Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:28:39.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ancient Marble Sculpture: Geochemical Characterization of Surficial Weathering Products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2011

Stanley V. Margolis
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616
Frank Preusser
Affiliation:
The Getty Conservation Institute, 4503 Glencoe Ave. Marina del Rey, CA 90292
W.J. Showers
Affiliation:
Dept. of MEAS, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27650–5068
Get access

Abstract

Quantitative scientific determination of the authenticity and age of marble sculpture is an important goal of geo-archaeologists and conservation scientists. Geochemical and petrographic techniques are used here to investigate rock weathering and mineral alterations responsible for the “patina” and alteration layers on marble sculpture. We present oxygen and carbon isotopic, scanning electron microscopic and electron microprobe analyses of both fresh marble and weathering crusts materials from cores taken from Cycladic and Archaic Greek sculptures and from ancient quarries, to evaluate these techniques as indicators of antiquity.

Calcitic marbles exhibit an altered weathering crust of variable thickness, where calcite has been recrystallized and interpenetrated with inclusions of iron oxide, clay minerals, gypsum and other authigenic minerals. The thickness and composition of these crusts varies with soil and water chemistry as well as marble density, texture and age.

Microprobe analyses indicate trace element gradients from fresh to weathered calcite. Carbon and oxygen isotopes can differentiate between insitu alteration and precipitated carbonate. Dolomitic marbles can exhibit calcitic surficial layers formed by dedolomitization, which can be confirmed by isotopic and microprobe analyses.

Analyses of known forgeries, ancient quarry samples and artificially weathered marbles have further documented our criteria and show that the majority of diagnostic geochemical and mineralogical features seen on ancient Greek sculptures cannot be accurately duplicated by artificial means.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

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

1. Young, W.J. and Ashmole, B., Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Bull., LXVI, no. 345, 124 (1968).Google Scholar
2. Herz, N. and Wenner, D., Archaeometry,34, no.5, 14 (1981).Google Scholar
3. Showers, W.J. and Margolis, S.V., Geology, 15, 731 (1987).Google Scholar
4. Margolis, S.V., Dietrich, D., Showers, W.J., Preusser, F., Scientific investigations of an Archaic Greek Kouros., J. Paul Getty Museum, Sp. publ., in the press (1988).Google Scholar
5. Margolis, S.V., presented at J. Paul Getty Marble Symposium, April, 1988, (in preparation)Google Scholar
6. Margolis, S.V., presented atNATO Advanced Research Workshop on. Marbles, Il Ciocco, Italy, May, 1988, (in preparation).Google Scholar
7. Margolis, S.V., and Preusser, F., Geol. Society of Amer., (in the press).Google Scholar
8. Monte, M. Del and Sabbioni, C., Studies in Conservation, 32, 114 (1987).Google Scholar