Lost Treasure Of Alexander

Post here about Alexander in film, TV, radio, other websites, YouTube etc.

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
jasonxx

Lost Treasure Of Alexander

Post by jasonxx »

During the festive season. We get the usual old movies about Sinbad etc. I saw the Douglas Fairbanks Sinbad Movie. And what do you know we have a quest for the lost treasure of Alexander.

Another movie Staring ichael Caine and Sean Connery had adventurers realising lost riches of Alexander. The thme so fantasical and splendid. But in reality I doubt there would be any treasure at all anywhere in the Empire intact, that his generals knew about and subsequently would plunder. Lets face it his gold sarcophacus was robbed and replaced with glass to bolster some hard up despots cofers, I cant recall who did pilfer the sarcofagus.

But would Porthonians imagine there is some long lost treasure of Alexander even a long lost palace of Alexander. We know he really didnt have a home nor would have what would be called his own palaces. He lodged in other kings and rulers palaces from time to time.Its quite amaizing the Alexander reference gets in a lot of movies. Even Lara Croft danced with Alexanders legend.

Kenny
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Gold Porus Medallions

Post by Taphoi »

A potentially very significant lost treasure of Alexander has come to light in recent years. I mean of course the gold version of the Porus medallions (i.e. elephant decadrachms etc). It is said that this bears a profile portrait of Alexander wearing the elephant scalp and the ram's horns of Ammon, which was the pattern for the early tetradrachms issued by Ptolemy as Satrap. However, information on the authenticity and provenance of these coins seems to be a bit thin on the ground. (I have not yet seen an image.) Perhaps Pothosians could do their usually very effective Sherlock Holmes thing on this subject and let us know more!

Best wishes,

Andrew
Tantalus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:07 pm

Post by Tantalus »

User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

Well done Tantalus. I nominate you for an honorary Pothos golden deerstalker.

Intriguing images! Fascinating provenance! But is it genuine?

Porus decadrachms go for 100k dollars, so this unique specimen would be pushing a million dollars in value. But this value would also be a major incentive to a forger and notorious forgeries of Porus decadrachms exist.

On the plus side both Frank Holt and Andrew Stewart seem to take this coin seriously and they would not be easily deceived.

If I were looking for reasons to be dubious I might raise some of the following points:

1) The profile is extremely close to the profile of the ivory head supposed to be Alexander from Tomb II at Vergina, whereas the profiles on Ptolemy's tetradrachms are not particularly close to the Vergina ivory - this comes under the "too good to be true" heading

2) The elephant's trunk infringes significantly on the beading - on the Ptolemy coins the trunk is often truncated by the edge of the coin, but I think it is usually squeezed inside the beading

3) The other Porus medallions usually have the Xi and AB monograms on opposite faces

4) The loose ties beneath the chin are seen in the Ptolemy tetradrachms, but they seem to be the ends of a knot of Heracles (which is very apt) and I do not see this in the gold specimen

5) The gold specimen seems to be in near mint condition - the silver Porus medallions show significant wear. A bit of wear would be helpful, since the specimen had at least presumably made a journey across high mountains on foot or horseback

Nevertheless, there may well be good answers to these points. If the specimen is genuine then it is very historically significant.

Cordially,

Andrew
Last edited by Taphoi on Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pankration
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:49 am

coins

Post by pankration »

Are these coins contemporaries of Alexander or are they later mintings by other rulers? Just curious.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: coins

Post by Taphoi »

pankration wrote:Are these coins contemporaries of Alexander or are they later mintings by other rulers? Just curious.
The Porus Medallions clearly celebrate the Battle of the Hydaspes. There are overwhelming reasons to think they were minted by Alexander himself, probably not long after the battle. This new coin is the first Porus Medallion minted in gold. It is necessarily a Porus Medallion, if it is genuine, because of the combination of the AB and Xi monograms and because the elephant design on the reverse matches the elephant on some of the smaller Porus Medallions rather closely.

