Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Cold Chain Management: An Evaluation of Predictive Waste Management Models
Previous Article in Journal
Extending the Shelf Life of Apples After Harvest Using Edible Coatings as Active Packaging—A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/app15020768
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Head Pendant from the Marchetti Collection: Phoenicio-Punic Glass or Modern Forgery?

by
Elisabetta Malaman
1,*,
Cinzia Bettineschi
2,
Ivana Angelini
1 and
Monica Salvadori
1
1
Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Padua, 35122 Padua, Italy
2
Department of Literary, Linguistic, and Philosophical Studies, Pegaso Digital University, 80132 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(2), 768; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15020768
Submission received: 30 November 2024 / Revised: 22 December 2024 / Accepted: 26 December 2024 / Published: 14 January 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This article focuses on the archaeological and archaeometric characterization of a glass head pendant in Phoenicio-Punic style from the Marchetti Collection, a formerly private assemblage now belonging to the University of Padova. After the first visual inspection, the typology and appearance of the object raised serious doubts about its authenticity. For this reason, an integrated approach combining stylistic and typo-chronological analyses with archaeometric data was implemented for reconstructing the manufacturing techniques and identifying the raw materials used (i.e., silica source, flux composition, and colouring and opacifying agents). The analytical techniques used include stereomicroscopy (SM) to identify the production techniques, OM, SEM-EDS, and µ-Raman for textural and chemico-mineralogical investigations. The archaeological study and the comparison of our analytical results with the data published in the scientific literature agree in confirming that the investigated object is a forgery, as already demonstrated for other pieces from the same collection.

1. Introduction

Bruno Marchetti was a lawyer with a passion for archaeology. During his life, he gathered a significant collection of alleged ancient artifacts which were bequeathed to the University of Padua in December 2015, in agreement with the Soprintendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio per l’area metropolitana di Venezia e le province di Belluno, Padova e Treviso [1,2]. The Marchetti Collection includes numerous pottery vessels in Greek and South Italian styles and a small nucleus of glass and metal objects [3,4,5]. However, the materials were purchased on the antiquarian market, and thus, the exact provenance of the single pieces is unknown. As a result, the authenticity of the objects needs to be further confirmed with specialistic investigations.
Among the very limited glass objects in the collection, the most significant piece is probably a male head pendant in Phoenicio-Punic style, belonging to a class of luxury goods which was typical of the mid-1st millennium BC Mediterranean world. Their actual function beyond a simplistic ornamental use is still a matter of dispute: Cintas [6] was the first researcher to suggest an apotropaic meaning, especially due to the colour combinations and the presence of big eyes, which are traditionally associated with this function [6,7,8,9]. On the other hand, many authors argue that these pendants reproduce divine images belonging to Phoenicio-Punic pantheon [9,10]. A summary of the hypothesis of their function can be found, e.g., in Lisella [11] and Malaman, Spagiari [12].
In this paper, we will question the authenticity of the Marchetti piece by assessing its coherence with the style, typology, production technologies, and raw materials expected for original specimens, integrating archaeological studies and analytical investigations.

2. Materials and Methods

The Marchetti head pendant measures 2.5 cm in height and 1.9 cm in width and has a thickness of 1.6 cm. It reproduces a male human head with a curly beard and a hat in two different colours, white and purple (Figure 1a–c). The typology and style both evoke the Phoenicio-Punic specimens in the shape of human and animal heads that can be found especially in funerary contexts throughout the Mediterranean, starting from the end of the 8th century BC and particularly until the early 4th century BC, with some limited types reaching up to the 1st century BC (the main reference for the study of head pendants is Seefried 1982. Notes on several pieces currently preserved in museum collections around the world can be found [13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Some recent updates to Seefreed 1982 can be found [11,20,21].
The closest comparisons for our piece are Seefried’s [7] types B III [7] and C VI [7] (Figure 2a,b), which include male heads characterized by a twisted headband and either a straight or curly beard. The chronology of the B III pendants ranges from the very end of the 6th to the end of the 5th century BC; they have a straight beard and hair and wear a characteristic twisted headband, which is also found in type C VI. The actual dating of C VI type pendants is still uncertain, as the limited occurrences discovered (only 3) come from unreliable contexts or unprovenanced collections. However, Seefreed suggests a generic date in the last centuries BC due to their similarity with the female heads type D II. From a technological point of view, it has been noted that it is the only type of head pendant possibly made with a combination of moulding (for the face) and rod forming.
The Marchetti pendant shows some relevant differences with respect to both types: in particular, our piece has a curly beard, while B III has straight stubble. Conversely, type C VI has a curly beard, but the Marchetti head lacks the spiral that is present on the rear side of the published occurrences, as well as hair on the sides of the hat. In addition, the cheeks, nose, and chin are less pronounced than in genuine archaeological finds. All of these elements suggest that the artefact in the Marchetti Collection is most probably a forgery, at least from an archaeological perspective. Moreover, the stylistic analysis allowed us to clarify that our pendant is not an exact and philological reproduction of a specific type, but rather a pastiche inspired from at least two different models.

