Post-Medieval Archaeology 47/2 (2013), 323–358
‘St Peter in Volders’ and related base metal figurines
resembling the famous statue in the Vatican Basilica
By PATRICK CASSITTI, DANIEL BERGER and BENJAMIN FOURLAS
SUMMARY: The reappraisal of an old find from Volders near Innsbruck, Austria, prompted new
research on a group of base-metal statuettes that are miniature copies of the famous bronze statue
of St Peter in the Vatican Basilica in Rome. Their age has been the subject of debate. This paper
examined several examples of such statuettes to solve the issue with the help of archaeometric analysis. The analysis of the manufacturing technique and alloy composition provided important clues on
the dating of the statuettes and allowed the historical interpretation of the group as a whole.
INTRODUCTION
19th century. The first records date to when Pius
IX (1846–78) expanded an indulgence connected
to kissing the feet of the large bronze statue of
St Peter to ‘little statues’ of the apostle blessed
by the Pope in 1877.5 Paola Refice has described
documents of the 15th century that attest to the
Chapter of the Vatican Basilica holding the
monopoly on production and sale of miniatures of
the statue of St Peter, but she unfortunately does
not cite the documents in question.6 What is certain
is that in 1199 Pope Innocent III (1198–1216)
granted the Chapter the monopoly on production
and sale of pilgrimage badges made from lead or
tin and bearing the double image of St Peter and
St Paul. The canons were allowed to let others cast
the badges on their behalf as long as they were
answerable to them.7 At some point this privilege
was abandoned, since it no longer exists today.8
This was probably as a consequence of the Italian
annexation of the Vatican State in 1870, when the
production sites came to be outside the jurisdiction
of the church.
Late medieval and early modern travel accounts exist listing the holy relics and indulgences
to be found in the city of Rome, but they do
not mention pilgrim souvenirs or even badges.9
In 1951 Pio Pecchiai published a number of legal
documents from the 14th through 16th centuries
that regulated the concessions for the erection of
In 2011 a community archaeology project carried
out in the village of Volders in Tyrol, Austria, provided the opportunity to investigate a plot of land
near the centre of the village.1 Today this plot is
used for cultivation, but in the past it formed the
grounds of the castle of Schönwerth, which was
completely demolished in 1804. Past archaeological finds made within the enclosed plot were reappraised during the project; among these was a small
copper-alloy statuette of St Peter enthroned, which
had been found by a metal detectorist in 1995 and
published by Harald Stadler in 2000 (Fig. 1).2 This
object is clearly a crude but faithful copy of the
famous bronze statue in the Vatican Basilica in
Rome attributed to Arnolfo di Cambio (c. 1240–
1300/10) (Fig. 2).3 The Roman bronze statue rests
on a marble throne that, as has been demonstrated
by Rudolf Berliner through documentary and
pictorial evidence, was erected in 1756/57 and is a
reinterpretation of a 15th-century precursor.4
Miniature statues of St Peter are still being
produced and sold in Rome today, usually made
from plastic. While there is both medieval and
post-medieval documentary evidence for the manufacture and sale of pilgrims’ badges in Rome,
we could find no surviving primary documents
relating to miniature statues of St Peter prior to the
© Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology 2013
DOI: 10.1179/0079423613Z.00000000038
323
324
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
FIG. 1
Miniature statue of St Peter from Volders (photograph, P. Cassitti).
vendors’ stalls in front of the steps of the Vatican
Basilica. The documents mention sellers of painted
images, paternosters, cotton cloth and figs, and
also tradesmen such as goldsmiths, peddlers, sellers of hay, booksellers, scribes, healers and tooth
pullers, shoemakers, food sellers, oil sellers, money
changers, sellers of pork fat, sellers of iron objects,
sellers of candles, sellers of ‘cypress handles’ and
generic shopkeepers.10 But no mention is made of
pilgrim badges and other souvenirs. These items
were either sold by the generic shops or peddlers
together with other products, or the monopoly on
the production of pilgrims badges granted to the
Chapter of the Vatican Basilica by Innocent III in
1199 was so effective that no pilgrim badges were
being sold in the stalls outside the Basilica.
The question therefore arises as to whether
miniature replicas of the Statue of St Peter were
produced before the 19th century. Apart from the
1199 monopoly, medieval and early modern
written sources seem to ignore the topic of pilgrim
badges and souvenirs, but an argument of nonexistence based on documentary omission would
be a very weak one. Studies of a number of figurines comparable to the Volders St Peter have been
published over the last decade and it seems reasonable to examine this broader group as a whole
from an archaeological perspective. This enterprise
grew beyond the scope of the original community
project and led to a separate avenue of study. In
the course of the new investigation, three further
unpublished finds from Germany were brought
to our attention, and were also included in the
analysis.
The statuettes considered in this study have
been divided into two groups, labelled A and B, in
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
325
FIG. 2
Statue of St Peter in the
Vatican Basilica in Rome,
attributed to Arnolfo di
Cambio (photograph,
Wikimedia commons, <http://
upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/8/8c/
Rome_basilica_st_peter_011c.
jpg> [accessed 17 July 2012],
public domain).
the following catalogue. The statuettes in Group A
are made of copper alloys, their right arm has been
cast separately and inserted into the main body,
and on the back of the head they possess a hole into
which the attachment for the halo was inserted.
They were once attached to a seat or throne which
in all cases is now lost. The statuettes of Group B
are made of white metal and have been cast in one
piece together with their seat. They possess no
separate elements.
CATALOGUE OF THE STATUETTES
GROUP A
No. A1, Charsadda, Fig. 3. Size: unknown; Weight:
unknown; Site: Charsadda (Pakistan), possibly
a surface find;11 Current location: unknown;
Description: throne separately made, missing; right
arm separately made and inserted into the body
after casting. Hair and beard punched with oval
and half-moon shaped punches, eyes chased.
Facial features engraved; Bibliography: Rowland
1943, 65–70, figs 1–2.
No. A2, Volders, Fig. 1. Size: height 47mm, width
20mm; Weight: 36.0g; Site: Volders, Tyrol (Austria),
former castle grounds of Schönwerth, near the
village centre, surface find; Current location:
private ownership; Description: throne separately
made, missing; right arm separately made and
inserted into the body after casting. A cylindrical
protrusion on the back of the head probably served
to attach a separately manufactured halo. Hair
and beard punched with oval and half-moon
shaped punches, eyes chased; Bibliography: Stadler
2000; Cassitti 2011.
326
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
FIG. 3
Miniature statue of St Peter from Charsadda, Pakistan. Archaeological Survey of India, British Library Photo 1006/1
(822) and 1006/2 (823) (reproduced by courtesy of the British Library).
No. A3, Münster, Fig. 4. Size: height 83mm, width
30mm; Weight: 84.5g; Site: supposedly eastern
Mediterranean region, archaeological find? Current location: Münster (Germany), Westfälische
Wilhelms-Universität, Archäologisches Museum,
Inv. 3030; Description: throne separately made,
missing, supposedly fixed with a now-broken
iron pin on the back of the figurine just under its
shoulders. Right arm separately made and inserted
into the body after casting. A hole in the back of
the head with a diameter of 0.5cm shows traces
of threading, presumably for a screw used as
attachment for a separately manufactured halo.
Hair chased or punched with half-moon and round
punches, beard punched with oval punches, facial
features chased. Before cleaning and restoration
in 2005 the figurine had a dark green patina with
some earth encrustation on it. The hole on the
underside of the left foot was caused by sampling
in 2005; Bibliography: Fourlas 2005/2006, 141–68.
No. A4, Antakya/Adana, Fig. 5. Size: unknown;
Weight: unknown; Site: supposedly Antakya or
Adana (Turkey), photographed in the local
archaeological museum by the German archaeologist Ludwig Budde (1913–2007) in the 1950s;
Current location: unknown;12 Description: throne
separately made, missing; right arm separately
made and inserted into the body after casting. Hair
chased and punched with half-moon and round
punches, beard chased and punched with round
punches, facial features chased. According to
Ludwig Budde the material was of ‘dark bronze’;
Bibliography: Fourlas 2005, 69 pl. 16, 2; Fourlas
2006, 83, fig. 4; Fourlas 2005/06, esp. 150–1, pl. 43, 3.
No. A5, Anghiari, Fig. 6. Size: height 48mm, width
17mm; Weight: unknown; Site: field near Anghiari,
Tuscany (Italy), surface find; Current location:
Museo delle Memorie e del Paesaggio nella
Terra di Anghiari, Inv. s.i./sch. dep. pdb 06/07;
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
FIG. 4
Miniature statue of St Peter in the Museum of the Wilhelms-Universität in Münster (photograph, U. Gericks,
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Archäologisches Museum).
327
328
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
No. A6, Anghiari, Fig. 6. Size: height 48mm, width
18mm; Weight unknown; Site: field near Anghiari,
Tuscany (Italy), surface find; Current location:
Museo delle Memorie e del Paesaggio nella Terra
di Anghiari, Inv. s.i./sch. dep. pdb 05/07; Description: throne separately made, missing; right arm
separately made, missing. Surface too corroded to
discern method of shaping the head. A hole in the
back of the head with a diameter of 3mm shows
traces of threading, presumably for a screw used as
attachment for a separately manufactured halo;
Bibliography: Refice 2009.
No. A7, Augsburg, Fig. 7. Size: height 47mm, width
18mm; Weight 32.2g; Site: field near Augsburg,
Germany. According to the owner the find was
made in 10–15km distance from the city in the late
1960s or early 1970s;13 Current location: private
ownership; Description: throne separately made
and missing, presumably fixed with an iron pin
to the back of the figurine just under its shoulders.
Its heavily corroded remnants adhere to the upper
part of the hollow back. Right arm separately
made, missing. Hair and beard engraved, chased
and punched with round punches, eyes and nostrils
punched with round punches. In the back of the
head a screw (4mm length, 2mm diameter) is
inserted; Bibliography: unpublished.
GROUP B
FIG. 5
Miniature statue of St Peter from SE Turkey (Antakya
or Adana) (photograph, W. Budde, by courtesy of
B. Fourlas).
No. B1, Maccarese, Fig. 8. Size: approx. height
50mm, approx. width 25mm; Weight unknown;
Site: Maccarese, commune of Fiumicino near
Rome, from the riverbed of the Tiber; Current
location: private ownership; Description: one-piece
hollow cast of the seated figure of St Peter with
throne. Hair, beard and facial features roughly
made, probably chased. The lower part of the front
has disappeared; Bibliography: Guarducci 1991,
19–20, figs 9–10; Fourlas 2005/06, 147 with note 32
pl. 45:4.
Description: throne separately made, missing; right
arm separately made and inserted into the body
after casting. Hair chased and punched with oval
punches, beard punched with oval punches, facial
features chased. A hole in the back of the head
with a diameter of 3mm shows traces of threading,
presumably for a screw used as attachment for
a separately manufactured halo; Bibliography:
Refice 2009.
No. B2, Cologne, Fig. 9. Size: height 46mm, width
23mm; Weight 90.6g; Site: in the vicinity of the city
of Cologne (Germany), surface find; Current location: private ownership; Description: one-piece
hollow cast of the seated figure of St Peter with
throne. Hair, beard and facial features roughly
made, probably chased. The statuette is filled with
lead alloy. A thick protrusion (4–5mm diameter)
on the top of the head is probably what remains
of the halo, which was possibly similar to that of
No. B1; Bibliography: unpublished.
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
329
FIG. 6
Miniature statuettes of St Peter from Anghiari. Left: No. A5, right: No. A6 (photograph, G. Mazzi).
TECHNOLOGICAL COMPARISON OF THE
STATUETTES
GROUP A
Group A comprises seven statuettes. Since the statuette from Charsadda No. A1 and Antakya/Adana
No. A4 are only known through photographs,
which are not to scale, their size can only be estimated. Their general proportions, however, match
those of the statuettes from Volders (No. A2) and
Anghiari (Nos A5–6) very closely, so they are likely
of similar size. All statuettes in this group have a
separately cast right arm which has been inserted
into a socket in the main body. The statuettes from
Volders (No. A2), Münster (No. A3), Anghiari
(Nos A5–6) and Augsburg (No. A7) all have a hole
in the back of the head into which, it is presumed,
an attachment for a separate halo was screwed.
Where this attachment has fallen out (Nos A3,
A5–6) the threading of the hole can clearly be seen.
The photographs of the Charsadda and Antakya/
Adana statuettes do not show the back of the head,
but because of the other similarities it is likely they
also possessed this feature.
