• HOME
• ABOUT THIS SITE
• SHOP
• OUR NEW BOOK
• COLLECTORS' RESOURCES
• WHAT'S NEW
• MYSTERY ARTIFACTS
• REAL OR FAKE?
  • ABOUT Real or Fake
    • IS THIS A GENUINE PIECE?
    • IS THIS A GENUINE PIECE: Section 2
    • IS THIS GENUINE ? section 3
    • Is this genuine or fake? section 4
      • Real or fake, section 4, page 2
        • Is this genuine ?, section 4, page 3
          • Real or fake , section 4, page 4
    • Is this genuine? section 5
    • Is this genuine, section 6
    • Is this genuine, section 7
    • Is this genuine? section 8
    • Is this genuine? section 9.
    • Is this genuine, section 10
    • Auction houses make mistakes too!
    • Museums also make mistakes
    • Museums also make mistakes section 2
  • The Fakebusters and other websites about fakery
  • Would you believe it!
  • Sea find amphoras...read this!!!
  • Fake ancient jewellery
  • Fakes and forgeries in Classical pottery
  • Fake Classical pottery section 2
  • Fake classical pottery, section 3
  • Fake rings
  • Fake rings section 2
  • Fake rings , section 3
  • Fake oil lamps
  • Fake oil lamps section 2
  • Fake Roman bronzes
  • Fake Roman bronzes section 2
  • Fake and reproduction Roman mosaics
  • Fake Roman brooches
  • Fake Roman brooches section 2
  • Fake Roman brooches section 3
  • Fake Roman brooches, section 4
  • Fake Roman brooches section 5
  • Fake Roman military diplomas
  • Fake Roman weapons
  • Fake ancient helmets
  • Roman lead slingshot
  • Fake Roman phallic amulets
  • Fake Greco-Roman statues
  • Fake ancient glass
  • Fake Cypriot Plank Idols
  • Fake Danubian rider lead plaques
  • Fake Phoenician head pendants
  • Fake Egyptian
  • Fake Sumerian statues
  • Fake cuneiform tablets
  • Fake cuneiform, section 2
  • Fake cuneiform section 3
  • Fake cuneiform tablets , section 4
  • Fake cylinder seals
  • Fake cylinder seals, section 2
  • Fake cylinder seals section 3
  • Fake cylinder seals section 4
  • Fake foundation cones
  • Fake bronze and iron weapons
  • Fake Syro-Hittite figurines
  • Fake Old Babylonian erotic plaques
  • Tell Halaf "mother goddess" figurines
  • Tell Halaf figurines section 2
  • Eye Idols of Tell Brak
  • Eyes idols, section 2
  • Fake Sumerian perforated plaques
  • Bactrian chlorite composite figurines
  • Bactrian chlorite figures, section 2
  • Fake Stone Age implements
  • Chinese Song dyn "hare's fur" bowls
  • Fake Indian terracottas
• GENERAL INFORMATION
• SEARCH
• SITE MAP
• CONTACT US
• SIGN UP FOR UPDATES

YOU ARE HERE:>>Is this genuine? section 4, page 3

From Alexander

13th December 07

The photographs

The photographs are of a poor quality and lighting isn't good either, so it is impossible to read and see everything.

The overall impression

The stela as seen on pictures showing the complete stela looks completely different from what can be seen on the remaining pictures. On 1 and 2 it seems to be limestone; colour and structure are convincing. However the other show a different and rather strange colour; this may be the light, but is not very convincing.

Also notice the colour of the chipped areas. Finally, some light spots look as if they "reflect" the light, which is impossible with real limestone but can often be seen on fakes and especially casts.

Also note that many parts of the surface are uneven, but behind the couple seated in the upper register it is remarkably smooth, as if nothing was lost. It looks as if the stone was treated with some acid on carefully selected spots, to age it.

Names of the beneficiaries of the stela

The ancient owner of the stela was called mri-sw (Merisu, "He is one who is beloved"). He is seen in the upper register.

The person sitting in the lower register is called pA-n-ini-Hr.t (Paeniniheret, "He of (the god) Onuris").

Both are New Kingdom names, not uncommon, and correctly written on this stela.

The inscriptions

What I can see on the pictures is somewhat mixed. The "bottom line" text is a short version of the offering formula; the translation given in the auction text is correct. Although this formula is short it is possible grammatically and there are parallels for this; besides, if one assumes that this text had been copied incompletely

The depictions

Now it is getting really serious: stylistically almost everything is wrong.

Lunette

- in the 18^th dynasty the shen-ring can be large in comparison with the wedjat-eyes

Upper register

- the top of the offering table is slanting, which is unacceptable for Egyptian standards (even if one accepts Westendorf's theory about the "slanting" course of the sun).

- the many offerings on this table are conspicuously indefinable, which is very un-Egyptian and very common for fakers who do not know exactly what to depict.

Lower register

- The loafs (again stylised, as if not understood by the artist) on the offering table are much too "high".

- The space behind the figure on the right is rather large, but empty. The Egyptians always showed what is called a horror vacui on their monuments (fear of empty spaces), so a large empty space is un-Egyptian; it is also proof of a lack of layout planning, again un-Egyptian.

