Fogg Museum Antonia appears to be on solid ground

iconographically. However, serious problems have arisen because the marble is a pastiche, that it was apparently assembled
from several broken pieces. The head itself has been considered
authentic but the authenticity of the other fragments comprising the bust has been hotly disputed. In order to firmly establish how much if any part of their prize possession was
actually a true product of ancient Rome, between April and July
of 1973, the Fogg undertook a complete cleaning and examination of Antonia under the supervision of Arthur Beale, then
Chief of Conservation of the Museum.
The three major pieces of the bust are: (1) the head and
neck down to the break on the lower neck, (2) the part of the
bust above a diagonal break running from the left shoulder to
below the right breast, and (3) the part of the bust in two pieces
including the name Antonia below the diagonal break. Other
smaller pieces of the bust include the nose, ponytail, and ears.
AHs who studied the portrait and pronounced judgment on
the separate parts were not of one mind regarding their
authenticity.
Antonias parts were subjected to various tests at the Fogg
Museum Conservation laboratory including:
1. Observation under ultraviolet (UV) light. In a pastiche,
pieces that belong together will generally show the same
reaction to UV light, that is, they will glow with the same
colors and intensity. Only slight differences in glow colors
were seen between the different parts of the bust so the test
was considered inconclusive.
2. Chemical analysis. Samples were taken with a 1/800 silicon
carbide drill from the three major parts of the bust and
analyzed by an emission spectrograph for major and trace

248

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

restoration was made some considerable time ago, perhaps as

long as several 100 years.
Turning to the most difficult question of all, does the right
shoulder and breast really belong to the head or not, the
previous studies left three distinct possibilities:
1. the piece is a completely modern restoration;
2. the piece is ancient and was an original part of Antonia; and
3. the piece is ancient but was part of another statue not
related to this Antonia.
II * I
* III
*

Figure 4 Portrait of Antonia Minor. Locations for isotopic analyses

indicated by Roman numerals.

elements. The tests made in 1973 suggested a variation in

amounts of different trace elements but the amounts did
not appear to be significant. In December 1977, the tests
were repeated with the same disappointing results. All samples were similar, with each containing major amounts of
calcium and trace iron, magnesium, aluminum, and
silicon.
3. Petrographic analysis. Samples were analyzed with a polarizing microscope and all found to be composed of calcite.
No conclusions could be drawn from any of these laboratory tests. The question of which parts of Antonia were truly
Roman and which were added later would have to await testing
by new or improved analytical techniques.
Erhart made a detailed stylistic study of each part of the
bust. The tool work on the backs confirmed the suspicion that
some pieces were unrelated. A point chisel was used for rough
carving on the back of the piece with soft drapery while the one
with angular drapery was done by a gouge tool. She concluded
that the part of the bust that includes the right shoulder and
breast and features soft natural folds and was carved with great
care by a point chisel is ancient. Conversely, the part including
the left shoulder and breast area carved by hard gouge work is a
modern restoration.
The restored piece itself is in two pieces joined by a visible
resinous binder judged to be twentieth century. This suggests
that the original repair that held the ancient and the modern
restored piece together had broken, allowing the latter to fall
and break in two. The twentieth-century binder was also used
for the smaller restorations for the ears, nose, and ponytail.
However, the overall patina suggests that the modern