The statuettes from Charsadda (No. A1),
Volders (No. A2), Anghiari (Nos A5–6) and Augsburg (No. A7) have a very similar body in all details and are referred to as ‘Charsadda type’. The
body of the statuette from Antakya/Adana No. 4,
while of similar shape, shows some differences in
the number and position of the folds of the pallium
(‘Antakya type’), while the statuette from Münster
No. A3 is larger and of higher quality than the
other statuettes (‘Münster type’).
While they possess very similar bodies, the
Charsadda type statuettes show marked differences
in the details of the head (Fig. 10). The hair of the
statuettes from Charsadda (No. A1) and Volders
(No. A2) has been modelled using half-moon and
oval shaped punches, and the eyes have been
chased. The hair and facial features of one of the
statuettes from Anghiari (No. A5) were shaped by
round punches and chasing. The hair, beard and
facial features of the statuette from Augsburg
(No. A7) were applied with round punches and
engraved. The bodies seem to indicate a common
provenance from one workshop, but the details of
the facial features and the hair show the hand of
different artisans.
GROUP B
The statuettes of Group B are made of white metal
and have been cast in one piece together with their
throne. Statuette No. B1 was recovered from the
bed of the river Tiber close to Rome,14 while No.
B2 is a surface find from a field near Cologne. No.
B1 is only known through a photograph published
by Margherita Guarducci, which does not provide
a scale, and the lower part is missing. A direct
comparison with No. B2 is difficult. All the details
visible in the photograph of No. B1 match those
observed on No. B2, so it is possible that they
are objects of the same type and size. The element
protruding from the top of the head of No. B2 is
probably what remains of the halo, since No. B1
demonstrates that it was cast together with the rest
of the figure and not attached as in Group A. The
330
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
FIG. 7
Miniature statue of St Peter from Augsburg (photograph, V. Iserhardt, RGZM Mainz).
throne of the statuettes of this group provides a
terminus post quem for their manufacture, since it
closely resembles the present seat of the bronze
statue in the Vatican, which was completed in
1756.15
MINIATURE STATUES OF ST PETER:
THE PROBLEM OF DATING AND
INTERPRETATION
Research on this topic goes back as far as 1943,
when the British archaeologist Benjamin Rowland
Jr. published two photographs of a miniature
statue of St Peter taken by the Archaeological
Survey of India in 1910 (No. A1; Fig. 3).16 Rowland
found the images by chance while carrying out
research in the collection of photographs of the
‘Library of the India Office’, now part of the
British Library. The statuette itself was already
lost in Rowland’s day, and the only available
information was the provenance from Charsadda,
the ancient Peukelaotis or Pushkalavati, in northwestern Pakistan. Rowland judged the statuette ‘a
crude copy in miniature of the bronze statue that is
the goal of the faithful at St Peter’s in Rome’.17 At
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
FIG. 8
Miniature statue of St. Peter recovered from the bed of
the Tiber at its estuary near the village of Maccarese,
commune of Fiumicino (from Guarducci 1991,
fig. 9, reproduced by courtesy of Istituto
Poligrafico dello Stato).
the time the age of the Vatican statue of St Peter’s
was still a topic of scholarly debate, and a number
of experts attributed it to the late antique period.18
Based on stylistic considerations, the technical
similarity to a small and probably late antique
statuette found in 1723 in Strasbourg, France, and
the unclear dating of the Roman statue of St
Peter’s, Rowland suggested a late antique date for
the Charsadda statuette and excluded the possibility of it being a modern ex-voto (votive offering).
He assumed that it found its way to Charsadda
just before the invasion of Northern India by the
Hephtalites in the 5th to 6th centuries.19
331
In 1954 Mario Bussagli developed this thesis
further but suggested that the statuette may have
found its way to India during the 6th or the first
half of the 7th century at the latest. Bussagli was
working on the assumption that Charsadda was
deserted by the 10th century and that traffic with
the Mediterranean was cut off by the Muslim conquest of the Sassanid Empire in the 7th century.20
The Charsadda statuette was frequently mentioned in the controversial debate on the dating of
the monumental bronze statue of St Peter in the
Vatican Basilica. It has been cited as evidence for
a late antique date of the Roman statue21 or for
the existence of a late antique predecessor.22 The
dispute was finally settled in 1990 through thermoluminescence analysis of the clay core of the statue,
which provided a date between AD 1265 and 1378.
This confirmed the attribution to the sculptor
Arnolfo di Cambio, which was favoured by many
scholars.23 These results raised doubts on the
late antique dating of the Charsadda statuette
No. A1.24
The statuette from Volders (No. A2; Fig. 1)
was published on in 2000 in a preliminary report
by Harald Stadler.25 He erroneously identified
the material as cast iron, probably due to iron
corrosion residues on the back of the statuette, and
suggested a date in the 16th or 17th century. He
was not aware of the existence of No. A1.
In 2005 Benjamin Fourlas contributed to the
debate by describing two previously unknown
statuettes of uncertain provenance (Nos A3–A4;
Figs 4, 5).26 No. A3 had been part of a private collection before being donated to the Archaeological
Museum of the University of Münster, and was
purportedly purchased in the eastern Mediterranean. No. A4 was photographed in the 1950s in
the Archaeological Museum in Adana/Antakya
in south-east Turkey. Based on stylistic, iconographic, technical and historical considerations
Fourlas proposed a date for the whole group
between the 5th and 6th century. Due to discrepancies in hairstyle, seating position and attire between
Nos A1, A3–A4 and the monumental statue he concluded that the figurines were not based directly on
the medieval statue, but on a late antique predecessor whose existence had already been assumed by
other scholars. The composition of the copper
alloy of No. A3, determined in 2005 by atomic
absorption spectroscopy at the Rathgen Forschungslabor in Berlin,27 did not contradict this hypothesis (see Table 1). Francesco Maria Torrigio’s
(1580–1650) reference to a manuscript in the
archive of St Peter‘s in Rome attributing the
monumental Vatican statue to Pope Leo I (440–61)
seemed to further support this conclusion.28 Fourlas was not aware of the existence of No. A2, which
had been published on in a local journal.
332
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
FIG. 9
Miniature statue of St Peter from Cologne (photograph, P. Cassitti).
In 2009 Paola Refice published on two statuettes (Nos A5–A6; Fig. 6) found near Anghiari in
Tuscany (Italy).29 Refice classified the objects as
pilgrimage souvenirs produced under the auspices
of the Chapter of the Basilica of St Peter’s in Rome
and suggested a date sometime between the 15th
and 18th century.30 She included the Charsadda
statuette No. A1 in her analysis, but was not aware
of Nos A2–A4.
In 2012 Patrick Cassitti published the preliminary results of his research on the Volders St Peter
(No. A2; Fig. 1).31 He discussed the figurine together
with No. A1–A6 and discussed the problem of
dating of the whole group. Cassitti agreed with
Refice’s interpretation of the group as postmedieval pilgrimage souvenirs of Roman origin,
but suggested a more recent date of manufacture in
the 18th or 19th century. This was a period when
the Vatican strongly promoted the veneration
of the monumental statue of St Peter as a symbol
of papal supremacy. He could not exclude a
greater age for the statuettes, however, as he lacked
definitive evidence to support his dating.
Margherita Guarducci had previously published (in 1991) a description of a miniature statuette of St Peter that differs in many aspects from
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
333
FIG. 10
Comparison of the heads of the statuettes from Charsadda (No. A1), Volders (No. A2), Anghiari (No. A5) and
Augsburg (No. A7).
the ones discussed above (No. B1; Fig. 8). It was
recovered from the estuary of the river Tiber near
the village of Maccarese, which is part of the
commune of Fiumicino. Unlike the previously
discussed objects the statuette from Maccarese
consists of a tin alloy and had been cast in one
piece together with the throne. Guarducci referred
to a metallographic analysis that indicated an age
for the object of two or three centuries. She did not
specify the methods used in this analysis or the
details of the results.32
While preparing the present study, two previously unknown statuettes from Augsburg and
Cologne in Germany, nos A7 and B2 (Figs 7 and
9), were also made known to the authors. These
have also been included in the present analysis.33
A number of larger copies of the statue of
St Peter still complete with their thrones are today
in private ownership or have been acquired by
museum collections. They are all superior in
artistic quality to the statuettes analysed in this
paper. One such statue is part of the collection
of the Heimatmuseum in Hergensweiler, BadenWürttemberg, Germany (Fig. 11). According to
the museum curator it probably dates to the late
19th century. Another similar statue is in private
ownership and was brought back from Rome by a
priest in 1895.34 A third figure made from wood
was included in an exhibition on early Christian
and Coptic art held in 1964 at the Academy of Fine
Arts in Vienna. It has been dated to the 1st half of
the 4th century.35 Since its seat is a reproduction of
the present throne of the Vatican bronze statue,
which is dated to 1756/57,36 this is incorrect. A
manufacture date in the 19th century seems far
more likely.37 As there are clear differences in quality and size between these larger statuettes from
public and private collections and the smaller ones
discussed in this study, the two groups cannot be
directly compared and the larger statuettes are
therefore not included in the analysis.
Monumental copies of the statue of St Peter
were also erected in many cathedrals in Europe. For
example, in Worms Cathedral, Germany, in the
cathedral of Fulda, Germany (a gift from Pope
Leo XIII, 1878–1903, according to an information
panel), in Westminster Cathedral (manufactured
in Rome at an unknown date, arrived in London
in 1902),38 and in front of St Peter’s Church in
Tiberias, Israel (donated in 1883) (Fig. 12).39 It is
very likely that these monumental copies were
blessed by the Pope and thus carried an indulgence
334
TABLE 1
Chemical composition of the four samples taken from the Volders statuette (No. A2) determined with EDXRF. The other rows of the table show the results
of the micro XRF analysis of the statuettes from Münster (No. A3), Augsburg (No. A7) and Cologne (No. B2) compared with the older analyses carried out
by the Rathgen-Forschungslabor, Berlin. Mean values are given in wt.% with confidence intervals where multiple analyses exist; elements with n. d. were not
detected.
Statuette no./
Object part
Al
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
statuette Volders (No. A2)
body
<0.2 <0.01
0.79
0.02 ± 0.02 0.32 ± 0.03
arm
<0.2 <0.01 0.68 ± 0.08
<0.01
0.05 ± 0.03
head insert
<0.2 <0.01 0.11 ± 0.06
<0.01
0.10 ± 0.03
solder
<0.2 <0.01
5.8
<0.01
0.01
Cu
Zn
As
Ag
Cd
Sn
Sb
66 ± 0.3
57 ± 0.1
64 ± 0.8
1.89
25.4 ± 0.1
39.0 ± 0.2
35.0 ± 0.3
1.78
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
0.05 ± 0.01
0.02
0.02 ± 0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.013
<0.01
<0.01
1.98 ± 0.18
0.88 ± 0.03
0.02 ± 0.02
67
0.09
0.02
0.01 ± 0.01
0.77
<0.10
0.061
<0.002
0.56
<0.05
2.19
<0.025
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
2.65 ± 1.01
n. d.
1.57 ± 0.35
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
2.02 ± 0.57
74.24
n. d.
n. d.
1.30 ± 0.16
22.37
n. d.
n. d.
0.10
0.05
0.007
1.37
0.07
2.89
<0.025
trace
n. d.
n. d.
1.25 ± 0.21
trace
1.12 ± 0.53
n. d.
n. d.
83.56
5.73
6.52
n. d.
statuette Münster (No. A3)
body (old
n. d. n. d.
0.447
<0.01
0.187
68.74
27.81
analysis)
body (new
n. d. n. d. 0.35 ± 0.05 0.02± 0.01 0.21 ± 0.01 68.06 ± 0.89 27.14 ± 0.82
analysis)
arm
n. d. n. d. 0.31 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.02 0.20 ± 0.01 67.97 ± 0.47 28.19 ± 0.57
solder
n. d. n. d.
0.04
n. d.
n. d.
2.37
0.31
statuette Cologne (No. B2)
outer part
n. d. n. d.
filling
n. d. n. d.
filling (core) n. d. n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
<0.01
trace
0.24
72.32
22.45
0.24 ± 0.03 75.81 ± 2.31 21.27 ± 1.89
n. d.
0.06
n. d.
1.57
1.31
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
0.50 ± 0.54
0.40 ± 0.49
trace
0.04 ± 0.03
0.09 ± 0.09
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
Bi
4.80 ± 0.02 0.04 ± 0.01
1.80 ± 0.18
0.02
0.80 ± 0.37
<0.01
23.1
0.08
0.19 ± 0.16 3.85 ± 0.29 16.19 ± 1.02 79.24 ± 1.46
n. d.