Best wishes,

Andrew
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Doubts

Post by Taphoi »

Having considered the new gold Porus medallion a bit more, I think I should clarify and extend my reasons for being a bit nervous about its authenticity.

The numismatic history of the Ptolemy elephant scalp tetradrachms is rather complicated. In particular there are two main versions. The earlier version was issued from about 321BC. It is distinguished from the second version by retaining the enthroned Zeus reverse of Alexander’s tetradrachms. A second version elephant scalp profile issued from about 315BC differed from the first version profile in having a fighting Athena on the reverse and also in various other respects. In particular, the first version does not have the chevron/arrow pattern in the collar area, the Ammon horns are more prominent and the knot of Heracles beneath the chin is usually prominent. Now in these three respects the new gold Porus elephant scalp profile looks more like the second, later version of Ptolemy’s elephant scalp tetradrachm. This is a bit surprising. Either Ptolemy deviated from the Porus medallion prototype for his first version, then abandoned all his deviations for his second issue or a modern forger has naively based his forgery on the second issue design. In about 310BC Ptolemy withdrew most of these elephant scalp tetradrachms from circulation. He clipped them down to a new slightly lower weight standard and then overstruck them with the second version design. For this reason survivors of the first version issue are now rather rare. (Note however that there exists what Otto Morkholm terms a transitional issue of the earlier Zeus reverse version with a chevron pattern in the collar area, which further complicates this matter.)

Cordially,

Andrew
Tantalus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:07 pm

Post by Tantalus »

(I wrote this up last night in response to Andrew's earlier post but I had not posted it yet. Andrew, that's an interesting point about the similarity between the gold coin and the later Ptolemy tetradrachms. I will have to think about that one.)

_________________________

I am so excited about this find. Although I was disappointed when I first saw the portrait. It's not what I had hoped for.

I'm on the fence as to whether I think the coin is genuine. But here's some thoughts.

Taphoi wrote:If I were looking for reasons to be dubious I might raise some of the following points:

1) The profile is extremely close to the profile of the ivory head supposed to be Alexander from Tomb II at Vergina, whereas the profiles on Ptolemy's tetradrachms are not particularly close to the Vergina ivory - this comes under the "too good to be true" heading.
Although that's what I would expect to see if the coin is genuine. Holt convincingly puts forth in his book Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions, that these coins were made in the field soon after the battle with Porus. If so, then whoever engraved the die for the gold coin would have seen Alexander in real life and in present time. So the coin's portrait should have some realistic features.

And if the ivory head is a realistic rendering of Alexander, (which I believe it is), then the coin and the ivory head should have some similarities. Which you note they do.


Again
Taphoi wrote:...whereas the profiles on Ptolemy's tetradrachms are not particularly close to the Vergina ivory
Ptolemy's first coins were the usual Heracles/Zeus Alexander tetradrachms. IIRC, the Ptolemy coins with ATG in the elephant scalp, and with the seated Zeus on the reverse, were first minted in 322 BC. The Ptolemy coins with ATG in the elephant scalp, and with Athena on the reverse, were not minted until 314 BC.

So even if we're considering the earliest Ptolemy elephant/Zeus coin, (let alone the Athena issues started in 314 BC), the Egyptian, (or Greek), engraver of the coin dies would have been working from a memory of Alexander at least a year old. That's if he even ever saw Alexander in real life. Or he could have been copying from a statue. Or maybe the engraver had access to Alexander's body and could have used Alexander's real face to work from. Although I would think that even if embalmed, the features of the face may have been somewhat distorted. Certainly it was nothing like seeing him in real life.

So, assuming that the ivory head is a realistic likeness of Alexander, I am not surprised that the portraits on the Ptolemy tetradrachms look different.

BTW, have you compared the gold coin portrait with the profile in the Alexander Mosaic? The prominent forehead, eyes and nose seem generally similar.


Taphoi wrote: 2) The elephant's trunk infringes significantly on the beading - on the Ptolemy coins the trunk is often truncated by the edge of the coin, but I think it is usually squeezed inside the beading.
I don't have too much of a problem with this one. Being a new design the ancient engraver might have just made a mistake and not left enough room for the trunk. Of course, if fake, the counterfeiters may not have left enough room either.

