Talk:Getty kouros/Archive 1

Notes to self

Check Richter for placing of kouroi in relation to temple, since they couldn't be turning to hieron if they were in the cella. Mention lack of colour, "pasty surface", more details on connoiseurship and who held which positions when. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am being too naive but why can't Carbon Dating method be used to determine the age of Getty Kuoros scientifically? मिसलिनीयस — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misslinius (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Missilinius, carbon age a stone will give you the age of the stone which it forms, many millions years ago. Perhaps newer microscopic analysis and CT scan might reveal new information, i.e. tools used to craft the statue. --115.164.183.169 (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon a complete ignoramus asking stupid questions but:

In the early 1990s, the marine chemist Miriam Kastner produced an experimental result which cast doubt on Margolis’s thesis by artificially inducing de-dolomitization in the laboratory, a result since confirmed by Margolis. However, although this does admit the possibility the kouros was synthetically aged by a forger the procedure is a complicated and time-consuming one. The unlikeliness of a forger using such experimental methods in what is still an uncertain science has prompted the Getty’s antiquities conservator to remark "when you consider a forger actually repeating the procedure you begin to leave the realm of practicality”.

Isn't it possible that the possible forger discovered the method and thought about making forgeries with the process in mind for years before finally doing so?

Having the process to hand and experimenting with it in all innocence for decades might have spurred the forgery perhaps by passing on information of the process.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect crime! Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 20:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]