Featured Ancient ... but not a coin! Artifacts thread! Post 'em!

I found a similar signet, but I have it apparently a lie souvenir?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

After finishing Mary Renault's The King Must Die, I started looking around for her today. Where on earth did I put her? I have a knack for putting things in clever places and then forgetting where they are all together.

Finally, after an extensive search, I found her. "Her" in this case is my small bronze Minoan dancer, dating from 2300-2200 BC, around the middle of the Minoan Empire (from circa 3000 to 1100 BC). This figurine was purchased from Harlan Berk in 2001.

This dancer is in a twirling pose, arms outstretched, with her skirt flared. She also has the narrow waist that was the fashion during this period.

This figurine measures 47 mm high, 29 mm wide (at the widest point), 15 mm deep (at the arms). The weight is 44 grams.

My guess is that this figurine might have been a child's toy or doll, given its size, but it could also have been part of a group of dancers that were part of a display.

She is a wonderful and endearing figurine.

 

This is one of my Iberian pottery pieces from around 3rd/2nd century BC. I think it is a funerary but do not know enough to say for sure. At the bottom I put a Sestertius to give you an Idea of its size. Click on the picture and it has a lot better detail of the pottery color and its size

 

Just grabbed an Ancient Roman arrowhead that came in a little Roman style chest. My first military artifact, but certainly not my last.

It is supposedly dated at 1700-1900 years old. I was a bit skeptical about its age but it was affordable and it does have a nice bit of green patina on one side near the tip.










And here is a closeup of the patina.

 

This item was included in a roman coin lot that I purchased recently.
Do you think that is roman ? , byzantine or more recent ? Thanks !!

37 mm x 29 mm

 

I'd wager at least byzantine, I don't feel like the Romans would have made a Greek-style cross like that in the imperial age.

 

I don't want to cast doubt unnecessarily, but the edges look awfully regular compared to other ancient arrowheads I've seen. See the photos of Roman arrowheads at this page: http://www.ancientresource.com/lots/roman/spears-arrow-heads.html

 

Nary a Roman arrowhead, so I cannot be an expert.

I always try to get "schtuff" from Sellers that I know... And, I did not pay too much for these little jewels:


Egypt Neolithic Arrowhead 8000 BCE
Ex: Bob Reis



Scythia 2 AE Arrowheads 7th-3rd C BC Trilobate Lower Danube 21-25mm
Ex: @John Anthony



China Xinjiang Warring States Period 475-221 BCE Arrowhead socketed leaf shaped biblade w grooves nailhole bronze 36x10mm 3.9g
Ex: Bob Reis

 

Gepid brooch, Eagle design, 5-6th century ad

 

The only 2 ancient artifacts I own were identified here, on this board, by kind members such as you all.

#1. Greco-Roman, Bronze Medallion with Bust of Helios. Circa, 1st century B.C. - 1st century A.D.

#2. Egyptian Silver Stirrup-Shaped Ring. (the cartouche was mostly translated and is probably that of a Priest, research is still ongoing...)

 

An ancient bronze ring depicting "The Five Wounds of Christ"(?)

A bronze ring depicting a Crucifix created in the period of the Byzantine Empire to the beginning of the "Dark Ages." The crucifix is clear, but the other depictions are quite puzzling...but become crystal clear when considering the depiction of "The Five Wounds of Christ." These are depicted by the five deep depressions, the "Five Wounds," beneath which are a series of dots, undoubtedly the drops of blood from the wounds. Perhaps the location of the depressions reflect the location of the wounds on His body: the two at the top, His hand wounds; the near-center being the piercing of His body, and the two near the bottom His feet. Searching the Internet reveals that "The Five Wounds" are mentioned in the biblical John. "The final wound was in the side of Jesus' chest, where, according to the New Testament, His body was pierced by the Holy Lance in order to be sure that He was dead. The Gospel of John states that blood and water poured out of this wound (John 19:34)." Further, "The examination of the wounds by "Doubting Thomas" the Apostle, reported only in the Gospel of John at John 20:24-29, was the focus of much commentary and often depicted in art," And "in 13th-century Italy"...."Religious painters responded by depicting the crucifixion explicitly for the first time, portraying a Jesus Who was plainly in agony from wounds that dripped blood." Still, the "Five Wounds" were well know to readers of the scriptures far earlier than the 13th century, so citing a relatively precise period in which the ring maker made this ring is just not possible

 

I picked up this simple bronze Viking era ring, just for something different, and as a nod to my Scandinavian ancestors. Naturally, dating to between the 9th and 11th centuries, it was advertised as a "Viking ring", but it could be from anywhere, I suppose. Still, I'm going to tell myself it's Viking anyway, and it does look like pretty standard Viking design. It's about a size 11-1/2 US, so very wearable, too!

