The Lupa Capitolina

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

A statue symbolising the mythical origins and power of Rome, long thought to have been made around 500BC, has been found to date from the 1200s.

 

The statue depicts a she-wolf suckling Remus and his twin brother Romulus - who is said to have founded Rome. The statue of the wolf was carbon-dated last year, but the test results have only now been made public. The figures of Romulus and Remus have already been shown to be 15th Century additions to the statue.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7499469.stm

[Klingan]

My spontaneous question is: How do you carbon date a metal object?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

My spontaneous question is: How do you carbon date a metal object?

 

Some metal's can be radiocarbon dated but it must contain sufficient traces of carbon-14 though. Iron and steel are the best candidates for radiocarbon dating.

Edited July 10, 2008 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Klingan]

I'm not going to argue against the article as I don't know all the facts but I must admit my doubt still.

 

Secondly would I in one way appreciate if the statue was from the 13th century, maybe finally some people would listen to my argument that we take style dating far to seriously.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I'm not going to argue against the article as I don't know all the facts but I must admit my doubt still.

 

Secondly would I in one way appreciate if the statue was from the 13th century, maybe finally some people would listen to my argument that we take style dating far to seriously.

Salve, Amici.

 

You know what? I think Klingan is completely right.

 

Radiocarbon techniques are exclusively for organic material, simply because what you're actually dating is the death of the living source of such material (ie, the active Carbon uptaking from the environment).

 

Here comes en.Wikipedia.

"After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated".

 

This article seems to be the original source of this note (in Italian). "Nuove analisi al radiocarbonio eseguite sulla Lupa Capitolina" are indeed mentioned ; "termoluminescenza" (thermoluminescence) is mentioned too, clearly not an equivalent method.

There's of course possible that the explanation is just some confusion, like quoting radiocarbon for other radioisotope dating methods.

Anyhow, I think we should be patient and cautious regarding this information.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Here comes Marcus Tullius Cicero on the Lupa Capitolina and Jupiter's thunderbolt.

 

Orationes In Catilinam: Or. III, cp. XIX:

nam profecto memoria tenetis Cotta et Torquato consulibus compluris in Capitolio res de caelo esse percussas, cum et9 simulacra deorum depulsa sunt et statuae veterum hominum deiectae et legum aera liquefacta et tactus etiam ille qui hanc urbem condidit Romulus, quem inauratum in Capitolio, parvum atque lactantem, uberibus lupinis inhiantem fuisse meministis.

 

"For you recollect, I suppose, when Cotta and Torquatus (*) were consuls, that many towers in the Capitol were struck with lightning, when both the images of the immortal gods were moved, and the statues of many ancient men were thrown down, and the brazen tablets on which the laws were written were melted. Even Romulus, who built this city, was struck, which, you recollect, stood in the Capitol, a gilt statue, little and sucking, and clinging to the teats of the wolf."

 

And De divinatione, Liber II, cp. XX:

Tum statua Nattae, tum simulacra deorum Romulusque et Remus cum attrice belua vi fulminis icti conciderunt, deque his rebus haruspicum exstiterunt responsa verissuma.

 

"Then,' the poem goes on to say, 'the statue of Natta, the images of the gods and the piece representing Romulus and Remus, with their wolf-nurse, were struck by a thunderbolt and fell to the ground. The prophecies made by the soothsayers from these events were fulfilled to the letter.'"

 

(*) Lucius Aurelius Cotta & Lucius Manlius Torquatus were consuls at DCLXXXIX AUC / 65 BC, two years before than MT Cicero himself.

Edited July 11, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

I'm not going to argue against the article as I don't know all the facts but I must admit my doubt still.

 

Secondly would I in one way appreciate if the statue was from the 13th century, maybe finally some people would listen to my argument that we take style dating far to seriously.

Salve, Amici.

 

You know what? I think Klingan is completely right.

 

Radiocarbon techniques are exclusively for organic material, simply because what you're actually dating is the death of the living source of such material (ie, the active Carbon uptaking from the environment).

 

Here comes en.Wikipedia.

"After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated".

 

This article seems to be the original source of this note (in Italian). "Nuove analisi al radiocarbonio eseguite sulla Lupa Capitolina" are indeed mentioned ; "termoluminescenza" (thermoluminescence) is mentioned too, clearly not an equivalent method.

There's of course possible that the explanation is just some confusion, like quoting radiocarbon for other radioisotope dating methods.

Anyhow, I think we should be patient and cautious regarding this information.

 

Here comes an editorial note by Daniel Cressey on the blog page from the prestigious British scientific journal Nature, July 10, 2008

 

The strange case of the young wolf.

It

[Melvadius]

Asclepiades has raised a couple of interesting points in his analysis, however I somehow suspect that radiocarbon dating is the only scientific dating/ identification process that many reporters or editors have even vaguely heard about, let alone understand, which is probably why it is mentioned in the articles. Its inclusion may therefore simply be a result of too enthusiastic editing rather than what was in the original reports submnitted by the reportes.

 

Thermoluminescence mentioned in the Italian article as a dating technique which can be used on metal crystaline object to determine when they were last heated can provide evidence for when the statue was cast or possibly that should be recast. It us probably more often mentioned archaeologically in determining when organic material was last exposed to the atmosphere eg when an area of turf was covered by a later rampart.

 

To throw a spanner into the works I would raise a couple of possibly, but not necessarily, mutually exclusive thoughts:

 

1) There have been cases of moulds being taken of statues or other metal objects which were badly damaged so they could be recast often using most of the original metal. If that was the case with this particular statue despite the techniques used to create (or possibly modify it) we could effectively still be looking at how the basic statue originally looked, albeit as a later 'copy'.

 

2) Obviously there have recently also been a few cases of later forgers trying to pass off their own work as early examples which may refute or at least only confuse the issue of what is real and what is fake;)