12.16 ± 19.59 12.85 ± 12.20 74.51 ± 31.22
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
100
n. d.
n. d.
n. d.
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
statuette Augsburg (No. A7)
body (old
n. d. n. d.
0.40
analysis)
body (new
n. d. n. d. 0.32 ± 0.05
analysis)
solder
n. d. n. d.
1.25
Pb
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
335
statuette (No. A2) has been the subject of the most
detailed archaeometallurgical study, comprising
elemental analyses and metallography on sample
material as well as radiographies. As the other
statuettes included in the study became known
to the authors it was decided to determine their
alloy composition and manufacturing techniques
as well. The aim was to gather comparative data
suited to either confirm or contradict some of the
results obtained for the Volders statuette. Therefore, the analyses of the statuettes from Münster
(No. A3), Augsburg (No. A7) and Cologne (No.
B2) did not need to be as detailed and intensive.
The latter examinations were carried out using micro X-ray fluorescence analysis and radiography.
Attention here initially focuses on the Volders
statuette, with the other statuettes discussed in the
next section.
MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES
FIG. 11
Miniature statue of St Peter in the Heimatmuseum
Hergensweiler, Germany (photograph, W. Nuber).
for the devout who kissed their feet. This has been
attested for the statue in Westminster Cathedral,
blessed by Pope Leo XIII in February 1902,40 and
can be assumed for the statue in Worms, which was
a gift by the same Pope.
ARCHAEOMETALLURGICAL
EXAMINATION OF THE VOLDERS
STATUETTE
The archaeologically recovered statuettes in this
study are all surface finds, therefore their dating is
difficult. Since they could not be dated reliably by
means of comparative artefactual analysis and art
historical methods, additional scientific investigations were undertaken on those statuettes which
were physically accessible to the authors. Close
optical examination provided further clues on
the manufacturing techniques used. The Volders
The miniature St Peter from Volders measures
47mm in height and 20mm in width (in the original
sitting position). The maximum thickness is about
11mm, and its back is concave (No. A2, Fig. 1). An
iron pin was set into the statuette’s back in order to
secure it to the now lost seat. Its heavily corroded
remnants can still be observed (Fig. 13:1).
Near the iron pin another tenon is visible, connected to the right arm of the statuette (Fig. 13:2),
which had been cast separately. On the X-ray
image a dark ring around the arm can be observed,
clearly indicating that it was inserted into a hole
passing through the main body (Fig. 14:a).41 As has
been noted above, this is a common characteristic
of all statuettes of Group A. Contrary to expectation the X-ray image provided no information on
the fixing method for the arm. However, a light
grey substance in direct contact with the arm pin
on the back of the statuette was detected by optical
examination. This is probably some kind of solder,
such as a tin-lead alloy (Fig. 15). The area around
the pin shows circular abrasion marks (Figs 13,
15), possibly caused by the drilling of the hole into
which the pin was inserted.
The radiography of the statuette also revealed
that the cylindrical protrusion on the back of
the head had been manufactured separately and
inserted into a drilled hole measuring 4.1mm in
diameter (Fig. 14:b). This detail was not easily
noticed from the external surface. Only a slight
burr around the insert could have been interpreted
as evidence for drilling (Fig. 16). This manufacturing detail is another common feature of the statuettes from Volders, Münster (No. A3), Anghiari
(Nos A5–6) and Augsburg (No. A7), which all
have bored holes in their heads. The statuette from
336
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
FIG. 12
Statue of St Peter in front of the church of Tiberias, Israel (photograph, A. Teicher, wikimedia commons,
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PikiWiki_Israel_11895_statue_of_St._peter_in_tiberias.jpg >
[accessed 12 October 2012], licensed under CC BY 2.5.
Augsburg, like the one from Volders, still retains
its insert. The function of this insert was to carry
the halo of the statuette.42 The photographs of the
Charsadda (No. A1) and Adana/Antakya (No.
A4) statuettes do not show the back of the head,
but due to their great similarity to the other statuettes of Group A it is likely that they also possessed
a hole and an insert for the halo.
The X-ray image in Fig. 14:b shows that the
tip of the drill used for the hole in the Volders
statuette was pointed, with an angle of c. 100°.
Accordingly, either a flat or a twist drill bit could
have been used. The subtle parallel shades in the
drill hole and its jagged outline on the X-ray image
indicate that the hole was also threaded, and that
the head insert must have been a kind of screw.
A detailed inspection of the insert revealed that
part of the thread is visible from the outside as well
(Fig. 16).
The body of the Volders statuette was cast and
roughly finished by filing. The marks of this process are still clearly visible on the surface (Fig. 17).
Although not directly verifiable, it is most likely
that the sand casting method was used to produce
the figurine’s body, since use of the more complex
and costly lost-wax method does not seem likely
for such small and simple objects. Had the lost-wax
method been used, one would expect the figurine to
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
337
FIG. 13
Back of the Volders statuette
No. A2 with indication of the
separate object parts: 1 – iron
pin, 2 – pin connected with the
right arm, 3 – main body. On 2
and 3 metallic areas are visible
from where the samples for
metallographic preparation
were extracted (photograph,
D. Berger).
FIG. 14
Radiography of the Volders
statuette No. A2. Front (a)
and side (b) view (X-ray, S.
Fuge, Schweißtechnische Lehrund Versuchsanstalt Halle).
338
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
FIG. 15
Detail of the back of the
Volders statuette No. A2. The
arrows point to the grey
substance around the arm-pin.
On the upper margin of the
image the abraded area can be
seen (photograph, D. Berger).
have been cast in one piece as assembling it from
three components would have interfered with the
lost-wax casting procedure. This theory is further
supported by the details of the man’s face and
hair having been heavily reworked by chasing
with different punches (Fig. 18). This procedure is
typical for sand-cast objects, since, depending on
the sand quality and grain size, it is more difficult
to produce sharp details in sand casting than in
lost-wax casting, making it necessary to add details
afterwards.
FIG. 16
Detail of the back of the head of the Volders statuette
No. A2 showing the screwed-in head insert. A raised
burr around the insert indicates that the hole was drilled
(photograph, D. Berger).
METAL ANALYSES AND
METALLOGRAPHICAL INVESTIGATION
For the metallurgical analysis of the Volders statuette, drilled samples were taken from each separate
part identified by optical and X-ray examination
with the exception of the iron pin. The samples
were taken from the main body, the right arm and
the head protrusion. For each sample a 1.0mm drill
bit was used. Some of the grey substance around
the arm-pin protruding on the back was scraped
off with a scalpel. The borings and scrapings were
FIG. 17
Side view of the Volders statuette No. A2, showing the
tool marks on the surface (photograph, D. Berger).
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
339
FIG. 18
Detail of the head of the Volders statuette No. A2,
showing the working of the hair and beard. The
impressions were made by using a semi-hollow and a
pointed punch respectively (photograph, D. Berger).
analysed with an energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (EDXRF) whose analysing
parameters are listed in Table 2. To gather even
more information on the metal fabric, small metal
chips were extracted from the arm and body and
prepared for metallographic analysis (Fig. 13:2–3,
Table 2). Besides optical microscopy, an environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM)
coupled with an energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence analyser (EDX) was used. Table 2 lists the
analysing parameters for this equipment.
Table 1 gives an overview of the metal composition of the samples from the three parts of the
statuette. They are composed of copper-zinc alloys
usually referred to as brass. The zinc content (Zn)
is not evenly distributed. It reaches nearly 35wt%
in the head insert and up to 39wt% in the right arm.
In contrast, the body of the figurine only contains
25.4wt% zinc. These differences have a crucial
effect on the structure and major properties of the
TABLE 2
Analysing methods and parameters used for the metallurgical examination of the statuettes.
Method
Kind of analysis/
purpose
Device and analysing/preparation
parameters
Laboratory
energy dispersive
X-ray fluorescence
analysis
(EDXRF)
chemical analysis,
metal
composition
ARL Quant’X EDXRF/Thermo
Scientific; Rh X-ray tube, Si(Li)
detector, 28 kV/750 s and 50 kV/1000 s,
air atmosphere, reference based
quantification (fundamental parameter
method)
Curt-EngelhornZentrum für
Archäometrie,
Mannheim
(N. Lockhoff)
environmental
scanning electron
microscope coupled
with X-ray analyzer
(ESEM/EDX)
chemical analysis
and visualization,
metal composition
and condition
LEO Gemini 1550 VP/Zeiss; field
emission cathode, 20 kV accelerating
voltage, high vacuum, semi quantitative
analysis with Oxford Inca 300 Si(Li)
detector; samples sputtered with carbon
Landeskriminalamt
Sachsen-Anhalt,
Magdeburg
(U. Schwarzer)
metallography
analysis of
microstructure,
study of manufacturing technique
metallographical preparation: metal
samples embedded in epoxy resin, grinded
on SiC paper to 4000 grit; polished with
diamond and SiO2 suspension to 0.1 µm,
samples etched with FeCl3/HCl/H2O and
examined with optical microscopy and
ESEM/EDX
Schweißtechnische
Lehr- und
Versuchsanstalt,
Halle/Saale
micro X-ray
chemical analysis,
fluorescence analysis metal composition
(µXRF)
Eagle III XXL/Roentgenanalytik;
Römisch-Germanisches
Rh X-ray tube, Si(Li) detector,
Zentralmuseum, Mainz
40 kV/125 µA/300 s, monocapillary with (S. Hartmann)
300 µm spot, Ti filter, air atmosphere,
quantification by fundamental parameter
method
340
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
alloy, illustrated by the binary copper-zinc-phase
diagram in Figure 19. According to this diagram,
and the detected zinc content, the body and head
insert alloys should form an α solid solution
(α-brass) whereas that of the arm is likely to be a
mixture of α and β’ crystals (α+β’-brass).43
This assumption is confirmed by the metallographic examination of the samples. Figure 20
shows the cross-section of a metal chip taken from
the body, which only exhibits α grains arranged
in a porous matrix. Under etched conditions the
sample shows polygonal shaped and cored grains
with slip lines but without annealing twins
(Fig. 21). This indicates that the brass was only
slightly worked once cold, and that there was
no substantial further manufacturing step. In
addition, the cored grain structure shows that
no annealing procedure was carried out prior to
the working of the brass, or that the annealing
procedure was inadequate.44
There are two other phases within the microstructure of the metal of the statuette’s body that
were not anticipated by the binary copper-zincphase diagram (Fig. 19). These whitish phases
predominantly concentrate on the grain boundaries of the yellow α crystals (Figs 20, 21), an observation that can be explained by the presence in the
alloy of small amounts of lead (Pb) and tin (Sn)
respectively (Table 1). According to the analyses
with ESEM/EDX and the research of Bauer and
Hansen,45 tin is arranged in a fine structure of α
solid solution and γ intermetallic known as (α+γ)eutectoid. In the sample this mixed phase can be
followed as an irregular shaped component mainly
at crystal junctions all over the polished section
(Figs 20, 21, 22). Because copper-zinc alloys are
FIG. 19
Binary copper-zinc-phase diagram (modified after Scott 1991, fig. 207).
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
341
FIG. 20
Optical bright-field micrographs of a metal chip taken from the body of the Volders statuette No. A2, unetched.
Besides numerous voids perhaps resulting from metallographic preparation light grey phases ((α+γ)-eutectoid) are
visible within the microstructure of the brass. On the surface blue coloured cuprite (with red interior reflections) can
be observed (micrographs, D. Berger).
able to incorporate only small quantities of lead
(< 0.8wt%), this metal was precipitated as small
globules along the grain boundaries of the primary
α crystals.46 The particles are well-rounded and
visible in white on SEM images due to their high
absorption coefficient for the electron beam
(Fig. 22). Table 3 summarizes all EDX analyses of
the sample as mean values and standard deviations.
