Archaeoloigacl Fakes in Turkey

18
XVIII
2021
18
RES ANTIQUAE XVIII
R A N T X V I I I
2 0 2 1
E
Revue fondée en 2004
par René Lebrun et Michel Mazoyer
A
La revue a pour cadre les civilisations
antiques s’étant développées autour
U
de la Méditerranée et pour objectif
d’établir des liens entre les différentes
Q
disciplines trop souvent isolées les
unes des autres.
I
T
N
A

S
E
R
ISBN 978-2-87457-127-5
Éditions Safran Publishers

ISSN 1781-1317
ISBN 978-2-87457-127-5 9 782874 571275 R A N T XVIII – 2021
REF. RANT18
RES ANTIQUAE
Tome XVIII – 2021
Éditions Safran Publishers

RES ANTIQUAE (RANT)
Présidents :
René LEBRUN – Université catholique de Louvain et Institut Catholique de Paris
Dominique BRIQUEL – Paris IV, EPHE 4e section
Directeur de publication :
Responsable du secrétariat :
Anne-Marie OEHLSCHLÄGER
Directeur du Conseil scientifique :

Marie-Claude TRÉMOUILLE – CNR, Rome
Conseil scientifique :
Sydney AUFRÈRE – CNRS, Université Paul Valéry, Montpellier III
Nathalie BOSSON – CNRS, Université de Genève et Institut Catholique de Paris
Dominique BRIQUEL – Paris IV, EPHE 4e section
Olivier CASABONNE – CESA Institut Catholique de Paris
Marco CAVALIERI – Université catholique de Louvain
Jean-Pierre LEVET – Université de Limoges
Florence MALBRAN-LABAT – Institut Catholique de Paris, CNRS
Éric PIRART – Université de Liège
Maria-Grazia MASETTI-ROUAULT – CNRS, EPHE 5e section
Olivier ROUAULT – Université Lumière-Lyon 2
Maurice SARTRE – Université de Tours
Bernard SERGENT – CNRS
© 2021 – Éditions Safran | Rue des Genévriers, 32 | B – 1020 Bruxelles, Belgique

resantiquae@safran.be – www.safran.be/resantiquae
Éditeur responsable :
René Lebrun | Avenue Englebert, 27 | B – 1331 Rosières, Belgique
Toute reproduction intégrale ou partielle, faite par quelque procédé que ce soit, même par
les auteurs des articles, sans le consentement de l’éditeur ou de ses ayants droit est illicite.
ISSN 1781-1317 | Logo de la revue créé par Jean-Michel Lartigaud

ISBN 978-2-87457-127-5 (Tome XVIII, 2021) | D/2021/9835/137 | Imprimé en Belgique
Table des matières
7 Problemi di epistemologia etrusca

Massimiliano Canuti
25 Recent archaeological discoveries in the land of Bia/Urartu

Roberto Dan
49 L’atelier d’un batteur d’armures à Tell Ahmar

Fabrice De Backer
« Shamshi-Ilu Went to Camp along with Captain Bassing ...».

55
La formation militaire des recrues néo-assyriennes
Fabrice De Backer
119 Un « nouvel » idiome sémitique ? Les inscriptions ibères revisitées

Arnaud Delanoy
153 Le culte d’Hercule de Vicus Stramentarius à l’église de Sainte-Marie

à Vico de Saint-Omero. Le contexte géographique
Stefania Di Carlo
167 Ressemblances et dissemblances dans les conflits entre les dieux

et déesses des mythologies égyptienne et grecque
Mayoro Dia et Benjamin Diouf
183 Representations of Asia(tics) in Kushite Royal Inscriptions

Mattias Karlsson
205 Archaeological fakes and forgeries in Turkey

Ergün Laflı, Maurizio Buora
245 Aristote et le divin

Gérard Lambin
265 Asbotos. Proposition d’étymologie d’un toponyme thessalien

Marcel Meulder
283 Phrygians in Disguise: Onomastic Evidence for Phrygian-Anatolian

Ethnocultural Contact in Hieroglyphic-Luwian inscription PORSUK
and elsewhere
Rostislav Oreshko
vi RANT 18, 2021
Table des matières
317 “L’État, c’est moi !”

The Hittite king as embodiment of the State
Marta Pallavidini
331 La déesse Déméter

Eric Raimond
377 The new transliteration of Sidetic and the etymology

of some Sidetic names
Zsolt Simon
387 Antica iscrizione di Castegnero (Vicenza) in scrittura simile alla ligure

con invocazione a divinità del fuoco e del calore
Adolfo Zavaroni
Res Antiquae 18 (2021), p. 205-244
Archaeological fakes and forgeries in Turkey
Ergün Laflı
Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi / Edebiyat Fakültesi, Arkeoloji Bölümü (Izmir, Turkey)
Maurizio Buora
Società Friulana di Archeologia (Udine, Italy)
Au cours des cinq dernières années, le sujet jusqu’alors peu visible de la « contrefaçon ar-
chéologique » est devenu un débat public d’actualité en Turquie. Avant cela, les gens étaient
conscients du problème, mais ils ne trouvaient pas leur chemin dans la recherche scienti-
fique. Il y aura probablement encore un long chemin à parcourir avant que les archéologues
turcs abordent ce sujet d’un point de vue scientifique et l’acceptent comme un domaine de
travail important. Bien que la Turquie soit un pays principal pour les productions originales
et contrefaites, on ne sait guère quels objets seront des contrefaçons ultérieures, quels maté-
riaux ont été contrefaits, pourquoi et par qui. Le nombre de contrefaçons d’objets exposés
dans les musées locaux est susceptible d’être particulièrement élevé, y compris de nom-
breuses lampes, pièces de monnaie, objets métalliques (en particulier en argent) et pierres
précieuses. Sur les marchés internationaux, plusieurs types ont été contrefaits en Turquie.
Il est particulièrement difficile de faire la distinction entre les originaux et les contrefaçons
dans le cas des pièces de monnaie. Au cours des dix dernières années, il y a eu plusieurs
scandales de contrefaçon dans les musées turcs : le dernier était le scandale concernant les
broches dorées lydiennes du soi-disant trésor de Crésus du musée d’Uşak, qui a finalement
émergé en Allemagne. Il y a deux explications à ces tromperies : soit les autorités muséales
n’en savent rien, soit il y a d’autres raisons pour lesquelles elles sont présentées comme de
véritables expositions. Dans cet article, des discussions sur l’authenticité sont présentées
en Turquie, à la fois du point de vue des experts et du point de vue de la science populaire.
The recent history of Turkey has seen the birth of many local collections since
1980s, mostly through purchases. Also the scientific staff of the local museums in
Turkey (map 1) became unsufficient. Both this, combined with the natural human
inclination for fraud and illicit gain, has encouraged the presence of copies and fakes
in museums. The antique dealers in Turkish museums from whom the purchase are
being made usually claim that they found them in ancient sites. This case study also
raises questions concerning the use of unprovenanced objects as archaeological data
in the reconstruction of the archaeology of Asia Minor.
[© Cet extrait est protégé et ne peut être divulgué sans le consentement des Éditions Safran | www.safran.be
© This extract may not be disclosed without the consent of Safran Publishers | www.safranpublishers.com]
206 RANT 18, 2021
Map 1. Places referred to in the text (underlined when possessing a museum)

(by S. Patacı, 2014)
The illegal trade in counterfeit antiques is considered by international police as

