Unknown metal object

pueblo

I found this metal object http://www.flickr.com/photos/79837529@N08/sets/72157631744479109/ in a river a few days ago and I have no idea what it is.

It does not attract a magnet. It seems to have had bronze paint or plating at some stage. It's an unusual shape with the very small diameter base.

Anyone have any ideas?

smcgiff

Looks like a dagger hilt, or some housing (uneducated guess).

Edit: Actually, now that I look again, it's almost certainly not a dagger hilt.

katarin

Is it a horse bit or a bridge piece?

Simon.d

candilabre? Base could have fallen off..?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8047/8076749108_1b5dc35bd3.jpg

The rim shown in this image would suggest to me that it potentially sat into a base of some sort...

slowburner

Looks like a brass vase to me.
Would an antique dealer tell you what it is, and what it's made of, I wonder?

pueblo

slowburner wrote: »

Looks like a brass vase to me.
Would an antique dealer tell you what it is, and what it's made of, I wonder?

Goods idea, might take it out to Mealys in Castlecomer, not too far from me.

pueblo

Just an update on this metal jug. The pictures have been looked at by an expert from the Discovery Programme and it seems this is very possibly Iron Age in date and made of bronze. Obviously this needs to be confirmed with a physical inspection of the jug, but still, exciting stuff!

slowburner

Did the expert say what it might be?

If it is Iron Age, it is truly remarkable that it has survived in such condition, in a river, for upwards of one and a half thousand years.

Condatis

slowburner wrote: »

Did the expert say what it might be?

If it is Iron Age, it is truly remarkable that it has survived in such condition, in a river, for upwards of one and a half thousand years.

It might not have been in the river very long. It may have carried away from some other other place after being uncovered by rainfall or a minor landslide.

Or it could have been dug up during some kind of works and dumped by somebody who had no interest in it.

Coles

It's so decorative that it's difficult to imagine it's function. Amazing find if it's Iron Age.

Looks very Art Nouveau!

slowburner

This ewer might help to visualise what Pueblo's find might have looked like in its original condition.


http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/55.121.1

pueblo

slowburner wrote: »

Did the expert say what it might be?

If it is Iron Age, it is truly remarkable that it has survived in such condition, in a river, for upwards of one and a half thousand years.

The expert didn't say anything much about what it is except that it looks like it may have a mix of influences, among them Hellenic/Roman amphora.

She mentioned that the handle terminals looked to possibly be zoomorphic and mentioned parallels with the Keshcarrigan handle.

I am hoping to get the jug properly assessed.

I too was amazed that it could have survived that long in a riverine environment but as mentioned by Condatis maybe it was buried somewhere and only recently entered the river?

Being bronze means no rust as I understand it.

Mountainsandh

It reminds me of a little antique egyptian make up container that my grandfather had. It had a lid with a stick on the internal side to apply the make up.

Isn't that the case that most containers of that shape were recipients for ointments, or thick liquids ? It's interesting that it has no lip for pouring, and what's the little hole, is there a mark on the other side too ?
If there is no base, does it mean there was a holder, like the wall torches ones, or that it could safely be laid horizontal ?

Just my 2 very uneducated cents .

pueblo

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It reminds me of a little antique egyptian make up container that my grandfather had. It had a lid with a stick on the internal side to apply the make up.

Isn't that the case that most containers of that shape were recipients for ointments, or thick liquids ? It's interesting that it has no lip for pouring, and what's the little hole, is there a mark on the other side too ?
If there is no base, does it mean there was a holder, like the wall torches ones, or that it could safely be laid horizontal ?

Just my 2 very uneducated cents .

Ok, my uneducated 2 cents...I thought, like you that it looks to be very possibly modern. I agree the little hole is puzzling...could have occourred post deposition?

The Discovery Programme contact seemed to be fairly sure from the pictures but I am sure her opinion was pending a physical inspection. It may well turn out to be Edwardian!

Hopefully getting it assessed properly by this person soon.

slowburner

pueblo wrote: »

Ok, my uneducated 2 cents...I thought, like you that it looks to be very possibly modern. I agree the little hole is puzzling...could have occourred post deposition?

I showed it to an archaeologist friend of mine today and he is not committing either way at the moment though he did emphasise that there is a strong link between the Nore valley and Roman activity (trade/access from sea/silver mines in Kilkenny/local rulers etc) Would this explain the amphora shape of the vessel?.

