TESSERA (Clay) Greek/Roman - Help anyone?

Hi, TIF.
Yes. I did read the F.A.C. posts.
(I am wishing I had never started this thread.)
I am 'happy' to accept that my Bulla IS a 'fake'. . . . . Not a problem.
What I do NOT accept is the assertion that because 'it' doesn't have a hole through it, it MUST be a fake, and by extension, ALL Bullae that do not have holes in them are 'fakes'. I do not believe this to be true.
There are as many opinions as there are people. Not everyone has to agree with me, but it appears that I MUST agree with others.
I tried to 'end' this conversation earlier by not replying, (least said soonest mended), but another member emailed me asking me to reply.
My last post included the word "End" because I do not wish for any 'confrontation'.
I was asked "Can you provide a citation?" and because I didn't want to be seen as 'avoiding' the issue, I provided it. Otherwise, I would have fallen silent, again.
So my Bulla is a 'Fake'. Okay. Not the first one, not the last one, and for $7.50 I think I can live with the financial loss.
(Thank-you for giving me the opportunity to explain myself.)
As always ATB.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

@Topcat7 - First of all, no hard feelings! I admit that I was being lazy by not searching out the match myself. It was unfair of me to expect you to take my word for it without sufficient supporting evidence. I know if I was in your shoes I would want a better explanation myself. I didn't intend to come off as gruff when asking for a citation. I legitimately wanted to see what you had found. I try my best to treat numismatics in as scientific a way as possible, and to appropriately amend my hypothesis when presented with new information.

This particular area is my passion. I have devoted quite a lot of effort and spilled no small amount of ink in pursuit of. One of the persistent problems that crops up in my research is one of misinterpretation of these objects (seals, tesserae) as a result of incomplete nomenclature. Perhaps that's a part of the issue here? The encyclopedia entry which you linked to (really great source btw, I'll have to order a copy) pertains to not simply seals, but more particularly seal stones, the objects used to make the impression. The piece you have is a seal impression, the imprint made by the stone. By definition, these MUST have a way to be appended to a document (or bag, or door, or whatever the case may be). Now, there is the possibility that an impression could have been made and not attached to an object. But if that were the case, it could not have been used for its usual purpose and would thus cease to be a seal impression in the sense that the others posted here are. It would then be a token, in the sense of a pass token.

You are technically correct in stating that not all impressions in clay that lack a cord pass-through are fake. I alluded to a few found at Seleukia earlier. But, in today's market environment, with the vast numbers of conclusively proven fakes, that is a strong enough indication that the piece will be shown false.

(Sorry for the wall of text! I really hope we can continue to talk about this.)