third largest market after the human and drug trafficking. 1 In the last five years in
Turkey the previously inconspicuous on “archaeological forgery” has become a recent
public debate. This problem was previously known, but not permanently entered in
academic research. It will probably still be a long way to go until Turkish archaeolo-
gists to deal with this matter in scientific terms and accept it as an important scholarly
study area. Although Turkey is a key country for both originals, as well as for forgery
production, we know very little about which objects were falsified, what materials
were faked, why and by whom. Antiquities markets and the development of antiquar-
ian studies in North America and Western Europe fueled the growth of cottage indus-
tries involved in the plunder of archaeological sites and forgery in Turkey.
In Turkey the number of forgeries in the exhibits of the local museums, including
numerous lamps, coins, metal objects (especially silver and gold) and gems, is higher
than estimated. In international markets we are aware of several classes of archaeo-
logical items that have been forged in Turkey. It is particularly difficult to distinguish
between originals and imitated coins. What options does one have now in general to
distinguish true from the false? Of course, should be the study of the material in the
first place. Archaeologists know which marble sources ancient artists were accus-
tomed to use depending on the area and time, and the ancient alloys of the metals are
known. There are two explanations for the deceptions: either the museum authorities
know nothing about them, or there are other reasons that they are presented as real
exhibits.
1. Bowman Proulx 2011: 192.
RANT 18, 2021 207
In the Turkish collections there are many objects that seem deceptively realistic.
Through scientific methods, as thermoluminesce dating, radiocarbon, neutron activa-
tion or X-ray fluorescence analysis, magnetometric investigations etc., it is possible
to determine the age, composition, or the authenticity of an archaeological artifact
and also disclose metal’s structure and composition. In recent times, the archaeologi-
cal forgeries are unmasked especially by chemical analyzes: 2 all ceramic materials
store radioactive radiation that comes from natural uranium, thorium and potassium.
This low radioactivity can be visualized as lights on heating it to about 500 degrees
Celsius. 3
By whom and for what reason archaeological objects are fake? Most counterfeits
in the world originate from the regions that still neither a sophisticated analytics have,
nor enough knowledge of the materials and manufacturing methods – eg. in Western
Africa and China, but also in southern Italy, Greece and finally in Turkey. 4 In Turkey,
the traditional craft still dominates. 5 Usually it involves mass production of relatively
low value; forgeries of pieces with high scientific value are not worth it. The activity
of Turkish counterfeiters nowadays partially has mafia-like features. In this area, the
fakes are indeed more professional, but for the archaeologists it is still possible to ex-
pose virtually all doubt, without knowing their find context. In the following sections
we will present some fakes in Turkey according to their archaeological genres. The
main sources of material are the local archaeological museums.
The improvement in the people’s culture together with the progressive increase
in the standard of living have made as the collectors were more “democratic”, even
though in past centuries it was limited to a few examples of the ruling classes. 6 We re-
fer to the collecting of antiquities – which often has benefited from the poor economic
conditions of the lands once thriving –, born in the courts, which has expanded to the
nobility since the Renaissance. 7 The opening of the large museums made them succes-
sors in the demonstration of power that was previously reserved for the royal collec-
tions. So many of them did not hesitate to transfer in their collections archaeological
materials from other countries, often acquired through excavation or in the antiquar-
2. Craddock 2009: 7-8. Chemical analyzes for coins: Aydın 2013a: 170-171; Aydın 2013b; as
well as Mezzasalma et al. 2009.
3. Spier 1990: 624-625.
4. Holtorf 2013: 429.
5. In the newspaper Bugün on March 23, 2014 a Turkish counterfeiter is introduced
extensively who worked mostly with traditional methods: <http://sanat.bugun.com.tr/unlu-
muzelere-turk-isi-sahte-haberi/1027946> (accessiable on on July 7, 2014). This could be a
comparison to a German counterfeiter: Neidhardt 2010.
6. Brodie et al. 2001: 6.
7. Brodie-Renfrew 2005: 245.
208 RANT 18, 2021
ian trade. It is hardly necessary to mention the Elgin Marbles 8 in the British Museum,
but for Turkey much more significant is the case of the Zeus Altar from Pergamum in
Berlin 9. In this task the U.S. American museums are distinguished, because since the
end of the nineteenth century they did not have spare any expenses to acquire legally
or illegally. 10 The Metropolitan Museum of Art has a long history in this regard, but
there is no need to ignore other U.S. American collections such as the J. Paul Getty
Museum in Malibu or the Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC. Towards the major
auction houses in Switzerland, in Great Britain or in the U.S. objects from clandestine
excavations have passed several times.
As mentioned, also the other major public western collections retain forgeries and
fakes: on the website and in the publications of the British Museum 11 we can see many
works ranging from sculpture to pottery to intaglios. In this short review we will pre-
sent some cases related to museum collections in Turkey.
Cuneiform Tablets
The first cuneiform forgeries of modern times appear in the collection of Claudius
James Rich (1786-1821), formed before cuneiform had been deciphered. 12 “By 1904,
during the early period of cuneiform tablet collecting, J. Edgar Banks, a Mesopota-
mian explorer and tablet dealer, estimated that nearly 80% of tablets offered for sale
8. The Elgin Marbles, also known as the „Parthenon Marbles“ are a collection of classical
Greek marble sculptures (mostly by Phidias and his assistants), inscriptions and
architectural members that originally were part of the Parthenon and other buildings on
the Acropolis of Athens. Thomas Bruce, the 7th Earl of Elgin obtained a controversial
permit from the Ottoman authorities to remove pieces from the Parthenon while serving
as the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1799 to 1803. From 1801 to
1812, Elgin’s agents removed about half of the surviving sculptures of the Parthenon,
as well as architectural members and sculpture from the Propylaea and Erechtheum. The
Marbles were transported by sea to Britain. In Britain, the acquisition of the collection was
supported by some, while some critics compared Elgin’s actions to vandalism or looting. A
public debate in Parliament and the subsequent exoneration of Elgin’s actions, the marbles
were purchased by the British government in 1816 and placed on display in the British
Museum, where they stand now on view in the purpose-built Duveen Gallery. The debate
continues as to whether the Marbles should remain in the British Museum or be returned
to Athens.
9. In 1878, the German engineer Carl Humann began official excavations on the Acropolis
of Pergamon, an effort that lasted until 1886. The excavation was undertaken in order
to rescue the altar friezes and expose the foundation of the edifice. Later, other ancient
structures on the Acropolis were brought to light. Upon negotiating with the Turkish-
Ottoman government, it was agreed that all frieze fragments found at the time would
become the property of the Berlin museums. In Berlin, Italian restorers reassembled the
panels comprising the frieze from the thousands of fragments that had been recovered. In
order to display the result and create a context for it, a new museum was erected in 1901
on Berlin’s Museum Island.
10. Brodie et al. 2000: 23-24; and Renfrew 2002: 16.
11. Accessed from <www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection-online> on July 7, 2014.
12. Jones et al. 1990: 165, no. 169b.
RANT 18, 2021 209
in Baghdad were fakes”. 13 In 2016, Syria’s Director General for Antiquities and Mu-
seums reported that approximately 70% of seized artifacts in the country are fakes In
year 1987 Christopher B. F. Walker wrote that “a large number of fakes [was] made in
Turkey in the early years of this century [namely 20th century].. it is remarkable how
many tablets still circulate in the market today”. 14
Stone Statues, Statuettes, Sarcophagi and Mosaics

Most difficulties to the counterfeiters offers the creation of sculptures in stone,
because the equipment used in the ancient world is missing. However, the marble qu-
arries, such Docimium and Synnada in Phrygia have remained to this day the same 15.
Today Phrygia provides the same marble as two thousand years ago.
Most often the small-scale Phrygian marble statuettes, which were intended for
domestic cult, are imitated. Therefore, also the gods of the Roman pantheon are selec-
ted in Phrygia. For a precise stylistic analysis one sees that as models are selected the
statuettes of local museums in Phrygia (an original Hercules’ statue is returned from
USA instead a fake seized in the Museum of Afyonkarahisar 16), eg. Uşak, Denizli and
Kütahya. 17
It should be noted that based on the surface marks the modern stonemasons used
modern equipment. Sometimes the surface is made older by artificial patina and bur-
ied even for this purpose some time in the earth. In such cases the surfaces and the
style usually look very artificial. Most of these forgeries have something ambivalent
and caricatural, and they lack of the harmony. In recent years, the number of counter-
feit sarcophagi and osthotekai rises. There are copies of well-known compositions or
the copy of individual detail figures from well-known representations.
Although it is very difficult to counterfeit mosaic, there are several attempts in
Turkey. Particularly often the mosaics in the southern provinces such as Gaziantep
and Hatay were forged. Most notably the wrong use of the stone or the missing of the
real paint place the authenticity into question (cat. no. 17).
Bronze Statues and Statuettes