Analytical Techniques

Firstly, we recorded the physical characteristics of the object, including its weight, dimensions, and glass colours (Table 1). The colour palette was identified using Natural Colour System (NCS) codes. The pendant was observed with a stereoscopic microscope (SM) Olympus SZ61-TR with a circular LED and optical fibre lighting with a digital camera Nikon Coolpix LC30, 3.1-megapixel digital colour. These observations were carried out to investigate the production technologies thanks to the identification of specific markers such as flux lines or tool marks. Moreover, the SM helped to evaluate the conservation state of the piece and select the sampling areas for subsequent micro-invasive analyses. The glass chips detached from the pendant comprise a blue glass sample from the rear of the pendant (CM-P-B 148), a white glass sample from the right ear (CM-P-Bi 148), and a purple glass sample from the hat. On the contrary, the light blue of the beard and the yellow of the mouth were not sampled for safety reasons.
The optical microscope (OM) (the optical microscope used is a Nikon Eclipse ME600 (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) supplied to the Department of Geosciences of the University of Padua. The images were acquired with a Canon EOS 600D Reflex camera (Canon Inc, Tokyo, Japan) with proprietary Camera Control Pro 2 software) investigation was carried out in reflected light (RL-OM) at different magnifications (50×–1000×) with the aim of highlighting the texture of the glass, the porosities, the mineralogical inclusions, and the glass phase. These same topics were also investigated in better detail with a CamScan MX3000 Scanning Electron Microscope (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) coupled with an EDAX Energy-Dispersive System (SEM-EDS); the analyses were carried out at the Department of Geosciences of the University of Padua (Italy). The glass chips were preliminarily mounted in epoxy resin and polished with sandpaper of decreasing grain size, for morphological imaging and semi-quantitative chemical characterization. The operating conditions were set at W filament, working distance 25 mm, beam current 50–60 nA, accelerating voltage 25 kV, and acquisitions from 60 s to 100 s per point/areal analysis.
Micro-Raman spectroscopy (µ-Raman) was used to identify the crystalline inclusions associated with the opacity of the white glass sample. µ-Raman analyses were performed with a Thermo Scientific DXR µ-Raman on the detached chips with a 50 LWD (Long Working Distance) objective, with a spectral resolution between 2.7 and 4.2 cm−1 and a spatial resolution of 1.1 μm. The exposure time was 3 s × 32 scans. The analyses were conducted at the Department of Chemistry of the University of Padua. The spectra obtained were processed and identified using Omnic 9 Thermo Scientific in association with the RRUFF online database (www.rruff.info).

3. Results

3.1. Production Process

According to the SM observations, the mouth was applied as a simple drop of yellow glass, without separating the lips with an impressed line. In contrast, the lips are well outlined in virtually all types of archaeological pendants, including the B III type and C VI type (Figure 3a). The nose was most probably applied, although it might have been drawn by pinching the glass directly from the face. Unfortunately, the contact line between the two white glasses is almost entirely masked by a soil-like encrustation; thus, it is not possible to solve the issue. The ears were shaped by applying an elongated thread of yellow glass. The eyes were obtained using layers of blue and white glass applied circularly and then flattened, whereas the protruding pupils were applied as a round drop of blue glass. The eyebrows are almost imperceptible as if they had been carved into the glass itself and partly covered by the headband (Figure 3b). The suspension ring is pulled directly from the top of the pendant by pinching and drawing part of the glass (Figure 3c). Most of these technical details differ from all archaeologically attested human head pendants [22,23]. Indeed, ancient specimens usually show greater care and attention in the rendering of physiognomic details, with respect to the pendant in the Marchetti Collection. From a technological perspective, the Marchetti pendant is produced by rod forming. This is demonstrated by the cavity at the bottom, which is lined by possible remains of the detaching agent (Figure 3d).
It is also important to note the presence of two layers of surface patina, one white and very uniform, the other irregular and soil-like in terms of colour and texture. Both of them are conveniently located to mask relevant technological discontinuities and contemporarily contribute to alluding to a provenance from an actual archaeological excavation. These details, associated with the total absence of weathering patinas, and the use of atypically bright colours, contrast with authentic Phoenicio-Punic artefacts, suggesting again that this is most probably a forgery.