Although all agreed on the authenticity of the head, it has its

own problems. At some time in the past, it was heavily cleaned
mechanically with an abrasive and possibly chemically as well
with an acid solution. The acid treatment is suggested by the
evenness of pitting scarring the otherwise smooth places of
the face as well as by the loss of light reflected from the surface.
The portrait must have been badly weathered and stained to be
subjected to suffer such indignities. Vestiges of weathering can
still be seen in small places on the original surface.
Antonia was a prime candidate for isotopic testing. In fact,
she was the first marble portrait to be analyzed isotopically,
which was, in short, testing of both the method and Antonia
to see if this could solve the important problem of assembly
of the broken fragments into a complete bust. Art historical
stylistic analysis had only ended up with disagreement among
recognized experts. Hence, in the spring of 1979 at the request
of Pat Erhart and with the approval of the Fogg Museum,
Antonia was disassembled, and samples were collected
of fresh marble from each critical piece and analyzed for
isotopic signatures of carbon and oxygen. Questions to be
answered were:
1. The head: was it truly ancient? If so then as the most
significant part of the portrait, Antonia must be considered
basically authentic whether or not the rest of her is a pastiche. The AH vote was unanimous for authentic.
2. The nose: all AHs agreed the nose was modern. Nose destruction is a common fate for many classical marbles that
lost their noses either through the ravages of time or by a
deliberate act of vandalism; that appendage sadly is the
easiest one to destroy. The act was commonly done at
various times: in Roman, if the person was officially cursed,
in early Christian if the marble was considered idolatrous,
by an overzealous restorer wanting to improve on the depredations of weathering and burial. Nose repair was a popular pastime especially from Renaissance times onwards.
The ponytail and ears: disagreement over the ponytail
especially. A clear break and repair can be seen so it could
have been broken off and later repaired.
3. The left shoulder: the AH vote was four to one for modern.
4. The left breast area: the AH also thought this part was
modern by three to two.
5. The right lower half: the AH vote was again four to one but
this time for ancient. One AH added that even if it was
ancient, it was not related to the head. He was the only
one who thought so.
Antonias problems would make a good test for the validity
of isotopic analysis. If two fragments were originally part of the
same figure, then they should have similar isotopic values. The
total variation in a block of marble in any given quarry is

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

different from one block to another but generally very small.

Testing each separate piece of the bust should quickly show
which part of the Roman Antonia was original and which were
later additions. At the time, data banks for stable isotopic ratios
were just starting to be accumulated and included few classical
quarries. However, with luck comparing the results of analysis
of each piece to a classical marble database might allow a
tracing of provenance and give an idea of authenticity, that is,
being ancient or not. That is, of course, if the stones came from
a quarry in the then small database. The analyses have since
been tested against a more modern, up-to-date database, which
has refined the results but not substantially changed them.
The results of isotopic analysis and the possible sources for
each are shown in Table 2. Spots where samples were taken are
shown in Figure 4.
A word on the probable sources:
Paros/lychnites: a pure white crystalline marble par excellence
extracted in underground mine shafts in Roman times.
Because of its rarity and expense, it was reserved for portraits of royalty or of important families.
Sardis, Aphrodisias, and Ephesus: Roman quarries in Anatolia.
Sardis was largely used locally and Ephesus, being of a
lower quality than other white marbles, was used largely
in architecture. Aphrodisias also produced a lower grade
sculptural marble and apparently did export statuary pieces.
Carrara: the workhorse of Roman marbles. Quarry sources in
modern Tuscany produced marble for every possible use
and have operated from the first century BC until today. It
would make a logical choice for repair of a classical statue.
Paros/Chorodaki: varied marbles produced but generally of a
much lower quality than the lychnites. It would probably
not be used for such an important person as Antonia.
Conclusions to be drawn from isotopic and stylistic
analysis:
1. The head is almost certainly made of Parian/lychnites marble and is an authentic ancient product. The AHs were also
unanimous in concluding that the head was ancient.
2. The ponytail, ears, and most probably the nose, are made of
Carrara marble. These could have been modern repairs to
the missing parts of the head. Carrara marble has been
available in Italian workshops for over 2000 years and
would be the marble of choice for repair. The AHs split on
the ponytail but the majority vote by three to one for
modern was the correct one.
3. The left shoulder was also made of Carrara marble and thus
a recent (post-ancient) repair. Again, the majority vote of
four to one agreed with the isotopic analysis that it was
modern.
Table 2