Most of the bronze statues from Asia Minor are underwater finds, which are sunk
as cargoes, together with the ship in the sea. The discovery of bronze statues in cer-
tain archaeological contexts is rare. The poured bronze appears to be attractive to
the counterfeiters. The proportions of bronze works are often advised not appropri-
ate. The bronze patina cannot be copied; therefore, the surface of fake objects looks
13. Brumfiels 2018 (http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/06/Spot-Fake-Cueiform-Tablets:

accessed on 04/07/2020).
14. Walker 1987: 59-60.
15. See Barresi 2003; and Pensabene 1998.
16. In the Museum of Afyonkarahisar two fake Byzantine seals are also housed; cf. Bulgurlu-
İlaslı 2003: 131.
17. On the Kütahya fakes cf. Colomban et al. 2005.
210 RANT 18, 2021
mostly polished, even the traces of modern casting techniques can be felt on the sur-
face. Because today other casting techniques are used, the weight of modern objects is
higher than that of the ancient. In the small-sized figures occur the same errors; today
at the small-scale figurine the tracks are not easy to remove. Therefore, this is pre-
cisely the difficulty to recognize real from false. The ideal sculpture is often selected
as model for the fakes of the greater bronzes.
Terracottas
In western Asia Minor there had been several large centers of coroplastic produc-
tion, such as Myrina and Smyrna in Hellenistic period. In Roman times many copies
of these Hellenistic works existed, especially in Phrygia. The Phrygian terracottas,
which imitated the Hellenistic models, were admired just as the Myrinaean terracot-
tas. 18 During the 19th century the flood of Tanagra counterfeit comes. In modern times
such terracottas, especially Aphrodite types (cat. nos. 18-19) and female figurines
are often faked. The modern forgeries of terracottas have a higher weight than the
originals. The colors look very artificial. The burning hole was usually omitted; the
outer surface does not match the tone colors of the true figures. Especially the simple
Phrygian terracotta types are often faked. In coroplastic objects the aesthetic differ-
ence between a deceptive forgery and an original or genuine piece is large.
Bronzes, Pottery, Glass and Miscellaneous

Bronze vessels are forged in Turkey very often; it should be noted that lamps are
the most popular genre. However, the modern copies are to unmask because of the
modern casting techniques.
Pottery is also imitated very frequently; but by the modern archaeometric tech-
niques are very easy to detect. The fake vases produced in Turkey succeed rarely con-
vincing, because they cannot imitate the ancient clay, and the pieces are so raw usu-
ally. In the grooves of a fake Cnidian vessel (fig. 20) there is, for example, the green
powder and copper nitrate, a water soluble salt. Numerous oil lamps and unguentaria
are also known by their fakes. For such objects, the counterfeiters will produce an
artificial corrosion layer by vapor deposition with nitric acid.
Glass is also forged; but the production technology raises a problem regarding the
recognition of the color.
Gold, silver and bronze earrings are often forged; biggest problem here too, that
the former production techniques are not easy to imitate. Cases are also known in
which the antique jewellery are combined with modern stones.
Gems and glass jewellery are usually amateur fakes and they are very easily to be
distinguished from true samples. Even minor metal instruments, such as fibulae and
18. See eg. Pottier-Reinach 1888: 165-166; and Uhlenbrock 1990: 27.
RANT 18, 2021 211
arrows are imitated. Byzantine Christian liturgical objects are the popular ones that
are forged very much in recent times.
Coins
In Turkey the majority of the fakes are Greek and Roman coins, particularly in
gold and silver. Both the pattern of the letters and the style of presentation are the key
factors for the authenticity of the coins; but still there are lots of fake coins in Turk-
ish collections. A crucial factor for the counterfeited coins is the study of patina, a
deposition layer formed by environmental influences on archaeological finds over the
centuries. 19 The corrosion layer is very difficult to forge. Also relevant is the gold or
silver content and the correct reproduction of the relevant shares that were standard-
ized during the Classical Antiquity. The counterfeit Turkish coins have the seam on
the edge, bubbles, wrong weight and a soapy contour. The fake coin is struck as in an-
tiquity with two embossing sticks. The embossing dies are either casts of the original
or the forger engraves them himself. The embossed rays are tiny; radial grooves in the
field between portrait and edge occur in gold and silver coins. They appear particu-
larly strong between legend and border. They can also have a wave-like shape. This
embossed rays originated in the process of coin blanks coinage.
Forgeries have molded on the edge of a thin seam which must be filed off. The re-
sulting file marks are almost always recognizable. Sometimes the seam is interrupted
as a cut off. Some edges are slightly torn and after cooling the earth is pressed into
the resulting cuts to convey the feeling that the coin comes straight from the ground.
In casting fakes the boundary point lines are often too sharp or the edge bead,
which arises during the embossing process, is missing. Soft, fuzzy, “soapy” contours
are a clear indication of a fake. Counterfeiters make it virtually never to imitate the die
created by Roman artists with all the ornate details.
The most important aspect of counterfeit coins from Turkey is the style. Often the
facial expression, the folds of the clothing, the letters or the position of the eyes do
not match with the original. Draping and letters are particularly difficult to falsify. In
some of them very careful and precision of craftsmanship could be an indication for
their fake character which could be interpreted as “too good to be true”.
In contrast to some bronze denominations Roman coins made of precious metals
were in a narrow confines moving, standardized weight. Counterfeiters produce coins
which rarely have exactly the desired weight. In the casting process, for example,
the weight cannot be adjusted because the volume is fixed. In the casting process the
surface of the coin produces small bubbles. The field of real coins, except for em-
bossed rays and mechanical damage, remain always smooth and even, if no corrosion
is present. Embossed coins shrink when cooled slightly. This means that all modern
embossing dies are slightly too small.
19. Sayles 2001: 2.
212 RANT 18, 2021
Conclusions
In counterfeits made in Turkey is often unclear who and when these forgeries
produced. Turkish museums do not traditionally discuss their fakes frankly in order
to avoid the embarrassing admission that they have been deceived and the shaking of
public faith in museum expertise. The year 2006 heist marked a revolutionary change
in Turkey. The Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism works recently to protect
artefacts and to make sure that they are properly and safely displayed. Turkey has so
far repatriated up to 3,700 stolen artifacts from foreign countries over the last seven
years. There is, fortunately, an international trend to combat the looting of antiqui-
ties 20. Obviously the first requirement is to convince the population that the plunder
should be abolished because it impoverishes national heritage. 21
To contrasting forgeries the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Muse-
ums of Turkey has prepared a database on fake objects. 22 For this reason there is an of-
ficial website on the model of ALR (=Art Loss Register) 23 adopted by other countries
such as Cyprus. A worthy challenge for the future would be to include all known fakes
in Turkey in a catalogue and to examine them in connection detail.
Catalogue of the Examples of Archaeological Fakes and Forgeries

in Turkey 24
A Cuneiform Tablet
No. 1 (figs. 1a-c): A “Babylonian” cuneiform tablet; Archaeological Museums of Istanbul.
According to Christopher B. F. Walker an “excessive repetition of a small group of sign,
in this case eg. the small circles, is also a common hallmark of an unimaginative forger”. 25
20. See eg. Brodie-Renfrew 2005; Atwood 2004; Renfrew 2002; Brodie-Tubb 2002; Brodie et
al. 2001; Bowman Proulx 2011; and Bowman Proulx 2013.
21. Bower 2009: 23: “In some cases, looters threaten farmers who would inform the
government of an ancient site”.
22. Accessed from <http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,44739/kategorilerine-gore-sahte-
eserler.html> on 07/04/2020. In this website there are five categories of fake items in
Turkish museums: coins, statues, small finds, pottery and miscellaneous.
23. Accessed from <www.artloss.com> and the Turkish version: <http://www.kulturvarliklari.
gov.tr/TR, 44493/calinan-eserler.html>, both on 07/04/2020.
24. Abbreviations: Inv. no.: inventory number; h: height; w: width; r: diameter; obv.: obverse,
and rev.: reverse. This collection was studied in 2014 by E. Laflı by means of several
authorizations, issued by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Museum of Izmir
on February 23, 2012; permit number B.16.0.K.V.M.4.35.00.01.155/604; and Museum of
Ödemiş on January 6, 2012; permit number B.16.0.K.V.M.4.35.74.00-155.01/21). Most of
the photographs as well as map 1 were made by Dr Sami Patacı (Ardahan) in 2014; some
of the photos were taken from the website of the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism
(figs. 3a, 4, 7, 9-12b, 16, 20, 23, 30-32 and 45).
25. Walker 1987: 60.
RANT 18, 2021 213
Figs. 1a-c. A cuneiform tablet;

Archaeological Museums of
Istanbul
Statues, Statuettes, Sarcophagi and Mosaics

No. 2 (fig. 2): A bronze “Hittite” miniature bust; Museum of Os-
maniye.
The conical hat, big eyes, nose, massive, long and protrud-
ing ear (broken) approach this head to the Syro-Hittite depic-
tions of the deities, as the local Baal. 26 They are generally
dated to the thirteenth-twelfth centuries B.C. In this case, the
execution is very humble with details, such as large sunken
eyes, made in schematic way by a person who is not familiar
with the ancient specimens. Perhaps a copy of the bronze
bust of Hurrian-Hittite God Tešup, preserved in the Museum
of Amasya.
Fig. 2. A bronze
No. 3 (figs. 3a-d): Statue of Marsyas; Museum of Balıkesir. miniature bust; Museum
Gray marble. of Osmaniye
26. Cf. Negbi 1976: 34-36, pl. XXIV-XXV.
214 RANT 18, 2021
Fig. 3a. Statue of Marsyas; Museum of Balıkesir.
Figs. 3b-d. Statue of Marsyas; Museum of Manisa
RANT 18, 2021 215
It is a copy of an original statue at the Museum of Manisa