Taphoi wrote: 3) The other Porus medallions usually have the Xi and AB monograms on opposite faces.
But if someone was constructing such a fake you would think that they would not have made such an obvious "mistake". And although it is easy for us to think that the monograms have to be in a standard configuration, to the coin makers 2300 years ago their placement may not have been that important. Or maybe different people worked on the gold coins separate from the makers of the silver coins.

Taphoi wrote:4) The loose ties beneath the chin are seen in the Ptolemy tetradrachms, but they seem to be the ends of a knot of Heracles (which is very apt) and I do not see this in the gold specimen.
Do you mean the knot under Heracles chin on the Heracles/Zeus Alexander tetradrachms? No this gold coin does not have that knot. But neither the early Ptolemy ATG elephant scalp/Zeus coins, nor the later Ptolemy ATG elephant scalp/Athena coins, have that knot under the chin. Is that what you meant?

FYI, I have read that those loose upright "ties" under the chin on the Ptolemy "elephant coins" are actually cobras. That's why the ties are standing up and shaped in that way. You can see them on this gold coin also. They are on all the Ptolemy elephant coins with both the Zeus and Athena reverses. The cobras are just usually too small, worn or off the flan to make out clearly.

It's interesting that although the cobra is revered in Egypt, it is also revered in India. So if this gold coin is genuine, and therefore was first made and designed in India, the fact that it has cobra chin ties is not surprising. And it makes sense that they would have been easily adopted for Ptolemy's coins in Egypt.


Taphoi wrote: 5) The gold specimen seems to be in near mint condition - the silver Porus medallions show significant wear. A bit of wear would be helpful, since the specimen had at least presumably made a journey across high mountains on foot or horseback.
It's not so much that the silver Porus medallions usually show significant wear, as that they are just poorly struck and badly made from the start. This is a reason put forth by Holt that they were not minted in Babylon as some have suggested. And that they were in fact minted in the field in India during the monsoon season under poor working conditions. Babylonian Alexander tetradrachms are usually well made beautiful coins. The Porus medallions are not. And neither are the Porus bowman/elephant and chariot/elephant coins.

Also, I would guess that Alexander's best and experienced coin die engravers and mint workers were left at the mints in Babylon and other cities and not taken with him on the expedition east to India. I would think that he didn't plan on minting large amounts of coins in the field. Whereas the established mints needed to keep producing coins, especially so there would be enough to pay the soldiers when they returned. So this could be another reason why these coins, suspected of being made in the field in India, are poorly made. They were made by less experienced workers.

Now having pointed that out, why is the gold coin in such good condition? Is it a fake? Or did the person(s) working on the gold coins just do a better job? And was the gold coin buried in a hoard soon after being made before it had time to wear down? Many Alexander gold staters are in mint condition. They just got lucky and survived that way. Maybe this one did too. Or is it a fake? The mint condition makes it look suspect. But wouldn't the counterfeiters have added wear to make it appear more genuine? Round and round we go...




If anyone finds this subject interesting I would recommend you get Holt's book Alexander the Great and the Mystery of the Elephant Medallions. The paperback is $14.00 on Amazon. You can read Chaper 1 on the University of California Press page.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

Tantalus wrote:Being a new design the ancient engraver might have just made a mistake and not left enough room for the trunk. Of course, if fake, the counterfeiters may not have left enough room either.
It is a bit unusual for ancient engravers to allow significant features to slip across the die boundary (beading). I suppose you could put it down to rough working in the wilds of India. The real difficulty though is that many Ptolemy tetradrachms have the trunk truncated in this way by the edge of the coin, but it is because of misalignment of the die with the coin blank. If a forger were copying from such a truncated trunk example, then he might have put his beading in this aesthetically offensive location, because it was the edge of his knowledge of the design.
Tantalus wrote:Do you mean the knot under Heracles chin on the Heracles/Zeus Alexander tetradrachms? No this gold coin does not have that knot. But neither the early Ptolemy ATG elephant scalp/Zeus coins, nor the later Ptolemy ATG elephant scalp/Athena coins, have that knot under the chin. Is that what you meant? FYI, I have read that those loose upright "ties" under the chin on the Ptolemy "elephant coins" are actually cobras.
No, the version 1 Ptolemy elephant scalp tetradrachms do have prominent knots. I think this is clear in the example in photo 90 in Early Hellenistic Coinage by Otto Moerkholm. You can also see part of the knot in the 15th coin down on the following page:

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/e ... y_I/t.html

I agree that the knot is not very prominent (just a nodule) or seems to be missing altogether on some of Ptolemy's version 2 elephant scalp tets. This adds to my suspicions. I do not think the ties work as cobras, because on some samples one of the ties goes down instead of up (e.g. 24th coin down on above web page) and they do not always have heads.

Best wishes,

Andrew
beausefaless
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 9:20 am

silver Tets.

Post by beausefaless »

Deleted
Last edited by beausefaless on Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

Thanks Beausefaless - that's a very nice example of the version 1 Ptolemy elephant scalp tet at the top of your second link.

Another problem with the new coin: firstly, the ear on the elephant scalp is in a style much closer to the version 2 Ptolemy elephant scalp tet than the version 1, but secondly, and even more worryingly, it is difficult to reconcile the style of the elephant ear on the obverse with that on the reverse. The elephant ears on the Ptolemy coins are in a different style to those on the Porus medallions and this new coin mixes the two styles. Curiouser and curiouser!

Cordially,

Andrew
Tantalus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:07 pm

Post by Tantalus »

The main problem I have with this coin is, as Andrew mentioned, the scaly aegis. (the chevron/arrow pattern in the collar area). In the article Early Tetradrachms of Ptolemy I by Orestes H. Zervos, ANS Museum Notes 13, Zervos notes that the scaly aegis was first used in a small transitional issue that still had the seated Zeus on the reverse. He places this transitional issue at 315 BC with the Ptolemy 2 Athena issues following at 314 BC.

I can overlook some of the other problems with this coin. But it's just too hard to explain the scaly aegis on the gold coin. If the gold coin was the prototype for the Ptolemy issues, why was the scaly aegis not used for the first ~ 7 years of the Ptolemy I issues and then resumed with the Ptolemy II issues?

Of course one possible answer is that this coin is fake and the counterfeiters used a Ptolemy II issue as a model. They overlooked the absence of the scaly aegis on the earlier Ptolemy I issues which logically should be closer in style to the gold coin if it was their prototype.

Taphoi wrote: Another problem with the new coin: firstly, the ear on the elephant scalp is in a style much closer to the version 2 Ptolemy elephant scalp tet than the version 1,
Actually this depends on what coins you look at. After I looked at the plates in the above article I was going to post that the elephant scalp ears on the gold coin more resemble Ptolemy I issues than Ptolemy 2 issues.
Tantalus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:07 pm

Post by Tantalus »

If anyone speaks French there is a book about this coin. It is not listed on Amazon.com but it is on Amazon.ca.

Le Portrait d'Alexandre le Grand

Unfortunately it says "currently not available" but there are some listed on this abebooks.com page. I have not found a translation into english.
Tantalus
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:07 pm

Post by Tantalus »

jasonxx, sorry, I guess we kind of hijacked your thread when we started talking about this gold coin.

So to your original question. I have never come across any mention of a lost treasure of Alexander. Since, unlike a pirate, Alexander had no need to hide any treasure I would think the places where the treasures were kept were well known. And I'm sure the Successors claimed them as soon as they could after Alexander died.

But I did find some specific mentions of what happened to some of Alexander's treasure.

From Newell's book Royal Greek Portrait Coins, pages 32-33. He talks about how Demetrius Poliorcetes, son of Antigonos the One-Eyed, seized some of Alexander's treasure. This was in 299-298 BC.