3.2. Silica Source and Flux Composition

SEM-EDS data show that the blue, white, and purple samples are soda–silica–lime glasses, with the values of silica ranging from ca. 53 wt% (CM-P-Bi and CM-P-Vi148) to 69 wt% (CM-P-B148). In particular, the white and purple specimens can be considered as leaded glasses due to the relevant concentrations of PbO (25 wt% and 11.8 wt%, respectively). FeO is about 0.5–0.7 wt% for the purple and white samples but higher in the blue glass (2.7 wt%). The use of sand as the main silica source in all glass samples is demonstrated by the values of both alumina (ca. 2.4–2.9 wt%) and iron oxide. The relatively low content of iron found in the white and purple glasses (mean FeO 0.6%) suggests that rather pure or purified sand was selected for these colours.
Regarding the flux composition, Na2O is approximately 12 wt% in the blue glass, 9 wt% in the purple glass, and 7 wt% in the white glass sample. The low content of soda is surely correlated on one side with the limits of the EDS analyses and on the other with the presence of PbO. Lead can also act as a fluxing agent, thus reducing the quantity of Na2O required to lower the melting temperature of our white and purple glasses. K2O ranges from 0.3 wt% to 0.6 wt%, whereas MgO reaches about 3 wt% for all of the analysed samples. However, EDS tends to overestimate the content of magnesia and underestimate the level of soda, as demonstrated by contextual analyses of internal standards with known chemical composition. Soda and magnesia are among the most important markers used in glass studies for clustering the compositional groups and identifying the raw materials used, as widely recognized in the literature [24,25]. Considering the uncertainty in our MgO values, at the moment, it is not possible to clarify with major certainty the recipe used. However, the composition of the analysed glasses can be most probably attributed to a soda–lime–silica glass similar to the ancient LMG group.

3.3. Colourants and Opacifiers

In the blue sample (CM-P-B148, Figure 4), the only chromophore element is FeO, whose high levels suggest that the blue might be due to the cation Fe2+. EDS analyses of the blue glass did not detect any traces of copper or cobalt oxides, which have been used since the Bronze Age to obtain the blue colour [24,26,27]. However, this dark blue shade might be possibly derived from CoO, which can confer a distinct blue colour even at very low concentrations (from 0.01 wt%), which cannot be detected with EDS. Therefore, it is possible that the blue is derived from the presence of cobalt, even if the analysis performed during this research did not detect its presence.
SEM-BSE images of the white sample CM-P-Bi148 evidence the presence of anhedral crystalline phases (Figure 5a). EDS and μ-Raman analyses agree in identifying the inclusions as cassiterite, i.e., SnO2 (cfr. the typical peak at 630 cm−1 in the Raman spectrum) (Figure 5b). Finally, the colour of the purple glass (CM-P-Vi148) derives from the addition of manganese oxide, which is present in good concentrations (1.5 wt%).
All of the samples do not show any trace of an eventual surface weathering layer which in contrast is very frequent in archaeological specimens.

3.4. Residues of a Possible Detaching Agent

A small sample of the material adhering to the glass in the internal cavity of the pendant and probably employed to simulate the detaching agent was also removed and characterized. The micro-Raman analyses clearly highlighted the composite nature of the sample (CM-P-Pa148). The matrix is predominantly composed of anglesite (PbSO4), which is associated with several inclusions of a chlorinated phase, possibly mendipite (Pb3Cl2O2), and another currently unidentified mineral phase (Figure 6).

4. Discussion

The alkali composition K2O/Na2O and K2O/MgO of the analysed samples (Figure 7a,b) is compatible with soda–lime–silica glasses. Samples are also characterised by a high amount of CaO, as well as limited SO3 and Cl. The Cl value is 0.3 wt% for the blue and white glasses (CM-P-Bl148 and CM-P-Bi148), and 0.4 wt% for the purple glass (CM-P-Vi148), according to SEM-EDS analyses. Because MgO values are surely overestimated, the composition is largely compatible with classic Low-Magnesium Glasses (LMG), which are found in Mediterranean contexts especially from the 9th century BC onwards [28,29].
SEM-EDS analysis and µ-Raman data confirm that the opacity of the white colour is connected to the addition of cassiterite (SnO2). The use of cassiterite as an opacifying phase is attested in a short chronological period between the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE in Central European Celtic glass and then from the late Roman age (4th century AD) and in modern glass [33,34,35]. These data contrast with the chronological range and geographical provenance of C VI and B III head pendants with which this artefact shows the greatest typological affinities. Cassiterite is not attested in any previously analysed Phoenico-Punic glass, for which calcium antimonate was used to both opacify and colour white glasses [22,23,30,32,36]. Moreover, the SEM-EDS analyses highlight the presence of euhedral crystals of wollastonite (CaSiO3) in the white sample. This mineral phase is a typical devitrification product and reveals the high temperatures reached during firing [37].
Regarding the violet glass, the EDS analyses show that manganese (in the form of the cation Mn3+) is employed as an ionic colourant. From a technological point of view, it is interesting to note that to form Mn3+, the furnace conditions must be oxidising [35,38]. However, the use of Mn does not offer chronological indications, as it was used as a colouring agent as early as the Late Bronze Age and continues to be used in modern and contemporary productions [31,39]. Looking at the silica and alkali content, the glasses from the Marchetti pendant reveal partial chemical analogies with the archaeological soda–silica–lime glasses of the Mediterranean Iron Age [22,30,32,37,39,40,41,42]. This is exemplified by the analytical data related to a male pendant excavated from tomb 144 in the necropolis of “Las Ruedas”, in the archaeological site of Pintia (Padilla de Duero, Valladolid, Spain) [32]. Figure 7a–c reports the analytical data of our samples and comparisons with other head pendants, unguentaria, and beads of the same chronology from Mozia (Trapani province, Italy) [30], Bologna (Italy) [31], Pintia (Padilla de Duero, Valladolid, Spain) [32], and Nora (Cagliari province, Italy) [22]. As already noted, from a chemical point of view, these glasses bear a certain similarity with the piece from the Marchetti Collection. They are all LMGs; the diagram K2O/Na2O shows that all glasses lay in the compositional range of mineral soda glass. However, the amount of PbO and the opacifying technologies identified clearly evidence that our samples are produced with modern glass, and not ancient, recycled LMG glass.
The high FeO content that characterises the blue glasses of the head pendants analysed in the literature often derives from the Fe2+ ion which can impart an intense blue colour. The blue glass of the head pendant from Pintia represents an exception because it is coloured due to a combination of CoO (0.2 wt%, XRF data), CuO (0.3 wt%, XRF data), and FeO (3.6 wt%, XRF data). Our EDS analyses did not detect traces of copper or cobalt, minerals that have been used since the Bronze Age to obtain blue hues in glass. However, it is important to note that the SEM’s sensitivity is not sufficient to identify elements at low concentrations. In the case of cobalt, only a few hundred ppm are needed to impart a deep blue colour. Therefore, it is possible that the blue glass from the Marchetti piece was indeed coloured with cobalt, but the analyses were unable to detect it. The pendant from the Marchetti Collection has also high iron content; this similarity allows us to rule out the use of iron as a discriminating element to identify a possible archaeological forgery in glasses.

