The Leutwitz Apollo: the not-so-scientific studies

Paul Barford has written a series of thought-provoking posts on the sketchy accounts of the so-called scientific analyses of the Leutwitz Apollo acquired by the Cleveland Museum of Art.

• 1. Introduction  
• 2. Shrapnel 
• 3. The leaning god 

• 4. The tree mark 

• 5. The Lie tests 

• 6. Dr Northover's first samples 

• 7. Dr Northover's second samples  

• 8. CMA's conservator's take 

• 9. Lead Isotopes 
• [10.] Hypothesis C

I was particularly struck by the observations on the lead isotopes.

Barford suggests that the scientific studies could point to a different account of the discovery of the statue.

Of course, Barford puts forward a hypothesis based on the skimpy "evidence" presented by Bennett. A responsible museum such as the CMA will no doubt want to publish pdf versions of the scientific studies on its website to allow readers to make up their own mind. Or if the museum fails to do so it will suggest that there are details that are best kept out of sight.