Freestone Hill (roman coins/artefacts found) in County Kilkenny is a huge bronze and iron age hillfort with a large cairn. This site is not too far away from where I found the vessel.

The Discovery Programme contact seemed to be fairly sure from the pictures but I am sure her opinion was pending a physical inspection. It may well turn out to be Edwardian!

Hopefully getting it assessed properly by this person soon.

If it turned out to be Bronze Age, that would be outstanding.
If it's contemporary with the Keshcarrigan bowl, I would tremble with excitement at the possible Roman connection.;)

The hole or aperture is curious.
If it was deliberately bored, you might expect it to be centred between the handles.
Is there a similar hole on the opposite side of the vessel?

There may have been contact with other metals too. There seems to be a ring of some form of oxide above the main joint, about half way up the body of the vessel. This oxide can form as an electrolytic reaction between two different metals in contact. A similar oxide may have formed where the handles join the body and rim, and at the underside of the base.
It looks as if the body of the vessel might possibly have been made in three sections. The absence of oxide would indicate that these joints were cast, rather than brazed. On the other hand, these might have been decorative grooves cut into the body after casting, perhaps on a lathe, like the Keshcarrigan bowl.

pueblo

slowburner wrote: »

The hole or aperture is curious.
If it was deliberately bored, you might expect it to be centred between the handles.
Is there a similar hole on the opposite side of the vessel?

No hole on the other side.

Could it be an impurity or weak spot in the metal that hollowed out over time as it corroded faster than the rest of the body?

There are other sort of pock marks on the body, I have circled a few below.

Boulevardier

No joke here, but there are some Intra-uterine devices (IUDs or coils) which look quite like your object.

Could it be an early model IUD?

pueblo

Boulevardier wrote: »

No joke here, but there are some Intra-uterine devices (IUDs or coils) which look quite like your object.

Could it be an early model IUD?

Ha I hope that if it's not Iron Age its an early prototype IUD!

Pat Mustard

Boulevardier wrote: »

No joke here, but there are some Intra-uterine devices (IUDs or coils) which look quite like your object.

Could it be an early model IUD?

It looks more like an unintentional approximation of the female human reproductive system.

slowburner

Boulevardier wrote: »

No joke here, but there are some Intra-uterine devices (IUDs or coils) which look quite like your object.

Could it be an early model IUD?

The Mustard wrote: »

It looks more like an unintentional approximation of the female human reproductive system.

These are certainly novel suggestions.

If the former suggestion was true, then I suspect IUD would stand for intense user discomfort - and that's just for her - for him doesn't bear thinking about :eek:

Pat Mustard

slowburner wrote: »

These are certainly novel suggestions.

If the former suggestion was true, then I suspect IUD would stand for intense user discomfort - and that's just for her - for him doesn't bear thinking about :eek:

Not a lot of point in a man attempting to use an IUD.

And the appearance of the unidentified metal object suggests to me that it wasn't designed to be carried internally.

I'd say Boulevardier probably doesn't meet too many ladies.

slowburner

The Mustard wrote: »

Not a lot of point in a man attempting to use an IUD.

Not a lot of point in a woman using one if there's no man involved.

And the appearance of the unidentified metal object suggest to me that it wasn't designed to be carried internally.

Then it's no longer an 'I' or 'U' device - it's just a device, with a mysterious purpose...and we're back to square one.

I'd say Boulevardier probably doesn't meet too many ladies.

I couldn't possibly comment.

dr gonzo

pueblo wrote: »

Ha I hope that if it's not Iron Age its an early prototype IUD!

I hope that its both! That'd be one for Archaeology Ireland!

Mountainsandh

As a lady I think I can safely say that, if anything, it does look a bit like a rough sketch of the female reproductive system, but that there is no hope in hell it's an IUD.
I think that's pretty safe to say . Glad I could help for once, I am more of an expert on that one.

Boulevardier

I will ignore the untrue comment about me and the ladies.

I have been trying to find pictures of IUDs from the 1960s and 1970s, which looked very different from today's, but I have not found a good one.

In any case, I suppose it could be an unguent bottle, but I can't find others quite like it on Google.

Mountainsandh

Well it's interesting anyway, and Boulevardier, a bit of thinking outside the box is nice too, rather than just sticking to the "vessel" thing.
Could the blunt elongated base have had a purpose too, as in, if something grainy was kept in the vessel, then the base could have been used as a mortar for said substance ?

