YOU ARE HERE:>>REAL or FAKE?>>Is this genuine?Section 2, page 5
23rd October 06 

A  very interesting steatite scarab.

19  mm

Face very slightly convex.

I thought it not Egyptian; possibly Canaanite, possibly Mediteranean.

Extremely fine and detailed work; the  back is in comparison very crude.

Now in the custodianship of David.

 







  From Franco

25th Oct 06

Failing a direct sight of the item it is almost impossible to give an opinion about its authenticity.

Nevertheless, if Egyptian, I have my doubts about its genuineness.

The style in depicting is not appropriate: the Double Crown is too little in comparison with the head, which, at its turn, likens that of a parrot, with the eye too large.

The details of feathers on the body occur in paintings, very seldom in scarabs.

The object grasped by the hawk (probably a fan) seems imaginary (Gardiner S 35 ?).

The line under the claws is meaningless and the beads of the collar nbw are disproportionate and round instead of lengthened (made with a drill ?); the inside of the collar shows details like a brick-wall which occur in basket sign nb, but not in nbw (confusion ?).

Finally, the contour line is engraved too inside.

In the case the scarab is Greek, these incongruities may be explained...but...I can be in error...

 

26th October 06

Another person who has actually examined this scarab has ventured as follows:

They agree that the scarab is genuine and is probably Egyptian, rather than Egyptianising.

They feel that the maladroitness of the carving is no criterion in itself.and point out  that corruptions and poor artistry are so common on scarabs that they cannot be our sole guidance, and that it is safer to simply look for parallels.

This person said  that the proportions of the hawk, his crown, his eye, and the detailing of his feathers are all parallelled on scarabs with similar compositions and mentioned one: in the Hornung/Staehelin catalogue of scarabs in Basel, number B 27 which he said comes fairly close, and there    is also a reference there to other examples from Thebes and Badari. 

Finally he thought that the thing in front of the hawk may be a corrupted wAD-sign, rather than a fan.

He felt this scarab to be Late Period.

  From Franco

29th October

a) I agree that maladroitness is not a criterion in itslelf, but, in our case, it is not

possible to mention the coarseness in carving: it's evident that the item is well

worked. It's a matter of fashion!

 

b) The quoted parallel Hornung-Staehelin B27 shows a perfect egyptian style

(see the photograph pl. 109, not the design p. 377): the double crown is well

proportionated (the triple of the head) and the nwb sign is correct.

 

Finally, the object on the right resembles more a fan that a wad sign.

 

Sorry, but I remain convinced (always failing a direct vision) that, if genuine,

the scarab is greek (Naucratis) or phoenician (see John Broadman CLASSICAL

PHOENICIAN SCARABS BAR 1190, 2003; pl 62,28), not egyptian.

Here is a pic




BAR 1190, 2003; pl. 62,28

   From Franco

29th Oct 06

 




Hornung-Staehelin B27 photograph pl. 109


Petrie Amulets XLI 245 am

  From Mark

30th October

To me it "feels" wrong for Egyptian manufacture and does not fit with Palestinian Egyptianising work of MBI-MBII.  It does "feel" more like Phoenician Egyptianising work but I have yet to find a good parallel. Nothing much like in the Beazley archive.

 

The convexity of the base still bothers me.

 

The composition itself seems relatively authodox.  The line beneath the hawk's feet and the "fan"may be a misinterpretation of the hawk-standard-fronted-by-protective-cobras best seen on a plaque in Petrie Amulets XLI 245 am.

Or the fan may be a wonky Wadj,  as M suggests. On the other hand  the "fan"  is very carefully rendered and reminds me of some kind of non-Egyptian lunar standard or fetish that I can't quite place.

 

 

I had another look: 

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from an intaglio engraved 
in the Cesnola collection.

 




And then from my library, from Sabatino Moscati's enormous book:






Surprisingly not much from here:






But this one is in paste.

 

More about is this antiquity genine ? >>>.