ARKEOLOJİDE MALZEME ANALİZİ VE SAHTE ESERLERİN BELİRLENMESİ

Öz

Arkeolojik sahtecilik, araştırmacıları, koleksiyoncuları veya kamuyu aldatmak amacıyla yapılan sahte eserler, yazıtlar veya diğer arkeolojik materyalleri ifade etmektedir. Sahtecilik, arkeoloji ve sanat tarihi dünyasında uzun süredir devam etmektedir. Sahte eserlerin tespit edilebilmesi arkeologlar, sanat tarihçileri, malzeme bilimcileri, dil bilimciler ve diğer uzmanlar arasındaki iş birliğini içeren çok disiplinli bir yaklaşım gerektirmektedir. Bu çalışmada eserlerin otantisitesi araştırmalarında uygulanacak malzeme karakterizasyonu ile ilişkili inceleme süreci önerilmektedir. Eserin tanımlanması farklı malzemelerin işlem/üretim zinciri (chaîne opératoire) içerisinde ve arkeolojik bilgi birikimi kapsamında değerlendirilmektedir. Arkeolojik buluntuların bu zincir içinde tanımlanması fiziksel, kimyasal, biçimsel ve estetik özelliklerinin daha iyi sınıflandırılmasını sağlamaktadır. Çalışmada, taş, pişmiş toprak ve metal hammaddeden yapılan arkeolojik eserlerin işlem zinciri bağlamında incelenmesinde kullanılan malzeme karakterizasyonu yöntemlerinden bahsedilmiştir. Ayrıca gerçekliği incelenen eserlerin patina tabakasının analizlerinin, bu tabakanın doğal ya da yapay olarak oluşması ile ilgili bilgi verdiği belirtirmiştir. Sonuç olarak arkeolojik buluntuların malzeme analizlerinin detaylı olarak değerlendirilmesinin, sahte eserlerin belirlenmesi sırasında karşılaştırma için veri sağlaması bakımından önemi vurgulanmıştır. Ayrıca çalışmada RGB ve CIE XYZ renk analizi yöntemleri ile gerçek eserlerden elde edilen ölçümler ile oluşturulacak bir veri bankası ileride çok daha kısa zamanda ve az maliyetli olarak ön değerlendirme yapılmasına olanak sağlayacağı önerilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sahte eserler
• metal
• taş
• pişmiş toprak
• renk analizi
• patina

IDENTIFICATION OF FORGERY IN ARCHAEOLOGY USING MATERIAL ANALYSIS

Öz

Archaeological forgery refers to forged artifacts, inscriptions, or other archaeological material made with the intent to deceive researchers, collectors, or the public. Forgery has long existed in the world of archeology and art history. Identifying counterfeit artifacts requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes collaboration between archaeologists, art historians, materials scientists, linguists, and other experts. In this study, a process related to the material characterization to be applied in the research of the authenticity of the works is suggested. The identification of the artifact is evaluated within the chaîne opératoire of various materials. The identification of archaeological finds in this chain provides a better classification of their physical, chemical, formal, and aesthetic features. In the study, material characterization methods used in the analysis of archaeological artifacts made of stone, terracotta, and metal raw materials in the context of the process chain are mentioned. It is also stated that the analysis of the patina layer of the works whose authenticity was examined gives information about the natural or artificial formation of this layer. As a result, the importance of detailed evaluation of material analysis of archaeological finds is emphasized in terms of providing data for comparison during the identification of counterfeit artifacts. In addition, it has been suggested in the study that a database to be created with measurements obtained from real works with RGB and CIE XYZ color analysis methods will allow preliminary evaluation in a much shorter time and with less cost in the future.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Forgery
• stone
• terracotta
• color analysis

Kaynakça

1. Aitken, M.J., Moorey, P.R.S., Ucko, P.J. (1971). “The authenticity of vessels and figurines in the Hacilar style”. Archaeometry, 13 (2): 89-141.
2. Akyol, A.A., Aydın, M. (2016). "Olba kazısı seramik buluntuları arkeometrik analizleri". Seleucia, 6: 402-431.
3. Aydın, M. (2013). “Authenticity of Roman Imperial Age Silver Coins Using Non-Destructive Archaeometric Techniques”. Doktora Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
4. Aydın, M. (2017). “Çalınan Orijinal Altın “Kanatlı Denizatı (Hippocampus)’nın Taşınabilir X-Işını Floresans Spektrometresi Yöntemiyle Türkiye’ye İade Edilmesinin Sağlanması”. TÜBA-AR, 20: 147-157.
5. Batmaz, A., Lehner, J.W. and Dardeniz, G., (2019). “Long‐distance interaction in Urartu?: Provenance and composition of copper alloys from Ayanis, Turkey”. Archaeometry, 61 (2): 406-422.
6. Bernard, E. (2019). "Serial forger? The Pseudo-Apulian Vases in the Marchetti Collection in Padua". Antenor Quadern: 145-163.
7. Bernard, E. (2020). Art and Archaeological Fakes on Display: Forty Years of Temporary Exhibitions (1915-1955). Il Capıtale Culturale. Studies on the Value of Cultural Heritage, (22), 275-314.
8. Chaviara A, Aloupi-Siotis E. (2016). "The story of a soil that became a glaze: Chemical and microscopic fingerprints on the Attic vases". Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 7: 510-518.