249

4. The left breast is made of Paros/lychnites marble. It is most

probably an ancient piece but taken from a completely
different statue. Both the breast and the head are from the
same source but their isotopic fingerprints are too different
to be from the same marble block. The art historical vote
was three to two for modern. The restoration was modern
but the left breast itself could be of the same vintage as the
original Antonia.
5. The right half of the lower bust is also ancient, made of
Paros/lychnites marble but not related either to the head or
to the left breast. The art historical vote was four to one for
ancient, which is correct, but one AH was more astute than
his colleagues in asserting that it might be ancient but not
related to the head.
Therefore, we are left with the fascinating conclusion that
Antonias portrait is a true pastiche. However, three of its major
parts are ancient, all unrelated to each other (Table 3). Except
for Antonias head, they come from different unknown ancient
statuary, and two parts were modern repairs. Since the portrait
was brought to England in the seventeenth century, the repairs
were carried out sometime before then perhaps during the
Renaissance when that sort of activity became popular to satisfy the growing market for antiquities.
Lessons to be learned from the Antonia study: when AHs
agree on the authenticity of an artifact, they might very well be
correct, but they can also be dead wrong. To help select the
correct hypothesis, scientific analysis should be carried out.

14.16.3.2.4 Aphrodite
More ancient statues survive of the nude Aphrodite the
goddess of love and sex than of any other Greek divinity
(Havelock, 1995). On a scale of one to ten, an Antonia was
probably a two while an Aphrodite was a clear ten. Every
important and many not-so-important sites around the
Mediterranean have yielded numerous reproductions of the
naked goddess. Her sculpted forms were found everywhere
from museums, parks, gardens, palaces, villas to mantelpieces.

Table 3
Final tally on the authenticity of the different parts of Antonia:
art historian vote
Antonia part

Ancient

Modern

Isotopes

Head
Ponytail
Left shoulder
Left breast area
Right lower bust

5
1
1
2
4

0
4
4
3
1

Ancient
Modern
Modern
Ancient
Ancient

Results of isotopic ratio analysis of Antonia

Piece

d13C

d18

Source, % probability

Head
Ponytail
Left shoulder
Left breast
Right half bust

5.14
2.05
2.14
4.58
4.71

3.27
2.55
1.53
2.82
2.53

Paros/lychnites 64, Sardis 6

Carrara/Miseglia 86, Aphrodisias 52
Paros/Chorodaki 87, Carrara 69
Paros/lychnites 41, Sardis 6
Paros/lychnites 12. Ephesus 11

Values in per mil (%) relative to pdb.

250

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

Moreover, the enterprises of fashioning the goddess did not

end with the classical era; Renaissance and later times brought
forth a full flowering of Aphrodites, including those designed
to adorn Medici palaces and, under the guise of the goddess,
for mistresses of the French court to display their nude bodies.
What may have started as pure cult worship evolved into the
longest Playboy caper in history.
Of all the goddesses of ancient times, Aphrodite and her
various avatars was either the most popular or at least a
strong candidate for number one. And for good reason as a
direct descendent of the more ancient Mesopotamian Ishtar
and the Syro-Palestinian Ashtarte to her Greek persona and her
eventual evolution into the Roman Venus, she embodied love
and beauty. The Greeks considered her a goddess of sexual love
borne out of the sea, which carried her either to the island of
Cyprus or Kithera since both claim the honor. Because the
Greek word aphros means foam, the legend arose that
Aphrodite was born from the white foam produced by the
severed genitals of Uranus after his son Cronus threw them
into the sea.
After the birth of Aphrodite, Zeus was afraid that the gods
would fight over her hand so he married her off to the smith
god Hephaestus, the steadiest of all the gods. The smith could
hardly believe his good luck and used all his skills to make the
most lavish jewels for her. He made a girdle of finely wrought
gold and wove magic into the filigree work which turned out
not to be such a very good idea, for him at any rate, for when
she wore her magic girdle no man either god or human could
resist her. Since she was all too irresistible to begin with, she
was destined to spend much of her time philandering with,
among others, the handsome god of war Ares by whom she
became the mother of Harmonia.
Her principal festival was the Aphrodisiac celebrated
throughout Greece, most especially, in Athens and Corinth.
Her priestesses were not prostitutes as alleged but women who
represented the goddess and sexual intercourse with them was
considered an important facet of worship. Although prostitutes
considered Aphrodite their patron, her public cult was generally solemn and even austere.
For many of the ancient Greeks, Aphrodite was more than
only a goddess of carnal love. For the seafaring city states, she
was also a goddess of the sea and of seafarers; for other places
such as Sparta, Thebes, and Cyprus, she was honored as a
goddess of war. However, for much of the ancient world,
Aphrodite remained primarily a goddess of love and fertility.
Many statues of Aphrodite were created. Although the most
famous one today is the beautiful Aphrodite of Melos, better
known as the Venus de Milo, which now stands in the Louvre
in Paris, the most celebrated one in ancient times was carved by
Praxiteles at Knidos. Unfortunately, Praxiteles masterpiece was
later destroyed in a fire and no traces have ever been found by
archeologists.

