Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T16:47:09.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Notes on a Possible Minoan Forgery1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2013

Extract

The well-known gem of lapis lacedaemonius, generally described as from Kydonia (i.e. the province of Crete in which lies the town of Khania), and now in the Benaki Museum in Athens, has been frequently quoted as a basis for, or in support of theories on, Minoan–Mycenaean religious belief and practice. In this note it is intended to set out grounds for doubting the genuineness of the gem.

Its shape and material establish a prima facie case for authenticity. The rather large (c. 25 millimetre diameter) lentoids, slightly elliptical in shape and pierced, generally down the shorter axis, occur commonly in lapis lacedaemonius, carnelian and agate in the L.M. I–II period. Moreover the material does not seem to have been used by forgers, perhaps because it is harder to acquire than, for example, carnelian or agate. However these factors seem out-weighed on closer inspection, when all grounds for doubting the stone's genuineness are considered.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 e.g. Nilsson, , Minoan–Mycenaean Religion 148, 173, 354, 358, 400, 406.Google ScholarEvans, , Palace of Minos i. 708Google Scholar, iv. 467. Webster, , BICS v (1958) 43 ff.Google Scholar; Antike und Abendland viii (1959) 7 ff. Suspicions about the genuineness of this gem have been voiced by Biesantz, , Kretisch–Mykenische Siegelbilder 86Google Scholar, but there is no full discussion of the grounds for suspecting it.

3 Evans, op. cit. iv. 467.

4 First briefly mentioned in AM xxxv (1910) 150.

5 I am indebted to Miss M. A. V. Gill for providing me with a copy of a letter she received from Mr. Rizos-Rangabé about the gem's early history.

6 The cast is no longer traceable in the British Museum. I have to thank Mr. R. A. Higgins for checking this point.

7 Compare Evans, op. cit. i. 708, fig. 532, n. 3 with iv. 467, fig. 392, n. 1. The second drawing used by Evans was made by Gilliéron fils after the gem reached the Benaki Museum and is the one which has since been repeatedly published.

8 For deliberate damage to give a forged gem authenticity cf. the enormous steatite amygdaloid in the Stathatou Collection at Athens (Amandry, , Cat. Colln. Stath., no. 36, pl. ixGoogle Scholar). This stone may be condemned on grounds of size, material, technique, style, motif, and deliberate damage.

9 e.g. Herakleion Mus. 94, 126, 131, 155 (AE 1907, nos. 88, 100, 103, 116 respectively); Ashmolean Mus. K307 (numbering as from Kenna, Cretan Seals); Nat. Mus. Athens 7335 (Persson, , Royal Tombs at Dendra 35Google Scholar, no. 3e, pl. 19).

10 e.g. Nilsson, op. cit. 165 ff.

11 e.g. the sealing from the Rhytonw ell at Mycenae (Wace, Mycenae, fig. 110c; Mylonas, , Ancient Mycenae 28Google Scholar; Nilsson, op. cit. 174).

12 This ring, now in the Nat. Mus. Athens, has been frequently illustrated. Perhaps the best photograph of it is Marinatos, , Crete and Mycenae, pl. 207Google Scholar: 1. (Cf. Evans, op. cit., iv. 393, 460; Nilsson, op. cit. 147; Persson, Religion of Greece in Prehistoric Times, no. 24.)

13 Nat. Mus. Athens 1776, 1797 (AE 1889, pl. x, nos. 35, 36; Furtwängler, , Antike Gemmen, pl. iiGoogle Scholar: 31, 32; Evans, op. cit. iv. 453; Nilsson, op. cit. 146; Marinatos, op. cit. pl. 122; Kenna, , Cretan Seals, 53, fig. 110Google Scholar).

14 Schliemann, , Mycenae 280Google Scholar, fig. 353; Nilsson, op. cit.

15 JHS xxii (1902) 80, fig. 12, 13; pl. vii: 34, 35.

16 PAE (1911) 121, no. 18.

17 I am indebted to Mr. N. Coldstream for the information on these Geometric vases.

18 e.g. BMCat., no. 202. Cf. Boardman, Island Gems 61 ff.

19 e.g. Nat. Mus. Athens 8406 (Ergon (1955) 90, fig. 88).

20 Nat. Mus. Athens 3148 (JHS xxi (1901) 182; Nilsson, op. cit. 259; Persson, Religion of Greece in Prehistoric Times, no. 10; Marinatos, op. cit., pl. 206: 2; Higgins, , Greek and Roman Jewellery, pl. 7BGoogle Scholar).

21 e.g. Ashmolean Mus. K9P (Evans, op. cit. iv. 467; Nilsson, op. cit. 357); BMCat., no. 83; Berlin Mus. Cat., no. 9; Blegen, , Prosymna, pl. 144Google Scholar, no. 581.

22 e.g. Evans, op. cit. iv. 456, fig. 389; Berlin Mus. Cat., no. 10.

23 e.g. Schaeffer, , Missions en Chypre 89Google Scholar, figs. 48–49; Frankfort, , Cylinder Seals, pl. 46s.Google Scholar

24 Nat. Mus. Athens 4574 (JHS xxi (1901) 168, fig. 46; Nilsson, op. cit. 359); Berlin Mus. Cat., no. 11.

25 Wt. 501–7 (Bennett, , Mycenae Tablets II 64Google Scholar; BSA xlix. pl. 38b).

26 AJA lviii (1954) 31, pl. 9, fig. 13.

27 Ashmolean Mus. K308 (Xanthoudides, , AE 1907 175, no. 166Google Scholar; Evans, op. cit. iv. 822). The ring was discovered in 1898 and recognized as a remarkable object. For, though it did not receive mention in print until 1907, an inferior wax impression from it existed in the Herakleion Museum, available for all to see. The ring itself passed into the hands of an Athens dealer and thence to an American collector from whom Evans acquired it ‘by exchange’ (Evans, loc. cit., and his footnote 3).

28 ‘Some Eminent Cretan Gem-Engravers’ in Festschrift für Friedrich Matz (1962) 4 ff.

29 Ashmolean Mus. K306.

30 Schaeffer and Frankfort, loc. cit., n. 23 above. The comparison is suggested by an illustration of the cylinder and our gem side by side in Antike Kunst iv (1961), pl. 2.

31 See loc. cit., n. 21 above.