Immiscible lead inclusions are also visible in
the microstructure of the sample taken from the
FIG. 21
Micrograph of the same sample as in Fig. 20 etched with
aqueous FeCl3. The microstructure shows undeformed α
grains exhibiting paralleled and crossing lines (slip lines)
that are typical for weak metal deformation. Around the
cored α grains (α+γ)-eutectoid is present (micrographs,
D. Berger).
right arm of the statuette. Due to the much higher
zinc content (39wt%) the bulk material is, however,
biphasic with the α and β’ compounds being clearly
distinguishable without etching. Under microscopically bright field illumination β’ grains with a
higher zinc content have a stronger yellowish hue
than the α phase with a lower zinc percentage
(Fig. 23:a). The α grains have a typical plate-like
shape and are arranged in predominant crystal
directions along the β’ grains. This indicates that α
has been precipitated from the primary β solid
solution (high temperate phase, see Fig. 19) by the
so-called Widmanstätten transformation due to
slow cooling conditions after casting or an annealing procedure.47 Because several annealing twins
are visible within the α phase in the etched state the
brass must have been shaped by forging or welding
(Fig. 24). As (α+β’)-brass is more suitable for hot
working than α-brass one possible interpretation is
that the twins and plated crystal structure result
from such a process. However, cold working
followed by annealing is more plausible here since
numerous slip lines account for cold deformation,
at least, as the final step (Fig. 24). It is thus very
likely that the preliminary working occurred at
room temperature, which was then followed by an
annealing step. Looking at the lead inclusion the
mechanical forming could not have been very
strong, otherwise the lead would have a more
regularly elongated shape (Fig. 23:a).48
Unlike the metal of the main body of the
statuette, the low tin content that was detected
by EDXRF in this sample (0.88wt%) seems to
be completely dissolved within the (α+β’)-matrix.
342
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
FIG. 22
Back-scattered electron image of the sample from the body of the Volders statuette with the results of some of the
EDX analyses (prepared by D. Berger).
TABLE 3
Mean values and standard deviations of the EDX analyses of the sample taken from the body of the Volders
statuette (No. A2).
Sample part
matrix
(α+γ)-eutectoid
lead inclusions
corrosion crust
Fe
Cu
Zn
Sn
Pb
0.33 ± 0.45
n. d.
n. d.
0.58 ± 0.82
68.56 ± 0.84
64.32 ± 1.48
17.58 ± 9.05
86.62 ± 0.51
27.03 + 0.69
23.9 ± 0.73
7.7 ± 3.67
7.97 ± 3.39
2.48 ± 0.52
11.13 ± 2.64
n. d.
4.83 ± 2.05
1.4 ± 1.29
0.65 ± 1.72
74.72 ± 12.68
n. d.
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
343
FIG. 24
Optical bright-field micrograph of the metal sample
from the arm etched with aqueous FeCl3. Besides
slip lines some distorted annealing twins are present
in the uncorroded α grains indicating at least two
forging-annealing-changes (micrographs, D. Berger).
FIG. 23
Heavily corroded biphasic microstructure in the cross
section of a metal chip taken from the arm of the
Volders Statuette, unetched condition. a – bright-field
micrograph showing small amounts of sound metal
consisting of α and β’ crystals as well as rounded lead
inclusions; b – bright-field micrograph of the dezincified
region where uncorroded α grains and re-deposited
copper are present. On the left image border traces of
the soft solder can be seen (micrographs, D. Berger).
This would be expected from the studies of O.
Bauer and M. Hansen and the ternary phase
diagram of the system Cu-Zn-Sn established by
G. Tammann and M. Hansen.49 Therefore, no γ
phase exists in the microstructure of the statuette’s
body. In contrast, the considerable iron content
(0.68wt%) has caused the formation of tiny iron
rich segregates that can be recognized as dark spots
throughout the copper-zinc grains (Fig. 24).50
Contrary to popular assumption, tin could
not protect the (α+β’)-brass of the arm insert from
so-called ‘dezincification’, a corrosion-induced
phenomenon usually associated with biphasic
copper-zinc alloys.51 The dezincification process is
facilitated in β’-containing brasses because of the
much lower electrode potential of the β’ solid solutions compared to that of the α phase.52 This leads
to a preferential corrosion of the high zinc β’ phase,
leaving the α grains unaffected. In the present case,
the metal surface of the arm exhibits uncorroded
and orientated α plates surrounded by big crystals
of re-precipitated pure copper (up to 30µm in size)
and intermixed copper and zinc corrosion products
(Figs 23, 25, Table 4). Thus the β’ phase has
completely dissolved and converted to copper in
the outer region of the sample. It is probable that
the severe dezincification of the arm metal is linked
to the iron and lead content. This is because both
metals are known to accelerate the dissolution
of the β’ phase, counteracting the beneficial effect
of any tin additions.53 Irrespective of this, the
corroded microstructure confirms the reported
discovery scenario and authenticity of the Volders
344
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
TABLE 4
Mean values and standard deviations of the EDX analyses of the sample taken from the arm insert of the
Volders statuette (No. A2).
Sample part
matrix (α+β)
uncorroded α
re-deposited Cu
lead inclusions
outer corrosion crust
inner corrosion crust
Fe
Cu
Zn
Sn
Pb
Cl
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
61.77 ± 0.81
64.38 ± 0.41
100 ± 0
13.31 ± 11.58
92.72
4.66
38.23 ± 0.81
35.62 ± 0.41
n.d.
9.08 ± 6.55
5.41
83.75
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
76.15 ± 16.08
n.d.
11.59
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
1.45 ± 2.05
1.65
n.d.
statuette, since big copper crystals only form during the longer corrosion periods that are typical of
buried archaeological objects.
The microscopic examination of the sample
from the arm insert also provided some clues on
the soldering material used. Aligned spots of a high
reflecting bluish-coloured metal phase embedded
into corrosion products are visible on the surface
of the metal chip (Fig. 23:b). Under crossed polarizers the corrosion crust exhibits a greyish-white
hue being thus different from the red-coloured
copper corrosion product (cuprite) that is present
in other parts of the sample. EDX analyses show
that the metal spots are composed of tin, copper
and some zinc (Fig. 25, spectrum 1), whereas the
corrosion layer has a high lead content besides the
main constituent tin and some copper and zinc
(Fig. 25, spectrum 10). There can be little doubt
that these observations characterize a tin-lead soft
solder that was used for soldering the arm insert to
the statuette’s back. Since the bluish metal spots
concentrate on the metal surface it is probable,
considering the EDX results, that they result from
reactions of the solder with the brass material after
prolonged and localized heating. Most likely they
can be considered as an intermetallic phase from
the copper-tin binary or even the copper-zinc-tinternary system, e.g. the η or γ phases.54
Further clues are gleaned from the results of
the EDXRF analysis of the grey substance, shown
in Table 1, although the numerical values given
there are of weak significance because of the
solder’s badly corroded nature. It is, however,
noticeable that the solder must have had a high
tin content with lead being the minor alloy part.
Perhaps a solder with the eutectic composition
61.9wt% tin, balance lead was used in this case.
This could be compared to those identified recently
on a number of brass cases found on a 19thcentury shipwreck off the coast of Israel.55 The iron
traces detected in the Volders sample come from
the corrosion of the nearby iron pin, whereas
copper and zinc derive from the base metal.
INTERPRETATION OF THE
ARCHAEOMETALLURGICAL DATA
A considerable corpus of metal analysis has been
carried out on archaeological brass objects in the
last 50 years, ranging in date from the Etruscan
and Roman periods to the post-medieval. There
now exists widespread agreement among scholars
that until the end of the late Middle Ages brass was
produced exclusively either by the so-called cementation process or by direct reduction.56 In the latter
process zinc ore (e.g. calamine or smithsonite) was
directly added to molten copper whereas the
former process involved mixing of solid copper,
charcoal and zinc ore in a sealed reaction vessel
and heating the mixture to around the boiling point
of zinc (i.e. 900–1000°C) in order to produce brass
by a solid state reaction process. As demonstrated
by H. Ullwer,57 in the course of the cementation
process zinc vapour precipitates onto the copper
surface and the copper then diffuses into the zinc.
Others argue for the diffusion of zinc into the solid
copper instead.58 As a consequence of practical
operating conditions, both processes allow zinc
contents in brass up to 33wt% only,59 although
under controlled laboratory conditions much
higher contents are possible when using the cementation technique.60 As none of the analysed European brass objects dating before the post-medieval
period contain more than 30wt% zinc, the cementation and the direct reduction processes are
thought to be the only methods used for brass
making in the pre-modern period. Only after
distilled zinc was imported from India in the 16th
century AD was it possible to produce higherzinced brasses by co-melting metallic copper and
zinc.61 The zinc content therefore should be a very
useful time marker.62
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
345
FIG. 25
Back-scattered electron image of the sample from the arm of the Volders statuette with the results of the EDX
analyses on different microstructure constituents (prepared by D. Berger).
The zinc content of the right arm and head
insert of the Volders statuette makes it impossible
for the object to have been manufactured before
the post-medieval period. On the contrary, the
high zinc content, reaching 35 and 39wt% respectively, strongly suggests use of the co-melting
production technique (also known as speltering)
for the two brass parts. In this context the detected
cadmium content of 130ppm in the right arm is
significant (see Table 1). Cadmium, present in the
zinc ores,63 was usually lost during cementation
due to its high volatility, whereas it was frequently
retarded in early distilled zinc.64 Not without
reason did Z. Weirong and F. Xiangxi as well as
J. Riederer use cadmium as a marker for the
authentication of brass artefacts.65 These factors,
however, do not mean that the missing cadmium
and the low zinc content observed in the statuette’s
body indicate an older date. It is possible to get
low-zinced brasses with the speltering process as
well, while cadmium could well be present under
the detection limit of the EDXRF (< 0.01% =
100ppm). Alternatively, it has been established
that the cementation method persisted as a major
production technique until the end of the 18th, and
in some regions even into the mid 19th century.66
346
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
The main body of the statuette might therefore be
as young as the right arm or the head insert. The
tin, lead and iron contents, which are distinctly
higher in the main body than in the inserted parts,
cannot — as some authors have suggested67 —
contribute to the solution of the dating problem
because they could have been added deliberately to
change the properties of the alloy.
Taking into account the above-mentioned
points, it is possible to narrow down the production period of the Volders statuette quite precisely.
The earliest possible date is the 16th century AD,
when metallic zinc was introduced for the first time
to European markets.68 And yet this new zinc
was expensive and would hardly have been used
for devotional mass products like the small St Peter
statuettes.69 Therefore, a considerably later date is
more likely, perhaps the late 18th or most probably
the 19th century when zinc production on an
industrial scale emerged in both Great Britain
and Continental Europe. The patents of W. Collins
(1783–1817) and G.F. Muntz (1832) for the production of standardized copper-zinc alloys as well
as that of J. Emerson (1781) for the direct mixing
of the two metals prepared the way for a more
cost-effective brass production.70 Prior to that, W.
Champion had pioneered a simple and economical
method for the distillation of metallic zinc (the
prerequisite for Collins’ and Muntz’s patents) in
the early 18th century.71
Another indicator for a late date of the statuette is provided by the drilled hole in the head. As
mentioned above, the tip of the drill used for the
hole in the Volders statuette was pointed at an
angle of c. 100°. Unfortunately, this provides no
evidence as to the period of manufacture, since
the angle of the point is of little chronological
relevance.72 More relevant to the dating is the
hole being threaded in order to accommodate the
additional head component, which is a brass screw.
Until the end of the 18th century the manufacture
of screws and matching threads was difficult and
expensive. Mass-produced screws were not available until the first decades of the 19th century, and
only in the middle of the century were standards
concerning screw and thread dimensions established.73 This development was likely an essential
prerequisite for the use of screws on articles such as
the Volders statuette, since without standardized
machine-produced screws it would be far simpler
and cheaper to cast the attachment for the halo
together with the statuette. For this reason the
lower limit for its production was probably not
much before 1850.
To fix the upper time limit, it is important in
addition to consider the development of modern
brass technology. Methodical scientific examinations of the influence of metal additions to brass in
the last decades of the 19th and in the first decades
of the 20th century caused new elements such as
aluminium, iron, manganese, nickel and silicon
to be added to brass alloys. The purpose of these
additions was to improve the mechanical and casting properties of the brasses as well as their corrosion resistance. Prior to this period, no elements
other than tin or lead (and perhaps iron) played a
role in the manufacture of brass.74
Whereas lead was often only a natural impurity, especially with zinc ores, tin was sometimes
added intentionally to prevent dezincification.
Naval or admiralty brasses, for example, contain
up to 1wt% tin resulting in good corrosion resistance against seawater, and were frequently used
for marine purposes (Table 5). Examining the composition of the statuette’s arm, it becomes clear
that it roughly matches naval brass or a modified
Muntz metal, known since the 1830s.75 It appears
that this standardized brass alloy could also have
TABLE 5
List of some brass alloys, their compositions, earliest occurrence and main fields of application (compiled from
Craddock 1985; Temple 1985; Day 1991, 192).