then they might be of Carrara marble or yet taken from a Greek

quarry since many were still operating. Since the Carrara
quarries only started up about the first century BC, continued
working through the Renaissance, and are still operating today,
all that can be said of Aphrodites carved of that marble is that
they are post-Hellenistic but can be of any age from ancient
Roman to modern.
The National Gallery of Art possesses an Aphrodite whose
pedigree is, as is true of most of her sister replicas, shady
(Figure 5). According to Allison Luchs, Associate Curator of
Sculpture, when first acquired the Museum was told that
the earliest known owner of the torso acquired it as a Greek
work (Luchs, 1969). If true, then this Aphrodite should be
Hellenistic in age and was exhibited as such for many years.
However, the curators were doubtful about such an assignment. While very similar to examples in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art in New York and in the Uffizi, stylistically a
slightly narrower waist and fuller breasts implied a post-Greek
age. Small holes in one arm suggested a pointing technique
was used in the sculptures manufacture, which if true makes
the statue no earlier than 1790. As a result of these concerns,
the official attribution of the work was changed over the years,
from Greek to possibly Hellenistic or Roman.
The NGA Aphrodite was a perfect candidate for isotopic
analysis. If its marble turned out to be Greek, then it could

14.16.3.2.5 Aphrodite in the National Gallery of Art

Scholars of art history have thus categorized copies of
Aphrodite as following the Capitoline or the Medici model or
neither one. If the copies were made more or less contemporaneously with the two models, then they should be Hellenistic
in age and have been carved in a marble taken from an ancient
Greek quarry. However, if they were made in Roman times,

Figure 5 Torso of Aphrodite. National Gallery of Art. Image courtesy of

the National Gallery of Art.

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

very well be Hellenistic. However, if the marble came from an

Italian Carrara quarry, then it could not be Greek but had to be
post-first century BC of any age up to today. Stable isotopic
analysis showed a good match with Carrara, possibly from the
Miseglia marble quarries, and similar to that found in Italian
Renaissance and later works. While this information rules out a
Hellenistic origin, it makes a Roman or later provenance almost certain. Since most Aphrodites in other museums are
generally considered to be Hellenistic based on documents of
acquisition or stylistic grounds, they were considered to be
excellent candidates for isotopic testing.
The National Gallery of Arts Aphrodite had been labeled
Hellenistic, as are most of the Aphrodites scattered in museums
worldwide. After testing revealed it was made of Carrara marble, its official attribution was changed from Greek to possibly
Hellenistic or Roman (Figure 6). By now, many other
Aphrodites have been analyzed isotopically and revealed that
those recovered from archeological sites, such as the one from
Cyrene made of Greek Pentelic marble, may be Hellenistic in
age and close in time to the original by Praxiteles. Many
museum copies of indeterminate archeological provenance,
however, are carved in Carrara marble and thus of indeterminate post-Hellenistic age.
Today, most copies of Aphrodite today are categorized as
following either the Capitoline or the Medici model, the first
now in the Capitoline Museum in Rome, the second in the
Uffizi Galleries in Florence. The two are considered to be
closest to the original Praxiteles and Hellenistic in age. The
Capitoline is made of Parian marble; the Uffizi has not been
analyzed isotopically. Copies carved in marble from quarries
active in ancient Greek times are most probably Hellenistic;
those carved in Italian Carrara marble post-first century BC.