9. Craddock, P., La Niece, S., (1995), The black bronzes of Egypt. In Proceedings of the 1 st Int. Conf. on Ancient Egyptian Mining and Metallurgy and Conservation of Metallic Artifact: 10-12.
10. Craddock, P. (2009). Scientific investigation of copies, fakes and forgeries. London: Routledge.
11. Çomak, K.K. (2023). Eskihisar Kalesi Bizans Seramikleri. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi, Kocaeli.
12. Congur, F (2022). “Elli Yıllık Bir Arkeoloji Öyküsü: Hacılar” adlı eserin değerlendirilmesi. Anadolu Araştırmaları-Anatolian Research, 27, 359–363.
13. Çukur, A., Kunç, S. (1989). “Development of bronze production technologies in Anatolia”. Journal of archaeological science, 16 (3): 225-231.
14. Dardeniz Arıkan, G. (2023). "Fake, Forgery, and Authenticity in Archaeology: Archaeological Science in Practice," 2nd Slovenia-Turkey Bilateral Colloquium Project on The Comparison of Slovenian and Turkish Laws on The Mechanisms of The Settlement of Arts And Cultural Property Disputes and with The Cooperation of The Faculty of Humanities- UNESCO Chair of Interpretation and Education for Enhancing Integrated Heritage Approaches, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp.11.
15. Duru, R. (2010). Elli Yıllık Bir Arkeoloji Öyküsü Hacılar. İstanbul: Suna & İnan Kıraç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü.
16. Evershed, R. P. (2008). “Organic residue analysis in archaeology: the archaeological biomarker revolution”. Archaeometry, 50 (6), 895-924.
17. Frel, J. (1982). “Notes on Some Archaic Attic Sculpture”. The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal, 10: 95-104.
18. Gebhard, R. (2003). “Material analysis in archaeology”. Hyperfine Interactions, 150 (1-4), 1-5.
19. Gebhard, R. Krause, R. (2020).”Critical comments on the find complex of the so-called Nebra Sky Disk”. Archäologische Informationen, 43: 325-346.
20. Hauptmann, A. (2007). The archaeometallurgy of copper: evidence from Faynan, Jordan. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
21. Ingo, G.M., Çilingiroğlu, A., Faraldi, F., Riccucci, C., Casaletto, M.P., Erdem, A. Batmaz, A. (2010). “The bronze shields found at the Ayanis fortress (Van region, Turkey): manufacturing techniques and corrosion phenomena”. Applied Physics A, 100: 793-800
22. Kaplan, I. (2018). “The Getty Kouros was removed from view at the museum after it was officially deemed to be a forgery”, The New York Times, Apr 16, 2018. (https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-getty-kouros-removed-view-museum-officially-deemed-forgery).
23. Korkut, T., Özbek, G. (2021). “Mardin Müzesi’nin Çağdaş Müzecilik Anlayışı Açısından Değerlendirilmesi”. Artuklu Akademi, 8 (1): 157-184.
24. Lapatin, K. D. (2000). “Proof?: The Case of the Getty Kouros”. Source: Notes in the History of Art, 20 (1): 43-53.
25. Liritzis, I., Xanthopoulou, V., Palamara, E., Papageorgiou, I., Iliopoulos, I., Zacharias, N., Vafiadou, A. and Karydas, A.G. (2020). "Characterization and provenance of ceramic artifacts and local clays from Late Mycenaean Kastrouli (Greece) by means of p-XRF screening and statistical analysis". Journal of Cultural Heritage, 46: 61-81.
26. Jones, M., Craddock, P. T., Barker, N. (1990). Fake?: The art of deception. University of California Press.
27. Manti, P. Watkinson, D., (2022). “Corrosion phenomena and patina on archaeological low-tin wrought bronzes: New data”. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 55: 158-170.
28. Margolis, S.V. (1989). “Authenticating ancient marble sculpture”. Scientific American, 260 (6): 104-111.
29. Muscarella, O. W. (2000). The lie became great: The forgery of ancient Near Eastern cultures (Vol. 1). Brill.
30. Muşkara, Ü., Kalaycı, K. (2021). “The feasibility of PXRF for discriminating attic black-figure painters using pigment analysis”. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 21 (1): 237-255.
31. Muşkara, Ü. (2022). “Emecik’teki Apollon Kutsal Alanı’nda Bulunan Kireçtaşı Adak Heykelcikleri Üzerine Arkeometrik Çalışmalar”. Emecik’teki Apollon Kutsal Alanı Arkeolojik Araştırmalar (1998-2006): 233-244.
32. Muşkara, Ü., Aras, O. Işıklı, M. (2023). “Chemical analyses of Urartian bronze objects from the Ayanis fortress”. Journal Archaeological Science: Reports, 49: 104018.