I tried a few google image searches for bronze age vessels and nothing comes up with the same shape, except for pottery ones.

pueblo

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I tried a few google image searches for bronze age vessels and nothing comes up with the same shape, except for pottery ones.

Just to clarify the expert mentioned Iron Age to me as a possible time period for the em....vessel, not Bronze age.

The 'amphora' shape would imply to me that it possibly sat in it's own holder like this example

pueblo

Ok..A couple of wild speculative theories but who knows...

It could be a Roman/Hellenistic influenced amphoriskos/unguentarium like these





These being used to hold precious perfume or balms or whatever would have needed a stopper. Would the hole in the piece i found be where a chain with stopper was attached like this?



The other possibilty for the hole is that there was some piece of ornamentation/sculpture attached to piece via the hole, which subsequently became seperated.

Perhaps some Greek influence like this bronze Greek twin handled vase?



and then again maybe it is an iud :P

Still awaiting expert opinion.

Mountainsandh

It's fun to speculate when there is absolutely no harm in it .

Could the holes be "scars" from the mould used to shape up the body ? There are little holes like that in moulds aren't there ?

I thought of that thing with the lid being attached to the bottle too. If it was a valuable enough substance liable to dry or spill, it would have made sense to attach lid.

Another silly, uneducated wild guess (coming from me) : could a hole/holes have been needed to help stir/scrape the contents in the very narrow bottom part when bottle was nearly empty ? Could the stick going in there have been a spoon, for medicine for example ? https://www.coincraft.com/images/thumbs/0001257_400.gif

or a stirring rod ? http://www.brightonarch.org.uk/photo/flint60-02.jpg

These perfume bottles that have a familiar kink half way through the body. http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/publications/online_research_catalogues/ancient_cyprus_british_museum/catalogue_image.aspx?objectId=415740&partId=1&asset_id=337823&retpage=32175&catparentPageId=30324

edit : figure 42 in this document is a roman make up spatula. http://www.augustaraurica.ch/publ/pdf/ABRZ03_frz_k.pdf

pueblo

Just another update. The piece is going for an XRF scan to determine the composition of metals, this should help with dating the piece.

On the mysterious hole, I now think it is actually a 'Sprue Hole' which is a hole left over from the casting process.

ZX7R

Could it be an urn for holding oil for a catholic baptism saw something like it on time team one.
just an idea:o

pueblo

ZX7R wrote: »

Could it be an urn for holding oil for a catholic baptism saw something like it on time team one.
just an idea:o

You are not too far off, the expert who looked at it felt it was most likely a Roman Balsamarium (used for holding perfume/balm).

The problem is that while it is the right shape and size for a Roman Balsamarium these are virtually unknown in metal, being found usually in glass or pottery.

Hopefully the XRF scan will be able to shed some light on the metallurgical composition of the piece giving a good indication of date.

Mountainsandh

Incidentally, I'm shocked to see the number of sales/auctions out there, and the artefacts sold therein. I'm just really naive, to me all these things belong in museums for everyone to see, it's shocking to see what's traded : prehistoric arrow heads, roman artefacts :eek:
Just keep coming across these sites on my google images searches.

I'm beginning to see another dimension to the metal detectors' debate allright.

On topic, Pueblo, on this page, there is a bronze object #32. Not very similar, but with a "funny" spike. But there's also a bronze lamp (makes more sense for a lamp).
http://www.he-artefakte.de/Weitere%20Angebote/Weitere%20AngeboteE.html

interesting drill hole in the lamp too

Pat Mustard

Mountainsandh wrote: »

all these things belong in museums

http://www.hark.com/clips/ckyyxscpjc-belongs-in-a-museum

Doom

Its the Mayans key to the end of the world....don't touch it. :eek:

Mountainsandh

The Mustard I don't know where the sound clip is from.
But ehmm... ok.

Pat Mustard

Indiana Jones. Couldn't find full video clip in english.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUhaOdp7n8

Wibbs

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The Mustard I don't know where the sound clip is from.
But ehmm... ok.