marble, which was only quarried during and after the first
century BC.
Second, for repaired marbles or a pastiche, the principal
pieces including the head should be from the same quarry
source, preferably the same block of marble (Wenner et al.,
1988). The isotopic variation within a marble block of several
cubic centimeters is small, under a few tenths per mil, which
allows correlations of broken fragments.
Third, compare the isotopic signatures of the weathered
marble surface to those of the fresh interior (Margolis, 1989).
Although classical marble statuary has been copied, and much
has been copied many times, a natural weathering patina
cannot be falsified.
Mediterranean white marble varies isotopically from 1%
to 6% for d13C pdb and from 11% to 1% for d18O.
Meteoric water around the latitude of the Cyclades is
d18O   32.4 and ocean water is d18O   29.47 pdb (Faure,
1986; Figure 7). These strongly negative values indicate that
any process of weathering in the region should lead to lower
d18O in the patina of naturally weathered statuary but no great
change in d13C unless there is also a change in the mineralogy
of the patina compared to the fresh marble interior.
During the course of weathering, oxygen will exchange
between fresh marble and meteoric oxygen; dissolution
reprecipitation processes will change isotopic ratios at the marble surface. Depending on the environment and the time of
burial, the isotopic ratios of the weathered marble will change.
The patina of marbles that have undergone natural weathering
over the course of several thousand years should have lighter
oxygen than their unweathered fresher marble interior.

14.16.5
14.16.4

Testing Authenticity

Isotopic analysis provides three tests for falsification of classical

marble. The standard procedure to follow for testing:
First, determine the quarry source of the marble by any
standard geochemical method including isotopic signatures.
Then compare its claimed archeological date to the known
time of operation of the quarry (Herz, 1987). Thus, a thirdcentury BC Hellenistic head cannot be made of Roman Carrara
Aphrodite isotope distribution
6

d13C(pdb)

5
4
3
2
1
0
-8

Carrara
-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

d18O(pdb)
American

European

Greek

Rome

Figure 6 Isotopic fields for the National Gallery of Art torso of

Aphrodite.

251

Summary

Faking of classical Greek and Roman marble has been a profitable enterprise for the past two millennia. Today, authenticating many such marbles turns out to be works in progress as
concepts and experts opinions keep changing. Museums solicit opinions from connoisseurs and AHs, who often base their
arguments on a gut-feeling honed by years of experience but
still strongly subjective. Not surprisingly, the authorities do not
always agree and strong differences of opinion arise. The famous Rembrandt Commission was charged with examining
works of the master and deciding which paintings were by his
hand, which works of his school perhaps by a student, or fake.
After several years of work, they decided that The means of
connoisseurship will be deployed with the greatest possible
reserve and only when all other arguments have been
exhausted . . . In other words, final decisions should also rest
on information obtained by other methods, specifically
scientific.
Unless they were excavated from an archeological site, most
classical statuary lack proof-positive evidence to prove authenticity. Can science fill in the needed gaps? Scientific analysis
cannot prove any object to be authentic but it can furnish
information that should be considered or reconciled with any
final decision on authenticity. Data can be provided on the
source of the marble used and its weathering history, that is,
manmade and probably fake or natural developed over several
thousand years of exposure to the elements. This information