(figs. 3b-d), 27 although the surface color is black instead of
white. 28 A further fake of the same sort of Marsyas with the
same size and workmanship is known at the Museum of
Eskişehir.
So-called “white Marsyas” was circulated in larger number
of copies; so far 59 copies of Marsyas have been published.
The “red Marsyas” named after the purple-veined marble
used for the examples derived from it. 29 The choice of the
material was probably directed by the intention to give his
flayed skin an appropriate coloring.
No. 4 (fig. 4): A “Roman” statue of an Archaistic kore; Museum
of Burdur.
H 67 cm.
White marble.
It consists of two fragments; head is missing. Moulded.
The left arm is too big and protrudes unnaturally. The lower
part of the figure is too narrow and the feet have the toes
divergent. The drapery is completely dissimilar from clas-
sical art.
No. 5 (fig. 5): Bronze portraif of Marc Aurel; Museum of Kay-
seri.
50 × 40 cm. Fig. 4. An Archaistic
The torso, almost life-size, shows an emperor in civic kore; Museum of Burdur
clothes. Thus, it would be a suitable representation at the
center of a Roman city. The head is similar to that of the
equestrian statue of the Capitoline Museums, Rome. How-
ever, mustache here is more swollen, and his beard is made
in a summary manner. Typically this element, given the im-
portance of the beard as a trait “philosophical” of the em-
peror, is always made with care and attention even in small-
scale bronzes, especially common in provincial military
contexts. The model may have been taken from a type from
a marble bust from Ephesus 30.
No. 6 (figs. 6a-d): Bronze statuette of Apollo; Museum of Konya.
H 35 cm.
Fragmented. Fig. 5. Bronze portraif of
Free standig Apollo with the head turned to his right. The Marc Aurel; Museum of
upper part of the body is bare, while the lower one is draped Kayseri
with the folds of a mantle. It is the type of Hermitage. They
27. The original Marsyas at the Museum of Manisa was encovered through illegal digs in
the Village of Bağlaca near Sarıgöl, in the Province of Manisa, ancient Lydia, in 1987.
Shortly after it was transported out of Turkey and eventually Turkish authorities demanded
this marble statue from the Atlantis Antiquities in New York in 1994. Cf. Turkish news
about its return to the Museum of Manisa: <http://www.kulturvarliklari.gov.tr/TR,63147/
marsyas-heykeli-abd-1994.html>.
28. On the copies of the Marsyas see Weis 1992, appendix a, 141 f.
29. On „white“ and „red“ Marsyas cf. Sismondo Ridgway 2002, 86-87; and on their distribution
(white and red), between East and West, see Porter 2006: 152.
30. Witschel 1995: 260, no. 24.
216 RANT 18, 2021
Figs. 6a-d: Bronze statuette of Apollo;

Museum of Konya.
RANT 18, 2021 217
are identical the pectoral muscles in his chest, as

well as the overall design. But the craftsman did
not understand the hairdressing and even the dra-
pery on the left leg. Removes all doubt the traces of
modern fusion, visible on the edges of the broken
part, obviously on purpose.
No. 7 (fig. 7): Sandstone statue of a seated Cybele; Mu-
seum of Sakarya.
37 × 17 × 17 cm.
The model seems to be a statue of the enthroned
goddess from the Hellenistic period, now in the
Museum of Anatolian Civilizations at Ankara. But
we can see a lion at her left side, in a quite unusual
position: usually, as known, it should be at the foot
of the goddess.
No. 8 (figs. 8a-b): Iuppiter; Museum of Anatolian Civi-
lizations at Ankara.
Marble. Fragmented.
The yield is very superficial on the face of his hair
and finally in his anatomy, and it is absolutely
childish. The drapery is schematic and quite coarse.
No. 9 (fig. 9): Eros relief with a dog; Museum of Man-
isa. Fig. 7. Sandstone statue of a seat-
Marble. Fragmented. ed Cybele; Museum of Sakarya
We see some difficulties in the arm bent and in the
transition from the torso to the leg. The right leg is
quite coarse and the dog is amateurish.
No. 10 (fig. 10-left): Helios on horseback and a statuette of Aphrodite; Museum of Antalya.
Helios: H 58 cm, w 40 cm; Aphrodite: h 37 cm, w 18 cm.
Both marble.
Figs. 8a-b. Iuppiter; Museum of Anatolian Civilizations at Ankara
218 RANT 18, 2021
Fig. 9. Eros relief with a dog; Fig. 10. Helios on horseback and a statuette of Aphrodite;
Museum of Manisa Museum of Antalya.
Apart from the unusual depiction of the god as rider, we see here a clear influence of im-
ages of Helios with a crown of rays that appears already in the early Hellenistic period,
such as chariot driver on the metope of the temple of Athena at Ilium, now in Berlin. In
our statuette the frontal presentation of the chest is quite unusual, while the lower part of
the body is in prospect as in the Archaic art. There is also a certain incoherence, eg. in the
rendering of the right arm and especially of the horse. Note the expedient of making a
fragmented work and also to present some scattered pieces. A terracotta image of Helios,
seated, with open arms is preserved in the same museum in Antalya.
Fig. 10-right: Aphrodite free-standing, perhaps raising a veil as the type of Venus Geni-
trix, Roman copy inspired by Greek statue by Callimachus in 420-410 B.C. At her feet an
incoherent Eros.
No. 11 (fig. 11): Statuette of young man; Museum of Adana.
From Pozantı, north of Adana.
H 51.
Young man, wearing a short dress, with the left hand holding up an object (a lantern?),
supports to a stick in his right. He holds a bag (?), attached to a belt hanging from his right
shoulder.
The patina is absolutely modern, the base is incongruous and some details, such as the left
leg and arms, are not in accordance to the classical tradition.
RANT 18, 2021 219
Fig. 11. Statuette of young Figs. 12a-b. Bronze statuette of a young woman;
man; Museum of Adana Museum of Anatolian Civilizations at Ankara
No. 12 (figs. 12a-b): Bronze statuette of a young woman; Museum of Anatolian Civilizations
at Ankara.
Through the diadem she seems to be a goddess or empress. The braids may remind the
images of Agrippina the Elder. Very doubtful, however, is the patina.
No. 13 (figs. 13a-e): Hermaphrodite; Museum of Ödemiş.
Inv. no. 1745.
H 16 cm, max. w 4,5 cm, min. w 3.5, weight 363,8 gr.
Solid. Right hand missing from the joint part. No evidence about the base. Green and
brightish patina on overall of the surface. Pale brown false patina on some parts in various
locations.
Acquisition.
Bronze alloy figurine of a standing nude male, wearing a hair ribbon with a visible band of
wavy hair beneath. He stands facing with his head turned to the left, his left arm raised to
his head and his left leg bent and slightly behind. His turning position shows an erotic per-
ception, known in Aphroditic iconography. His missing right hand could have had a mirror,
as featured in close parallels. He has small breasts that have been interpreted commonly
as a “Hermaphrodite”. The only genital indication for his gender is his penis. Aphroditic
facial features are unusual as the eyes are too large and the nose is not fitting to the com-
mon forms.
220 RANT 18, 2021
Cf. Blanchet 1896, pl. 4; Babelon-Blanchet 1895, 136, no. 307; Lasteyrie du Saillant
1890, 38, pls. VI, VII; and a similar at the British Museum with the accession number
1848,0803.44.
Figs. 13a-e. Hermaphrodite; Museum of Ödemiş
RANT 18, 2021 221
No. 14 (figs. 14a-c): Statuette of Attis; Museum of Samsun.

H 8.
The right forearm and hand are missing. It yields roughly a very common type, trivialized
here, both in the headgear as in the folds of the robe and in the legs. A work of little value.
No. 15 (fig. 15): Statuette of Athena; Museum of Konya.
H 7, base 2 cm.
Standing figure, devoid of the right arm that would have to bear the missing spear, at the
left the shield.
On her chest the gorgoneion is made in a strange way. The base, unusual, is shaped like
a truncated pyramid. The figure is unbalanced so that the eventual spear would fall out of
the base. Some details are extremely summaries, like the feet and the folds of the garment
around them or the coarse draping.
Figs. 14a-c. Statuette of Attis; Museum of Samsun
Fig. 15. Statuette of Athena; Museum of Konya
222 RANT 18, 2021
No. 16 (fig. 16): Limestone ossuary; Museum of Akşehir.

