A few months ago I wrote a series of posts on the collecting history of the so-called Leutwitz Apollo bought by David Franklin and now in Cleveland. One of them (Tuesday, 29 October 2013, 'Analysing the Leutwitz Apollo (9): Lead Isotopes') concerned the lead isotope composition of the lead solder attaching the ancient statue to a plate of metal claimed by the Museum to be an old base. In particular, I focussed on the manner in which in the museum's publication the results of these tests were reported. I had some 'inside' information which suggests that the actual results were not at all as Cleveland's Michael Bennett was representing them, and therefore the conclusions that one could draw on their basis were diametrically the opposite of what was affirmed in the publication. I challenged Cleveland to publish the full text of the original report on these samples in the public interest and in the interests of transparency. They never did, they are sitting on this piece of evidence. Nevertheless the scientist quoted by Cleveland, contacted by me, was very surprised to hear that his results had been used in that manner, and is currently analysing a new set of samples taken by himself. The results should be available (he said two months ago - 14th April 2014) "this summer".
A blog commenting on various aspects of the private collecting and trade in archaeological artefacts today and their effect on the archaeological record.
Saturday, 14 June 2014
"Leutwitz Apollo" The Solder Analyses
A few months ago I wrote a series of posts on the collecting history of the so-called Leutwitz Apollo bought by David Franklin and now in Cleveland. One of them (Tuesday, 29 October 2013, 'Analysing the Leutwitz Apollo (9): Lead Isotopes') concerned the lead isotope composition of the lead solder attaching the ancient statue to a plate of metal claimed by the Museum to be an old base. In particular, I focussed on the manner in which in the museum's publication the results of these tests were reported. I had some 'inside' information which suggests that the actual results were not at all as Cleveland's Michael Bennett was representing them, and therefore the conclusions that one could draw on their basis were diametrically the opposite of what was affirmed in the publication. I challenged Cleveland to publish the full text of the original report on these samples in the public interest and in the interests of transparency. They never did, they are sitting on this piece of evidence. Nevertheless the scientist quoted by Cleveland, contacted by me, was very surprised to hear that his results had been used in that manner, and is currently analysing a new set of samples taken by himself. The results should be available (he said two months ago - 14th April 2014) "this summer".
No comments:
Post a Comment