General

- the proportions and contours of the persons depicted cause many problems. See especially the (lower) arms and wrists of the persons sitting.

- the faces are weird and highly un-Egyptian.

- The legs of the chairs are different (lion's paw and hoof). Both types are known, but it is uncommon to have both on one monument.

- The high relief is uneven and sometimes overdone (legs of figure on the right in the upper register).

In short

Fake, inspired by stelae from the mid 18^th dynasty.

The accompanying paperwork

The certificate of authenticity from Harmer Rooke Galleries  relates to an absentee auction (sale 53) of 10 June 1993, where a stela was sold as lot 250. No photograph is accompanying it. Perhaps someone still has a catalogue of this event and could check?

The description on the COA is almost identical to the description on eBay, including the (incorrect) translation of the name of the owner and the mistake in identifying the son.

However, the COA makes it clear that the Florence piece is NOT this piece (as one might read into the eBay description), but only a parallel.

Authenticator

The signature on the CoA was done by a "Howard xxx". I cannot read the rest, but it looks a bit like the Howard  we know (?) Could it be him? He used to be the director of Harmer Rooke, and is now the director of another antiquities coimpany.  

Guarantee

Florence reference

I do not have the volumes of the Bosticco catalogue here, but Brian, since you have them, could you please check if there is a stela in Florence with inventory number 1555? You'll probably have to look in the second volume, this being a New Kingdom stela. I have found that there is a stela in Florence for Paeniniheret which has (or had) catalogue number 1555. Maybe what the seller is trying to tell us is that the two stelae are not similar in appearance but mention the same name(s?). Or was this Florence stela the inspiration (if only in part) for the creator of our fake?

The seller

I do not know him, but so far he has been very helpful in providing additional information (well, he is trying to sell it, so what else can he do?). I shall write to him again, giving him the above information. Let's see what he does next.

Conclusion

Not genuine.

From Brian

Florence has a stele with "Catalogo Schiaparelli" reference 1555, "Inventario Museo" 2498, "Presente Catalogo" 5.

From Alexander

16th December 07

Thank you very much, Brian.

Indeed, there he is, our friend Paeniniheret (top register, on the left). The same name (but probably not the same person) that can be seen on the stela on eBay.

But it is clear that the Florence stela can hardly have served as a model for whoever created the eBay stela. It was a wild guess, all we had was the name Paeniniheret, the Florence museum and an inventory number. It would have been great to find the original on which the fake was based, but obviously this is not it.

BTW I received a question about the "Sankh ... Renef" matter on the eBay stela. For anyone interested in this: in the last line of the Florence text we can also see this dedication formula "it is his son who causes his name to live on", followed by the name of the son (in this case Iniheretsauitef). Just for comparison.

From Alexander

16th December 07

The auction has now ended, luckily without any bids; but I fear the stela will be back on eBay, as it has been before.

In the mean time I have contacted a friend and colleague of mine, who works in the British Museum and who is a specialist on Egyptian stelae. He fully confirms my views. Therefore I am more than ever convinced that the piece is not authentic.

The seller has been friendly and helpful initially, answering all my questions. But when I informed him about the fact that I believe this to be a fake (which was about 48 hours ago), there were no more replies; only a sudden silence, no early ending of the auction, no revision of the auction text.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the seller should go on the "black list" (if this still exists; there was one the last time I followed this group, which admittedly it (too) long ago).

If he relists again, he should be told again what is wrong with the piece. I hardly ever look at eBay these days, but I have added him as my "favourite seller" (odd in this context), so that I will get emails whenever he lists something. If the stela comes back I will be back here, asking for volunteers (as many as possible) to send him messages.

  My thanks  to all concerned for these extremely interesting and useful observations 

which initially appeared on the yahoo group.

Look here also: More fake relief carvings

.

JUST OVER A YEAR LATER...................

 From Alexander

23rd Feb 09

Well, it has been more than a year  but the fake stela is back on eBay at last:

see #260363157428

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260363157428

It is the same seller as in 2007. He has written a new description (without anything about the fact that he was warned in the past that this is a fake) and made some new photographs (inferior to the ones he had before).

Especially interesting is that he has added much more provenance. In2007 this was only "Certificate of Authenticity from Harmer Rooke Antiquities Gallery, New York".

Now he has: "Private New York City Collection; Private Collection of
Howard Rose, New York; Harmer Rooke Antiquities Gallery; Private
Birminghan Collection; Manor House Antiquities Gallery; Private
Collection of Jon Jacobs, Ph.D., Northville, MI".

If all that were true, why didn't he mention this in 2007?

I have sent the seller a message with some questions. Let's see if Iget a reply this time. I will keep you posted.

Oh, and the price has gone up a bit too (was $ 11,300 or Buy-it-now $ 13,800 in 2007; now his Buy-it-now price is $ 14,999).

Anyway, if you have that kind of money to spend: don't do it on this one!

Kind regards,
Alexander

NEXT PAGE

A burning question about a Chinese Dian spear point>>>