Any Idea?

aluminium

Ok, attached 1 bronze article. My opinion is that it
1. Bronze
2. Norman dating around 1150
3. The heads appear to have Norman Helmets.
4. They are mounted on a frog / toad (French?)

There is a marking on the top head like a broken nipple as if it were part of an original mould pouring.

Of course the helmets could be bronze age ...............Attachment not found.Attachment not found.IMG_20180904_094748[1].jpg

slowburner

Please tell us a little more about the circumstances of this find. Has it been cleaned?

Wibbs

Looks modern to me. The file marks look to have been made by a modern steel file.

aluminium

Not been cleaned since 1862 at least. (I can prove this)

Lets say the building dates back to 1100. Was found with books in a lead box printed in the 18th century.

slowburner

aluminium wrote: »

Not been cleaned since 1862 at least. (I can prove this)

Lets say the building dates back to 1100. Was found with books in a lead box printed in the 18th century.

Then it is likely that the metal object dates to the same period as the books.
As Wibbs observed, the presence of marks from a steel file supports the view that this is modern (modern is usually understood to be post 1700).
It looks like it is part of something else. Are there marks on the top or base that give clues?

Wibbs

Stylistically to me it looks modernist. IE somewhere between 1870-1970. Now much modernist styling was influenced by much earlier "primitive" or "ethnic" art(or their interpretations of) so that's not definitive by any stretch, but it doesn't fit medieval styles that I know of? When we think of the premodern era we tend to visualise very rough and wooden in execution decoration, or mistake a naive style for that, but if you look at say Norman metalwork, they know what they're trying to represent and do so finely, often extremely finely on such items. Bronze wasn't that cheap a metal, so decorative items on personal gear or horse livery were mostly out of reach of the common peasant(who tended to splash what cash they had on religious iconography) and as such were well worked. Obvious file marks would be a major no no. Though going back to the Modernism angle, obvious file marks could often be seen as somehow more "authentic". It could be Celtic influenced. They did love their stacks of heads, though the ageing doesn't make me think that and no way were the Celts using machine cut steel files.

Another aspect is the patina. Forget the file marks themselves for a moment and look at how the patina is across the object. Some of it is dark, some has verdigris, but some of it has "raw" metal showing through. Now cameras and colour values vary so... but if it is bronze judging by the colour of the exposed metal it's of a high copper content type, with lower levels of tin. Grand, alloy mixes varied, but why then is there no verdigris on the exposed metal? Particularly in the filed areas. They should be the first to flash off and oxidise. And some of the highlights are in areas that wouldn't be naturally rubbed by handling(a common error in ebay fakers, not saying this is fake A).

Old bronze(and I've a few bits in my hoarding illness collection), especially after many centuries tends to show a uniform patina across the metal, save for where an object may have been buried and the soil side affects the colour, but even long buried bronze objects tend to be consistent in overall patina. I've personally never seen bronze older than a century or so(they "encouraged" patina to some degree after the 1800's) that had bright copper highlights like that. Even well worn items like very old coins don't, unless the oxidised surface is recently cut through.

Now that's only my musings and general shtetalking, so pinch of salt required. It's an unusual item that's for sure A.

aluminium

To me, it looks as if molton bronze was poured into a mould from the small head. There is a raised spike type of thing which looks like it was snapped off. (end of pouring).
However I can see no seam along the sides where 2 sides of a mould would meet. On close inspection (under glass), there are imperfections (something akin to it cooling at different rates or odd shaped air bubbles filed down)

The books I found were under a stone windowsill (as if hidden). The statue fell out from an arch of a window while the window was being repaired. It was sandwiched between the inner and outer walls sitting in the powdery mortar. The building has been in use since it was built in the 1100's. I have the exact date and drawings etc. It was one of the few churches that Henry V111 did not destroy.

Its for these reasons I think it dates back to Norman times. - But then - what would I know?

Wibbs

aluminium wrote: »

To me, it looks as if molton bronze was poured into a mould from the small head. There is a raised spike type of thing which looks like it was snapped off. (end of pouring).
However I can see no seam along the sides where 2 sides of a mould would meet.

That would suggest lost wax method of casting as opposed to a two piece mould. It's a very rough moulding that appears to have required a lot of filing to clean it up. Not impossible of course, particularly if it was some "throwaway" votive object.

On close inspection (under glass), there are imperfections (something akin to it cooling at different rates or odd shaped air bubbles filed down)

It's the filing marks that are standing out for me A. They look like they were made by a modern machine cut steel file.

The books I found were under a stone windowsill (as if hidden). The statue fell out from an arch of a window while the window was being repaired. It was sandwiched between the inner and outer walls sitting in the powdery mortar. The building has been in use since it was built in the 1100's. I have the exact date and drawings etc. It was one of the few churches that Henry V111 did not destroy.

Its for these reasons I think it dates back to Norman times. - But then - what would I know?

I'm certainly not saying it's definitively not, but there's near zero chance that any copper alloy like bronze is going to be nearly a thousand years laying in mortar and come out with shiny coppery areas. The only way I can see that happening is if it was that old and when found was pretty crusty and someone took a modern file to it to clean it up.

Secondly is there something similar from that period of a similar stylistic type? Stacked heads and a frog/toad? Is there anything on the base of the frog/toad? I'm thinking a personal stamp that the owner would impress into wax sorta thing. I've seen a few of them from this kinda time period, though they're usually smaller and more finely cast.

aluminium

There are markings on the face of the frogs feet. One of the feet looks to be a skull.

Wibbs

Any chance of a pic of the base?

aluminium

sure.
Ill post pictures of the book as well. This was hidden in a box under the stone windowsill.

aluminium

Sorry for the delay.
i changed phone to a hewai

its incompatable to the laptop.

ill post pictures when i get the chance. in the meantime there is a church window ib dublin with stained glass of a knight holding a weapon, the top of the weapon is made similar to the three headed statue posted above. also a number of the windows have frogs on them.

aluminium

Attached please find a couple of photos. I was abroad for a couple of months so just following up on bits and pieces.

I got a little more information on the subject.

Firstly in was found under a granite slab one meter down. The QS on site thought it was gold and took a file to it. It was then discarded. One of my guys picked it up and brought it to me. Saint Cathrines Meath Street was refurbished after a fire. The stained windows were replaced. Behind the alter there is a new window. The old window (which cannot be seen from inside the church) contains a different "picture". One of the panes contains the image of a knight holding a staff with the above artifact on top. This can only be seen from the scrubland at the back of the church. St Cathrines was rebuilt circa 1865.