Luristan revisited

mariusgmioc · 29th October 2017, 05:09 PM

Hello,

In recent years the market has been literally flooded by Luristan and Warring States bronze artifacts, with the vast majority being fakes. Some of the fakes can be spotted easily, while others can fool even the most experienced experts and require specialized laboratory testing. That's why I am highly suspicious when I see any of these artifacts.

And the fact you didn't receive any replies so far seems to suggest there might be others who share my suspicions.

But I am sure you already know all this.

PS: Other than that, the axe looks really cool.

Battara · 29th October 2017, 05:45 PM

I'm afraid I'm with Mariusgmioc on this. I have seen too many fakes on the web and in person. i just walk away from them when I see them. The patina can easily be faked.

My ignorance always stops me from purchasing somethings. If I now little about an object, I then pass on it. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

kronckew · 29th October 2017, 07:13 PM

thanks, battara & marius.

i bought this on the assumption it was not antique, let alone 3000 yrs. old, probably not even 'vintage'. i bought is cheap, instead of the hundreds of uk pounds i've seen them go for, which i will not pay, i can't afford them, so it can be a nice wallhanger when i get a haft worked up for it. i may even polish it a bit

. i'll think of it as a placeholder in my axe display area. thought i'd check y'all here before i fart around with a real one & screw it up.

thought it was kinda cool with the extra added animals, which is i have read rare but not unheard of.

Battara · 29th October 2017, 07:17 PM

I have seen museum examples more in line with the first one.

Glad you didn't pay a lot. A museum might be able to tell you more about it. But as mentioned earlier a good testing would be able to tell for sure.

motan · 30th October 2017, 12:05 PM

Hi Battara,
I agree with you. Most chances that both are copies, but the first one is a much better copy. Could also be real, who knows?
Copper and broze casting is relatively easy technique that can be performed in basic workshop conditions - I have seen artisans from Mali doing it.
It is also easy to make these artifacts look old, so forgeries of Luristan bronze are quite easy to make.
Luristan bornze is intriguing because their cultural background is unclear. As weapons, it is logical to assume they were more ritual than functional, as iron working was already established in the region at the time of their making. It is true that relatively great numbers of artifacts were found in Luristan, but the sheer number of artifacts on the market makes it very improbable that they are all real. Because of this and the fact that only a very professional analysis can tell a real from fake suggests that it is better to stay away from Luristam bronze

Jens Nordlunde · 30th October 2017, 05:29 PM

In the Moser catalogue 1955 three or four axe heads like the one Kronckew is showing are shown.
They have been collected early, but if they are the real thing is hard to say. I dont know if the museum has tested them, or if they trusted Henri Moser's knowledge. Nor do I know when the real mass prodiction of Luristan bronzes began.
Does anyone know?

kronckew · 30th October 2017, 06:42 PM

interesting pdf on these axes here:

29th October 2017, 05:09 PM	#1
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,906	Hello, In recent years the market has been literally flooded by Luristan and Warring States bronze artifacts, with the vast majority being fakes. Some of the fakes can be spotted easily, while others can fool even the most experienced experts and require specialized laboratory testing. That's why I am highly suspicious when I see any of these artifacts. And the fact you didn't receive any replies so far seems to suggest there might be others who share my suspicions. But I am sure you already know all this. PS: Other than that, the axe looks really cool. Last edited by mariusgmioc; 29th October 2017 at 07:38 PM.

29th October 2017, 05:45 PM	#2
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	I'm afraid I'm with Mariusgmioc on this. I have seen too many fakes on the web and in person. i just walk away from them when I see them. The patina can easily be faked. My ignorance always stops me from purchasing somethings. If I now little about an object, I then pass on it. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

29th October 2017, 07:13 PM	#3
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,215	thanks, battara & marius. i bought this on the assumption it was not antique, let alone 3000 yrs. old, probably not even 'vintage'. i bought is cheap, instead of the hundreds of uk pounds i've seen them go for, which i will not pay, i can't afford them, so it can be a nice wallhanger when i get a haft worked up for it. i may even polish it a bit . i'll think of it as a placeholder in my axe display area. thought i'd check y'all here before i fart around with a real one & screw it up. thought it was kinda cool with the extra added animals, which is i have read rare but not unheard of.

29th October 2017, 07:17 PM	#4
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	I have seen museum examples more in line with the first one. Glad you didn't pay a lot. A museum might be able to tell you more about it. But as mentioned earlier a good testing would be able to tell for sure.

30th October 2017, 12:05 PM	#5
motan Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: Jerusalem Posts: 274	Hi Battara, I agree with you. Most chances that both are copies, but the first one is a much better copy. Could also be real, who knows? Copper and broze casting is relatively easy technique that can be performed in basic workshop conditions - I have seen artisans from Mali doing it. It is also easy to make these artifacts look old, so forgeries of Luristan bronze are quite easy to make. Luristan bornze is intriguing because their cultural background is unclear. As weapons, it is logical to assume they were more ritual than functional, as iron working was already established in the region at the time of their making. It is true that relatively great numbers of artifacts were found in Luristan, but the sheer number of artifacts on the market makes it very improbable that they are all real. Because of this and the fact that only a very professional analysis can tell a real from fake suggests that it is better to stay away from Luristam bronze

30th October 2017, 05:29 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	In the Moser catalogue 1955 three or four axe heads like the one Kronckew is showing are shown. They have been collected early, but if they are the real thing is hard to say. I dont know if the museum has tested them, or if they trusted Henri Moser's knowledge. Nor do I know when the real mass prodiction of Luristan bronzes began. Does anyone know?