5. Conclusions

The authenticity of the head pendant in the Marchetti Collection has been clarified thanks to a combination of stylistic and typo-chronological analyses and archaeometric investigations. With regard to the first point, a comparison between the piece in the Marchetti Collection and the original archaeological finds shows many differences [22]. The physiognomic elements such as the shape of the eyes, nose, and ears denote less care in their manufacture. The production process reveals that the pendant was surely created with the rod-forming technique, as is typical of this class of ornaments. The incrustation layer sampled inside the hole consists mainly of lead sulphate. This composition is not compatible with what is currently known on ancient detaching agents used in rod-forming, which mainly consisted of soil, sand, or clay [7,14,18,33,43]. An important highlight is the presence of two layers of surface patina applied to simulate the weathering of the glass and its provenance from an archaeological excavation. This patination is especially placed near the joints of protruding elements (ears, beard, and mouth) to mask relevant technological details related to the production process.
Considering the chemical composition, a comparison of the analytical data from the scientific literature with those of the artefact in the Marchetti Collection shows some interesting similarities. All glass samples analysed from the Marchetti pendant are largely compatible with a composition potentially comparable to natron-based glasses (Low-Magnesium Glasses—LMGs), as with most of the Mediterranean glasses of the mid- and late-Iron Age. However, a similar recipe is also used in certain modern and contemporary glasses. Additionally, the alumina content argues in favour of the use of sand in the production of the base glass, which again is not a relevant chronological indicator as sand is used both in ancient and recent glass recipes. Obviously, the area of production cannot be identified due to the absence of minor and trace element analyses.
Colouring agents are usually important clues for identifying the authenticity of an artefact. The use of MnO does not offer chronological clues since it was used from the very beginning of glass technology in the Late Bronze Age, but it is still employed in contemporary productions. In contrast, the use of cassiterite as an opacifier is more useful for dating purposes. As already discussed, cassiterite is attested for a short time-span between the 2nd and 1st centuries BC in Celtic glass from Central Europe and in late Roman productions. Despite the low number of objects of this phase and typology analysed to date, it seems reasonable to suggest that cassiterite has no specific ties with Phoenicio-Punic glass production.
In conclusion, we can argue that the pendant does not correspond to any known archaeological type. The manufacturing techniques are generally similar (rod-forming) but at the same time lack the attention to detail which was typical of these ancient products. Also, the Marchetti piece shows extremely bright colours and the glasses have no alteration layers. The appearance and distribution of the surface patinae as well as the composition of the detaching agent are also incompatible with Phoenicio-Punic dating. Finally, the use of cassiterite argues again in favour of the non-authenticity of the object.
In conclusion, this pendant is most likely a forgery, as already demonstrated for many other pieces from the same collection [5,44]. The falsification of Phoenicio-Punic glass, and especially unguentaria and head pendants, is a very well-known phenomenon in the antiquity market. The success of these fakes and forgeries is derived on one side from the aesthetic quality of the original pieces, which do not cease to fascinate modern collectors, and on the other to the existence of several local professional forgers active, e.g., in the area of Damascus, whose activity is supported by tourists, as well as online shopping sites, and sometimes even auction houses or museums themselves [45].

