Kamnaskires

Thanks for the replies, all. I have several display cabinets that I use. The following images are outdated - my collection has grown since these pics were taken, and I've done a major rearrangement of the material. I will provide updated pictures in a couple months here at NumisForums, after a few more items arrive. The hive mind at https://groups.io/g/AncientArtifacts - and, in particular, the lamp expert David Knell, as well as Robert Kokotailo (both members at that site) - has been invaluable with regard to be attribution and assessment of authenticity. I am pleased to publicly acknowledge them here. As an example, here is a thread in which both of these kind fellows assisted with #7, above, which you had asked about: https://groups.io/g/AncientArtifacts/topic/103969081

I originally wasn’t going to pull together a top ten list this year since my focus/preoccupation has been on moving to a new state and setting up house. I haven’t been quite as deeply immersed in collecting as in recent years, but there were some decent additions nonetheless. Here are my top ten, consisting of my best nine artifacts and one coin. (My coin collecting is very limited at this point.) - Bob L. (Kamnaskires) 10. Oil Lamp Greek c. 3rd – 1st century BC 96 mm (l) x 63 mm (w) (3.78” x 2.5”) Description: Circular pedestal base, carinated body with lug on left side, elongated spout, some faint oxidized remnants of black glaze. 9. AE Spearhead 29.36 cm (11.56”) Marlik 1200-800 BC Cf. Negahban (Weapons from Marlik), Pl. VII, VIII, and IX, Figs. 91-113 Description: Lanceolate blade with rounded shoulders, wide flat rib, long square-sectioned tang with sharp bend at end (rat tail). 8. Oil Lamp Greek (Greek colonies – Howland type 25) c. 3rd century BC 73 mm (2.9”) (l) x 38.1 (1.5”) (h) Description: Wheel-made body, black glaze, large central filling hole, nozzle gouged and broken, inward sloping shoulder, concave underside of base signed in ink: “Lamp from Macedonia Kieffer 1915 (ASN).” (I haven’t been able to find out anything definitive about the signature.) 7. Oil Lamp Late Roman/Early Byzantine c. 5th century AD 90.5 mm (l) (3.56") Description: Mold-made, discus decorated with relief pattern, lug handle, red clay body with light deposits. 6. Oil Lamp Greek 4th century BC 97 mm (l) x 54.6 mm (w) (3.8” x 2.15”) Description: Howland type 21 or 21C; black glazed, rounded walls, large filling hole, horseshoe shaped handle (chipped). 5. Oil Lamp Greek 350 – 301 BC 99 mm (l) x 66 mm (w) x 40.6 mm (h) (3.9” x 2.6” x 1.6”) Howland type 25B Description: Wheel-made with a globular body, long nozzle, concave discus, and a large lug on the left. Reassembled from fragments. There is an almost identical lamp, perhaps from the same Athens workshop, in the collection of the British Museum: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1856-1223-411- 4. Jug - En route; seller's photos above. Holyland, Southern Type Iron Age I (1200 – 1000 BC) 24 cm (h) x 12.9 cm (w) (9.4” x 5”) Amiran (Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land), plate 85, fig. 4 Description: Pinched trefoil mouth, handle drawn from rim to shoulder., concave neck, oblong body. 3. Kamnaskires II Nikephoros AR tetradrachm, c. 147 - 139 BC Van't Haaff 2.1.1-2b Ex-Saeed S. Ghobash Collection 2. Jug Magna Graecia 6th – 4th century BC 75 mm (w) x 20 cm (h) (3” x 7.9”) Description Tall footless jug with single handle and flared rim, red-orange glaze, white deposits. Body has a spiral etched line pattern, some flaws as made. Ex-Sand Collection 1. Iron Mask Sword Luristan 9th - 8th century BC 49.53 cm (19 ½”) Cf. Khorasani (Arms and Armor from Iran), Cat. 21-27 Cf. Khorasani (Luristan and Marlik: Centers of Weapon Making in Ancient Iran, from Marlik, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2012), Fig. 8 Cf. Muscarella (Bronze and Iron, Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art), Fig. 303 Description: Blade and handle made of different iron parts, cast and forged together. Disk-shaped pommel with protomes mounted on opposite sides, two molded cords on grip, blade set at 90-degrees to handle. Rare – there are an estimated 90 extant examples of this variety. Ex-Martin B. Retting Collection; brought by Retting to the United States in the 1950's. This sword is discussed here: https://www.numisforums.com/topic/5945-iron-mask-swords/

From the black box of fakes kept by eBay seller - and coin buddy - Cody111111. He asked me to share it here. Hard to make out the details, but I think the center coin is likely is match.

Chipped and cracked (and reassembled) piece here, just arrived yesterday. Greek 350-301 BC 99 mm (l) x 66 mm (w) x 40.6 mm (h) (3.9” x 2.6” x 1.6”) Description: Howland type 25B Wheel-made with a globular body, long nozzle, concave discus, and a large lug on the left. Reassembled from fragments. There is an almost identical lamp, perhaps from the same Athens workshop, in the collection of the British Museum: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1856-1223-411- To get this back to coins, since the lug handle on the lamp is holed, and of course since the discus has the filling hole, let’s say: a holed coin.