Fragmented.
Lion on the lid, resting on the ground, with a large head and a circular manner. Pillars at the
corners border relief scenes. A large fracture on its wall is filled with cement.
No. 17 (fig. 17): Mosaic panel; Museum of Hatay.
105 × 90 cm.
The mosaic mix together the various elements of hierogamy of Dionysus and Ariadne – cf.
for comparison the scene on the Derveni crater – which already appears in the mosaics of
Antioch. Note the pale colors and the execution are generally not very accurate.
Fig. 16. A limestone ossuary; Fig. 17. A mosaic panel;

Museum of Akşehir Museum of Hatay
Terracottas
No. 18 (figs. 18a-b): Aphrodite; Museum of Aydın.
H 18 cm, w 6,9 cm, base 1,5 cm.
The statue recalls a Hellenistic type taken in Roman times, in small size, but also in paint-
ing and mosaic, characterized by the typical gesture of winging her hair. It can have, as
in this case, a vase on which the garments are backed. In most types of Venus the vase is
set to the bathroom. Similar to our figurine is a marble statue of Pompeii. 31 In our case the
figure is too oblique as we can see in the back. The fact that it is a modern work is clearly
indicated by the circular pseudohole in the back, which imitates the real old vent hole.
No. 19 (figs. 19a-b): Aphrodite; Museum of Aydın.
H 17,2 cm, w 6,5 cm, base 2,5 cm.
Venus is shown standing and arranging her hair: similar to the previous, from which it
differs in having a vessel instead of a dolphin whose body is wrapped around the goddess.
The dolphin is present both in the so-called Mazarin Venus statue at the Getty Villa as
in the life-size full-length white marble statue of Venus Anadyomene, also known as the
Marine Venus, given to the Prince Consort by Queen Victoria as a birthday present on 26th
August 1848, now in the Royal Collection London.
31. Cf. anonymous 1899: 206; and Boyce 1937: 40, no. 118, note 1.
RANT 18, 2021 223
Figs. 18a-b. Aphrodite; Museum of Aydın
Figs. 19a-b. Aphrodite; Museum of Aydın
224 RANT 18, 2021
Pottery
No. 20 (fig. 20): “Cnidian” relief jug; Museum of Adana.
Terracotta jug or “oinophoros”, inspired, or really copied, from the British Museum 49-6-
20.8. 32 The original vessel was made at Cnidus, a trading and manufacturing port in Caria
(southwestern Turkey). The relief decoration shows members of the Bacchic thiasos (a
maenad and a silenus). The surface of the relief ware, smoothed with a stick finish, was
covered by a reddish-brown slip, distinctive for Cnidian workshop compared to the Perga-
menian productions. In our case, apart from the presence of chemical elements mentioned
above, the rim and handles are different from the original (see eg. the sample no. 49.94.5
of the Metropolitan), while the base is similar.
Nos. 21-22 (figs. 21-22): Two terracotta unguentaria; Museum of Denizli.
From Sarayköy near Denizli.
The slip does not correspond in any way to the one of the true ointments.
Fig. 20. A “Cnidian” relief Figs. 21-22. Two terracotta unguentaria;

jug; Museum of Adana Museum of Denizli.
Glass
No. 23 (fig. 23): Glass bottle; Museum of Hatay.
Bottom broken.
The decoration on the neck is missing and on the body the imitation of Phoenician glass
is rough.
No. 24 (figs. 24a-b): “Phoenician”glass one handled amphoriskos; Museum of Sivas.
H 15,5 cm, w 4,7, rim r 3,1 cm.
A single handle; the bands on the neck are very different from those of the original am-
phoriskoi.
Nos. 25-26 (figs. 25a-26): Two “Phoenician” glass alabastra; Museum of Hatay.
No. 25: H 15,5 cm, w 4,7, rim r 3,1 cm; no. 26: H 9,1 cm, w 1,5, rim r 1,9 cm.
32. See Hayes 1972, pl. XXIIa, 411-412.
RANT 18, 2021 225
Fig. 23. A glass bottle; Figs. 24a-b. A “Phoenician” glass one-handled

Museum of Hatay amphoriskos; Museum of Sivas
Figs. 25a-b and 26: Two “Phoenician” glass alabastra;

Museum of Hatay
226 RANT 18, 2021
No. 27 (fig. 27): “Phoenician” glass bottle; Museum of Sivas.

H 5,5 cm, w 3,4, rim r 2,3 cm, base r 2,1 cm.
Transcription (see eg. profile) to a well-known form is uncertain.
No. 28 (fig. 28): Three glass bottles; Museum of Hatay.
All the type of glass looks suspicious.
No. 29 (fig. 29): Two glass bottles; Museum of Anatolian Civilizations at Ankara.
The balsam left blends together characters of different shapes. The right one combines a
type of Egyptian glass with a shape, non-typical for Egypt.
No. 30 (fig. 30): Fusiform glass bottle; Museum of Bitlis.
An absolutely incongruous shape, unknown in Antiquity.
Fig. 27. A “Phoenician” glass bottle; Museum of Sivas
Fig. 28. Three glass bottles; Fig. 29. Two glass bottles; Museum of
Museum of Hatay Anatolian Civilizations at Ankara
RANT 18, 2021 227
No. 31 (figs. 31a-b): Glass bottle; Museum of Bitlis.

The shape is reminiscent of specimen of Late Medieval Islamic glass, but the type of glass
reveals itself as an imitation.
No. 32 (fig. 32): One handled decorated glass jug; Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts at
Istanbul.
H 25,5 × 25,9 cm, rim r 9,4 × 10,2 cm, body r 14,5 × 15 cm.
A figure on horseback is reproduced that would look good on St. Simon wares.
Nos. 33-34 (figs. 33-34): Two glass bracelets; Museum of Erzurum.
The glass’ color reveals a modern work.
Fig. 30. A fusiform glass Figs. 31a-b. A glass bottle; Fig. 32. A one-handled,
bottle; Museum of Bitlis Museum of Bitlis decorated glass jug; Museum
of Turkish and Islamic Arts
at Istanbul
Figs. 33-34. Two glass bracelets; Museum of Erzurum
228 RANT 18, 2021
Fig. 35. A golden earrings; Fig. 36. A golden earrings with precious stones,
Museum of Izmir Museum of Batman
Jewellery
No. 35 (fig. 35): Golden earrings; Museum of Izmir.
The realization is coarse in detail.
No. 36 (fig. 36): Golden earrings with precious stones, Museum of Batman.
The upper part of the long loop and the blue stone set in a gold frame recall a pair of ear-
rings from the Hellenistic period in the Metropolitan Museum (inv. no. 1995.539.11 a, b).
The figure on the disc reminds depictions of the Hellenistic-Roman period.
Cf. von Bothmer et al. 1987, 307, no. 184.
Instrumenta
No. 37 (fig. 37): A cylinder seal; Museum of Bolu.
Acquired from Bilal Keleş.
It looks like a Sumerian cylinder seal, but the image is not correct.
No. 38 (fig. 38): Two gemelogical ornaments; Museum of Bolu.
Acquired from Abdülkudüs Şen.
Their shape is not adequate.
No. 39 (fig. 39): Gems; Museum of Izmir.
Shapes and sizes are typically modern, for the gems of the 18th and 19th centuries. In some
cases, the execution is far away from the ancient modes.
Nos. 40-42 (figs. 40-42): Two bronze pins and an arrowhead; Museum of Van.
Urartian bronze pins have a different look, and Anatolian arrows have normally a com-
pletely different shape.
No. 43 (fig. 43): A “Roman” bronze lamp; Museum of Anatolian Civilizations at Ankara.
L 23 cm.
Similar to the lamps and double volute type Mahdia; but too bright, too long and devoid
of patina.
RANT 18, 2021 229
Fig. 38: Two

ornaments;
Museum of Bolu
Fig. 39: Gems;

Museum of Izmir
Fig. 37. A cylinder seal;

Museum of Bolu
Figs. 40-42.
Two bronze pins and
an arrowhead;
Museum of Van
Fig. 43. A bronze lamp;

Museum of Anatolian
Civilizations at Ankara
230 RANT 18, 2021
Figs. 44a-c. A bronze lamp;

Museum of Izmir
Fig. 45. A terracotta lamp;

Museum of Anatolian
Civilizations at Ankara
Figs. 46a-b. A bronze cross; Museum of Sakarya
RANT 18, 2021 231
No. 44 (figs. 44a-c): A “Late Antique” bronze lamp; Museum of Izmir.