33. Nickel, D., Haustein, M., Lampke, T. Pernicka, E., (2012). “Identification of forgeries by measuring tin isotopes in corroded bronze objects”. Archaeometry, 54 (1): 167-174.
34. Nørgaard, H.W. (2017). “Portable XRF on prehistoric bronze artefacts: Limitations and use for the detection of Bronze Age metal workshops”. Open Archaeology, 3 (1): 101-122.
35. Orfanou, V., Rehren, T. (2015). “A (not so) dangerous method: pXRF vs. EPMA-WDS analyses of copper-based artefacts”. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 7: 387-397.
36. Oudbashi, O., Hasanpour, A., Davami, P. (2016). “Investigation on corrosion stratigraphy and morphology in some Iron Age bronze alloys vessels by OM, XRD and SEM–EDS methods”. Applied Physics A, 122: 1-11.
37. Pernicka, E. (2014). Provenance determination of archaeological metal objects. New York: Springer.
38. Pernicka, E., Adam, J., Borg, G., Brügmann, G., Bunnefeld, J.H., Kainz, W., Klamm, M., Koiki, T., Meller, H., Schwarz, R., Stöllner, T. (2020). “Why the Nebra Sky Disc Dates to the Early Bronze Age. An Overview of the Interdisciplinary Results”. Archaeologia Austriaca, 104: .89-122.
39. Polikreti, K. (2007). ”Detection of ancient marble forgery: techniques and limitations”. Archaeometry, 49 (4): 603-619.
40. Ricca, M., Albanese, M.P., Alberghina, M.F., Schiavone, S., La Russa, M.F., Taliano Grasso, A., Randazzo, L. (2022). “Archaeometric Study of Two Tanagra Type Statuettes of Unknown Provenance to Support Forensic Study”. Heritage, 5 (2): 849-859.
41. Salvadori, M., Baggio, M., Zamparo. L. (2021). "The “MemO” Project: the Study, Digitalisation and Value Enhancement of Greek and South-Italian Pottery in Veneto”. The Issue of Forgery." img journal, 4: 342-363.
42. Salvadori, M., Baggio, M., Zamparo, L. (2022). “The Anthropology of Forgery: New Themes for the Contemporary Archaeologist”. Studies in Conservation, 67 (1-2), 57-62.
43. Sellet, F. (1993). “Chaîne opératoire; the concept and its applications”. Lithic technology, 18 (1-2), 106-112.
44. Skibo, J.M. (2013). Understanding Pottery Function. In: Understanding Pottery Function. Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique. Springer, New York, NY.
45. Skibo, J. (2015). Pottery Use-Alteration Analysis. In: Marreiros, J., Gibaja Bao, J., Ferreira Bicho, N. (eds) Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology. Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique. Springer, Cham.
46. Szilágyi, J.G. (2015). "10 Wisest is Time: Ancient Vase Forgeries". In Manufacturing a Past for the Present: 171-223.
47. T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı (2023). https://kvmgm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-44718/sahte-eserler--gunumuz-yapimi-objeler.html.
48. TDK (2023). https://sozluk.gov.tr/.
49. Torres, M. M. (2002). “Chaîne Opératoire: the concept and its aplications within the study of technology”. Gallaecia: revista de arqueoloxía e antigüidade, (21), 29-44.
50. Triantis, S. (1993). “Technical and Artistic Deficiencies of the Getty Kouros”. In Goulandrē, H.N.P. ve Technēs, M.K. (eds.), The Getty Kouros Colloquium: Athens, 25–27 May 1992. Athens: Getty Publications.
51. True, M. (1987). "A kouros at the Getty Museum.". The Burlington Magazine, 129: 3-11.
52. Vieugué, J. (2014). “Use-wear analysis of prehistoric pottery: methodological contributions from the study of the earliest ceramic vessels in Bulgaria (6100–5500 BC)”. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41: .622-630.
53. Vitello, M. (2010). “The Getty Kouros Mystery”. Journal of Art Crime, 3: 25.
54. Walton, M., Trentelman, K., Cianchetta, I., Maish, J., Saunders, D., Foran, B., Mehta, A. (2015). “Zn in Athenian black gloss ceramic slips: a trace element marker for fabrication technology”. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 98 (2): 430-436.
55. Zacharias, N. 2018. "Critical Assessment of Chromatic Index in Archaeological Ceramics by Munsell and RGB: Novel Contribution to Characterization and Provenance Studies". Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry , 18 (2): 175-212.
56. Zink, A., Porto, E. (2005). Luminescence Dating of The Tanagra Terracottas of The Louvre Collections. Geochronometria: Journal on Methods & Applications of Absolute Chronology, 24: 21-26,.