Oil Lamp, Greek 4th century BC 97 mm (l) x 54.6 mm (w) (3.8” x 2.15”) Description: Howland type 21 or 21C; black glazed, rounded walls, large filling hole, horseshoe shaped handle (chipped).

That imaginative and well-designed abstraction can constitute artistic mastery every bit as much as the advanced ability to depict subject matter realistically. In other words, that while Hellenistic naturalism may be the pinnacle of realistic depiction on ancient coinage, it is not necessarily the pinnacle of numismatic artistry overall. Context, artistic style, and – most importantly - the die engraver’s intent should be considered in the assessment.

At first glance the coin below might appear to simply be a nice, but unspectacular, 3rd-2nd century BC Seleucid tetradrachm with the usual Apollo-seated-on-omphalos reverse iconography. However, you may note that the reverse-left lettering doesn't spell out any of the Seleucid names you might expect to see, such as ANTIOXOY, ΔHMHTPIOY (Demetrios), or ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ (Alexander, for Alexander I Balas). Instead, the king's name here starts with KAMN. (The full Greek name that appears is KAMNIΣKIPOY and at the bottom is NIKH for NIKHΦOPOY - the victorious.) This rare coin is actually a very early issue of Elymais. It was minted at Susa and is attributed to Kamnaskires II Nikephoros. As you can see, the earliest coinage of Elymais borrowed its iconography from the Seleucids - and, for a time during the late second century BC, control of Susa vacillated between the Seleucids, Elymaeans, and Parthians. I suspect that some (most?) of the die engravers and other mint workers in Susa may have stayed on while governmental control became a revolving door. Although Kamnaskires II Nikephoros is usually recognized to have been the second king of Elymais, some scholars (Assar and Hansman) believe that there was actually no predecessor - that there was no king of Elymais before him. They believe that the king Kamnaskires I Soter, who many recognize as an earlier (and the first) ruler of Elymais, was actually the same individual as Kamnaskires II Nikephoros rather than, as some believe, his father. The coin has "issues" but is still pretty exceptional for the type. In fact, it's nearly impossible to obtain a tet from the Early Kamnaskirid Dynasty that doesn't have at least some preservation problems along with evidence of smoothing or outright tooling. CNG's listing for this coin mentioned "minor obverse smoothing," which is undoubtedly correct. But, with the coin now in hand, and now seeing it under magnification, I can add that there seems to have been some sort of filler (Pb?) applied in parts, prior to that obverse smoothing. So, sadly, the coin comes with evidence of "work" being done in some areas. However, the majority of the devices seems untouched - and the die engraving was impressive. Given the extreme rarity of the coin, as well as the artistry that still shines through, I'm happy to have it despite the problems. Kamnaskires II Nikephoros AR tetradrachm, c. 147 - 139 BC Van't Haaff 2.1.1-2b Ex-Saeed S. Ghobash Collection

A good start. Hopefully, with time, you can work your way up to some higher end material. 😉

Good write-up! And nice coin - made even nicer by the fact that the month is visible enough to read. Vologases III tets are my favorite of all Parthian types, although - alas - I just sold all of mine over numerous CNG e-auctions since I'm more focused on antiquities these days. Among the impressive provenances on the coins I sold - ex-Sellwood, ex-Simonetta, etc. - were a few ex-Parthicus Collection. It was an honor to steward those for the past seven years.

“Prince A” of Elymais AE drachm, late 2nd to early 3rd century AD Van’t Haaff 19.1.1-1A Reverse of Artemis preparing to shoot an arrow. Arrowheads associated with ancient Elam. (The people of Elymais were descended from the more ancient Elamite civilization.) #1: AE arrowhead, Old Babylonian to Neo-Elamite (1500-1000 BC), Malloy Weapons 86 #2: AE arrowhead, Neo-Elamite II or III, 750-600 BC #3: AE arrowhead, possibly Elamite (Similar example in the Met Collection found at Shahr-i-Qumis in the Semnan Provance of Iran), c. 2200-1050 BC, Negahban – fig. 76; cf. Met Collection 69.24.25 #4: AE arrowhead, Neo-Elamite, 750-600 BC, Muscarella 416, Malloy Weapons 72 Kamnaskires IV (of Elymais) AR tetradrachm, c. 63/2 - 54/3 BC (dated 58/7 BC) Van't Haaff 8.3.1-1 Nike holding wreath countermark on obverse, and Nike crowning Zeus on the reverse. Greek potsherd c. 5th century BC 44 mm x 28 mm (1.75” x 1.1”) Red-figure pottery sherd depicting Nike.

Lovely coin. One of my favorite Parthian types. Congrats, and welcome!

