## 2 Archaeological Questions/Archaeometric Answers  
### Authenticity: Original Versus Fake  
Research objectives can be addressed to:  
1. checking the nonauthenticity of a find or some parts of it, that could have been integrated during restoration (eventually, understanding where and when the integration was added); establishing the belonging of sporadic fragments to a single vase, when it is not possible based on well-known restoration procedures;
2. identify undocumented repainting on the surface of the vases. As a matter of fact, understanding if the surface of the vase is original is essential if you want to use nondestructive techniques, that inevitably analyze the more superficial layers. The above-mentioned aims are particularly important for this ceramic class, especially considering the high attention, since the end of the nineteenth century, museums and collectors have paid to it. This interest has led to an increase in excavations and sales of vases, making tomb robbing a business of colossal dimensions. Many objects have been sold on the domestic and international black markets, an illegal trade which is today worth over four billion dollars a year [94; 95]. To put this into perspective, only the black-market trade in arms and drugs involve a higher turnover. Vases were often broken into small pieces to transport them more conveniently and then put back together without any kind of care for ancient and technological process. Sometimes, fragments were assembled from different vases or integrating the missing parts with parts specifically produced to increase the commercial value of the object. In this way, particularly in the case of artifacts excavated in more ancient times, important information such as the origin of the object and the context of excavation have been lost. Some vases acquired in the past, even by famous museums, have sometimes been assembled with original and nonoriginal pieces [96]. Some examples of information that can be obtained by archaeometric investigations to achieve the abovementioned objectives are reported below. 1. Case study. Fragments: nonauthenticity or common origin. Two important Apulian red figure vases (a krater and a lutrophoros) stored in the National Archaeological Museum of Naples (MANN) were investigated [27]. Both items were acquired from private collectors of Ruvo di Puglia in the nineteenth century and were subjected, through the ages, to several unrecorded restorations (the first ones probably carried out before the vases arrived at the MANN). The krater called dell'Amazzonomachia was attributed to [PERSON] (about 330 BCE) and the loutrophoros with the myth of [PERSON] to [PERSON] (about 350-340 BCE). Doubts before archaeometric analyzes were focused exclusively on authenticity of a handle of the krater and both handles of the loutrophoros. The archaeometric results have allowed to assess the nonauthenticity of the krater handle and the whole upper part of the loutrophoros (in addition to the handles). Experimental results have supported the use of different raw materials for the body and the handle of the krater and body and the whole superior part of the loutrophoros--handles included. These hypotheses were based on differences in chemical (Table 1) and mineralogical composition of the pastes (silty-grain size and sintering degrees) and crystals shapes--especially quartz (Figure 2). In the mixture of the handle of the krater, numerous crystals of lead silicates--inevitably linked to the raw material used to create the surfaces of the nonauthentic pieces--have been observed (Figure 2). Moreover, the similarity of the material used (Figure 2c) for the cercine (the ceramic support used to transport the vase and therefore