Approx. life size Gold ear decoration - Etruscan, about 400-300 BC From Italy - An elaborate example of the Etruscan goldsmiths' art
The goldsmiths of Etruria became very accomplished from the seventh century BC. They produced rich objects in striking forms that were technically very difficult to make. Greek styles were influential, but local taste is very much in evidence. This truly monumental gold earring is a typically Etruscan piece of jewellery.
The ear decoration is shaped from thin sheet gold, with attached rosettes and clusters of gold globules. It is further decorated with filigree - attached gold wire - and granulation. The technique of granulation was brought to an extraordinary standard of perfection in the Etruscan world, and was often much finer than exhibited by this ear decoration.
The ear decoration is very large. How would it have been worn? Certain terracotta heads show that they acted almost as ear covers, nestling behind the curls of the wearer and tucked into the side of the neck.
Gold fibula (brooch) with lions and sphinxes, Etruscan, about 675-650 BC - From Vulci, ancient Etruria (now in Lazio, Italy)
This remarkable gold fibula has a small bow formed from three curved tubes and a very long catchplate of gold sheet. On the catchplate is mounted a procession of ten pairs of gold lions, each glancing over its shoulder, while more lions, sphinxes and heads of lions and horses decorate the bow, as well as the tip and butt of the catchplate. Details of the animals are picked out in gold granulation, and lines of granulation ornament the other parts of the brooch. The lions are of a type typically produced by goldsmiths at Cerveteri, and this was probably where the brooch was made, although it was found at Vulci, probably at the Ponte Sodo necropolis.
Such an elaborate form of this particular type of brooch is unique. Its predecessors were simple bronze examples of the 'serpentine' (snake-like) type produced locally in Italy, but this example follows the fashion for luxurious and ostentatious gold jewellery in seventh century Etruria.
Gold brooch with a bow in the form of a winged chimaera, Etruscan, 525-500 BC - Found in Italy, A popular beast in Etruscan mythology
There are a number of surviving examples of this type of gold brooch, popular in Etruria towards the end of the sixth century BC. The type developed from the basic bow fibula, which had already been popular in Italy for several hundred years. Over time the bow gradually swelled and varied in shape and, in the seventh century BC, the long pin and its accompanying catch-plate evolved. Some examples are decorated with granulation and also occasionally small gold rosettes. Here the once simple bow shape has been replaced by the body of an animal, either real or mythical.
This brooch is decorated with a chimaera (a beast composed of parts of various animals), with the head of a lion and another of a goat behind it, mounted on wings stemming from the lion's chest and linked at the top to form its neck. The chimaera was a popular beast in Etruscan mythology, its best known representation being the large scale bronze from Arezzo (now in Arezzo Museum). On brooches of this type the form of the chimaera varies, sometimes it includes a serpent head tail and also a griffin head. The beast on this brooch opens its jaws as if to attack the foal reclining with its front legs curled up, seemingly unawares, at the far end of the catch plate.
The brooch is made from gold sheet with the lion made in two halves which have been pressed into a mould and soldered together lengthwise down its body.
M. Cristofani and M. Martelli, LOro degli Etruschi (Novara, Istituto geografico De Agostini, 1983)
E. Macnamara, The Etruscans-1 (London, The British Museum Press, 1990)
H. Tait (ed.), Seven thousand years of jewell (London, The British Museum Press, 1986)
L. Burn, The British Museum book of G-1, revised edition (London, The British Museum Press, 1999)
R. Higgins, Greek and Roman jewellery (London, Methuen, 1980)
E. Macnamara, The Etruscans-1 (London, The British Museum Press, 1990)
The use of magnifying lenses by ancient artists remains an unresolved question. While scores of ancient glass and crystal lenses are extant today, no one has yet connected them directly with the crafts of die cutting and gem engraving. The question has been broached in earlier Celator articles, with evidence from literary and archaeological sources suggesting that lenses were used for magnification. The purpose of this article is to familiarize the reader with the history of magnifying lenses and to examine certain aspects of the engravers' art to shed further light on this mystery. Could such tiny, detailed work have been done with the unaided eye?
