Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fernando
Incredibly discernible, don't you think Jim ?
It would be interesting that members with knowledge in this area comment on this phenomenon.
|
There are several reasons for that.
It is aided slightly by manipulation of the contrast and colour balance of that particular photo.
There is also a healthy dose of luck involved. I have attached a picture of the mark on the other side of the blade to this post. It is, from what I can tell, the same mark, but more poorly preserved.
It is also partly due to the methods used in the original conservation. At the time when this was conserved, it was still standard practice to remove overlying corrosion with a pneumatic/dental abrasive wheel. It's a bit violent, and it removes slightly too much. I would posit a guess - though I don't know; the records are pretty terrible - that some overlying material was left in place around the marks. This would also account for the colour difference and slightly higher surface in those areas. In all honesty, this is probably the biggest contributory factor; the original conservator was a bit less harsh in those areas. Worth noting, that's also the reason everybody has pretty much switched to air-abrasive systems instead of abrasive wheels; you're far more able to retain the original surface with modern treatments.
Also, there is some visual benefit from the surface treatment. Archaeological iron used to (and in may places still does) get a final coat of microcrystalline wax with carbon black pigment in it. The recessed areas of the mark have collected a thicker coat, and it adds to the contrast.