Seen & Found

pueblo

Bonedigger wrote: »

Hi Pueblo,
I've been waiting patiently, just like yourself I'm sure, for someone to throw light on this box too. Where was it found?
Could it be that it's a cigarette box perhaps, and possibly Edwardian in date?
It obviously had a hinged lid and the pedestals on the base could suggest it was intended to sit on a desktop and not intended to be carried about in one's pocket. I'm not sure that the lozenge shapes on the box would have any great deal of significance, unless you have a theory yourself of course?
That's all I've got I'm afraid!

Hey Bonedigger, it was found in the river. It could easily be a cigarette box or something but to me it looks very 'hand-made', though been bashed about in the river could be an explanation for that. The lozenge pattern on the border is irregular looks to be imprinted on, it's not entirely plumb with the angles of the box. I also feel there is a possibility that it was enameled at some stage.

The fact that it only has two feet (at opposing corners) is also curious and I am at a loss to think of reason for such a design.

The eternal optimist I am hoping it might be 13th/14thc, hence my question on reliquaries. If this was only part of a different structure and it 'sat into' some other piece then this might somehow explain it only having 2 feet?

Bonedigger

pueblo wrote: »

Hey Bonedigger, it was found in the river. It could easily be a cigarette box or something but to me it looks very 'hand-made', though been bashed about in the river could be an explanation for that. The lozenge pattern on the border is irregular looks to be imprinted on, it's not entirely plumb with the angles of the box. I also feel there is a possibility that it was enameled at some stage.

The fact that it only has two feet (at opposing corners) is also curious and I am at a loss to think of reason for such a design.

The eternal optimist I am hoping it might be 13th/14thc, hence my question on reliquaries. If this was only part of a different structure and it 'sat into' some other piece then this might somehow explain it only having 2 feet?

I know little of reliquaries to be honest, so wouldn't be able to tell whether it had any association with a reliquary or not. I'd send an image or two to the National Museum (if you haven't done so already?), and see what they think.
In one of the original images you posted it kinda looks like one of the bottom corners had had a foot/pedestal which may have been broken or deliberately removed and filed down?? It's difficult to tell from photos alone.
Could the metal be pewter by any chance?

pueblo

Bonedigger wrote: »

I know little of reliquaries to be honest, so wouldn't be able to tell whether it had any association with a reliquary or not. I'd send an image or two to the National Museum (if you haven't done so already?), and see what they think.
In one of the original images you posted it kinda looks like one of the bottom corners had had a foot/pedestal which may have been broken or deliberately removed and filed down?? It's difficult to tell from photos alone.
Could the metal be pewter by any chance?

Have been in touch with the NMI and I'm waiting for someone to get back to me. I am fairly diligent about reporting, I think most of the duty officers are probably quite sick of seeing yet another email from me!

On the feet/pedastals it looks to me like it was made that way with only two, but even if two feet had been removed, why?

It could well be pewter, it's not magnetic at all, so could easily be a copper/tin alloy or whatever.

Bonedigger

Despite being less than two kilometres from my own home, I only spotted this circular feature recently! It can only be seen on the present Google Earth satellite imagery, but doesn't appear on Bing, the OSI's orthophotography or the historic maps. It's not recorded on the 'Sites and Monuments Record'. At 14 metres in diameter, it would appear to have all the hallmarks of a barrow. It is sited approximately 200 metres SE of the summit of Pollardstown hill, Co.Kildare. The NGR for this circular feature is: N77628, 15040



There's no sign of the circular feature on this Bing satellite image:
http://binged.it/1KS2k2e

Pollardstown hill itself sits on an esker ridge. The hill was once the site of four recorded monuments, all of which have since been obliterated by quarrying. One of these recorded monuments, KD023-005 (Grid Ref. 77696, 14911), was believed to have been a Bronze Age cist burial and was discovered in 1903 by workers quarrying material from a large pit for the Great Southern and Western Co. Fragments of an encrusted urn were recovered. This is exciting for me on two counts; firstly, it may be tantalising evidence that a small barrow cemetery was present on that ridge, and secondly, I've been finding prehistoric lithics in an area no more than 600 metres away. The lithics have been examined and it has been suggested that the assemblage may span several time periods in prehistory, from the earlier Mesolithic right through to the Bronze Age. Assuming the cist burial on Pollardstown hill, with its accompanying encrusted urn, dates to sometime in the Early Bronze age (I'm guessing circa 1800 - 1500 B.C.), this timeline would not be inconsistent with the dating of some of the flint artefacts I've found. Would it be stretching the imagination too much to suggest the flints have come from a former Bronze Age settlement site and that the individuals interred in cists on the ridge overlooking the settlement were once members of that settlement community?

The image below is where the circular feature should appear on the ground, but I couldn't see anything discernible (it's on private ground, so this is about as close as I could get):

Bonedigger

pueblo wrote: »

...........I think most of the duty officers are probably quite sick of seeing yet another email from me.