252

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

-2

1.
9
-2 0. 21
-1 9 9. 20
9
-1 8. 19
9
-1 7. 18
-1 9 6. 17
9
-1 5. 16
9
-1 4. 15
9
-1 3. 14
9
-1 2. 13
9
-1 1. 12
9
-1 0. 11
9
-9 -10
.9
-8 -9
.9
-7 -8
.9
-6 -7
.9
-5 -6
.9
-4 -5
.9
-3 -4
.9
-2 -3
.9
2

d18O of annual precipitation

Figure 7 Oxygen isotopic variability across western Europe and Mediterranean (http://wateriso.eas.purdue.edu/waterisotopes/media/IsoMaps/jpegs/
o_Euro/oma_Euro.jpg).

is useful to falsify an object or to help but not prove its

authenticity. To positively authenticate a classical marble,
documented archeological evidence is needed, and this is
rarely available.
In addition to Roman copying of Greek originals, copying
flourished during the Renaissance, the heroic age of crime a
time when forgery and counterfeiting went hand-in-hand with
artistic achievements to reach heights never seen before or since.
Michelangelo was a great contributor to both the artistic heritage
and the refinement of forgery techniques still in use today. For
other related chapters readers should refer to Chapters 5.7, 6.4,
7.9, 8.14, 9.16, 13.3, 14.2, 14.10, 14.11, 14.12 and 15.16.

References
Ashmole B (1961) Forgeries of Ancient Sculpture in Marble: Creation and Detection,
p. 15. Oxford: Blackwell.

Attanasio D (1999) The use of electron spin resonance spectroscopy for determining the
provenance of classical marbles. Applied Magnetic Resonance 16: 383402.
Attanasio D (2003) Ancient White Marbles: Analysis and Identification by Paramagnetic
Resonance Spectroscopy. Rome: LErma di Bretschneider.
Attanasio D, Brilli M, and Ogle N (2006) The Isotopic Signature of Classical Marbles.
Rome: LErma di Bretschneider.
Attanasio D, Kane SE, and Herz N (2007) New isotopic and EPR data for 22 sculptures
from the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene. Bulletin de
Correspondance Hellenique 51(supplement): 215.
Barbin V, Ramseyer K, Decousez D, Burns SJ, Chamay J, and Maier JL (1992)
Cathodoluminescence of white marbles: An overview. Archaeometry 34: 175183.
Capedri S and Venturelli G (2004) Accessory minerals as tracers in the provenancing of
archaeological marbles, used in combination with isotopic and petrographic data.
Archaeometry 46(4): 517536.
Cohon R (2001, 2003) Discovery and Deceit: Fabulous Fakes and a History of Art
Forgery. J.L. Dolice.
Conrads D (1996) The Christian Science Monitor, 1213 October 8.
Craig H and Craig V (1972) Greek marbles: Determination of provenance by isotopic
analysis. Science 176: 401403.
Dworakowska A (1975) Quarries in Ancient Greece. Warsaw: Polish Academy of
Sciences. Institute of the History of Material Culture

Geochemical Methods of Establishing Provenance and Authenticity of Mediterranean Marbles