H 4,5 cm, L 12 cm, body r 5 cm, weight 346,59 gr.
Especially the grip does not correspond exactly to those of the ancient oil lamps.
No. 45 (fig. 45): A “Late Antique” terracotta lamp; Museum of Anatolian Civilizations at An-
kara.
Lamp with grip tongue-shaped, inspired by popular lamp types, such as Waagé 1948, Type
53, Kennedy 1963, Type 10 and Sodini et al. 1980, Type 1, which are given to the sixth
century A.D. The shape is very similar; somewhat different is the decoration around the
infundibulum. The type of fabric and the treatment of outer surface is different than the
originals.
No. 46 (figs. 46a-b): An “early Byzantine” bronze cross; Museum of Sakarya.
This should be the figure of St. George, but the script has done by a person who does not
know ancient Greek and the side bust is depicting Madonna even though we would expect
the image of Christ at the center. The modern artist did not understand the models as seen
in their necks and the hands. The dress is too schematic and geometric. The incision, made
by a drill or another tool that has left a flat and wide furrow, is extremly uncertain.
Coins
No. 47 (fig. 47): Attica-Athens, AR tetradrachm, after 449 B.C.
(no legend); Museum of Balıkesir.
Obv: Head of Athena right, wearing helmet, ornamented
with vine scrolls and laurel leaves. Too wide; instead of 24
mm its diameter is 35 mm. It has also a different yield of
laurel leaves, of the tendril and of the dots under the hel-
met. Instead of an round earring she has a bunch-shaped
one.
No. 48 (figs. 48a-d): 39 AR staters of Aspendus in Pamphylia
between 370-325 B.C.; Museum of Izmir.
R 21 mm, weight – no. 1: 10.33 gr, no. 6: 10.83, no. 21: Fig. 47. An Athenian
10.98 gr, and no. 26: 10.91 gr. AR tetradrachm, after
Obv: Two wrestlers grappling. In almost all of the exam- 449 B.C.; Museum of
ples have a non-readable facial feature and musculature; Balıkesir
in many cases the transition from the torso to the legs is
made in a very strange manner. There are often repeated letters AA.
Rev: In left field a Greco-Pamphylian inscription “ESTFEDIIUS”; slinger in throwing
stance right call to mind physical achievement glorified via Olympic events. In right field
a triskelion of human legs (badge of the city); below that a club of Hercules and part of the
Φ. Often the triskelion’ position – variable in the original coins – does not appear correct;
sometimes the right vertical line of points is missing and there are errors in the legend.
No. 49 (figs. 49a-g): 51 AR tetradrachms of Alexander the Great; Museum of Izmir.
R 23 mm, weight – no. 1: 17.10 gr, no. 6: 17.14 gr, no. 21: 17.10 gr, no. 25: 17.20 gr, and
no. 41: 17.13 gr.
Obv: Alexander the Great as Hercules with a lion skin. Following errors are observed:
Schematic yield of the eye (= delta); lack of understanding of the head of a lion and his
imperfect reproduction; summary yield of the hair.
Rev: In the field “ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ”, Zeus Aitophoros seated, holding an eagle in his
outstretched hand. Sometimes the Zeus’ neck and the knot on top of the god’s head are
missing. In some coins the throne legs are ridiculous.
232 RANT 18, 2021
Figs. 48a-d.
39 AR staters
of Aspendus
in Pamphylia
between
370-325 B.C.;
Museum of
Izmir
RANT 18, 2021 233
234 RANT 18, 2021
Figs. 49a-b. 51 AR tetradrachms of Alexander the Great; Museum of Izmir
RANT 18, 2021 235
Figs. 49c-d. 51 AR tetradrachms of Alexander the Great; Museum of Izmir
236 RANT 18, 2021
Figs. 49e-g. 51 AR tetradrachms of Alexander the Great; Mu-

seum of Izmir
RANT 18, 2021 237
Figs. 50a-b. 9 AR tetradrachms of Philip III Arrhidaeus; Museum of Izmir
No. 50 (figs. 50a-b): 9 AR tetradrachms of Philip III Arrhidaeus; Museum of Izmir.

R 22-23 mm, weight – no. 1: 17.16 gr, and no. 6: 17.09 gr.
Obv: Alexander the Great as Hercules with a lion skin.
Rev: In the field “ΒΑΣΙΛΙΩΣ” and “ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ”, Zeus Aitophoros seated, holding an
eagle in his outstretched hand.
In some specimens the performance of the lion’s skin are different; different yield of the
muscles of Zeus and also the design of the throne. Legend incorrect.
238 RANT 18, 2021
Figs. 51a-b. A AR tetradrachm of Figs. 52a-b. A bronze coin of Aegae in

Philip III Arrhidaeus; Museum of Aksaray Cilicia during the era of Valerianus I
(A.D. 253-260); Museum of Izmir
Figs. 53a-b. A solidus of Theodosius II Fig. 54. Two golden coins of Empress Irene
(A.D. 402-450); Museum of Mersin (A.D.797-802) and Emperor Phocas
(602-610); Museum of Balıkesir
No. 51 (figs. 51a-b): A AR tetradrachm of Philip III Arrhidaeus; Museum of Aksaray.

Same obv. and rev. as no. 50.
No. 52 (figs. 52a-b): Bronze coin of Aigeai in Cilicia during the era of Valerianus I (A.D. 253-
260); Museum of Izmir.
R 31 mm, weight: 19.47 gr.
Obv.: AU KAI POU LIK OUALERIANOC CEB.
Rev.: Hygeia, Asclepius, Telesphorus, [AIGIE]WN NEW NARCIC and the year ETT.
Untrue details in the portrait, eg. in the lip and in the orbit design.
No. 53 (figs. 53a-b): Solidus of Theodosius II (A.D. 402-450); Museum of Mersin.
Obv.: DN THEODOSIVS PF AVG. Clearly counterfeit because of different rendering of
the hair and of the eye, different output of his garment.
Rev.: GLORIA ROMANORVM eserg. CON. Different trend of the mantle, which hangs
from the right arm or the globe; different shapes of the letters. 33
33. On Byzantine counterfeit coins and their determination through non-destructive

archaeometric analysis: Aydın-Mutlu 2012.
RANT 18, 2021 239
Figs. 55a-b. Figs. 56a-b. A silver Figs. 57a-b. A Class

Tertarteron nomisma coin of Emperor G bronze anonymous
of Alexius Comnenus Andronicus III follis of Romanus IV
(A.D. 1081-1118, Paleologus Diogenes
struck 1081-1087); (A.D. 1328-1341); (A.D. 1068-1071);
Museum of Akşehir Museum of Uşak Museum of Izmir
No. 54 (fig. 54): Two golden coins of Empress Irene (A.D.797-802) and Emperor Phocas (602-
610); Museum of Balıkesir.
Obv.: EIRINH BASILISSH. The portrait of the empress was not correctly understood,
wearing loros and crown with pinnacles and pendilia; legend erroneous and not intel-
ligible.
Rev.: dN FOCAS PERP AVC. The portrait of the emperor, wearing loros and crown with
pinnacles and pendilia, is wrong.
No. 55 (figs. 55a-b): Tetarteron nomisma of Alexius Comnenus (A.D. 1081-1118, struck 1081-
1087); Museum of Akşehir.
Obv.: Facing bust of Christ Pantocrator.
Rev.: Facing bust of Alexius I Comnenus, crowned, holding cruciform scepter and globus
cruciger. The legend is non legible.
No. 56 (figs. 56a-b): A silver coin of Emperor Andronicus III Paleologus (A.D. 1328-1341);
Museum of Uşak.
Obv.: St. Demetrius at right, and Andronicus III at left.
Rev: IC XC across field, Christ enthroned.
Lack of understanding of the drapery; inaccurate rendering of the sides of the throne.
No. 57 (figs. 57a-b): Class G bronze anonymous follis of Romanus IV Diogenes (A.D. 1068-
1071); Museum of Izmir.
Constantinopolitan mint.
Obv: Bust of Christ, nimbate, facing, wearing nimbus cruciger, pallium and colobium, rais-
ing right in benediction, scroll in left hand, to left IC, to right XC, border of large pellets,
all within border of large dots.
Rev: Facing bust of the Virgin Orans, nimbate and wearing pallium and maphorium, to left
MP, to right ΘV; border of large pellets.
240 RANT 18, 2021
At the Christ’ bust there are some visible errors in the yield of the drapery and of the scroll;
confusion at the bust of the Virgin Mary on the right side.
No. 58 (fig. 58): A bronze Medieval Islamic coin; Museum of Erzurum.
Similar to the coinage of Saladin of Ayyubids. The legend is not readable on the edge.
No. 59 (figs. 59a-b): An Ottoman golden coin (hayriye), Sultan Mahmud II (1808-1839; the
original was struck in the year 1829); Museum of Rize.
Acquired in Hopa, Artvin.
The edge is less raised and has not a series of triangular protruding points.
Fig. 58. A bronze Medieval Islamic coin; Figs. 59a-b. An Ottoman golden coin (hayriye),
Museum of Erzurum Sultan Mahmud II (1829); Museum of Rize
References
Akbıyıkoğlu, K. 1991, Güre Basmacı Tümülüsü Kurtarma Kazısı, in I. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları
Semineri, 19-20 Nisan 1990, Ankara, 1-23 (online: <http://www.envanter.gov.tr/files/
belge/MCKKS1_0001.pdf>, July 7, 2014).
Anonymous 1899, Notizie degli scavi di antichità, Rome. accessed from <http://archive.org/
stream/notiziedegliscav1899accauoft/notiziedegliscav1899accauoft_djvu.txt> on
July 7, 2014.
Anonymous 1943, Rich as Croesus, Bulletin of the Business Historical Society 17/2, April,
p. 47-48.
Anonymous 1972, Catalogue of the Collection of Ancient and Later Coins. The property of
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which will be sold at auction by Sotheby & Co. A.G.
(Zurich, Switzerland) at the Dolder Grand Hotel, Zurich. Part I. Roman Gold Coins;
Part II. Greek Coins from the John Ward Collection, Zurich.
Anonymous 2001, Fighting Illicit Traffic Source, The Burlington Magazine 143/1179, June,
p. 331.
Argyropoulos, V., Aloupi-Siotis, E., Polikreti, K., Apostolides, R., El Saddik, W., Gottschalk,
R., Abd el Nazeer, M., Vryonidou-Yiangou, M., Ashdjian, P., Yannoulatou, M.-C., Si-
mon, S., Davis, W., Kassianidou, V. 2014, Museum Education and Archaeological Eth-
ics: An Approach to the Illicit Trade of Antiquities, Journal of Conservation and Mu-
seum Studies 12/1, 2 (February 13, 2014); accessed from <http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/
jcms.1021210> on July 7, 2014.
Atwood, R. 2004, Stealing History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the Ancient
World, New York.
Aydın, M. 2013a, Müze Kolleksiyonlarında Bulunan Antik Çağ Metal Eserlerinin Orjinalliğinin
Korunmasında Tahribatsız Arkeometrik Yöntemler, in P. Ayter, Ş. Demirci, A. M. Özer
RANT 18, 2021 241
(eds.), III. ODTÜ Arkeometrik Çalıştayı. Türkiye Arkeolojisinde Metal: Arkeolojik ve