I'm forever thinking the same thing!
I'm currently awaiting a response in relation to the bullaun stone I found.

Mountainsandh

Could it have been designed to be picked up and handled often ? Maybe the two bases only are just to make it easier to lift from the table top ?

Like a cigar/tobacco box for example.

Either way it looks like it was designed to hold something light, and solid, as in, not powdery or anything.

I want to say "box of sweets", but that's just how my mind works

pueblo

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Could it have been designed to be picked up and handled often ? Maybe the two bases only are just to make it easier to lift from the table top ?

Like a cigar/tobacco box for example.

Either way it looks like it was designed to hold something light, and solid, as in, not powdery or anything.

I want to say "box of sweets", but that's just how my mind works

I agree that the two feet thing is about mobility ....somehow!

The smart money is probably on the cigar/cigarette box....but the box is speaking to me (!) and it's saying it's older than that, but that's just my intuition and I have been wrong before.

pueblo

Bonedigger wrote: »

I'm forever thinking the same thing!
I'm currently awaiting a response in relation to the bullaun stone I found.

Yeah that was a nice find, you are well able to 'see' and not just 'look'.

slowburner

pueblo wrote: »

Sorry to bump my own post but can anyone tell me anything about the 'lozenge' motif seen here, or the use of the lozenge/diamond shape in Ireland at any period?

Also I am guessing it is some type of alloy (copper/tin?) however the 3 barrel style hinges are of a different material, possibly bronze?



And lastly can anyone point me to good information on reliquaries in Ireland? I have been through much of what I can find of relevance from Google.

Thanks

I really don't have the first idea about this object, but that won't stop me from having a go!
I agree that it has the appearance of pewter. If it was good quality pewter, you would expect to see a touch mark (that's the pewter makers' hallmark, apparently) and here's where it could get interesting - if indeed it is pewter. Touch marks were introduced around 1503, according to this site.
Of course, this was across the water and there may have been different requirements here.
I would guess that the box is moulded, which could indicate mass production, and further indicate that it is a low status item. The absence of a touch mark could support this too. But then the remains of the hinges (brass?) seem to be high quality.
I have absolutely no explanation for the opposing feet. Other than a wild guess that the box is part of something else, but there doesn't seem to be any sign of how it might have been joined.
Unfortunately, I can't think of anyone who might know something.

Fries-With-That

When it comes to sticking out a neck,I'm not shy

I have looked at the pictures several times since you first posted them and have been thinking about them.

Starting with the hinges, the reason the hinges are of different metal is for strength,pewter hinges would not last. The hinges are most likely brass and would have been tinned to look silver colour.

I don't think it's a cigarette box, as it give me the impression that it predates the fashion of having cigarette boxes.

The unusual bracketed foot style is interesting and may be just a design feature rather than having a further function.

I think it may have been a table top spice/salt box or a table top snuff box.

Lastly I would imagine that pewter manufacturers were copying patterns from silversmiths, a good antique shop that deals with silver may be able to indicate a date or function indicated by the pattern and size.

bogwalrus

Considering you found it in a river. Could the legs be for special balancing on a boat. If you have a four leg box or even flat box on a flat surface it will slide off. Having two legs shifts the weight so more likely to stay where it is. In saying that maybe it is for holding fishing weights or similar?

tac foley

slowburner wrote: »

I would guess that the box is moulded, which could indicate mass production

I'm guessing that you mean press stamped or drawn, and not moulded, a process that implies the use of molten material and a set of moulds in which to pour it.

As for the possibility of it being used for cigarettes, that might be easier than you think to determine, as cigarettes have been made in standard sizes with regards to length since they began to be commercially produced in the late 19th C.

The 'lozenge' pattern looks nothing like any lozenge pattern I've seen, but IS somewhat reminiscent of the Art Nouveau Egyptian bullrush/papyrus plant pattern popular in that era.

As for use, I have not the foggiest notion, except to say that it is unlikely to have been any kind of a boat fitting. They are usual made of quality brass, phosphor bronze or similar non-corroding-in-salt-air metal. As noted, this does not look like a high-quality item as befits most boat furniture I've ever seen, nor is it robust enough, either.

My $0.02.

tac

pueblo

Fries-With-That wrote: »

Lastly I would imagine that pewter manufacturers were copying patterns from silversmiths, a good antique shop that deals with silver may be able to indicate a date or function indicated by the pattern and size.

Good idea.

tac foley wrote: »

The 'lozenge' pattern looks nothing like any lozenge pattern I've seen, but IS somewhat reminiscent of the Art Nouveau Egyptian bullrush/papyrus plant pattern popular in that era.

Interesting, will check that avenue out.

Showing this to an archaeologist friend tomorrow so will add his tuppence to the debate later.

pueblo

I showed the box to me archaeologist friend today. His only comments were that the border motif does have an 'ecclesiastical' feel to it and that it is perhaps a copper alloy or possibly bronze.

