## 4 Conclusions  
The present study highlighted the supporting role that a non-invasive or minimally invasive scientific analysis can play in providing the archaeological or historical artistic context of seized finds. Detailed information on the paintings and the bronze items delivered by the Cosenza Carabinieri Unit for the Protection of Cultural Heritage and Anti-Counterfeiting (Calabria, Italy), was not available, because forensic investigations were ongoing. The investigations described therein were therefore aimed at assisting the process. Preliminary observations of the paintings were carried out (both with the naked eye and with microscopic techniques), to verify the state of conservation and the methods used to anchor the original fragments to the new supports (i.e., canvas lining and wooden frames). Both items had clearly been cut from larger paintings. No evidence of tensioning or any fingerprints from the original frame was initially evident. Infrared reflectography and UVF confirmed the absence of _pentimenti_, showing large areas of pictorial integration. Wide surface retouchings were observed. These were probably designed to make the colors and aesthetics of the fragments uniform and to fill the _lacunae_ derived from their resizing and poorly conserved state. X-ray fluorescence investigations provided information on chemical elements and suggested the presence of inorganic chromophores on the original painted surfaces: i.e., lead white, vermillion, natural earth pigments, while in the case of Painting 2, a copper-based pigment in the layers of blue. Chemical analysis and microscopic observations confirmed the presence of a red-brown preparation (which artists began to use from the XVII century) in the ground. All the pigments identified in the two painting have been used since ancient times, and the absence of synthetic pigments in the original areas of the canvases suggests that both works are pre-XIX century. The entire set of spectroscopic and multispectral data therefore confirm the authenticity of the seized fragments and consequently the authenticity of the large stolen canvas paintings from which they were cut. Finally, preliminary results acquired through surface analysis of the bronze objects allowed us to confirm that the two belt fragments have a similar composition. They therefore probably belong to a series of metal objects produced with the same alloy. The helmet fragment showed a different composition from the belt fragments. Further analysis of the distribution of chemical elements from the core to the outer surface would be needed to verify the various layers of corrosion products and the original composition of the core alloy. The burial soils showed the same characteristics, thus indicating that the metal objects may have come from a similar location and had not been displaced. The two case studies in the present research illustrate the importance of specific analytical and diagnostic protocols when examining objects recovered from seizures and thefts if their provenance and the manufacturing techniques involved in their production are to be established. Only then can we answer questions posed by institutions regarding the authenticity and archaeological/historical/artistic context of objects that may have been lost as a result of crimes committed against Cultural Heritage and later recovered. Conceptualization, M.F.L.R., M.R., and L.R. ; methodology, M.R., L.R., M.F.A., and S.S.; formal analysis, M.R., L.R., M.F.A., and S.S.; data curation, M.R., L.R., M.F.A., and S.S.; writing--original draft preparation, M.R., L.R., M.F.A., and S.S.; writing--review and editing, M.F.L.R., M.R., L.R., and S.S.; visualization, A.D. and M.P.A. ; supervision, M.F.L.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research received no external funding. Not applicable. **Acknowledgments:** We thank the Cosenza Carabinieri Unit for the Protection of Cultural Heritage and Anti-Counterfeiting (Calabria, Italy) that provided objects for the analysis.