Author Contributions

E.M.: stereomicroscopic and optical imaging, writing—original draft preparation, data curation, and visualization; C.B.: SEM-EDS and µ-Raman analyses, writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review and editing; I.A., M.S.: conceptualization, supervision, and writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not relevant to the present study.

Informed Consent Statement

Not relevant to the present study.

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting the findings of this study are included within the article or are available in the cited references. No additional datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Acknowledgments

The Soprintendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio per l’area metropolitana di Venezia e le province di Belluno, Padova e Treviso is sincerely thanked for providing access to the object from the Marchetti Collection and for sampling authorization.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Salvadori, M.; Baggio, M.; Bernard, E.; Zamparo, L. Il falso nelle collezioni archeologiche: Dall’autenticazione alla promozione della legalità. In L’arte Non Vera Può Essere Arte; Edizioni Efesto: Rome, Italy, 2018; pp. 491–499. ISBN 9788894855890. [Google Scholar]
  2. Salvadori, M.; Baggio, M.; Bernard, E.; Zamparo, L. Il “Progetto MemO” e lo studio dei falsi tra ricerca, didattica ed educazione alla legalità: Note preliminari sulla Collezione Marchetti (Padova). In Falso! Il Patrimonio Culturale e la Difesa Dell’umanità; Musetti, F., Ed.; Atti del Convegno Interdisciplinare (Roma, 25–27 Ottobre 2018); Efesto Editions: Rome, Italy, 2018; pp. 105–132. ISBN 8833811557. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernard, E. Serial Forger? Some Pseudo-Apulian Vases in the Marchetti Collection in Padua. In Anthropology of Forgery, a Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Archaeological Fakes; Padova University Press: Padova, Italy, 2019; pp. 145–164. ISBN 978-88-6938-154-6. [Google Scholar]
  4. Coppola, A.; Peruch, S.E. Fake Greek and South Italian Vase Inscriptions in the “Marchetti Collection” (university of Padua). In Beyond Forgery. Collecting, Authentication and Protection of Cultural Heritage; Padova University Press: Padova, Italy, 2022; pp. 303–318. ISBN 978-88-6938-292-5. [Google Scholar]
  5. Zumerle, D. Il carro della Collezione Marchetti: Analisi preliminare. Authent. Stud. Int. J. Archaeol. Art 2022, 1, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cintas, P. Amulettes Puniques; Institut des Hautes Etudes de Tunis: Tunis, Tunisia, 1946. [Google Scholar]
  7. Seefried, M. Les Pendentifs en Verre sur Noyau des Pays de la Mèditerranèe Antique; Collection de l’ècole Française de Roma: Rome, Italy, 1982; Volume 57, ISBN 2726300340/9782726300343. [Google Scholar]
  8. Stern, E. Phoenicians masks and pendants. Palest. Explor. Q. 1976, 108, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Heavernick, T.E. Les Pendentifs en Verre sur Noyau des Pays de la Mèditerranèe Antique “Gesichtsperlen”; Madrider Mitteilungen: Madrider, Spain, 1977; Volume 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Frohener, W. La Verrerie Antique, Description de la Collection Charvet; Le Pecq: Charvet, Paris, France, 1903. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lisella, A.R. Glass Core-Pendants from the Museum of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Jerusalem. Liber Annu. Annu. Stud. Biblic. Fr. Jerus. 2005, 55, 435–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Malaman, E.; Spagiari, F. I pendenti in vetro antropomorfi e zoomorfi nella Sardegna fenicio-punica. In Atti del Convegno Nazionale Della Scuola di Specializzazione in Beni Archeologici; Università degli Studi di Padova: Padova, Italy, 2021; pp. 223–238. ISBN 978-88-5491-332-5. [Google Scholar]
  13. Barnett, R.D.; Mendleson, C. Tharros, a Catalogue of Material in the British Museum from Phoenician and Other Tombs at Tharros, Sardinia; British Museum Press: London, UK, 1987; ISBN 10: 0714112763/ISBN 13: 9780714112763. [Google Scholar]
  14. Giammellaro Spanò, A. I Vetri Della Sicilia Punica; Arbor Sapientiae Editore: Roma, Italy, 2010; ISBN 9788875974053. [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldstein, S.M. Pre-Roman and Early Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass; Corning Museum of Glass: Corning, NY, USA, 1979; ISBN 0872900673. [Google Scholar]
  16. Harden, D.B.; Tatton-Brown, V.A. Catalogue of Greek and Roman Glass in the British Museum 1981 = Rod-Formed Glass Pendants and Beads of the 1st Millennium BC, I; British Museum Press: London, UK, 1981; pp. 143–155. ISBN 0714112623/978-0714112626. [Google Scholar]
  17. Grose, D.F. The Toledo Museum (Toledo, Ohio) Early Ancient Glass: Core-Formed, Rod-Formed, and Cast Vessels and Objects from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Roman Empire, 1600 b.c. to a.d. 50; Hudson Hills Pr.: New York, NY, USA, 1989; ISBN 093392092X/978-0933920927. [Google Scholar]