Hopefully the NMI will be able to shed some light on this piece!

tac foley

I hesitated to post this, but note that the 'ecclesiastical' style, and I agree that it might be so, is also reminiscent of the decoration of items that might be found in a synagogue, although I cannot right now figure out what they might be.

tac

Arsemageddon

Looks like a pewter snuff box to me

pueblo

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Looks like a pewter snuff box to me

If it is, can you offer an explanation for it having only two feet?

While it balances fine on it's two feet it would seem impractical if every time you reached in for a pinch of snuff it tipped left or right?

Simon.d

My reading on the he two feet is that it fits neatly onto some rectangular platform, where "the feet" hold it in place by gripping the corners, and from where it is easily removable. Or that it assists in stacking a number of these boxes for the same reason..

Arsemageddon

Simon.d wrote: »

My reading on the he two feet is that it fits neatly onto some rectangular platform, where "the feet" hold it in place by gripping the corners, and from where it is easily removable. Or that it assists in stacking a number of these boxes for the same reason..

What Simon Says!

Possibly mounted on a wooden base and meant to be kept on a desk top rather than in a pocket?

pueblo

Simon.d wrote: »

My reading on the he two feet is that it fits neatly onto some rectangular platform, where "the feet" hold it in place by gripping the corners, and from where it is easily removable. Or that it assists in stacking a number of these boxes for the same reason..

Arsemageddon wrote: »

What Simon Says!

Possibly mounted on a wooden base and meant to be kept on a desk top rather than in a pocket?

That is the most plausible explanation, but what did it contain??

I am now fairly sure it has to be part of a 15th century psalter reliquary

pueblo

Just an update on the metal box, someone from the NMI had a look but was unable to offer anything other than it 'was probably nineteenth century', he seemed to think the 'cigarette case' explanation the most plausible.

bawn79

A guy in the southeast of Ireland found what he thinks are stone tools on this forum. http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=6703&forum=1

Been ruled out by The Society of Museum Archaeologists but I said I'd see what the experts on here might say.

Wibbs

I'm no expert but they look like totally natural stones to me. No evidence of man made fracturing or shaping to my eyes anyway.

Coles

bawn79 wrote: »

A guy in the southeast of Ireland found what he thinks are stone tools on this forum. http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=6703&forum=1

Been ruled out by The Society of Museum Archaeologists but I said I'd see what the experts on here might say.

The first one is particularly interesting. I can't imagine a natural process that would wear both sides in such a manner simultaneously.

The only use I can think of for such a stone would be as a lamp similar to the one from Roestown, Co. Meath or the ones from La Madeleine
Link 1
Link 2

Reader1937

The SMA said they were not typical. I have no huge experience of categorising stone fragments, but the finders descriptions and depictions do lend the idea that they might be used by humans as tools of some sort, though not typically based on the understanding of whoever posted on behalf of the SMA. Combined they would work as a grinding mechanism for very small amounts of material, such as Amber or the like. Perhaps it was used for something we now know nothing about. Flint as a grinder though? Unlikely, but illogical choices must be allowed to people in the past if it can be proven.

Coles

Reader1937 wrote: »

Combined they would work as a grinding mechanism for very small amounts of material, such as Amber or the like. Perhaps it was used for something we now know nothing about.

I like the idea of the small 'platelet' stone being used to grind small quantities of salt crystal or aromatic seeds for sprinkling on the Sunday roast.

bawn79

http://binged.it/1IWm1CT

I came across this lately while checking out the ruins of Crinkill Barracks. It's know as "The Ring".

I found this bit of info on its mysterious history as well http://www.irishfarmhouseholiday.com/ringhist.htm

It might peak somebodies interest.

slowburner

Not an easy surface find considering the challenging, homogenous context, but a pretty good one nonetheless.



This is a well preserved (considering what it has been through) polished stone adze in an as yet unidentified rock type. At a guess, probably made about 5,000 years ago.

Dimensions (approx.): L:95 x W:35 x T:20 mm
or 3 1/2" x 1 1/2" x 3/4"
(for those of you interested in such things; the proportions are pleasing but do not follow the golden mean!).

More pics to follow...

Bonedigger

slowburner wrote: »

Not an easy surface find considering the challenging, homogenous context, but a pretty good one nonetheless.



This is a well preserved (considering what it has been through) polished stone adze in an as yet unidentified rock type. At a guess, probably made about 5,000 years ago.

Dimensions (approx.): L:95 x W:35 x T:20 mm
or 3 1/2" x 1 1/2" x 3/4"
(for those of you interested in such things; the proportions are pleasing but do not follow the golden mean!).

More pics to follow...

I can't see any of the images SB. Can you upload them again?

Tiercel Dave

Bonedigger wrote: »

I can't see any of the images SB. Can you upload them again?

Same here.