Alloy name
Chemical composition
Earliest occurrence Use
common brass
up to 28 % Zn, some Sn and Pb, balance Cu before 1500
common brass
up to 33 % Zn, some Sn and, balance Cu
after 1500
Muntz metal
40 % Zn, balance Cu
after 1830
(also: yellow brass)
naval brass
admiralty brass
aluminum brasses
manganese brasses
37 % Zn, 0.5-1 % Sn, balance Cu
after 1830
29 % Zn, 0.5-1 % Sn, balance Cu
different Zn, some per cent Al, balance Cu after 1900
different Zn, some per cent Mn, balance Cu after 1910
sheeting of ships,
plumbers, engineering
fittings etc.
marine applications
marine applications
for ship components,
shafts etc.
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
been used in the present case. Only the higher
lead content — which might be a consequence
of deliberate addition — is evidence against this
assumption (see Table 1).
The high lead content of the statuette’s main
body could be due to a deliberate addition as well.
Here, too, tin is a major alloy part that was probably added together with the lead as a lead-tin
alloy. Their ratio (0.42 = Sn/Pb) almost coincides
with that of the arm insert (0.49 = Sn/Pb), hinting
that they originate from the same source. Consequently, the quaternary brass alloys of the main
body and of the right arm could well have been
produced in the same workshop. However, this
assumption is not supported by the minor and
trace element patterns of the alloys, which are
much more diverse than would be expected if the
same copper source had been used (Fig. 26). It
seems reasonable to assume that the lead and tin
were added in the workshop to brass alloys that
have been recycled or came from different foundries. Because of the high differences in the trace
and minor (tin, lead) element contents, a different
source must also be assumed for the metal of the
head insert (Fig. 26). It appears that the workshop
that manufactured the statuette purchased a commercially available screw to use as a mount for
the halo. This, however, would have required an
adequate screw tap for producing the opposing
thread in the hole.
Apart from these considerations, the missing
aluminium and manganese as well as the low nickel
and iron contents indicate a date of the statuette
347
before the turn of the 20th century. Additionally,
the high amount of metal impurities such as antimony, bismuth and silver may also account for
such a dating because they evidence an imperfect
metal purification. It was not until the last decades
of the 19th century that metal refining methods
were developed (especially electrolysis) which provided much purer raw materials.76 As high-purity
metals would not have been absolutely necessary
for mass-produced religious metal work this
remains a weak argument. Nevertheless, together
with all the other points mentioned above we
suggest the period between 1850 and 1900 as the
most probable date for the production of the
Volders statuette.
ARCHAEOMETALLURGICAL
EXAMINATION OF OTHER STATUETTES
Before the present study, the statuettes from
Münster (No. A3) and Augsburg (No. A7) had
already been analysed using atomic absorption
spectroscopy in the Rathgen-Forschungslabor in
Berlin.77 Since this analysis had been restricted to
the main body, and did not include the inserted
parts and the solder, it was decided to perform a
new, complete analysis of all the parts of these
statuettes as well as statuette No. B2 using a micro
X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (Table 2).78 The
statuettes were also X-rayed. Since statuette No.
B2 from Cologne was hollow-cast and the hollow
had been filled with lead and lead alloy the X-ray
FIG. 26
Minor and trace element
patterns of the three object
parts from the Volders
statuette. The concentrations
on the ordinate are plotted
logarithmically (prepared by
D. Berger).
348
image did not reveal any useful details and was
therefore not included in the evaluation. The metallurgical analysis of the statuettes was performed
on the surface after scraping off the corrosion crust
to obtain reliable measuring results.79 Because the
patina on the head insert of the Augsburg statuette
No. A7 proved to be very thick, it was not possible
to reach the uncorroded metal surface without
visible changes to the artefact. Therefore it was
not possible to get a quantitative reading of the
composition of this part of the statuette.80
The results obtained from the Group A statuettes Nos A3 and A7 confirm the older spectroscopical analysis according to which they consist of
α-brass containing 27.1 and 21.3wt% Zn respectively (Table 1). Both pieces also contain lead, tin
and trace elements in various proportions. The
small discrepancy between the atomic absorption
spectroscopy and the XRF analysis are due to segregation effects, which are particularly important
in the case of lead because of the microscopic focus
of the XRF method. Nevertheless the results are
almost identical and therefore well comparable.
The composition of the separately inserted
arm of the statuette from Münster (No. A3) reveals
that it was made of the same alloy as the body. The
similarities of the trace elements in both parts
suggest that they originate from the same metal
batch and consequently from a single workshop. It
is not possible to date this item and the statuette
from Augsburg, however, by their metal composition since the zinc content is ‘normal’ and no elements were found that might indicate a speltering
process.81 Therefore, the shape and the thread of
the holes in the figurines’ heads and the screw on
statuette No. A7 are the most important parts for
dating. On the X-ray images (Figs 27–8) the holes
display a pointed tip similar to the one on the
Volders figurine. However, the angle of the tip and
the diameters of the bores are distinct which infers
different drills were used on each example. While
the existence of a thread in the head cavity of the
statuette from Augsburg can only be inferred from
the inserted screw, the insert is missing in the case
of the Münster statuette, and the thread of the hole
is visible to the unaided eye. As with the Volders
example, the threaded hole strongly suggests dates
from the second half of the 19th century for both
statuettes.
On the back of the statuettes from Münster
and Augsburg a grey substance adhered to the protruding arm and the bored hole. The XRF analyses
show that this substance contains high concentrations of tin and lead, and some antimony in the
case of statuette No. A7. It can therefore be identified as solder used for fixing the arms to the bodies.
Since the arm of the Volders statuette has likewise
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
FIG. 27
X-ray image of the statuette from Münster, No. A3
(X-Ray, S. Patscher, Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum).
FIG. 28
X-ray image of the statuette from Augsburg, No. A7
(X-Ray, S. Patscher, Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum).
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
been fastened to the body with a soft solder this
seems to be a common feature of the St Peter
miniatures. In consideration of other details it
seems very likely that the three objects were manufactured in a closely related environment, although
not necessarily in the same workshop or at the
same time. The similarities in the metal composition of the statuettes from Münster and Volders
are striking, but this could be due to a shared metal
provider. Because of the different methods used for
compositional analysis no further conclusions can
be drawn.
Contrary to expectations, the analysis of
the statuette from Cologne No. B2, showed that
although it possesses a green patina it did not
consist of copper alloy. As shown in Table 1, this
hollow cast statuette is made up of a ternary leadtin-antimony alloy in its outer part with small
contents of copper and zinc. The filling consists of
three visible parts (Fig. 9). It is tri-phasic, but more
heterogenic and with a higher concentration
of tin. The central section is fairly pure lead with
only some copper traces. The identified lead-tinantimony alloys correspond to a class of metals
better known under the term ‘type metal’, used for
printing types since the invention of the printing
press by Johannes Gutenberg in the 1440s.82 Such
alloys, however, have been known since antiquity
so the composition alone does not provide evidence
for a post-medieval date of the miniature.83 The
throne on which the figure is seated remains the
only clue for dating this type of statuette.
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE
MINIATURE STATUES OF ST PETER
The date of the statuettes provided by archaeometallurgical analysis fits well into the religious history
of the late 19th century. The statue of St Peter
was an important symbol for the papal claim of
supremacy in the Christian world and its veneration was encouraged by the Catholic church. This
was especially the case in the 19th century, when
Pope Pius IX (1846–78) endeavoured to strengthen
the legitimacy and power of the Holy See. The
First Vatican Council defined the dogma of papal
infallibility in 1870 under his papacy, just as the
pope’s temporal power was rapidly vanishing
in the course of Italian unification, and only a
few months before Rome was conquered by the
Kingdom of Italy.84
The carrying out of devotional practices
directed at statues or altars of St Peter was rewarded
with indulgences as early as the 18th century, as
shown by a printed responsory divulged by Pope
Pius VI (1755–99) (Fig. 29). In 1857 Pope Pius IX
349
continued this policy by granting an indulgence of
50 days to the devout who, after having been to
confession, kissed the feet of the statue of St Peter
in the Vatican Basilica.85 The custom of kissing the
statue’s feet can be traced as far back as the 15th
century. Nikolaus Muffel, a patrician from Nuremberg, travelled to Rome in 1452; his travel account
mentions the popular legend (ein schal Red) that
pilgrims who kissed the feet of the bronze statue
of St Peter were bound to return to Rome.86 In an
indication of the strong symbolic connection
between the statue and the figure of the Pope, the
Mirabiliae Romae vel potius Historia et descriptio
urbis Romae, a compilation of texts on the city of
Rome redacted between 1471 and 1484,87 mentions
the belief that kissing the right foot of the statue of
St Peter granted as much indulgence as kissing the
feet of the Pope himself.88 The practice of kissing
the statue’s feet is still customary today among the
devout, and explains why the feet of the statue are
so worn (Fig. 2).
According to the Raccolta, an official 19thcentury collection of prayers and acts of piety for
which indulgences were granted by the Holy See,
Pope Pius IX expanded the indulgence connected
with the main statue in 1877 to include ‘little
statues of St Peter‘ blessed by the Pope.89 It is very
likely that the statuettes presented in this paper
were intended to bestow this indulgence. Its extension to the miniatures must have contributed to the
popularity and diffusion of such objects.
The dating of the group of miniature statuettes to the 18th or 19th century therefore fits well
with Roman Catholic practices of the time. It also
makes the recovery of such objects in places as far
apart as Charsadda and Antakya less difficult to
explain. Recent research in Charsadda has proven
that some kind of fortification occupied the Bala
Hisar from the 11th or 12th centuries through to
the 19th century.90 The nature of this ‘settlement’
remains indistinct. This invalidates Bussagli’s
assumption that Charsadda was deserted after the
10th century. Although we know of no evidence
for any permanent presence of Roman Catholic
Christians in Charsadda before the 20th century,
the appearance of a Christian souvenir from Rome
does not seem improbable given that British
control of the region was established in 1849.91
The date of the photographs of No. A1 provides
a definite terminus ante quem of 1910.92 No. A1,
whose discovery in Charsadda baffled previous
generations of scholars, could therefore easily have
reached what is now Pakistan via missionaries or
individual Catholic British colonial troops, as has
already been suggested by Francesco Caglioti.93
In the Antakya region, where statuette No.
A4 was probably photographed, Roman Catholic
350
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
FIG. 29
Responsorium divulged under Pope Pius VI (1775–99). The text below the image of the statue of St Peter reads: ‘The
Most Holy Father through divine providence Pope Pius VI in order to increase the ardor of the faithful in the
devotion of the Prince of the Apostles, will kindly grant one hundred days of indulgence to whoever will repeat with
faith this responsorium; and furthermore the plenary indulgence forever on two days of the year, which are the
festivity of the roman see the 18th of January, and the one of St Peter in Vincoli the 2nd of August, to whom, really
repentant, after having received the Holy Communion, will visit any church, or altar dedicated to the Holy Apostle,
and here will pray and recite the following responsorium’ (reproduced by courtesy of Mgr Dario Rezza, Archive of the
Chapter of the Vatican Basilica. Translation by Patrick Cassitti).
missionary activity is attested in the 16th century.
Strong relations between Syria and Rome existed
from the 17th century onward, when oriental
priests were educated in Roman Catholic colleges
in Rome.94 Indeed, an image of St Peter on a seal
probably belonging to the Orthodox Patriarch of
Antioch Makarios III Za’im (1647–72) resembles
the pose of the statue at St Peter’s in Rome.95 Patriarch Makarios III maintained good relations
with Roman Catholic missionaries after 1661 and
even sent a secret profession of Catholic faith to
Rome.96
The Jesuits had many stations in the Near
East, including Antakya (the former Antioch),
Turkey.97 The Roman Catholic presence at
Antakya was reinforced, among other activities, by
the acquisition of the cave-church of St Peter by
the Holy See in 1856.98 The belief that this was the
place where the first Christian community gathered
and St Peter preached, and that the cave was
donated to the Christians by St Luke the Evangelist, was encouraged by the Roman Catholic
Church.99 While the earliest surviving parts of the
church date to the 4th or 5th centuries, and the
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
façade was originally a Crusader-period edifice,
the connection to St Peter seems to be a recent
tradition. Willibrand von Oldenburg, who wrote
the last detailed description of Antioch before it
was sacked and razed by Sultan Baybar in 1268,
mentions a parva crypta vel caverna near the convent of St Paul. This cave was said to be the place
where St Paul rested from his missionary activities
and wrote his letters.100 The connection of the cave
with St Peter probably occurred some time after
the razing of Antioch, when all memory of the
original attribution of the structure was lost.101
After its acquisition by the Roman Catholic
Church the cave was restored and assigned to the
care of a local monastery of Capuchin Friars.102 In
the light of these activities by Roman Catholic
clergy and dignitaries it is likely that the statuette
No. A4, photographed in Adana or Antakya, was
brought to this region in the second half of the
19th century.