  18. Spaer, M. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum: Beads and Other Small Objects; The Israel Museum: Jerusalem, Israel, 2001; ISBN 9652782602/9789652782601. [Google Scholar]
  19. Uberti, M.L. I Vetri Preromani del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Cagliari; Bonsignori: Rome, Italy, 1993; ISBN 8875972486/978-8875972486. [Google Scholar]
  20. Čelhar, M.; Kukoč, S. Stakleni privjesak u obliku ljudske glave iz Nadina Prilog poznavanju importa u kulturi Liburna, Glass head pendant from Nadin. A contribution to the understanding of import in the Liburnian culture, in Pril. Inst. Arheol. Zagreb. 2014, 31, 89–100. [Google Scholar]
  21. Taştemür, E. Glass pendants in Tekirdag and Edirne Museums. Anatolia Antiq. Rev. Int. D’archéologie Anatolienne 2017, XXV, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bettineschi, C.; Angelini, I.; Malaman, E.; Gratuze, B. Composizione e provenienza dei vetri punici dalla necropoli di Nora. Quad. Norensi 2020, 8, 231–240. [Google Scholar]
  23. Barroso-Solares, S.; Estalayo, E.; Aramendia, J.; Rodriguez-Gutierrez, E.; Sanz-Minguez, C.; Prieto, A.C.; Madariaga, J.M.; Pinto, J. A multi-technique approach to unveil the composition and fabrication of a pre-Roman glass masterpiece: A double-faced human-head shape polychrome glass pendant (2nd–1st c. BC). Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2024, 16, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Henderson, J. The raw materials of early glass production. Oxf. J. Archaeol. 1985, 4, 267–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shortland, A.; Tite, M.S. Raw materials and fabrication methods used in the production of faience. In Production Technology of Faience and Related Early Vitreous Materials; Tite, M.S., Shortland, A.J., Eds.; Oxford University School of Archaeology: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 37–55. ISBN 1905905122/978-1905905126. [Google Scholar]
  26. Angelini, I. Archaeometry of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Italian Vitreous Materials: A review. In Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Archaeometry, Siena, Italy, 12–16 May 2008; pp. 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Smirniou, M.; Rehren, T. Shades of blue-cobalt-copper coloured blue glass from New Kingdom Egypt and the Mycenaean world: A matter of production or colourant source? J. Archaeol. Sci. 2013, 40, 4731–4743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Artioli, G. Glass and Faiance, in Scientific Methods and Cultural Heritage: An Introduction to the Application of Materials Science to Archaeometry and Conservation Science; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 278–305. ISBN 9780199548262. [Google Scholar]
  29. Angelini, I.; Gratuze, B.; Artioli, G. Glass and other vitreous materials through history. In The Contribution of Mineralogy to Cultural Heritage; Artioli, G., Oberti, R., Eds.; EMU Notes in Mineralogy; Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland: Twickenham, UK, 2019; Volume 20, pp. 87–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Arletti, R.; Ferrari, D.; Vezzalini, G. Pre-roman glass from Mozia (Sicily-Italy): The first archaeometrical data. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2012, 39, 3396–3401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Arletti, R.; Maiorano, C.; Ferarri, D.; Vezzalini, G.; Quartieri, S. The first archaeometric data on polychrome Iron Age glass from sites located in northern Italy. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pinto, J.; Prieto, A.C.; Coria-Noguera, J.C.; Sanz-Minguez, C.; Souto, J. Investigating glass beads and the funerary rituals of ancient Vaccaei culture (S. IV–I BC) by Raman spectroscopy. J. Raman Spectrosc. 2021, 52, 170–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Moretti, C.; Hreglich, S. Raw Materials, Recipes and Procedures Used for Glass Making. Mod. Methods Anal. Archaeol. Hist. Glass 2013, I, 23–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lahlil, S.; Biron, L.; Cotte, M.; Susini, J. New insight on the in situ crystallization of calcium antimonate opacified glass during the Roman period. Appl. Physiscs AMater. Sci. Process. 2010, 100, 683–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gedzevičiūtė, V.; Welter, N.; Schüssler, U.; Weiss, C. Chemical composition and colouring agents of Roman mosaic and millefiori glass, studied by electron microprobe analysis and Raman microspectroscopy. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2009, 1, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bettineschi, C.; Angelini, I. Reflections into Ptolemaic glass: Colorless, white, blue, and green inlays from the workshop of Tebtynis. Archaeometry 2023, 65, 653–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gallo, F.; Silvestri, A.; Molin, G.; Marcante, A.; Guerriero, P. Iron Age vessels from the Archaeological Museum of Adria (North-Eastern Italy): A textural, chemical and mineralogical study. In Proceedings of the 39th International Symposium for Aarchaeometry, Leuven, Belgium, 28 May–1 June 2012; pp. 198–207, ISBN 9789461651204/9461651201. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gratuze, B.; Billaud, Y. La circulation des perles en verre dans le Bassin Mèditerranèen, de l’Âge du Bronze moyen jusqu’au Hallstatt. In Èchanges et Commerce du Verre Dans le Monde Antique, Actes du Colloque de l’Association Française Pour l’Archèologie du Verre (Aix en Provence et Marseille, 7–9 Juin 2001); Mergoil Montagnac, M., Ed.; Editions Monique Mergoil: Montagnac, France, 2003; pp. 11–15. ISBN 2-907303-72-4. [Google Scholar]