Dworakowska A (1983) Quarries in Roman Provinces. Warsaw: Polish Academy of

Sciences. Institute of the History of Material Culture.
Erhart P (1978) Antonia Minor. American Journal of Archaeology 211212.
Faure G (1986) Principles of Isotope Geology. New York: Wiley.
Garrison E (2003) Techniques in Archaeological Geology. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Havelock CH (1995) The Aphrodite of Knidos and Her Successors. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Herz N (1985) Isotopic analysis of marble. In: Rapp G Jr. and Gifford JA (eds.)
Archaeological Geology, pp. 331351. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Herz N (1987) Carbon and oxygen isotope ratios: A data base for classical Greek and
Roman marble. Archaeometry 21: 107122.
Herz N (1992) Provenance determination of Neolithic to classical Mediterranean
marbles by stable isotopes. Archaeometry 34(2): 185194.
Herz N and Doumas C (1990) Marble sources in the Aegean Early Bronze Age.
Archeometry 90. Proceedings of the 27th Symposium on Archeometry Heidelberg, pp. 425434. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.
Herz N and Garrison EG (1998) Geological Methods for Archaeology, pp. 271294.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Herz N, Kane SE, and Hayes WB (1985) Isotopic analysis from the Cyrene
Demeter sanctuary. In: England P and van Zelst L (eds.) Application of
Science in Examination of Works of Art, pp. 142150. Boston, MA: Museum of
Fine Arts.
Herz N, Mose DG, and Wenner DB (1982) 87/86Sr ratios: A possible discriminant for
classical marble provenance. Geological Society of America Abstracts with
Programs 14: 514.
Herz N and Wenner DB (1978) Assembly of Greek marble inscriptions by isotopic
methods. Science 199: 10701072.
Hughes RSF (1997) American Visions. Television Series. BBC, Planet 24 Productions,
Time and WNET-13, Boston.
Kamilli DC and Steinberg A (1985) New approaches to mineral analysis of ancient
ceramics. In: Rapp G Jr. and Gifford JA (eds.) Archaeological Geology,
pp. 313330. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Koning H (1986) The real Rembrandt. The Connoisseur 112: 106113 April.
Leute U (1987) Archaeometry: An Introduction to Physical Methods in Archaeology and
the History of Art. Weinheim: VCH.
Luchs A (1969) Torso of Aphrodite 9.1, curatorial records, unpublished. Washington,
DC: National Gallery of Art, 1990.

253

Margolis SV (1989) Authenticating ancient marble sculpture. Scientific American

6: 104110.
Mello O and Monna D (1988) Discriminating sources of Mediterranean marbles:
A pattern recognition approach. Archaeometry 30: 102108.
Moens L, Roos P, De Rudder J et al. (1988) A multimethod approach to the
identification of white marbles used in antique artifacts. In: Herz N and Waelkens M
(eds.), Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade. NATO ASI Series E,
vol. 153, pp. 243250. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Otto K (1967) Fakes Part 6. Stone Sculpture. New York: Dover.
Polikreti K (2007) Detection of ancient marble forgery: Techniques and limitations.
Archaeometry 49: 603619.
Ramage NH (2002) Repairs, reproductions, and forgeries in late 18th century sculptors.
Program Annual Meeting, Archaeological Institute of America.
Remond G, Cesbron F, Chapoulie R, Ohnenstetter D, Roques-Carmes C, and
Schvoerer M (1992) Cathodoluminescence applied to the microcharacterization of
mineral materials: A present status in experimentation and interpretation. Scanning
Microscopy 6: 2368.
Richter G (1970) Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rybach L and Nissen H-U (1965) Neutron activation of Mn and Na traces in marbles
worked by the ancient Greeks. Radiochemical Methods of Analysis, vol. 1,
pp. 105117. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
Sommer SE (1972) Cathodoluminescence of carbonates 1: Characterization of
cathodoluminescence from carbonate solid solutions. Geology 9: 57273.
Stastna A, Prikryl R, and Cernkova A (2011) Comparison of quantitative petrographic,
stable isotope and cathodoluminescence data for fingerprinting Czech marbles.
Environmental Earth Sciences 63(78): 16511663.
Stone RE (2002) Defining authenticity. Metropolitan Museum Objectives 4: 45.
Van Keuren F, Attanasio D, Herrmann JJ Jr., Herz N, and Gromet LP (2010)
Mulitmethod analyses of Roman sarcophagi at the Museo Nazionale Romano,
Rome. In: Elsner J and Huskinson J (eds.) Life, Death and Representation:
Some New Work on Roman Sarcophagi. Millennium Studies in the Culture
and History of the First Millennium C.E. Band 29, pp. 149187. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Wenner DB, Havert S, and Clark A (1988) Variations in isotopic compositions
of marble. In: Herz N and Waelkens M (eds.) Classical Marble: Geochemistry,
Technology, Trade, pp. 325338. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
White D (1981) Cyrenes Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone: A summary of a decade
of excavation. American Journal of Archaeology 85: 13.