Arkeometrik Çalışmalar. Prof. Dr. Halet Çambel Onuruna Bildiriler Kitabı. 3-5 Ekim
2013 Kültür ve Kongre Merkezi D Salonu, Ankara, p. 166-172.
Aydın, M. 2013b, Authenticity of Roman Imperial Age Silver Coins using Non-Destructive
Archaeometric Techniques, Unpubl. Diss. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Aydın, M., Mutlu, S. 2012, Bizans Dönemi’ne Ait Altın Sikke Orijinalliğinin Tespitinde
Tahribatsız Arkeometrik ve Görsel Analiz Yöntemlerinin Kullanılması, in A. A. Akyol,
K. Özdemir (eds.), Türkiye’de Arkeometrinin Ulu Çınarları. Prof.Dr. Ay Melek Özer ve
Prof.Dr. Şahinde Demirci’ye Armağan / Two Eminent Contributors to Archaeometry in
Turkey. To Honour of Prof.Dr. Ay Melek Özer and Prof.Dr. Şahinde Demirci, Istanbul,
p. 97-106.
Babelon, E. 1895, Blanchet A., Catalogue des bronzes antiques de la Bibliothèque nationale,
publié sous les auspices de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Fondation
Eugène Piot, Paris.
Bagnani, G. 1960, On Fakes and Forgeries, Phoenix 14/4, Winter, p. 228-244.
Barresi, P. 2003, Province dell’Asia Minore. Costo dei marmi, architettura pubblica e commit-
tenza, Studia archaeologica 125, Rome.
Blanchet, J.-A. 1896, Statuette d’Hermaphrodite, Revue archéologique, 3/28, January-June,
p. 160-162.
von Bothmer D. 1984, A Greek and Roman Treasury, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bul-
letin, 42/1, Summer, p. 5-72.
Von Bothmer, D., Bothmer, B.V., Getz-Preziosi, P., Buitron-Oliver, D., Oliver Jr., A. 1987, An-
tiquities from the Collection of Christos G. Bastis, Emma Swan Hall (Mainz on Rhine
1987).
Bower, B. 2009, Archaeologists tracing the labyrinth of antiquities trafficking hope to shut it
down, or at least slow it up, Science News 175/7, March 28, p. 20-23.
Boyce, G.K. 1937, Corpus of Lararia of Pompei, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome
14, Rome.
Bowman Proulx, B. 2011, Trafficking in Antiquities, in C. Smith, S. Zhang, R. Barberet (eds.),
Handbook of International Criminology, New York, p. 192-199.
— 2013, Archaeological Site Looting in „Glocal“ Perspective: Nature, Scope, and Frequency.
American Journal of Archaeology 117/1, January, p. 111-125.
Brodie, N., Doole, J., Watson, P. 2000, Stealing History. The Illicit Trade in Cultural Material,
Cambridge.
Brodie, N., Doole, J., Renfrew, C. (eds.) 2001, Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of
the World’s Archaeological Heritage, Cambridge.
Brodie, N., Renfrew, C. 2005, Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The Inad-
equate Response, Annual Review of Anthropology 34, p. 343-361.
Brodie, N., Tubb, K. (eds.) 2002, Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of
Archaeology, London.
Brumfiels, S. 2018, How to Spot Fake Cuneiform Tablets; The Ancient Near East 6/9, Septem-
ber <https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/06/Spot-Fake-Cueiform-Tablets> (accessed
on 04/07/2020).
Bulgurlu, V., İlaslı, A. 2003, Seals from the Museum of Afyon (Turkey), in J.-C. Cheynet,
C. Sode (eds.), Studies in Byzantine Sigillography, Munich-Leipzig, p. 131-149.
242 RANT 18, 2021
Chechi, A., Bandle, A.L., Renold, M.-A. 2012, Case Lydian Hoard – Turkey and Metropolitan
Museum of Art, in Platform ArThemis, Art-Law Centre, University of Geneva; accessed
from <https://plone.unige.ch/art-adr/cases-affaires/lydian-hoard-2013-turkey-and-met-
ropolitan-museum-of-art-1?searchterm=lydian> on July 7, 2014.
Anonymous 1972, The Collection of Ancient and Later Coins. The Property of The Metropoli-
tan Museum, Zurich.
Colomban, Ph., de Laveaucoupet, R., Milande, V. 2005, On-site Raman Analysis of Kütahya
Fritware, Journal of Raman Spectroscopy 36, p. 857-863.
Craddock, P. (ed.) 2009, Scientific Investigation of Copies, Fakes and Forgeries, Oxford.
Hayes, J.W. 1972, Late Roman Pottery, London.
Holtorf, C. 2013, On Pastness: A Reconsideration of Materiality in Archaeological Object Au-
thenticity, Anthropological Quarterly 86/2, Spring 2013, p. 427-443.
Holtorf, C., Schadla-Hall, T. 1999, Age as Artefact: On Archaeological Authenticity, European
Journal of Archaeology 2, p. 229-247.
Jones, S. 2010, Negotiating Authentic Objects and Authentic Selves, Journal of Material Cul-
ture 15/2, p. 181-203.
Jones, M., Craddock, P.T., Barker, N. 1990, Fake? The Art of Deception. Exhibition Catalogue,
Los Angeles, CA.
Kaye, L.M., Main, C.T. 1995, The Saga of the Lydian Hoard Antiquities: from Uşak to New
York and Back and Some Related Observations on the Law of Cultural Repatriation,
in K. W. Tubb (ed.), Antiquities, Trade or Betrayed. Legal, Ethical and Conservation
Issues, London, p. 150-162.
R.-C. de Lasteyrie du Saillant 1890, Album archéologique des musées de Province, Paris.
Mezzasalma, A.M., Mondio, G., Serafino, T., De Fulvio, G., Romeo, M., Salici, A. 2009, An-
cient Coins and their Modern Fakes: an Attempt of Physico-Chemical Unmasking,
Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 9/2, p. 15-28.
Mollard-Besques, S. 1963, Catalogue raisonné des figurines er reliefs en terre-cuite grecs et
romaines, vol. II: Myrina, Paris.
Negbi, O. 1976, Canaanite Gods in Metal: An Archaeological Study of Ancient Syro-Palestin-
ian Figurines, Tel Aviv.
Neidhardt, M. 2010, Replik-Handarbeit in alter Tradition, accessed from <http://www.replik.
de/> on July 7, 2014.
Özgen, İ., Öztürk, J. (eds.), 1996 The Lydian Treasure: Heritage Recovered, Istanbul.
Pensabene, P. (ed.) 1998, Marmi antichi II : cave e tecnica di lavorazione, provenienze e dis-
tribuzione (Studi Miscellanei 31), Rome.
Picón, C.A. 2007, A History of the Department of Greek and Roman Art, in C. A. Picón, J.
R. Mertens, E. J. Milleker, C. S. Lightfoot, S. Hemingway (eds.), Art of the Classical
World in the Metropolitan Museum, Greece, Cyprus, Etruria, Rome, New York, p. 3-23.
Porter, J.I. (ed.) 2006, Classical Pasts: The Classical Traditions of Greece and Rome, Prince-
ton, NJ.
Pottier, E., Reinach, S. 1888, La Necropole de Myrina, Paris.
Renfrew, C. 2002, Loot, Legitimacy, & Ownership, London.
Rich, K.M.V. 2013, Chasing the Golden Hoard: The Story of a Lydian Hoard: The Story of
Theft, Repatriation, Greed & Deceit, Bloomington, IN.
RANT 18, 2021 243
Roosevelt, C.H. 2006, Tumulus Survey and Museum Research in Lydia, Western Turkey: De-
termining Lydian- and Persian-Period Settlement Patterns, Journal of Field Archaeol-
ogy 31/1, Spring, p. 61-76.
Roosevelt, C.H., Luke, C. 2006, Looting Lydia: The Destruction of an Archaeological Land-
scape in western Turkey, in N. Brodie, M. M. Kersel, C. Luke, K. W. Tubb (eds.),
Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiquities Trade, Cultural Heritage Studies,
Gainesville, FL, p. 173-187.
Rose, M., Acar, Ö. 1995, Turkey’s War on the Illicit Antiquities Trade, Archaeology 48, p. 45-
55.
- 1996, Turkey’s War on the Illicit Antiquities Trade, in K. D. Vitelli (ed.), Archaeological Eth-
ics, Walnut Creek, CA, p. 71-89.
Sayles, W.G. 2001, Classical Deception: Counterfeits, Forgeries and Reproductions of Ancient
Coins, Iola, WI.
Sismondo Ridgway, B. 2002, Hellenistic Sculpture 3: The Styles of ca. 100-31 B.C., Wisconsin
Studies in Classics, Madison, WI.
Spier, J. 1990, Blinded with Science: The Abuse of Science in the Detection of False Antiqui-
ties, The Burlington Magazine 132/1050, September, p. 623-631.
Sreberny, A., Torfeh, M. 2013, Cultural Revolution in Iran: Contemporary Popular Culture in
the Islamic Republic, London.
Uhlenbrock, J. 1990, The Coroplastic’s Art. Greek Terracottas in Hellenistic World, New Ro-
chelle, NJ.
Walker, C.B.F. 1987, Reading the Past. Cuneiform, Berkeley, CA-London.
Watson, O. 2004, Fakes and Forgeries on Islamic Pottery, Oriente moderno 23/84, 2004/2,
p. 517-539.
Watson, P., Todeschini, C. 2007, The Medici Conspiration: the Illicit Journey of Looted An-
tiquities from Italy’ Tomb Raider to the World’s Greatest Museums, Cambridge, MA.
Waxman, S. 2008, Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World, New York.
Weis, A. 1992, The Hanging Marsyas and its Copies: Roman Innovations in a Hellenistic
Sculptural Tradition, Rome.
Winter, F. 1903, Die antiken Terrakotten III.2: Die Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten, Berlin-
Stuttgart.
Witschel, C. 1995, Büste des Kaisers Marc Aurel, in K. Stemmer (ed.), Standorte, Kontexte und
Funktion antiker Skulptur. Ausstellungskatalog Berlin, Berlin, p. 257-262.
Zararsız, A., Özen, L., Aydın, M. 2013, Uşak Müzesi Lidya Eserleri (Karun Hazineleri), Metal
Analizleri, in P. Ayter, Ş. Demirci, A. M. Özer (eds.), III. ODTÜ Arkeometrik Çalıştayı.
Türkiye Arkeolojisinde Metal: Arkeolojik ve Arkeometrik Çalışmalar. Prof. Dr. Halet
Çambel Onuruna Bildiriler Kitabı. 3-5 Ekim 2013 Kültür ve Kongre Merkezi D Salonu,
Ankara, p. 92-103.