While the Group A statuettes almost certainly
date to the second half of the 19th century, those of
Group B cannot be as precisely dated. A terminus
post quem is provided by the throne, which in
Group B is cast together with the seated figure, and
closely resembles the present marble seat of the
Vatican original. As has been demonstrated by
Rudolf Berliner, according to documentary and
pictorial evidence the seat was erected in 1756/57
and is a reinterpretation of a 15th-century predecessor.103 Berliner attributes most of the stylistic
elements of the throne to the 15th-century original,
therefore limiting the usefulness of the shape of the
throne for the dating of the statuettes. However,
according to a recent contribution by Francesco
Caglioti the inverted floral chalices at the top of the
rear pillars are certainly post-Baroque and therefore a new element of the 1756/57 seat.104 These
pillars and inverted floral chalices are clearly visible on the thrones of the statuettes of Group B,
thus providing a definite date post-1756/57 for
their manufacture. While the statuettes of Group B
could still pre-date those of Group A by as much
as a century, metallurgical analysis provided no
conclusive evidence that would allow us to narrow
down their age. We cannot definitively determine
whether the two groups were created a century
apart or were contemporary.
CONCLUSION
The dating of the statuettes of Group A to the second half of the 19th century was a major surprise
to the project team. It was almost inconceivable
that so little knowledge had survived of objects
that were so recently in use, and, if we consider the
351
plastic and metal souvenirs being sold in Rome,
are still very common today. Since archaeological
excavations of deposits dating to the 18th or 19th
centuries are still rare occurrences in Continental
Europe and the other regions where these objects
have been recovered, it is not surprising that all the
small statuettes presented in this study are unstratified surface finds. Unlike the larger statuettes
of superior artistic quality, this type of object was
not considered precious enough to be kept for long
periods of time, passed on as an heirloom, or be
included in private collections. The statuettes
presented in this paper were probably either lost
by pilgrims who visited Rome, or were discarded
and deposited onto the fields together with other
household waste. Since most of the finds were
located along important pilgrimage routes to Rome
the first hypothesis seems the most plausible
(Fig. 30).
The wide range of dates for the production
of these statuettes proposed by previous research
indicates the limitations of stylistic analysis when
applied to small, mass-produced items, and conversely the importance of analysing the method of
manufacture. Only when the latter is known is it
possible to determine if the shape of a particular
element can be ascribed wholly to the creative
decision of the manufacturer or can be explained
by the necessities of production and economy.
What do the characteristics of the objects
tell us about the organization of production? The
similar manufacturing and assembling techniques
of the statuettes of Group A indicate the existence
of a specific manufacturing tradition. If more than
one workshop existed these were probably linked,
if only by the copying of the production process.
While the differences in quality between the three
types of statuettes in Group A (‘Charsadda’,
‘Antakya’ and ‘Münster’ type) could be attributed
to being manufactured in different workshops,
the very similar bodies of the statuettes of the
‘Charsadda’ type suggest origins from the same
workshop as being very likely. While the cast
bodies of these statuettes are almost identical, the
heads clearly differ from each other and have been
worked using different types of tools. This indicates a division of labour: the casting of the bodies
was carried out in one part of the workshop (or in
a separate foundry) and then given to specialized
artisans to add details. In the second half of the
19th century such a division of labour was found in
larger workshops or factories. Evidence of the use
of different types of tools, leading to markedly different facial features and style of hair and beard,
was surprising. This could be due to various
factors, including the preferences of the worker in
352
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
FIG. 30
Location of the find spots of the statuettes mentioned in the article laid over the pilgrimage routes described in the
Annales Stadenses, redacted between 1204 and 1256 (Modified after Lanzi & Lanzi 2000, fig. 77).
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
charge of that particular production step or outsourcing to another workshop that used different
manufacturing techniques. This shows that a complete standardization of manufacture had not yet
been achieved, and that the manual component of
the production process remained high. The differences in the facial features could be of chronological relevance. However, the sample size is too small
to make definitive statements here, and given the
rapid development of production methods in the
19th century changes could have taken place in
the space of only a few years. The same reasoning
applies when looking at the differences between the
statuettes of Group A and Group B. These differences could be explained chronologically, since the
dating of Group B is uncertain and could date
as far back as the second half of the 18th century.
Conversely, the two groups could represent the
contemporary output of one or more workshops
that were producing for different classes of customers. The latter could be supported by evidence
of metal composition since the lead-tin-antimony
alloy of Group B is cheaper and easier to cast than
the copper-zinc alloy of Group A.
What has become particularly clear in the
course of the present study is how false attributions
can become accepted and then persist once they
have been committed to print. The 5th-century
date proposed by Benjamin Rowland in 1943 has
directed the research on this topic for almost
70 years and was quoted as recently as 2005.105
While Paola Refice has been more cautious about
the probable age of the statuettes, placing them
between the 15th and the 18th centuries, like
Rowland she dismissed a 19th-century date without clear explanation.106 In these cases, disciplinespecific preconceptions seem to have hindered the
research process. While the cited scholars were
archaeologists, the reasoning behind the proposed
dates was mainly historical and art historical in
perspective, since no scientific archaeological data
were available. There is certainly no lack of historical and pictorial documents for the 19th century; they are however not always easily accessible
or well researched. Perhaps more importantly, the
abundance of sources can give the impression that
scientific archaeological research into this time
period is not necessary. The sheer quantity of
sources is often enough to discourage the interested
researcher. In our experience this ‘blind spot’
regarding the 19th century is still common among
archaeologists who do not specialize in the time
period, and this case-study should provide a pause
for thought for those who would dismiss the need
for scientific research on historical artefacts.
353
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank A. Altenburger, E.
Pfennigs, R. Dorstewitz, and D. Salzmann, Director of the Museum of the University of Münster
for the access to the St Peter miniatures in their
possession. S. Greiff, S. Hartmann and S. Patscher
of the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum
in Mainz, A. Pinkernelle and S. Fuge of the
Schweißtechnische Lehr- und Versuchsanstalt in
Halle, U. Schwarzer of the Landeskriminalamt
Sachsen-Anhalt and N. Lockhoff of the CurtEngelhorn-Zentrum Archäometrie in Mannheim,
for providing access to the metallurgical and X-ray
data. We would also like to thank those who have
assisted us in our research by providing information, ideas and comments, particularly H. Stadler,
K.-P. Todt, G. Mazzi, D. Rezza, D. Bertogli,
B. Roetheli and M. Sloan.
NOTES
1
The project ‘Leblos heißt nicht mundtot’ was
initiated and directed by Harald Stadler and carried
out by the University of Innsbruck together with the
secondary school of Volders. It was financed by the
Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research.
<http://www.sparklingscience.at/en/projekte/397>
[accessed 3 August 2012].
2
Stadler 2000.
3
Poeschke 2000, 93.
4
Berliner 1956.
5
The New Raccolta 1903, 408–9.
6
Refice 2009, 48.
7
Birch 1998, 78.
8
Mgr Dario Rezza, Camerlengo of the Vatican
Chapter, pers. comm. by email, 28 April 2011.
9
An overview of late medieval and early modern
pilgrims accounts in German and Dutch language can
be found in Miedema 2003. An English travel account
written c. 1470 by William Brewyn can be found in
Woodruff 1933.
10
Pecchiai 1951, 101–5.
11
Rowland (1943, 68) supposes that the statuette
was found during the archaeological excavations
conducted in Charsadda in 1902 and 1903. As Fourlas
(2005/06, 149) has already pointed out this seems
rather unlikely as the reports of these excavations do
not mention any bronze statue although they present
many small finds (see Marshall & Vogel 1904).
12
Written requests of Benjamin Fourlas made in
June 2005 to the Archaeological Museums at Adana
and Antakya remained unanswered. cf. Fourlas
2005/06, 150 with note 53.
13
A curious tale told by the owner: The grandfather
of the present owner had a passion for flyable miniature fighter aircraft of the Second World War. While
collecting the wreckage of his crashed Messerschmidt
109 in a field near Augsburg he found No. A7 by
354
chance. Not recognizing the figurine as St Peter he
recruited it for service and made it pilot of another Me
109. As such it flew several times over the environs of
Augsburg at a speed of 100km/h.
14
Guarducci 1991, 19–20.
15
Berliner 1956; Romanini 1990, 43.
16
Rowland 1943, 65–70 figs 1–2.
17
Rowland 1943, 66.
18
e.g. Grisar 1899, 653–7; Cecchelli 1937, 58–62. An
extended bibliography in Romanini 1990, 1–11.
19
Rowland 1943, 66–7 with note 7. On the statuette
from Strasbourg and three related figurines and
their recently suggested dating to the late 2nd or
3rd century AD, see Di Stazio 2010 with previous
bibliography.
20
Bussagli 1954, 250.
21
Esp. by Guarducci 1988, 68; 1991, 30; 1994, 6.
22
e.g. Salmi 1960, 24, 28; Braunfels 1976, 162; Romanini 1990, 3; Poeschke 2000, 93.
23
Angelucci 1990; Romanini 1990; Angelucci et al.
1992.
24
Doubts were expressed by Romanini 1994, 267
who suggested a 15th-century date and Caglioti 2000,
762 who considered it more likely that the figurine
found its way to Pakistan during the British colonial
rule.
25
Stadler 2000, 38.
26
Fourlas 2005/06.
27
Fourlas 2005/06, 144, table 1.
28
For the full argument see Fourlas 2005/06. The
assignment of the monumental statue to Pope Leo
I was first mentioned by Torrigio 1639, 126 (as cited
in Fourlas 2005/06, 165 with note 147 with full quotation) but later repeated also by other scholars. cf.
Caglioti 2000, 761.
29
Refice 2009.
30
Refice 2009, 49.
31
Cassitti 2011.
32
Guarducci 1991, 19–20.
33
Another figurine offered in an auction in 2010 was
labeled ‘St Peter’ and dated to the 6th century:
Morawietz et al. 2012, 214–15 no. 461 (height 195mm).
Although the statuette is not related to the group we
are dealing with in this paper (different attire, no key),
the auction catalogue cites the article of Fourlas
2005/06 as reference for an alleged 6th-century date of
the object. Apart from the fact that the date given by
Fourlas has to be revised, the only similarity between
the two statuettes is the seated pose of the figure and
the fact it is sporting a beard.
34
Haggenmüller 1993, 316–17, fig. 19.
35
Egger 1964, 46, cat. 122, fig. 37.
36
Berliner 1956.
37
Fourlas 2005/06, 147 with notes 30–1.
38
Rogers 2003; Browne & Dean 1995, 49.
39
Heinsch 1999, n.p.
40
Rogers 2011, 16.
41
The brightness of X-ray images is a measure for
the X-ray absorption of a medium. A dark colour
indicates a less absorbing medium such as air.
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
42
This was probably made of some material with
a gold-like shine similar to the golden halo of the
original Statue.
43
Oettel & Schumann 2011, 753–70.
44
Scott 1991, 5–10.
45
Bauer & Hansen 1930; 1931.
46
Bauer & Hansen 1929.
47
Scott 1991, 20; Oettel & Schumann 2011, 759.
48
MacLeod 2006, 6.
49
Bauer & Hansen 1930; 1931; Tammann & Hansen
1924, fig. 5.
50
Bauer & Hansen 1934, 128.
51
Davies 1993; Campanella et al. 2009.
52
Oettel & Schumann 2011, 639; Köhler 1996.
53
Davies 1993.
54
Tomlinson & Bryan 1986, 106, fig. 4a; Prakash &
Sritharan 2001.
55
Ashkenazi et al. 2011.
56
Craddock 1995; Craddock & Eckstein 2003.
57
Ullwer 2001; 2008.
58
Craddock & Eckstein 2003; Pollard & Heron
2008.
59
Haedecke 1973; Day 1998, 146.
60
Ullwer 2001; 2008.
61
Craddock & Eckstein 2003, 227–8.
62
Craddock 1985, 39; Pollard & Heron 2008, 194.
