Methodological Concerns and Interpretation of Archaeometric Data in Recent Provenance Claims Concerning the Riace Bronzes

ABSTRACT

Recent claims proposing a Syracusan provenance for the Riace Bronzes rely on selective petrographic, geochemical, and taphonomic evidence that raises crucial methodological questions. This paper critically reassesses the analytical premises and inferential logic underlying these claims, showing that they bypass established protocols in ceramic and sediment provenance studies, lack statistically meaningful reference groups, and raise concerns on the interpretation of archaeometric, radiocarbon, and lead isotope data. Additional arguments based on casting technology and taphonomy appear to rely on assumptions that remain insufficiently supported. Rather than proposing an alternative provenance, this study demonstrates why the available evidence does not support the Syracusan hypothesis and highlights the methodological risks of allowing interpretative narratives to overcome available archaeometric evidence.