# The Head Pendant from the Marchetti Collection:
## 5 Conclusions  
The authenticity of the head pendant in the Marchetti Collection has been clarified thanks to a combination of stylistic and typo-chronological analyses and archaeometric investigations. With regard to the first point, a comparison between the piece in the Marchetti Collection and the original archaeological finds shows many differences [22]. The physiognomic elements such as the shape of the eyes, nose, and ears denote less care in their manufacture. The production process reveals that the pendant was surely created with the rod-forming technique, as is typical of this class of ornaments. The incrustation layer sampled inside the hole consists mainly of lead sulphate. This composition is not compatible with what is currently known on ancient detaching agents used in rod-forming, which mainly consisted of soil, sand, or clay [7; 14; 18; 33; 43]. An important highlight is the presence of two layers of surface _patina_ applied to simulate the weathering of the glass and its provenance from an archaeological excavation. This patination is especially placed near the joints of protruding elements (ears, beard, and mouth) to mask relevant technological details related to the production process. Considering the chemical composition, a comparison of the analytical data from the scientific literature with those of the artefact in the Marchetti Collection shows some interesting similarities. All glass samples analysed from the [PERSON] pendant are largely compatible with a composition potentially comparable to natron-based glasses (Low-Magnesium Glasses--LMGs), as with most of the Mediterranean glasses of the mid- and late-Iron Age. However, a similar recipe is also used in certain modern and contemporary glasses. Additionally, the alumina content argues in favour of the use of sand in the production of the base glass, which again is not a relevant chronological indicator as sand is used both in ancient and recent glass recipes. Obviously, the area of production cannot be identified due to the absence of minor and trace element analyses. Colouring agents are usually important clues for identifying the authenticity of an artefact. The use of MnO does not offer chronological clues since it was used from the very beginning of glass technology in the Late Bronze Age, but it is still employed in contemporary productions. In contrast, the use of cassiterite as an opacifier is more useful for dating purposes. As already discussed, cassiterite is attested for a short time-span between the 2 nd and 1 st centuries BC in Celtic glass from Central Europe and in late Roman productions. Despite the low number of objects of this phase and typology analysed to date, it seems reasonable to suggest that cassiterite has no specific ties with Phoenicio-Punic glass production. In conclusion, we can argue that the pendant does not correspond to any known archaeological type. The manufacturing techniques are generally similar (rod-forming) but at the same time lack the attention to detail which was typical of these ancient products. Also, the [PERSON] piece shows extremely bright colours and the glasses have no alteration layers. The appearance and distribution of the surface _patinae_ as well as the composition of the detaching agent are also incompatible with Phoenicio-Punic dating. Finally, the use of cassiterite argues again in favour of the non-authenticity of the object. In conclusion, this pendant is most likely a forgery, as already demonstrated for many other pieces from the same collection [5,44]. The falsification of Phoenicio-Punic glass, and especially _unguentaria_ and head pendants, is a very well-known phenomenon in the antiquity market.