Both the telescope and compound microscope are relatively recent inventions, both occurring in the 17th century. Eyeglasses were most probably invented in Italy shortly after AD 1286, as they are mentioned in a sermon by Friar Giordano of Piso delivered in 1306. These lenses were convex and corrected farsightedness, and could also have served as simple low power magnifying lenses. Concave lenses to correct nearsightedness were apparently not produced for several more centuries.1
The English monk Roger Bacon, who died in 1292, mentioned that a medium of crystal or glass placed above small letters rendered them larger and was useful to the aged and those with weak eyes.2
The Egyptians and Sumerians make no references to lenses of any type. In ancient writings the first mention of lenses (to kindle fires) appears in The Clouds, by the Greek dramatist Aristophanes, who died about 380 B.C. "Have you ever seen at the druggist's place that beautiful, transparent stone with which they kindle fire?"
However, no mention can be found in ancient Greek writings of lenses valued as magnifiers. Such a statement first occurs in the writings of Seneca, the Roman philosopher and politician who died in AD 65. "Letters, however small and dim, are comparatively large and distinct when seen through a glass globe filled with water.3
It is probable that Seneca thought that the water itself was responsible for this magnification as the ancients believed that crystal was a form of water, simply being congealed in a more durable form than ice.4
No one knows how many ancient lenses are actually in existence. The main problem we face is our inability to differentiate between a corroded lens and a piece of ancient glass jewelry. There is no doubt that many museum lenses have been cataloged as gems or bangles because they are no longer transparent and do not resemble a lens.
When were lenses first produced? Approximately 50 lens shaped crystals were discovered by Heinrich Schliemann at Troy, one of which was over two inches in diameter.5 Most of these were perforated in the center leading contemporary authorities to >conclude they were ornaments and not lenses. However, a center perforation would allow an ideal means of carrying the lens and would not hinder its ability to kindle a fire.
Another early lens has been dated to ca. 900-700 B.C. and was discovered in Nimrud in 1853. This lens is planoconvex and 35x41 mm across and 6 mm at its thickest. This lens was the subject of an article in the British Journal of Physiological Optics in 1930 (Vol. IV, No. 1).6
Perhaps the most important discovery was a Roman period magnifying lens discovered in 1854 in the "House of the Engraver" on the Stabian Way in Pompeii. It is planoconvex with a corroded, opaque surface and is in the gem collection at the National Museum in Naples. The fact that such a lens was discovered in the shop of an ancient engraver is highly significant.7
Two more lenses were discovered in the house of an artist in Tanis, Egypt, by Flinders Petrie. He dated the destruction of the house to AD 174. Again, both lenses are planoconvex and reside at the British Museum. They are about 2 1/2 inches in diameter and have a focal length of about 3 1/2 inches.8
I personally feel it is most unrealistic to assume that during the first millennium BC no one would have looked through a lens or polished gem at a small object and not noticed its magnifying properties. Rather, it is far more reasonable to assume that the practical use of such an image magnifier was simply not generally appreciated or written about.
The total number of ancient lenses in existence today is not known, although they must number in the hundreds. Among the museums possessing ancient lenses (which are recognized as such) are the British Museum, London; Archaeological Museum, Herakleion (23 lenses on display and more in storage); National Museum, Naples; Candia Museum, Crete; Lavigerie Museum, Carthage; Archaeological Museum, Istanbul.
There are two explanations for the precision obtained by ancient engravers when producing extremely small details: first, that the work was done with the unaided (but myopic) eye and second, that simple magnifying lenses were used. Since there is no doubt that lenses existed in the late Greek and Roman worlds, the only question concerns their possible use as magnifiers. Pliny, the Roman historian, mentions that gem engravers complained of considerable eye strain.9 This should not argue against the use of magnifying lenses but possibly suggest that the use of such lenses was not universal in ancient times [or that imperfect lenses created eye-strain, ed.].
Even more challenging than die engraving is the Roman art of gold glass portrait medallions. In this art a portrait would be incised on gold leaf and then sandwiched between two layers of glass. The detail exhibited is equal to the photographs in this magazine.
George Sines, in his recent article "Precision in Engraving of Etruscan and Archaic Greek Gems", has conducted a detailed statistical analysis of nine engraved Etruscan gems. He found that hatch mark border spacings on the gems had a median value of 0.048 mm. As a mechanical engineer himself, Mr. Sines notes that today a skilled machinist can achieve a precision of only about 0.2 mm with the unaided eye and with a simple magnifying glass about 0.08 mm.10 The median spacing on the ancient gems was half this size.
There is no way, of course, that we can absolutely prove that ancient artists utilized magnifying lenses. The fact that lenses were discovered in the homes of an ancient engraver and artist certainly suggests such a use. Also favoring their use is the large number of extant examples, many mis-attributed as gems and jewelry.
The only other plausible explanation is the use of myopic artists. But as L. Natter, a gem engraver in the 18th century noted, the art of engraving in gems is too difficult for a young man to be able to produce a perfect piece; and when he arrives at a proper age to excel in it, his eyesight begins to fail. It is therefore highly probable that the ancients made use of glasses, or microscopes, to supply this defect."11
The fact that no Greek writings mention the magnifying ability of a lens is puzzling, as one would assume that such a property would seem magical to the ancients and thus receive mention. So perhaps we will never be able to prove conclusively that the ancients used lenses, especially in any commercial endeavor, for their magnifying properties.
But my denarii say they did.
Notes: 1DeCamp; The Ancient Engineers, pp.322.
2Bacon; Opus Majus, II, pp. 574-82.
3Seneca; Quaestianes Naturales, I, vi 5.
4Anthon; A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, (1843), pp. 324.
5W. D�rpfeld, Troja und Illion, Pt. 4 by A. G�tze (Athens 1902)
138-39, 374-75.
6W. Gasson, "The Oldest Lens in the World" The Opthalmic Optician (9 Dec. 1972).
7Sines and Sakellearakis, Lens in Antiquity, American Journal of Archaeology 91 (1987).
8W. M. Flinders Petrie, Tanis, Pt. 1, (London 1889) 49.
9Pliny, HN 37.60, 200.
10G. Sines, Archeomaterials, Vol. 6, No, 1 (Winter 1992).
11from (7) quoting L. Natter, Traite de la m�thode antique de graver en pierres fines, compar�e avec la methode moderne (Private publication 1754) viii.
Source
There is quite a bit going on here, once again we have more questions than answers. Answers that archaeology and anthropology are just unable to answer perhaps.
Stunningly beautiful objects of art, jewelry, and coinage, two thousand years old and older, are amazing for many reasons. Considering the general size of the objects depicted above, and the detail we see when magnified, one cannot help but wonder how these items were made. In a way, modern technology has in the last century or so, just caught up to what these items show the ancients were commonly producing, yet we still have little or no idea how they did it. Where are the tools and dies, if dies were even used? Where are the even smaller tools that were obviously used to carve/imprint the script and other extremely small details in the dies?
A coin that is approx. 1/2 inch in diameter, with precision tooling of script than is smaller then two or even one point type of today was made how? The minuteness and detail of the mane on the horse in the Chimaera gold brooch was produced how? Personally, the desire to own or possess ancient artifacts quickly fades when viewing these items and trying to understand just who made them and how. To me, that is where the real value of these items lie, in what they can tell us about our antecedents and how they lived. I really don't think that I am becoming an anthropologist in this regard, but my fascination with these questions increases each time I come across them and pause to wonder.
Is it even possible that these items could have been made by humans without the aid of magnification? Our current knowledge leads us to conclude that it was not. As does the current archaeological record. Where are these magnification devices? One ancient mss refers to the use of a clear glass(?) bowl of water and its magnification properties. Where are these ancient glass(?) bowls? Where are all the items that must and had to have been used to produce these artifacts?
The gold fibula brooch appears to be about 1 to 1 1/2 inch long, has ten or so lions carved onto the tiny little shaft.... molded? carved? cast? Using what? Again, how? The same must be asked of each and every piece displayed here. Far too little is known, despite our smugness and assertions that we know much already. These items are humbling in that regard, as they make obvious our vast ignorance. A single craftsman with simple tools created each from scratch using 'simple' tools? Imagine someone attempting to recreate any one of these today. Boggling, approaching impossible. Yet hundreds, if not thousands were made two thousand and more years ago. Civilization is advancing? Or are we recovering and trying to catch up to what has been lost?
Each item displays many questions merely by it's existence. Certainly we must see some sort of direction in which to head from these few examples. Must we muddle through the headlong advance of mindless and valueless progress forever, destined to to to take one step forward and two back every milennia or so? To what end?
It boggles, it bothers, it niggles and pricks, in awe I groan as the flame of wonder licks, I see what cannot be yet comprehend not, what man has wrought and his future lot. After considering this, one must decide for themselves what the possibilities and likelyhoods of magnification are.
Bart
