An article signed by a heterogeneous group of scholars – archaeologists, biologists, geologists and doctors (!!) – has just appeared in an Italian scientific journal, but in English, which relaunches a thesis as suggestive as it is controversial: the Riace Bronzes were not found in Calabrian waters, but in the seabed of Syracuse. The article, which promises to reopen an apparently closed debate, introduces some innovations attributed to the geologist prof. Cirrincione of the University of Catania. He claims to have identified a correspondence between the so-called “welding earth” present in the Bronzes and some local clays in the Syracuse area, a clue which – if confirmed – could redesign the geography of the restoration of the arms of Bronze B, so far without convincing scientific data.
However, as it is right to remember, these hypotheses require careful verification by those who work professionally in the field of archaeometry. Only technical analyzes conducted by specialists will be able to clarify whether the clays cited really constitute significant evidence: it will therefore be necessary to wait for concrete evidence before drawing hasty conclusions.
This alleged “discovery” is accompanied in the article by a long paper of archaeological interpretations, aimed at redefining the identity of the two warriors. This is an operation which is quite surprising: not only because it seems at least unusual to read similar conjectures in a geology journal, but also because the figurative reconstructions presented are taken almost identically from my studies and my essays dedicated to the Riace Bronzes, without the authorship of the elaborations being recognised.
The illustrations, moreover, derive from the professional reconstructions of the visual designer Saverio Autellitano, but even in this case the source is not cited. The only change made – an unlikely chain added to the left arm of Bronze B – does not change the substance of the images which remain the result of thirty years of research and studies. The bibliography that accompanies the article, then, appears rather small and dated, with a few too many typos.
The “new” arguments, moreover, do not at all affect the historical interpretation which sees the Bronzes created in Argos, subsequently passed through Rome and finally destined for Constantinople.
In support of a discovery in Riace, then, there remains concrete data coming from the studies conducted by Dr. Antonella Privitera of the CNR, which demonstrate how the concretions present on the statues are composed of river pebbles incompatible with the deep seabed of the Sicilian sea, but completely consistent with the marine conditions of Riace. Biological observations also require further verification, but Privitera herself clarified precisely that serpulids – small organisms that form the characteristic carbonate tubes visible on some parts of the statues – live very well in shallow coastal waters, with an optimum between 5 and 20 metres, also frequent between 0 and 5 metres, and in temperatures between 12 and 25 °C. Below 12 °C their growth is inhibited, as well as in low light conditions. Instead, a dynamic current is necessary to ensure the supply of nutrients. These are all characteristics perfectly compatible with the Riace stretch of sea and not with the deeper and colder seabed of Syracuse.
In light of these scientific elements, it remains difficult to understand the meaning of this new wave of confusion fueled by certain press outlets and television programs in search of sensationalism.
The umpteenth “rediscovery” of the Riace Bronzes, proposed again without verification and with little methodological caution, risks casting a shadow on decades of serious and documented studies.
* Full professor
of Numismatics
at the University of Messina