"...Demetrius at once sailed for Syria. Skirting on his way the Cilician coast he there staged one of the boldest and most lucrative raids in history. In the little hill fortress of Kyinda (aka Quinda) there lay what remained of the immense treasure which Alexander was in the process of forwarding home to Macedonia when he died. From time to time his successors had dipped into this treasure for purposes of their own. At this moment however, there still existed some twelve hundred talents - a matter of over a million and a half of our present dollars, (this book was published in 1937). This, Demetrius now seized from under the very nose of its outraged guardian, Pleistarchus, - brother of Cassander and at this time ruler of Cilicia."

Some sources are Plutarch's Lives, Demetrius XXXII, 1. And Putarch's Eumenes.


An even more interesting mention is from Diodorus XIX,.48.7. Here he mentions that in 316 BC Antigonos took from the treasury of Susa, and from Media, treasure totaling 25,000 talents.

Of particular note is the Persian golden vine which Antigonos took from Susa. This golden vine is first mentioned in Herodotus, VII, 27. It was a gift from Pythios, a rich Lydian, to King Darius the father of Xerxes. Here the golden vine is paired with a golden plane tree.

Apparently this golden vine was captured by Alexander.

The next mention of the golden vine is Athenaeus Deipnosophists Book XII. 514.

On this page: http://websfor.org/alexander/athenaeus/book12.asp

"Chares of Mitylene in the fifth book of his History of Alexander says: “The Persian kings reached such a pitch of luxury that near the royal bed, beyond the head of it, was a chamber large enough to contain five couches, wherein were stored 5000 talents of gold coin filling the whole, and it was called the royal cushion. At the foot was a second, three-couch chamber, containing 3000 talents in silver money, and called the royal footstool. And in the bed-chamber a golden vine, jewel-studded, extended over the bed.” Now Amyntas* in his Itinerary says that this vine had clusters composed of the costliest jewels."
* Amyntas, surveyor in Alexander’s army and writer on Alexander’s expeditions (Persian geography.)


Also on the same page as above, under Book XII. 537 d - 540 a

Moreover, the famous plane-trees of gold, even the golden vine under which the Persian kings often sat and held court, with its clusters of green crystals and rubies from India and other gems of every description, exceedingly costly though they were, appeared to be of less worth, says Phylarchus, than the expense lavished daily on all occasions at Alexander’s court.

It sounds like there may have been more than one golden vine or that the one "in the bed-chamber" and the one "under which the Persian kings often sat and held court" are the same one but just confused in the sources.



While we're on the subject of treasure and opulence I have to say that I was always awed by the descriptions of the display at Susa -


"Alexander had given an unforgettable display of regal glory in his last years. At the
mass marriage at Susa he had held court on a golden throne at the centre of a huge tent
with 100 couches and 50 golden pillars, his Bodyguards on couches around him , then, in
concentric circles a detachment of his Silver Shields, followed by Persian archers and
melophoroi. Outside the tent was the elephant division along with literally
thousands of Macedonian and Persian infantry. The massive, colourful spectacle was
repeated day after day, and it gave an overwhelming impression of power and majesty.
Few objected to it, and seven years later Peucestas staged a similar spectacle in an
attempt to gain the loyalty of Eumenes' Silver Shields. The coalition commanders
occupied the centre of the great feast, followed by the Silver Shields and cavalry who
had fought under Alexander, then the rest of the allied forces. The display was
outstanding, but the common soldiers participated in it, and the veterans of Alexander
were singled out. The expense was justified in that it was not monopolised by the
commanders. Some of it trickled down to the army at large. This was important, and
the example was given by Alexander. In the elaborate festivities that marked his last
days in Babylon. The court revelled for days and drank the nights away, but wine and
sacrificial meat was distributed to the army by companies, and the feasting was
universal."