  39. Shortland, A.; Schroeder, H. Analysis of First Millennium b.C. Glass Vessels and Beads from the Picvnari Necropolis; Archaeometry, University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2009; Volume 51, pp. 947–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Panighello, S.; Orsega, E.F.; van Elteren, J.T.; Šelih, V.S. Analysis of polychrome Iron Age glass vessels from Mediterranean I, II and III groups by LA-ICP-MS. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2012, 39, 2945–2955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Šmit, Ž.; Laharnar, B.; Turk, P. Analysis of prehistoric glass from Slovenia. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2020, 29, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bettineschi, C.; Barciela González, V.; García Atiénzar, G.; Lorrio Alvarado, A.J.; Hernández Pérez, M.S. Early Vitreous Materials from Spain: Chronological and Compositional Variability in the Bronze Age Beads from the Alicante and Albacete Provinces (Approx. 1650-900 Cal. BCE). J. Glass Stud. 2025, 66. [Google Scholar]
  43. Stern, M.; Schlick-Nolte, B.; Stern, E.M. Early Glass of the Ancient World: 1600 B.C.-A.D. 50; Ernesto-Wolf Collection; Verlag Gerd Hatje: Ostfildern, Germany, 1994; ISBN 3775705031/9783775705035. [Google Scholar]
  44. Salemi, G.; Faresin, E.; Zamparo, L. Structuring Light for de-structuring Fake Ceramic Artefacts: The Case study of a Kylix from the Marchetti Collection. In Beyond Forgery; Collecting, Authentication and Protection of Cultural Heritage; Padova University Press: Padova, Italy, 2022; pp. 319–328. ISBN 978-88-6938-292-5. [Google Scholar]
  45. Eiland, M. Beyond the straight and narrow: Faking Phoenician glass in Damascus. Int. Rev. Anc. Art Archaeol. 2003, 14, 20–21. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 15 00768 g001
Figure 1. Male human head pendant from the Marchetti Collection. (a) frontal view of the pendant; (b) view of the left side of the pendant; (c) view of the right side of the pendant.
Figure 1. Male human head pendant from the Marchetti Collection. (a) frontal view of the pendant; (b) view of the left side of the pendant; (c) view of the right side of the pendant.
Applsci 15 00768 g001
Applsci 15 00768 g002
Figure 2. The pendant types that probably constituted the model for the glass head from the Marchetti Collection: (a) B type variety III pendant (from [7]) and (b) C type variety VI pendant (from [7]).
Figure 2. The pendant types that probably constituted the model for the glass head from the Marchetti Collection: (a) B type variety III pendant (from [7]) and (b) C type variety VI pendant (from [7]).
Applsci 15 00768 g002
Applsci 15 00768 g003
Figure 3. SM images of the male head pendant from the Marchetti Collection: (a) the mouth showing no indent to separate the lips; (b) the face of the pendant with multiple incrustation layers; (c) the suspension ring pulled directly from the top of the head; and (d) the cavity with possible remnants of the detaching agent.
Figure 3. SM images of the male head pendant from the Marchetti Collection: (a) the mouth showing no indent to separate the lips; (b) the face of the pendant with multiple incrustation layers; (c) the suspension ring pulled directly from the top of the head; and (d) the cavity with possible remnants of the detaching agent.
Applsci 15 00768 g003
Applsci 15 00768 g004
Figure 4. SEM image in Backscattered Electrons (BSEs) of the blue glass sample, showing a very uniform and homogeneous texture and no alteration layers.
Figure 4. SEM image in Backscattered Electrons (BSEs) of the blue glass sample, showing a very uniform and homogeneous texture and no alteration layers.
Applsci 15 00768 g004
Applsci 15 00768 g005
Figure 5. (a) SEM-BSE image of the heterogeneous texture of the white glass with anhedral crystalline inclusions of cassiterite; (b) Raman spectrum of a cassiterite crystal (SnO2). Its spectrum was compared with a standard reference spectrum of cassiterite derived from the Ruff web database.
Figure 5. (a) SEM-BSE image of the heterogeneous texture of the white glass with anhedral crystalline inclusions of cassiterite; (b) Raman spectrum of a cassiterite crystal (SnO2). Its spectrum was compared with a standard reference spectrum of cassiterite derived from the Ruff web database.
Applsci 15 00768 g005
Applsci 15 00768 g006
