Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Bronwen, post: 316420, member: 5833&quot;]I think they are extremely eroded.&nbsp; I know less about antiquities than about cameos from the 18th century &amp; later, but I see some resemblance in the square one, maybe in both, to an image that appears on many coins &amp; some cameos, Alexander with the horns of Ammon (Ammun).&nbsp; If you do an Internet search you will see lots of examples.&nbsp; Here&#039;s one:</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f53491a0e017bcaa3e260a0cbc6f4bc3" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>It would be helpful to know where they originated.&nbsp; Most ancient cameos &amp; intaglios were used as ring stones, are oval &amp; quite small.&nbsp; Larger size can be an indicator the stone is not authentic; the square shape of the one is also cause for caution.&nbsp; It is very hard to judge the stones used from the photos.&nbsp; They do not appear to be any of the chalcedonies that were the stone of choice (or maybe just the stone that survived the ages best) for gems of the classical period.&nbsp; These look grainy &amp; soft.&nbsp; Are they actually molded clay?&nbsp; You&#039;d be surprised how far back they were mass producing engraved gems.&nbsp; I have a glass one c. 1st cent. CE that is just like ones in the Getty &amp; a few other collections.</p><p><br /></p><p>Without any more info, that&#039;s all I can say.&nbsp; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie100" alt=":writer:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie92" alt=":turtle:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie49" alt=":happy:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in