63
Schroll 1954.
64
Craddock & Eckstein 2003, 228.
65
Weirong & Xiangxi 1994; Riederer 2008.
66
Day 1998, 154.
67
Craddock & Eckstein 2003, 228.
68
Craddock 1995, 318; Craddock & Eckstein 2003,
227–8.
69
Day 1991, 179.
70
Day 1991, 189–93; Day 1998, 149–52.
71
Day 1991, 179–89.
72
Lueger 1904, 180; Todd et al. 1994, 46.
73
Roe 1926, chs IV and IX; Kellermann & Treue
1962, 186–203; Benad-Wagenhoff 1992.
74
Temple 1985.
75
Day 1991, 192; Davis 2001, 19.
76
Schütt 1971.
77
The results of No. A3 have been published by
Fourlas 2005/06, those of No. A7 are unpublished, see
Table 1.
78
The two statuettes from Anghiari (Nos A5 and A6)
were also intended for metallurgical analysis. Permission for sampling has been granted by the Soprintendenza of Arezzo, however the analyses had not been
completed by the time of submission of this paper.
79
Measuring on the corrosion crust can lead to
severe deviations in the results due to enrichment or
depletion effects in the metal.
80
As a precondition the analyses had to be as less
invasive as possible.
81
The detection limits of the employed micro XRF
spectrometer are quite high compared to other analysing methods so that some important tracers such as
cadmium could not be detected.
82
Berger & Stieme forthcoming.
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
83
Piersig 2010, 18.
De Cesare 1909, 422–37, 453–60.
85
The New Raccolta 1903, 408.
86
Vogt 1876, 23.
87
Miedema 2003, 39–41.
88
Miedema 2003, 251.
89
‘By a grant of the same Sovereign Pontiff, by a
rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, Feb. 4, 1877,
and by the disposition of the Sovereign Pontiff, Leo
XIII., declared in the audience of April 27, 1880, to
His Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of Briefs, the
faithful, who keep by them a little statue of S. Peter,
like that which is venerated at the Vatican basilica,
can gain the same indulgence of fifty days once a day,
when they kiss its feet with devotion, and praying
as before, provided that this statue be blessed by the
Sovereign Pontiff. This indulgence can be gained by
all the members of the family dwelling in the same
house.’ The New Raccolta 1903, 409.
90
Coningham & Ali 2007, 22, 97, 232.
91
Douie 1916, 188–97.
92
The photographs were part of the collection of
photographs of Indian antiquities in the library of the
India Office, now part of the British Library, and
are labelled: ‘Charsadda, Bronze figure resembling
St Peter at Rome’. Now: British Library Photo 1006/1
(822) and 1006/2 (823). They are listed in: Archaeological Survey of India (Frontier Circle) 1910–11, 9,
Photos nos 822–3.
93
Caglioti 2000, 762.
94
Nasrallah 1979, 52–62; Frazee 1983, 132–44,
207–9.
95
As Fourlas has already remarked the seal cannot
belong to Makarios I (c. 669–81) as formerly supposed but either to Makarios II (1543–50) or Makarios
III. Fourlas 2005/06, 147 with note 37 pl. 48,1.
96
Frazee 1983, 133.
97
Frazee 1983, 136.
98
Zambon et al. 2010, 57.
99
Fant & Reddish 2003, 149; Zambon et al. 2010,
55–6.
100
Laurent 1873, 172–3.
101
Todt & Vest forthcoming, 658.
102
Zambon et al. 2010, 57.
103
Berliner 1956.
104
Caglioti 2000, 767–8.
105
Rowland 1943, 67; Fourlas 2005/06, 160.
106
Refice 2009, 49.
84
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Angelucci, S. 1990, ‘Primi risultati di indagini
tecnico-scientifiche sul San Pietro di bronzo della
Basilica Vaticana’, Arte Medievale, II. ser., IV:2,
51–8.
Angelucci, S., Martini, M. & Sibilia, E. 1992, ‘La
datazione con termoluminescenza del San Pietro
in Bronzo della Basilica Vaticana. Alcune
precisazioni di metodo e di prassi sulle indagini
355
tecnico-scientifiche applicate alle opere d’arte’,
Arte Medievale, II. ser., VI:2, 157–65.
Ashkenazi, D., Cvikel, D., Iddan, N., Mentovich, E.,
Kahanov, Y. & Levinshtein, M. 2011, ‘Archaeometallurgical study of the brass cases from the
Akko 1 shipwreck’, J. Archaeol. Sci. 28:9, 2410–
19.
Bauer, O. & Hansen, M. 1929, ‘Der Einfluss dritter
Metalle auf die Konstitution der Messinglegierungen. I. Der Einfluss von Blei. Ein Beitrag
zur Kenntnis des Dreistoffsystems Blei-ZinkKupfer’, Zeitschrift für Metallkunde 21:5, 145–51
and Zeitschrift für Metallkunde 21:6, 190–6.
Bauer, O. & Hansen, M. 1930, ‘Der Einfluss dritter
Metalle auf die Konstitution der Messinglegierungen. III. Der Einfluss von Zinn. Ein Beitrag
zur Kenntnis des Dreistoff-Systems ZinnZink-Kupfer’, Zeitschrift für Metallkunde 22:11,
387–91 and Zeitschrift für Metallkunde 22:12,
405–11.
Bauer, O. & Hansen, M. 1931, ‘Der Einfluss dritter
Metalle auf die Konstitution der Messinglegierungen. III. Der Einfluss von Zinn. Ein Beitrag
zur Kenntnis des Dreistoff-Systems ZinnZink-Kupfer’, Zeitschrift für Metallkunde 23:1,
19–22.
Bauer, O. & Hansen, M. 1934, ‘Der Einfluss dritter
Metalle auf die Konstitution der Messinglegierungen. VI. Der Einfluss von Eisen. Ein Beitrag
zur Kenntnis des Dreistoffsystems Kupfer-ZinkEisen’, Zeitschrift für Metallkunde 26:6, 120–9.
Baumann, S. & Acht, M. 2006, Tu es Petrus. Bilder
aus zwei Jahrtausenden, Museumsschriften des
Bistums Regensburg 2, Regensburg: Schnell &
Steiner.
Benad-Wagenhoff, V. 1992, ‘Die Schraubenherstellung von der vorindustriellen Einzelfertigung zur
Massenproduktion 1800–1960’, in Hennze 1992,
71–94.
Berger, D. & Stieme, S.L. forthcoming, ‘Die Wittenberger Letternfunde aus der Bürgermeisterstraße
5: Eine typografische, historische und materialkundliche Betrachtung’, Forschungsberichte
des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle.
Berliner, R. 1956, ‘Le sedie settecentesche della
statua di S. Pietro nella basilica Vaticana’, Studi
Romani 4:3, 301–9.
Birch, D.J. 1998, Pilgrimage to Rome in the Middle
Ages: Continuity and Change, Woodbridge: The
Boydell Press.
Boncompagni, S., Mazzi, G. & Lelli, P. (eds) 2009,
Le Memorie Celate: Il Paesaggio Archeologico
nella Terra di Anghiari, Anghiari: Palazzo della
Battaglia.
Braunfels, W. 1976, ‘Petrus, Apostel’, in Lexikon der
Christlichen Ikonographie 8, Freiburg: Herder,
158–74.
Browne, J. & Dean, T. 1995, Westminster Cathedral:
Building of Faith, London: Booth-Clibborn.
356
Bussagli, M. 1954, ‘An Important Document on the
Relations between Rome and India’, East and
West 4, 247–54.
Caglioti, F. 2000, ‘Navata centrale. Parete nord.
Quarto pilastro da est (Pilone di san Longino).
Arnolfo di Cambio (1245/1250 ca–1302) e collaboratori. San Pietro (1290–1295 ca)’, in Pinelli
2000, 761–8.
Campanella, L., Colacicchi Alessandri, O., Ferretti,
M. & Plattner, S.H. 2009, ‘The effect of tin on
dezincification of archaeological copper alloys’,
Corrosion Science 51:9, 2183–91.
Cassitti, P. 2011, ‘Ein Wallfahrtsandenken aus Schloss
Schönwerth in Volders’, in Stadler et al. 2011,
50–9.
Cecchelli, C. 1937, San Pietro. Iconografia dei Papi I,
Roma: Istituto Grafico Tiberino.
Coningham, R. & Ali, I. 2007, Charsadda. The
British-Pakistani Excavations at the Bala Hisar.
Brit. Archaeol. Rep. Int. Ser. 1709, Oxford:
Tempus Reperatum.
Craddock, P.T. 1985, ‘Medieval copper alloy production and West African bronze analyses. Part I’,
Archaeometry 27:1, 17–41.
Craddock, P.T. 1995, Early Metal Mining and
Production, Edinburgh: University Press.
Craddock, P.T. & Eckstein, K. 2003, ‘Production
of brass in antiquity by direct reduction’, in
Craddock & Lang 2003, 216–30.
Craddock, P.T. & Lang, J. (eds), Mining and Metal
Production through the Ages, London: The
British Museum Press.
Craddock, P.T. (ed.), 2000 Years of Zinc and Brass,
British Museum Occasional Papers 50, London:
Short Run Press.
Davies, D.D. 1993, A Note on the Dezincification of
Brass and the Inhibiting Effect of Elemental Additions, New York: Copper Development Association Inc., <www.copper.org/applications/rodbar/
pdf/7013.pdf> [last accessed 11 July 2012].
Davis, J.R. (ed.) 2001, ASM Specialty Handbook:
Copper and Copper Alloys, Materials Park (OH):
ASM International.
Day, J. 1991, ‘Copper, zinc and brass production’,
in Day & Tylecote 1991, 131–99.
Day, J. 1998, ‘Brass and zinc in Europe from the
Middle Ages until the mid-nineteenth century’,
in Craddock British Museum Occ. Pap. 50,
133–58.
Day, J. & Tylecote, R.F. (eds), The Industrial Revolution in Metals, Institute of Metals Book 456,
London: Institute of Metals.
De Cesare, R. 1909, The Last Days of Papal Rome:
1850–1870, London: Archibald Constable.
Di Stazio, G.V. 2010, ‘L’homme assis de Nismes:
saint, divinité gauloise ou professeur?’, ArcheoSitula 30, 23–32.
Douie, J. 1916, The Panjab, North-West Frontier
province and Kashmir, Cambridge: University
Press.
Egger, G. 1964, Frühchristliche und koptische Kunst:
Ausstellung in der Akademie der Bildenden
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
Künste, Wien 11. März bis 3. Mai 1964, Wien:
Rosenbaum.
Fant, C.E. & Reddish, M.G. 2003, A Guide to Biblical
Sites in Greece and Turkey, Oxford: University
Press.
Fourlas, B. 2005, ‘Eine Statuette des Apostelfürsten
Petrus’, in Hodak et al. 2005, 66–72.
Fourlas, B. 2005/06, ‘Die Statuette des Petrus im
Archäologischen Museum der Westfälischen
Wilhelms-Universität Münster und ihre Beziehung zur Bronzestatue Petri im Petersdom
in Rom‘, Boreas — Münstersche Beiträge zur
Archäologie 28/29, 141–68.
Fourlas, B. 2006, ‘Eine Statuette des thronenden
Petrus: Nachbildung einer Monumentalstatue
des Apostelfürsten im spätantiken Rom?’, in
Baumann & Acht 2006, 79–85.
Frazee, Ch.A. 1983, Catholics and Sultans: The Church
and the Ottoman Empire 1453–1923, Cambridge:
University Press.
Grisar, H. 1899, Analecta Romana. La storia di Roma
e dei Papi nel medio Evo 1, Roma: Libreria
Cattolica Internazionale.
Guarducci, M. 1988, ‘Riflessioni sulla statua bronzea
di San Pietro nella Basilica Vaticana’, Xenia
Antiqua 16, 57–72.
Guarducci, M. 1991, San Pietro e Sant’Ippolito:
Storia di statue famose in Vaticano, Roma: Ist.
Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.
Guarducci, M. 1994, ‘Ancora sulla statua bronzea
di San Pietro nella Basilica Vaticana’, Xenia
Antiqua 3, 5–16.
Haedecke, K. 1973, ‘Gleichgewichtsverhältnisse bei
der Messingherstellung nach dem Galmeiverfahren’, Erzmetall 26:3, 229–33.
Haggenmüller, M. 1993, Als Pilger nach Rom: Studien
zur Romwallfahrt aus der Diözese Augsburg von
den Anfängen bis 1900, Augsburg: Franz Fischer.