 

A known doctor in Astronomy presumes that this stone is a meteorite. He said it's worth its value in gold. The stone weighs 2.7 kilograms. I mean nearly 50 dollars a gram. That's the most expensive thing that I've ever owned. How could I not share it among my coin-friends ? Please post a comment. Thank you so much.

 

Hi All,



∎ From Spier (1992): Many examples of intaglio and relief rings depicting a woman with melon coiffure are known, but they have not yet been studied in detail. The bestdiscussion is by O Neverov, who published a number of different types found at Black Sea sites ("A Group of Hellenistic Bronze Rings in the Hermitage," Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 127 [1974], pp 106-II 5, with English summary; also J Spier, Jwalt 47 [1989], p 21 n 17; Geneva, vol 3, p 164, no 218, & notes;]. Charbonneaux, "Monuments et memoires." Fondation E. Piot 50 [1958], p 95, figs. 7-8, in the Louvre; Oxford, gold intaglio set into an iron ring from Corfu, Oxford Gems, no 282; BMC Rings, nos. 1267-1269, 1275, 1277-1278; A Krug, Muse 14 [1980], p 35, fig 5, for two examples in the Agyptisches Museum, Berlin; Guilhou coll., no 797; many others remain unpublished).There can be little doubt that they represent a Ptolemaic queen, either Arsinoe II (278-270 BCE) or Berenike II (246-222/221 BCE), but many may be posthumous; theywere probably made for officials throughout the Ptolemaic territories.

∎ From BMC 1917,0501.1267: Portraits of both royal and private individuals survive on finger rings made in a variety of materials, ranging from gold to glass. They werenot exclusively manufactured in Egypt and some may represent rulers of other Hellenistic kingdoms, and members of their courts. The royal images may be positivelyidentified by the presence of a diadem, and perhaps by the use of more expensive raw materials like gold. The aesthetic quality of the portraits varies greatly with thepoorer images perhaps belonging to members of the lower social classes who still wished to honour a particular dynast. The rings were used to seal documents. Theportraits were either carved in relief or cut in intaglio producing a raised image in clay.

- Broucheion

 

I picked this bronze intaglio ring up at auction recently. It was listed as an ancient Roman ring, but I'm not so sure. After making an impression in modeling clay, what I thought was a laureate head turned out look more like a Georgian wig.

Anyone recognize the style/time period/subject matter? It's 2.56 g, ~men's size 10 (US) and came to me from Europe (unsure of country of origin).

 

@singig, the fleurs de lis make it look high medieval, maybe 12th-13th c.; as such, symptomizing French influence. Especially relative to Byzantine, if your lot just happened to be from the vaguely western side of Europe, the geography could be as significant a factor as the chronology.

 

That head does look very 18th-century, doesn't it? Although the ring itself looks older.

 

With thanks to @Alegandron for saying this, eloquently enough, in other, still recent contexts, my disease is history; collecting is a symptom. Historical significance --even when it's reducible to approximate chronology-- is always likely to win in an even race between that and esthetics. With that as a public service announcement, this is the very first Pharaonic I've ever gotten. With more thanks to @Alegandron for turning me on to the source.

It's a less than great ishabti, faience, dated with relative confidence to c. 1075-712 BCE, vaguely corresponding to the 21st-25th Dynasties. Worked for me.
From here, the other side of the spectrum is represented by this.
Moving quickly on:

By the sheerest chance, I have some other decent .jpgs of this, but that gets to be good enough. This is a heraldic harness pendant, c. 13th-14th-c., by way of ebay.uk. Not even sure if it was a detector find, or from a collection. (... To what extent, exactly, is the phrase, 'old collection' a redundancy? With the exceptions, it's sort of deja vu all over again.)
Anyway, this is a harness pendant, with the original mount, easily c. later 13th-15th centuries. Except that, for England, the design of the shield itself is pretty distinctly mid-13th to mid-14th centuries.
What's great about this one is that you get just enough surviving enamel and gilt to be able to read the 'tinctures.' The arms (/blazon, if you're that deeply invested in this) are Gules, a lion rampant or. (A --well, what would you call it? Lion Rampant, gold, on a red field.)
This corresponds to the FitzAlan earls of Arundel /Sussex. My line of descent is only from the earlier, boring ones, who never made it into a Shakespeare play. Which is why I'm that deeply invested in this example being on the earlier side of the spectrum. ...Yeah, well, wish me luck.
Here's one view of Arundel Castle, with the mostly 12th-c. 'shell keep,' replete with the view the earls got to wake up to every morning.