Well, they do differ in some of the diagnostic details that differentiate attributions. The socket seems longer, proportionally, to the blade on yours (Victrix's). And, while both blades are lanceolate, yours is proportionally leaner (longer and narrower). And, importantly, the midrib on yours is flat and quite broad near the shoulders, tapering toward the point. I cannot tell if Albert's spearhead has a defined midrib. I certainly don't see a similarly broad, tapering shape evident on his. Sadly, as compared to much ancient bronze weaponry (including spearheads), iron specimens like this are so exasperatingly difficult to attribute since their shapes and details were often fixed over long spans (of time) and great distances. And sometimes, it seems, sellers just make up attributions as they go along, figuring no one will know the difference. (For my own collection of spearheads, daggers, and such, I only add items that I can confidently attribute based on specific scholarly references, and I catalog them as such.) Here is a specimen that, while probably a bit larger, seems generally close to yours - it is iron with flat/tapering midrib, and elongated lanceolate blade. It was auctioned in January of last year (the first link) with, IMO, an inflated estimate. It was passed. It (the exact same spearhead - identifiable by the rust pattern) has now showed up again in an auction in NY. (The second link.) In the span of a year, this spearhead has gone from "Celtic Iron Age La Tene - 5th to 1st century BCE" to "Ancient Luristan - c. 1000-600BC."). I can safely say that the Luristani attribution is incorrect. (I don't know much, but I do know Luristani weaponry.) https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/celtic-iron-age-la-tene-forged-iron-spear-head-15-c-b03427ebdd https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/173518589_ancient-luristan-iron-socketed-spear-head-c1000-600-bc

So nice to read that you - and Callie - are doing well, Donna. I hope you feel back to 100% soon. Bob

I hope you feel better very soon, Donna. Best wishes.

The great majority of daggers, dirks, and swords that were produced in Luristan and its environs during the Iron Age I and II (about three thousand years ago) were made of bronze. An exception to the rule is a rare but well-known variety known as “iron mask swords.” There are estimated to be only about 90 or 100 extant examples. Due to their construction, Oscar White Muscarella (in Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art) referred to these swords as “one of the most complex weapon types known from antiquity.” All of them were originally “purchased by museums and collectors in the 1920s and 1930s when graveyards in Luristan were being plundered en masse.” [Khorasani (2006) paraphrasing Pigott (2004)] Museum specimens tend to be relatively high-end with little corrosion. The few that show up on the market (on very rare occasions) tend to be in poor shape. I am pleased to own two of these swords. Here they are posing together, followed by collages of each one seen from different views. From what I can tell, iron mask swords usually measure less than 50 cm (about 19 ½”), which is, technically, the measurement that serves as the division between the classification of a dirk and a sword. However, they are nonetheless popularly referred to as swords rather than dirks in the references. Perhaps this naming convention has something to do with the fact that so many of the remaining examples (like mine) have severely corroded blades, making their original lengths difficult to precisely determine. On his webpage called “The Enigma of the Luristan Iron Swords” Helmut Föll discusses this variety of Luristani weapon, writing “They are unlike any other sword ever found and have no obvious relation to older (Luristani) bronze swords (of which there are thousands).” https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_b/backbone/rb_1_3.html Most of the authors specializing in ancient Iranian weaponry date iron mask swords to around the ninth to eighth centuries BC. Muscarella speculates that, “The homogeneity of all the swords of this class suggests that they must have been made within a relatively short period of time and by a limited number of craftsmen.” In Ancient Bronzes from Luristan, P. R. S. Moorey states that iron mask swords must have been made by “a closely associated group of workshops.” In discussing the complexity of their manufacture, Muscarella writes: “Technologically, swords of this class represent a remarkable accomplishment of the ancient craftsman…On macroscopic examination alone one has the impression that they were made in one piece, the intent, no doubt, of the craftsmen. However, both X-ray and careful laboratory examination of many examples have demonstrated that all the swords were in fact constructed from a number of units, varying in quantity from sword to sword.” (See examples from the Web below.) Some swords have as many as 15 separate pieces! https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Unprovenanced-Luristan-iron-mask-pommel-swords-Left-type-example-after-Rehder-1991_fig2_283106244 https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_b/backbone/rb_1_3.html Iron mask swords all have disc-shaped pommels that are decorated with human* heads (protomes) – that hang over the edge of the disc and that seem to morph into frogs(?) on top of the pommel, grips with two molded cords, ending in guards adorned with couchant predators (lions?), and blades curiously set at a 90-degree angle to the handle. The blade and handle were usually made of different iron parts, cast and forged together. * Having said this, it seems to me that only one of the two heads on the first of my swords (the first collage I present above) is clearly human. The other head (on the right in that collage) might be an animal of some sort. It seems likely that iron mask swords were created for ceremonial purposes. Certainly, their unique form must have had some special significance. But their purpose – and the meaning of their iconography – are lost to time. Here are some impressive examples from various museums. Details of the NY (Metropolitan) sword above: