Middle Eastern Copper Dish / Test Results

I believe this possibly a copper libation bowl / dish, Achaemenid Persian Empire, ca. 500 to 330 BCE. Heavily oxidized and measures 6" x 1" with eight petal motif in the center and surrounded by wheat ears and palmettes.

My hope is that is truly is Achaemenid Empire, but could also be 12th through 18th century.

I could use some help..

Had an XRF test done today with an Olympus tester.

98% copper
1% lead
Less than 1% iron

Not sure what these numbers mean for early Middle Eastern copper.

Any help greatly appreciated !

 

Hello georgeingraham, welcome to the site. This one may be above our pay grade bit we'll try.

For starters, can you tell us anything more you know about it besides the metal content? How did you acquire it? You don't need to give us a number, but if you bought this, do you think the price you paid was consistent with a genuine antiquity? Reputable seller?

It does have a shape similar to a phiale/patera, except I'm not sure the foot that goes round the underside (there's probably some proper term for this) is right for a time when these were meant to be carried in the open hand. It seems suited to a display piece that only has to sit.

It looks very pretty under all that crud. This tests as nearly solid copper. Copper oxidizes to that blue green & if it's thin it will be eaten away with enough time.

I often make mistakes in reading depth in photos, so can you tell me what I am seeing here? It looks to me like perfectly good, uncorroded metal beneath what looks like a coating meant to suggest the piece has spent time in the ground, except that's not how weathered copper looks.



Are the darker patches actually higher than the crusty stuff? Does the crust chop/flake off?

There are just so many fakes floating around when it comes to things like this. It is better to assume it is a modern forgery & then try to disprove that, rather than the other way around.

 

Oh. And what's going on on the bottom? Has it been coated with something?

 

Hello Bronwen ..

Thank you for the welcome !

I found this on eBay.. The way I hunt for antiques is by checking various brand new buy it now listings. I have a few different key words that I favor.. Have found a great many treasures that are always the result of a seller simply not knowing what they have. Or I hunt in different ways for mislabeled , and miscategorized items.

So like this piece, the idea is to find em dirt cheap. I paid very little for this one, and no where near what it's worst value will be even should it turn out to be newer than my Achaemenid period guess. It could be between 12th and 18th century. But while researching, I keep finding myself right back to the earlier Achaemenid period.

It has been especially interesting to find so many similarities when comparing to stucco, tiles and architectural examples for Iran/Persian of the period.

Yes, what you see is a carved motif beneath the oxidation. I am calling it oxidation, but I really do not know. I have read about early copper having been coated with tin. What ever this is over the carved motif, it is hard, and firm to the copper surface.

Here is a closeup of the base and I have no explanation for the difference in appearance from the rest of the piece.

The XRF testing machine is not able to differentiate the surface material from the base copper. Apparently it can only shoot through and into the copper. He explained there are tests but he did not know what they are called for testing surface oxidation or material. I really think am going to have to find out. Have searched a bit online, but not having any luck.

So from what I am learning, a starting point is the XRF test.. Do you have any thoughts on the content for the test results ?



And if this is a tin coating, there should be no oxidation on it as tin is not suppose to oxidize. So if this is a tin coating, I don't think there should be oxidation on top of it.

 

I want to add a couple more pics.. Because it is strange..

This first pic is at a bit of a distance of the bottom. The second is closer and if I position the same fluorescent light just right, everything really pops like copper.

 

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/persian-achaemenid-copper-bowl-lot-1801172857

I don't know if this is genuine or not, but it is how I would expect a copper bowl to look after more than 2,000 years.

It would help us, literally & figuratively, to get on the same page with you if you would provide links to what you have seen that you believe supports an Achaemenid origin for your bowl. And why is 12th to 18th century the alternative dating? In the West that covers some significantly different cultural periods. I'm not an expert in this by any means, not sure we have anyone who is, so you're going to have to educate us & bring us up to speed so we understand your reasoning.

 

near-pure copper (98%) Sold for $895
https://www.invaluable.com/auction-...opper-libation-bowl-repousse-61c-c-294437fb03

You will notice they say this is a libation bowl, that a phiale is a libation bowl, that phialei are flat. What's wrong with this description? Looks more like a Jell-o mold, but it is nearly pure copper, as your bowl tests to be.

Is this how we get to the 17th century?

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24624/lot/37/?category=list&length=10&page=4

 

Must not matter terribly much what we think when he's already relisted it as Achaemenid.

 

Well, there goes my self-study course in Persian art & artifacts.

 

That almost all over thick coating seems odd.

 

I find it extremely strange. The underside does not have it. Think we're supposed to give it a pass as tin over the copper. I just find it too evenly distributed except where it looks like it chipped off at places around the edge. All my alarm bells are set off by this. I'm not seeing any Achaemenid metal work that is tin over copper. I'm not seeing anything from the 12th century on that does not have Islamic motifs.

 

I dont know the OP, but I must admit it rubs me the wrong way that he listed this with no caveats as 2000 years old on Ebay, and then came here to state that in his own opinion it could in fact be as little as 200 years old.

 

Doesn't look high enough quality to me to be ancient, looks a bit crude.

 

The tin over copper stuff seems mostly to be attributed to the Safavid Empire, 1502-1736.

I'm going to rub my cat's tummy instead.

 

Interesting,he listed the piece as bronze and the test he presented didn't include a tin content.Guess he doesn't know what it is.

 

If you believe that I have a libation bowl to sell you.

 

But this is extra rare because it is islamic centuries before mukhammad

 

Prophetic. Saw something of similar shape called a divination bowl. Maybe that's it.