636 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1913. 



impossible to doubt the genuine antiquity of these objects.^ Tliey 

 were said to have been found in a tomb in the western part of Crete, 

 reaching Athens by way of Canea, and their owner set no high value 

 on them." This type of ring with the wire wound around the ends 

 of the hoop is in common use for scarabs, cylinders, and scaraboids in 

 the sixth and fifth centuries B. C, and itself goes back to Minoan 

 or Mycenaean prototypes.'* From the style of engraving, however, it 

 seems impossible to date the signet rings in question earlier than 

 about 400 B. C. 



The subjects of two of these are a Sphinx with an ibex on the 

 reverse (fig. 5a, h) and another Sphinx coupled in the same way 

 with a Chimaera (fig. 5«, h). The intaglios are executed in an ad- 

 vanced provincial Greek style, in which, however, certain remi- 

 niscences of artistic schemes dating from the first half of the fifth 

 century are still perceptible.* 



But the designs on the two sides of the third intaglio (fig. 7«. and 

 &), though obviously engraved at the same time as the others and by 

 the same hand belong to a very different category. On one side a 

 man in the Minoan loin clothing with a short thrusting sword in his 

 right hand is stiniggling with a lion, the head of which is seen as 

 from above. It will be recognized at once that this scheme corre- 

 sponds even in details with that of the hero struggling with a lion, 

 engraved on a gold perforated bead or ring bezel found by Schlie- 

 mann in the third shaft grave at Mycenae.^ On the other side of 

 the intaglio, we see a bearded warrior with a girdle and similar 



1 The exceptional character of these objects and the appearance of Mycenaean motives 

 on one signet side by side with classical subjects on the others made it necessary, in spite 

 of their appearance of undoubted antiquity, to submit them to the severest expertise. 

 I had them examined by a series of the best judges of such objects, but all were unanimous 

 both as to the antiquity of the signets and as to the fact that the ivory had not been recut 

 and reengraved in later times. Examination of various parts of the surface under a 

 sti'ong microscope confirmed these results. In order, however, to make assurance doubly 

 sure I decided on a crucial test. I intrusted to Mr. W. H. Young, the highly experienced 

 formatore and expert in antiquities of the Ashmolean Museum, the delicate task of re- 

 breaking two of the ivory signets along a line of earlier fracture that followed the major 

 axis of each and of removing all extraneous materials due to previous mendings or restora- 

 tion. The results of this internal analysis were altogether conclusive. The cause of the 

 longitudinal fracture was explained in the case of the signet (fig. 7) by the swelling of the 

 silver pin due to oxidization. The whole of the metal, transmuted to the purple oxide 

 characteristic of decayed silver, was here within. In the case of the other signet (fig. 5) 

 this had been replaced by a new pin in recent times, and on removing this the whole of 

 the perforation was visible and proved to be of the ancient character. The ivory has been 

 attacked on both ends by a tubular drill, the two holes meeting Irregularly near the 

 middle. The modern method of drilling is, of course, quite different. It is done with a 

 chisel pointed instrument and proceeds continuously from one end. 



2 The correspondence of one of the scenes on the third ring with a type on a gold bead 

 from Mycenae suggests, however, that Its prototypes were taken from the mainland side. 



= An amygdaloid late Minoan or Mycenaean gem representing a ship, set Into a silver 

 hoop of this type, found at Eretria. is In my own collection. 



*As, for instance, In the attitude of the ibex (fig. h) and in the type of the Chimaera. 

 The facing sphinx (fig. a) Is carelessly engraved and presents an abnormal aspect. Of Its 

 genuine antiquity, however, there can be no doubt. (See note 1, p. 634.) 



^Mycenae, p. 174, flg. 253. 