I think it's from one of the Indiana Jones films M. That said, while I do take your point, amateur collections have made up a substantial percentage of what ends up in museums and many amateurs have made major strides in various scientific disciplines. That I don't object to so much. "Treasure hunters" yea, but in the drive to get rid of those we may throw the baby out with the bathwater at times. Paleontology is a science that has had huge amateur input. Astronomy even more so and they're not unique. IMHO There should be some allowances made in this regard*. PLus most of the ebay antiquities are fake as feck, or are so common as to be of zero scientific interest. IMHO and IME really scientifically valuable stuff in online auctions are very rare. "Prehistoric" arrow heads? Common as muck. Roman items, at least half and that's being generous are fake. Id not worry about that so much.





*I suppose I'd have to say that as just on one point I've one of the largest collections of Neandertal lithics outside colleges and most defo museums in this country. I'd put money down that if I offered said collection to official bodies here I'd likely get short shrift. Hell, even as a fossil collecting kid I got short shrift when I presented some specimens, even though they were better examples than those they had on display.

Mountainsandh

As it happens I'm French, The Mustard (Dijon, I hope), so the French version is just fine

Wibbs, that's the beauty of being a total ignoramus, I would probably faint at your collection .

Funnily enough, I'd have no interest in collecting anything myself. I'd love to be able to "handle" stuff for a bit rather than just seeing it allright.

But I'd say it's a different story if you find something yourself, and no museum wants it. I'd say in that instance I would probably start collecting items, rather than sell them on Ebay.

Wibbs

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But I'd say it's a different story if you find something yourself, and no museum wants it. I'd say in that instance I would probably start collecting items, rather than sell them on Ebay.

Yea ebay and the like have changed things a lot. Gives dodgy people a way to sell dodgy stuff with very dodgy provenance. I'd very rarely buy that kinda thing on ebay unless I knew the seller and the item(s) were coming from old collections. Sometimes stuff comes from museums that have shut down or are disposing of stuff of little scientific merit.

On top of that though people think they are many antiquities aren't that rare. Take roman items on sale. Now at least half are fake, but the ones that aren't were very common items back in the day and the roman's were around throughout Europe for the guts of a 1000 years so there's a lot of that stuff about. EG how many roman coins were minted? Likely millions so out of context stuff is essentially "worthless" though gets good money on ebay. I remember swanning around on a Greek island and there were shards of ancient pottery all over the place, all homeware type stuff. Egyptian stuff is even more faked. I'd reckon at least two thirds of it out there is fake. Some of it laughably so. Some well known actual bricks and mortar dealer's stock is entirely fake(one springs readily to mind). There are a load of fakes coming out of the far east of late too. Even in stone tools I've seen a lot of fakes on ebay, or waste products from tool manufacture sold as tools in themselves. Even well known auctions houses and museums have been caught out.

TBH the tacky fakes don't worry me so much. For me it means the real deal is more likely to stay in the ground or on museums or college collections and your average punter is happy thinking he or she has the real deal so that market is covered.

The guys digging on sites to sell on ebay and the like are the bigger worry. Ebay will do little about it. I know a couple of dealers have been reported in the past and nothing seemed to happen.

slowburner

Two sellers were investigated by the NMI as a direct result of the attention of Boards.ie members.
One was dealt with, the other is an ongoing, and serious investigation.

dr gonzo

slowburner wrote: »

Two sellers were investigated by the NMI as a direct result of the attention of Boards.ie members.
One was dealt with, the other is an ongoing, and serious investigation.

Great news. The national monuments act is one of the few ways that Ireland is archaeologically progressive.

TheMilkyPirate

Interesting thread, Subscribed

Mountainsandh

ahhh now baraca. And here's me clicking straight away thinking there was an update .

Can't wait !

any news Pueblo ?

pueblo

Mountainsandh wrote: »

ahhh now baraca. And here's me clicking straight away thinking there was an update .

Can't wait !

any news Pueblo ?

No news still waiting to hear when it's going for the xrf scan. Very curious to know outcome now!

markesmith

In for the win. Apologies in advance Mountainsandh

pueblo

Just an update, the XRF scanner is currently being repaired so no idea when that will happen, hopefully soon.

I have been in touch with my contact at the NMI about the piece and she has been talking to a Roman specialist who is very keen to have a look.

Damn suspense :-)

slowburner

Some interesting stuff on RTE player about the Nore.
Skip to 3m 50s for the historical bit.
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10103312/

roughneck

posy vase 1890ish

pueblo

roughneck wrote: »

posy vase 1890ish

If it is a vase how did it stand? It will not stand unsupported on its narrow foot.

pueblo

finally it's going for it's scan next week...the hour of judgement approacheth