Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Bronwen, post: 1284489, member: 5833&quot;]Whew!&nbsp; Not just me then who sees them as quite similar in this regard.&nbsp; Either outcome would be interesting.&nbsp; It&#039;s always cool to have something that old.&nbsp; If it can be firmly established that it is, then it makes it a rare case of an ancient copy of a known ancient gem.&nbsp; There are 2 or 3 other examples of blue &amp; green glass gems with the very same scene, Silenus being prevented from falling off his donkey by a faun, in museum collections (this one is mine), but if the original engraved gem is still with us, it is well hidden.&nbsp; The idea that &#039;Pamphilos&#039; engraved the amethyst would be strongly challenged.</p><p><br /></p><p>If it can be determined that the paste is no more than, say, 500 years old, it has larger implications for the amethyst.&nbsp; Some gems have the name of an ancient owner on them, &amp; that may be who Pamphilos was.&nbsp; The very conspicuous way it is written out in full in the middle of the composition is more characteristic of owners than of makers.&nbsp; Having an owner&#039;s name isn&#039;t as exciting as having the engraver&#039;s signature, but it&#039;s something.</p><p><br /></p><p>If the paste is much closer to us in time, it strongly suggests the name on the amethyst is pure fraud.&nbsp; It could have been effaced from the mold before the cast was made, but the question of why? is a really difficult one with no obvious answer.&nbsp; Market forces would have pressed for seeing to it that the signature was nice &amp; sharp.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Holly&#039;s link does not work now, but an abstract is here:</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440398903429" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440398903429" rel="nofollow">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440398903429</a></p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;With increased usage it has become evident that, while economical, simple and fast, OHD [Obsidian Hydration Dating] is unreliable. Here results of a secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) study of obsidian and synthetic glass artefacts are presented that explain why OHD has not lived up to expectations.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>I suspect the older the glass, the more likely the results of this method would be off.&nbsp; Degree of hydration depends on how long a piece spent in what conditions &amp; you would then have to compare to other samples of known age.&nbsp; Having all the data needed is tough when you&#039;re trying to account for a couple of thousand years. It&#039;s really interesting that there is a non-destructive way to learn anything at all.&nbsp; Mass spectrometry requires pulverizing some of the material being analyzed.[/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