I've just been catching up on all the controversy. Thanks, Safiria Caesar, for not just reporting the news but giving a few more leads. I'm sitting on the fence at this point as the debate continues but it doesn't bother me too much one way or the other. It's a beautiful object in any case, whether Medieval or Etruscan, and by no means a fake whenever it was made; just not as old as previously thought if the tests prove correct beyond argument.

However, it's worth remembering that a wolf made of bronze is depicted on Roman coins (uncannily similar), is mentioned by Cicero (struck by lightning, no less - are there signs of damage on this one?) and also mentioned in the 9th, 10th and 12th centuries near the Lateran. Executions took place by a bronze wolf up until 1438 and by 1473 it was removed to the Capitol. The same wolf in all instances? I believe so, personally, and unless someone can come up with proof that some Medieval forger took the trouble to cast a "ancient" object in order to profit from its sale to a collector, I won't be convinced. The wolf is full of holes, literally, so (according to some) it is thoroughly contaminated inside and out.

Good old Wiki has a good page that includes the ongoing debate on its age and provenance.

The Capitoline Wolf