- from Hellenistic Monarchy; Success and Legitimation. - Brian Bosworth



From the same source mentioned earlier above:
Athenaeus Deipnosophists
Book XII. 537 d - 540 a
http://websfor.org/alexander/athenaeus/book12.asp

"Chares in the tenth book of his Histories of Alexander says: “When he overcame Darius, he concluded marriages of himself and of his friends besides, constructing ninety-two bridal chambers in the same place. The structure was large enough for a hundred couches, and in it every couch was adorned with nuptial coverings, and was made of silver worth twenty minae; but his own couch had supports of gold. He also included in his invitation to the banquet all his personal friends and placed them on couches opposite himself and the other bridegrooms, while the rest of his forces, both land and naval, he entertained in the courtyard with the foreign embassies and tourists. Moreover, the structure was decorated sumptuously and magnificently with expensive draperies and fine linens, and underfoot with purple and crimson rugs interwoven with gold. To keep the pavilion firmly in place there were columns thirty feet high, gilded and silvered and studded with jewels. The entire enclosure was surrounded with rich curtains having animal patterns interwoven in gold, their rods being overlaid with gold and silver. The perimeter of the courtyard measured four stadia. The call to dinner was sounded on the trumpet, not only at the time of the nuptial banquets, but always when on other occasions he chanced to be making libation, so that the entire army knew what was going on.

...For his pavilion contained a hundred couches and was supported by fifty golden uprights. The canopies stretched over the upper part to cover the whole were elaborately worked with gold in sumptuous embroideries. Inside, all round it, stood first of all five hundred Persians, Apple-bearers, with gay uniforms of purple and quince-yellow; after them bowmen to the number of a thousand, some dressed in flame-colour, others in crimson; but many, too, had mantles of dark blue. At the head of these stood five hundred Silver-Shields, Macedonians. In the centre of the pavilion was placed a golden chair, sitting on which Alexander held court with his bodyguard stationed close on all sides. Outside the tent the elephant-division was posted near in a circle with full equipment, also a thousand Macedonians in Macedonian uniform, next ten thousand Persians, and the large body, amounting to five hundred, who wore the purple; for Alexander had granted them the privilege of wearing this garment. And the number of his friends and servitors being so great, no one dared to approach Alexander; such was the majesty associated with his person."



See also:
Aelian. VH 9.3
Book 9.3
http://websfor.org/alexander/minor/aelian.asp


And:
Polyaenus. 4.3.24
http://websfor.org/alexander/polyaenus/polyaenus2.asp
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Post by Taphoi »

Tantalus wrote:
I can overlook some of the other problems with this coin. But it's just too hard to explain the scaly aegis on the gold coin. If the gold coin was the prototype for the Ptolemy issues, why was the scaly aegis not used for the first ~ 7 years of the Ptolemy I issues and then resumed with the Ptolemy II issues?

Of course one possible answer is that this coin is fake and the counterfeiters used a Ptolemy II issue as a model. They overlooked the absence of the scaly aegis on the earlier Ptolemy I issues which logically should be closer in style to the gold coin if it was their prototype.

Taphoi wrote: Another problem with the new coin: firstly, the ear on the elephant scalp is in a style much closer to the version 2 Ptolemy elephant scalp tet than the version 1,
Actually this depends on what coins you look at. After I looked at the plates in the above article I was going to post that the elephant scalp ears on the gold coin more resemble Ptolemy I issues than Ptolemy 2 issues.
It seems we agree that there are reasons to be dubious about the authenticity of this coin. I think it should be regarded as suspect unless and until satisfactory explanations are forthcoming from its advocates for the incongruities. I have ordered the French book and will investigate whether it addresses these issues. Amazon France seem to be doing the best deal on it.

On the matter of the ear I should clarify my point. The better preserved examples of the Ptolemy version 1 have veining running all the way up the interior of the ear and branching towards its bottom. This I have not seen in the Ptolemy version 2 and it does not appear in the gold Porus. Also a small nodule is seen at the apex of the ear in some Ptolemy version 2 examples and in the gold Porus, but I have not seen this in Ptolemy version 1 examples.

Happy New Year!

Andrew
Post Reply