Archaeoloigacl Fakes in Turkey

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Archaeoloigacl Fakes in Turkey

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

18

Éditions Safran Publishers

Éditions Safran Publishers

Directeur du Conseil scientifique :

© 2021 – Éditions Safran | Rue des Genévriers, 32 | B – 1020 Bruxelles, Belgique

ISSN 1781-1317 | Logo de la revue créé par Jean-Michel Lartigaud

7 Problemi di epistemologia etrusca

25 Recent archaeological discoveries in the land of Bia/Urartu

49 L’atelier d’un batteur d’armures à Tell Ahmar

« Shamshi-Ilu Went to Camp along with Captain Bassing ...».

119 Un « nouvel » idiome sémitique ? Les inscriptions ibères revisitées

153 Le culte d’Hercule de Vicus Stramentarius à l’église de Sainte-Marie

167 Ressemblances et dissemblances dans les conflits entre les dieux

183 Representations of Asia(tics) in Kushite Royal Inscriptions

205 Archaeological fakes and forgeries in Turkey

245 Aristote et le divin

265 Asbotos. Proposition d’étymologie d’un toponyme thessalien

283 Phrygians in Disguise: Onomastic Evidence for Phrygian-Anatolian

317 “L’État, c’est moi !”

331 La déesse Déméter

377 The new transliteration of Sidetic and the etymology

387 Antica iscrizione di Castegnero (Vicenza) in scrittura simile alla ligure

Archaeological fakes and forgeries in Turkey

Map 1. Places referred to in the text (underlined when possessing a museum)

The illegal trade in counterfeit antiques is considered by international police as

1. Bowman Proulx 2011: 192.

Stone Statues, Statuettes, Sarcophagi and Mosaics

Bronze Statues and Statuettes

13. Brumfiels 2018 (http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/06/Spot-Fake-Cueiform-Tablets:

Bronzes, Pottery, Glass and Miscellaneous

19. Sayles 2001: 2.

Catalogue of the Examples of Archaeological Fakes and Forgeries

Figs. 1a-c. A cuneiform tablet;

Statues, Statuettes, Sarcophagi and Mosaics

26. Cf. Negbi 1976: 34-36, pl. XXIV-XXV.

Fig. 3a. Statue of Marsyas; Museum of Balıkesir.

Figs. 3b-d. Statue of Marsyas; Museum of Manisa

It is a copy of an original statue at the Museum of Manisa

Figs. 6a-d: Bronze statuette of Apollo;

are identical the pectoral muscles in his chest, as

Figs. 8a-b. Iuppiter; Museum of Anatolian Civilizations at Ankara

Figs. 13a-e. Hermaphrodite; Museum of Ödemiş

No. 14 (figs. 14a-c): Statuette of Attis; Museum of Samsun.

Figs. 14a-c. Statuette of Attis; Museum of Samsun

Fig. 15. Statuette of Athena; Museum of Konya

No. 16 (fig. 16): Limestone ossuary; Museum of Akşehir.

Fig. 16. A limestone ossuary; Fig. 17. A mosaic panel;

Figs. 18a-b. Aphrodite; Museum of Aydın

Figs. 19a-b. Aphrodite; Museum of Aydın

Fig. 20. A “Cnidian” relief Figs. 21-22. Two terracotta unguentaria;

32. See Hayes 1972, pl. XXIIa, 411-412.

Fig. 23. A glass bottle; Figs. 24a-b. A “Phoenician” glass one-handled

Figs. 25a-b and 26: Two “Phoenician” glass alabastra;

No. 27 (fig. 27): “Phoenician” glass bottle; Museum of Sivas.

Fig. 27. A “Phoenician” glass bottle; Museum of Sivas

No. 31 (figs. 31a-b): Glass bottle; Museum of Bitlis.

Figs. 33-34. Two glass bracelets; Museum of Erzurum

Fig. 38: Two

Fig. 39: Gems;

Fig. 37. A cylinder seal;

Fig. 43. A bronze lamp;

Figs. 44a-c. A bronze lamp;

Fig. 45. A terracotta lamp;

119 Un « nouvel » idiome sémitique ? Les inscriptions ibères revisitées