Heinsch, J. 1999, ‘The Church of St Peter in
Tiberias’, in Holy Land Review 1999, n.p.,
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mag/MAen9900.
html> [accessed 25 July 2012].
Hennze, J. (ed.), Schrauben und Gewinde, Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke.
Hodak, S., Korol, D. & Maser, P. (eds) 2005, Zeugnisse spätantiken und frühchristlichen Lebens
im römischen Reich, Veröffentlichungen des
Archäologischen Museums der Westfälischen
Wilhelms-Universität Münster 2, Oberhausen:
Athena.
Kellermann, R. & Treue, W. 1962, Die Kulturgeschichte der Schraube, München: Bruckmann.
Köhler, S. 1996, ‘Selektive Korrosion von KupferZink-Legierungen (selective corrosion of
copper-zinc-alloys)’, Materials and Corrosion
47:2, 65–70.
Lanzi, G. & Lanzi, F. 2000, Wege nach Rom: Eine
Kulturgeschichte der Pilgerfahrt in die ewige
Stadt, Stuttgart: Belser.
Laurent, J.C.M. 1873, Peregrinatores medii aevi
quatuor: Burchardus de Monte Sion, Ricoldus de
ST PETER IN VOLDERS
Monte Crucis, Odoricus de Foro Julii, Wilbrandus
de Oldenborg, Lipsiae: Hinrichs.
Lueger, O. 1904, Lexikon der gesamten Technik und
ihrer Hilfswissenschaften, 2, sv: Bohrer. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.
MacLeod, I.D. 2006, The Surface Analysis of a Brass
Plate ‘LUDWIG LEICHHARDT 1848’ and
Assessment of Authenticity. Perth: Western
Australian Museum, <http://www.nma.gov.au/__
data/assets/pdf_file/0015/5316/Analysisofthebrass
plateLeichhardtv2_1.pdf> [accessed 9 August
2012].
Marshall, J.H. & Vogel, J.Ph. 1904, ‘Excavations at
Chārsada in the Frontier Province’, Archaeol.
Surv. India Annu. Rep. 1902–03, 141–84.
Miedema, N.R. 2003, Rompilgerführer in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit: Die “Indulgentiae ecclesiarum urbis Romae” (deutsch/niederländisch),
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Morawietz, G., Schulz, M., Klostermeyer, L. & Rilka,
I. 2012, Gorny & Mosch Gießener Münzhandlungs
GmbH: Kunst der Antike, Auktion 206, München:
Biering, <https://www.gmcoinart.de/templates/
images/muenzen/Kataloge/gm_auktion_206_
katalog.pdf> [accessed 5 March 2013].
Nasrallah, J. 1979, Histoire du mouvement littéraire
dans l’église melechite du Ve au XXe siècle IV:1,
Louvain: Peeters.
Oettel, H. & Schumann, H. 2011, Metallografie: Mit
einer Einführung in die Keramografie, Weinheim:
Wiley-VCH.
Pecchiai, P. 1951, ‘Banchi e botteghe dinanzi alla
basilica Vaticana nei secoli XIV, XV e XVI’,
Archivi ser. 2 18, 81–123.
Piersig, W. 2010, Bronze — Beitrag zur Technikgeschichte, München: GRIN.
Pinelli, A. (ed.), La Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano
= The Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican, vol. 3,
Mirabilia Italiae 10:3, Modena: Panini.
Poeschke, J. 2000, Die Skulptur des Mittelalters in
Italien 2, München: Hirmer.
Pollard, A.M. & Heron, C. 2008, Archaeological
Chemistry, 2nd edn, Cambridge: RSC.
Prakash, K.H. & Sritharan, T. 2001, ‘Interface reaction between copper and molten tin-lead solders’,
Acta Materialia 49:13, 2481–9.
Refice, P. 2009, ‘Souvenir di San Pietro. Singolari
reperti nell’agro di Anghiari’, in Boncompagni
et al. 2009, 46–9.
Riederer, J. 2008, ‘The composition of brass objects
from Benin’, in Von Berswordt-Wallrabe et al.
2008, 99–152.
Roe, J.W. 1926, English and American Tool Builders,
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rogers, P. 2003, Westminster Cathedral: From
Darkness to Light, London: Burns & Oates.
Rogers, P. 2011, ‘Bronze sculptures inspire reverence’,
Oremus — The Magazine of Westminster
Cathedral, March 2011, 16–17.
Romanini, A.M. 1990, ‘Nuovi dati sulla statua
bronzea di San Pietro in Vaticano’, Arte
Medievale 4:2, 1–50.
357
Romanini, A.M. 1994, ‘I colori di San Pietro’, Aachener Kunstblätter 60, 267–74.
Rowland, B. 1943, ‘St. Peter in Gandhara. An
Early Christian Statuette in India’, Gazette des
Beaux-Arts 23, 65–70.
Salmi, M. 1960, ‘Il problema della statua bronzea di
S. Pietro nella Basilica Vaticana’, Commentari
11, 22–9.
Schütt, H.-W. 1971, ‘Zur Geschichte der technischen
Elektrolyse’, Chemie — Ingenieur — Technik/
Aktuelle Nachrichten 5, A125–7.
Scott, D.A. 1991, Metallography and Microstructure
of Ancient and Historical Metals, Los Angeles:
Paul Getty Trust.
Schroll, E. 1954, Ein Beitrag zur geochemischen
Analyse ostalpiner Blei-Zink-Erze, Mitteilungen
der Österreichischen Mineralogischen Gesellschaft 3, Wien: Selbstverlag der Österreichisch
Mineralogischen Gesellschaft.
Stadler, H. 2000, ‘Miszellen zur Mittelalter- und
Neuzeitarchäologie nach Fundbeispielen aus
Fritzens, Volders und Wattens‘, Heimatkundliche Blätter 9, 37–63.
Stadler, H., Bachler, M., Schmitz-Esser, R., Cassitti,
P. & Grabherr, G., ‘Leblos heißt nicht Mundtot’
— Wissenschaft an der Mauer. Das SparklingScience-Projekt Schönwerth, Volders, Nearchos
Sonderheft 12, Innsbruck: Golf.
Tammann, G. & Hansen, M. 1924, ‘Über das ternäre
System Kupfer-Zinn-Zink’, Zeitschrift für
Anorganische und Allgemeine Chemie 138,
137–61.
Temple, S.G. 1985, ‘Copper 2: Brasses, bronzes
and nickel silvers’, J. Hist. Metall. Soc. 19:1,
12–16.
The New Raccolta 1903, The New Raccolta, or,
Collection of Prayers and Good Works. To which
the Sovereign Pontiffs have Attached Holy
Indulgences. Published in 1898 by Order of His
Holiness, Pope Leo XIII. From the Third Italian
Edition Authorized and Approved by the Sacred
Congregation of Holy Indulgences, Philadelphia:
Cunningham.
Todd, R.H., Allen, D.K. & Alting, L. 1994, Manufacturing Processes Reference Guide, New York:
Industrial Press.
Todt, K.-P. & Vest, B.A. forthcoming, ‘Syria (Syria
Prote, Syria Deutera, Syria Euphratesia)’, Tabula
Imperii Byzantini 15, Wien: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Tomlinson, W.J. & Bryan, N.J. 1986, ‘The strength of
brass/Sn-Pb-Sb solder joints containing 0 to 10%
Sb’, J. Mater. Sci. 21:1, 103–9.
Ullwer, H. 2001, ‘Messingherstellung nach dem alten
Galmeiverfahren’, Erzmetall 54:6, 319–26.
Ullwer, H. 2008, ‘Das alte Galmeiverfahren und die
erreichbaren Zinkgehalte’, World Metall. 61:5,
322–7.
Vogt, W. 1876, Nikolaus Muffels Beschreibung der
Stadt Rom, Bibliothek des Literarischen Vereins
358
PATRICK CASSITTI ET AL.
in Stuttgart 128, Tübingen:Literarischer Verein
Stuttgart.
Von Berswordt-Wallrabe, S., Pernicka, E. & Wagner,
H. (eds), Original-copy-fake? Examining the
Authenticity of Ancient Works of Art Focussing
on African and Asian Bronzes and Terracottas,
Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Weirong, Z. & Xiangxi, F. 1994, ‘Application of zinc
and cadmium for the dating and authenticating
of metal relics in ancient China’, Bull. Metals
Mus. 22, 16–21.
Woodruff, C.E. 1933, A XVth Century Guide-Book to
the Principal Churches of Rome: Compiled C.
1470 by William Brewyn, London: The Marshall
Press.
Zambon, M., Bertogli, D. & Granella, O. 2010,
Antiochia sull’Oronte: ‘. . . dove I discepoli furono
chiamati cristiani . . .’. Antakya: Eteria.
SUMMARY IN FRENCH, GERMAN, ITALIAN AND SPANISH
RÉSUMÉ
‘Saint Pierre à Volders’ et les figurines associées, à
base métallique, ressemblant à la fameuse statue de
la Basilique du Vatican
La réévaluation d’une ancienne découverte provenant de Volders, près d’Innsbruck, en Austriche, a
suscité de nouvelles recherches sur un groupe de
statuettes à base métallique, copies miniatures de
la fameuse statue en bronze de saint Pierre située
dans lla Basilique vaticane à Rome. Leur datation
faisait l’objet de débats. Pour résoudre ce problème, plusieurs spécimens de ces statuettes ont été
examinés avec l’aide d’outils archéométriques.
L’analyse de la technique de fabrication et de la
composition de l’alliage ont fourni des indices
importants sur la datation des statuettes et ont
permis de proposer une interprétation historique
du groupe, pris comme un ensemble.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
‘St. Peter in Volders’ und verwandte Statuetten
aus Buntmetall, die die berühmte Statue in der
Vatikanischen Basilika darstellen
Die Neubearbeitung eines Altfundes aus Volders
in der Nähe von Innsbruck, Österreich, war Anlass
für neue Untersuchungen an einer Gruppe von
Buntmetallstatuetten, bei denen es sich um Miniaturen der berühmten Bronzestatue von St. Peter in
der Vatikanischen Basilika in Rom handelt. Das
Alter dieser Statuetten war bisher umstritten. Im
vorliegenden Aufsatz werden mehrere Exemplare
zusammengeführt und mit Hilfe archäometrischer
Methoden genauer untersucht. Die Analyse der
Herstellungsmethoden und Legierungszusammensetzungen lieferte wichtige Hinweise für die
Datierung der Statuetten und ermöglichte die
historische Einordnung der gesamten Gruppe.
RIASSUNTO
‘San Peter a Volders’ e le correlate statuette in
metallo comune che riproducono la famosa statua
nella Basilica Vaticana
La nuova analisi di un antico ritrovamento a
Volders, nei pressi di Innsbruck, in Austria, fornisce
lo spunto per una nuova ricerca su un gruppo
di statuette in metallo comune che sono copie in
miniatura della famosa statua bronzea di San
Pietro, conservata nella Basilica Vaticana a Roma.
La loro datazione è stata oggetto di dibattito. Il
contributo analizza diversi esemplari delle statuette, allo scopo di sciogliere questo nodo con l’aiuto
dell’archeometria. L’analisi delle tecniche di esecuzione e della composizione della lega fornisce
importanti indizi per la datazione delle statuette,
consentendo l’interpretazione storica di questo
gruppo di manufatti in maniera unitaria.
RESUMEN
‘San Pedro en Volders’ y las figurinas de metal parecidas a la famosa estatua de la basílica vaticana
La revalorización de un antiguo hallazgo de
Volders, cerca de Innsbruck, Austria, ha promovido
una nueva investigación sobre un grupo de estatuillas de metal que replican en miniatura la famosa
estatua de bronce de San Pedro de la basílica vaticana de Roma. La fecha de tales estatuillas ha sido
objeto de debate. Este artículo presenta los resultados de los análisis arqueométricos utilizados para
examinar la técnica de fabricación y la composición
metálica de las estatuillas, resultados que proporcionan pistas importantes para su datación a la vez
que han permitido la interpretación histórica del
grupo en su conjunto.
Institute of Archaeology, Heritage Sciences and Art History, University of Bamberg, Wilhelmsplatz 3,
D-96047 Bamberg, Germany
[patrick.cassitti@uni-bamberg.de]
Curt-Engelhorn-Centre Archaeometry gGmbH, D6, 3, D-68159 Mannheim, Germany
[daniel.berger@cez-archaeometrie.de]
Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2, D-55116 Mainz, Germany
[fourlas@rgzm.de]