Figure 6. SEM-BSE image of the possible residue of the detaching agent removed from the internal cavity under the pendant.
Figure 6. SEM-BSE image of the possible residue of the detaching agent removed from the internal cavity under the pendant.
Applsci 15 00768 g006
Applsci 15 00768 g007
Figure 7. (a) Diagram of the K2O vs. Na2O content in the glass of the head pendant from the Marchetti Collection compared to other materials of similar chronology published in the literature. The colours of the symbols correspond to those of the glass samples. Circle = samples from the Marchetti head; rhombus = male head pendant from Mozia; EMPA data [30]; triangle = animal head pendant from Mozia, EMPA data [30]; square = eye bead from Mozia; EMPA data [30]; line = vessels from Bologna [31], EMPA data]; asterisk = eye bead from Bologna, EMPA data [31]; cross = male pendant from Pintia, ESEM-EDS data [32]; short lines = male head pendant from Nora, SEM-EDS data [10]. The colours of the symbols correspond to the colour of the samples; (b) diagram K2O vs. MgO comparing the samples from the head pendant from the Marchetti Collection with other materials of similar chronology published in the literature (symbols and colours like in (a)); (c) diagram of the Na2O vs. PbO content in the samples from the Marchetti pendant compared to other materials of similar chronology published in the literature (symbols and colours like in (a)); (d) Al2O3 vs. FeO content in the analysed samples from the Marchetti head compared to other materials of similar chronology published in the literature (symbols and colours like in (a)).
Figure 7. (a) Diagram of the K2O vs. Na2O content in the glass of the head pendant from the Marchetti Collection compared to other materials of similar chronology published in the literature. The colours of the symbols correspond to those of the glass samples. Circle = samples from the Marchetti head; rhombus = male head pendant from Mozia; EMPA data [30]; triangle = animal head pendant from Mozia, EMPA data [30]; square = eye bead from Mozia; EMPA data [30]; line = vessels from Bologna [31], EMPA data]; asterisk = eye bead from Bologna, EMPA data [31]; cross = male pendant from Pintia, ESEM-EDS data [32]; short lines = male head pendant from Nora, SEM-EDS data [10]. The colours of the symbols correspond to the colour of the samples; (b) diagram K2O vs. MgO comparing the samples from the head pendant from the Marchetti Collection with other materials of similar chronology published in the literature (symbols and colours like in (a)); (c) diagram of the Na2O vs. PbO content in the samples from the Marchetti pendant compared to other materials of similar chronology published in the literature (symbols and colours like in (a)); (d) Al2O3 vs. FeO content in the analysed samples from the Marchetti head compared to other materials of similar chronology published in the literature (symbols and colours like in (a)).
Applsci 15 00768 g007
Table 1. The table shows the data on the find analysed, including: the inventory number, sample abbreviations, material, state of conservation, macroscopic characteristics (size, weight, the rough colours, and the NCS colours), and provenance.
Table 1. The table shows the data on the find analysed, including: the inventory number, sample abbreviations, material, state of conservation, macroscopic characteristics (size, weight, the rough colours, and the NCS colours), and provenance.
ImageInventory NumberAbbreviationMaterialState of ConservationDimension (cm)Weight (g)ColourColour NCSProvenance
Applsci 15 00768 i001148CM-P-G 148GlassComplete and intact2.5 × 1.9 × 1.65YellowS1050-YUnknown/antiquity market
(currently in Padua, Italy)
CM-P-Bi 148WhiteS0502-Y50R
CM-P-A 148Light blueS1050-B
CM-P-B 148BlueS5540-R70B
CM-P-P 148PurpleS7020-R
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Malaman, E.; Bettineschi, C.; Angelini, I.; Salvadori, M. The Head Pendant from the Marchetti Collection: Phoenicio-Punic Glass or Modern Forgery? Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 768. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15020768

AMA Style

Malaman E, Bettineschi C, Angelini I, Salvadori M. The Head Pendant from the Marchetti Collection: Phoenicio-Punic Glass or Modern Forgery? Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(2):768. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15020768

Chicago/Turabian Style

Malaman, Elisabetta, Cinzia Bettineschi, Ivana Angelini, and Monica Salvadori. 2025. "The Head Pendant from the Marchetti Collection: Phoenicio-Punic Glass or Modern Forgery?" Applied Sciences 15, no. 2: 768. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15020768

APA Style

Malaman, E., Bettineschi, C., Angelini, I., & Salvadori, M. (2025). The Head Pendant from the Marchetti Collection: Phoenicio-Punic Glass or Modern Forgery? Applied Sciences, 15(2), 768. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15020768

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop