No Title

2006ap2001 jpg l

View the V&A API .json response

Acquired in 1868 (the spelunker thinks)

artist
Unknown
attributions_note
bibliography
collection_code
CER
credit
date_end
0050-12-31
date_start
date_text
25 BC-0050 AD (made)
descriptive_line
Bowl, Roman Empire, probably Italy, 25 BC to 50 AD
dimensions
Height: 11.5 cm, Width: 15.5 cm maximum
edition_number
event_text
exhibition_history
gallery
Glass, room 131
historical_context_note
historical_significance
history_note
id
3649
label
Purchased as 'antique Roman' but since the 1960s thought to be of more recent date, possibly 19th century. Recent sientific analysis has helped to reattribute this piece to the Roman period.
last_checked
2014-08-29T19:31:33.000Z
last_processed
2014-08-29T19:31:33.000Z
latitude
42.502998
location
Glass, room 131, case 2, shelf 1
longitude
12.57341
marks
materials
materials_techniques
Mosaic glass, fused and slumped, with applied foot
museum_number
969-1868
museum_number_token
9691868
object_number
O2002
object_type
Bowl
on_display
1
original_currency
original_price
physical_description
Mosaic glass, fused and slumped, applied foot. Clear marks of lathe turning around the outside of the rim and foot and on the interior of the bowl.
place
Italy
primary_image_id
2006AP2001
production_note
See Report on analysis by British Museum 1996 in Object info file and updated version of May 1999. These show that the chemical composition of the bowl is confirm those found for Roman glass and in some ways distinctly different from 19th-century glass from Venice. Cf. Sidney M. Goldstein, Pre-Roman...,Corning 1979, nr. 555 (afb. Pl. 30) = fragment of this type. David Grosse thought this to be not Roman but a 19th-century fake or copy. There is, however, no proof of a 19th-century origin, and the bowl shows some distinct differences in relation to known 19th-century pieces. The canes ued are unrecorded for this period. Its provenance in 1868 puts it earlier than any of the documentary evidence of Muranese mosaic glass as well as any known 19th-century pieces. David Grose examined the piece on 26-4-1999 and still thought that this piece is not Roman, for various reasons: 1 The cane sections are too large 2 Roman multi coloured 'flag' canes always consist of three layers, ours don't 3 The outside of the piece seems to be covered entirely with colourless glass. This is not the case with Roman examples. 4 The rim is too thin. 5 The ribs are too thin 6 The green is not of the right colour 7 The foot is added to the bowl, is not typical 8 There is no evidence of any corrosion 9 The foot is slightly too large for the bowl The scientific evidence is not 100% conclusive!
production_type
public_access_description
related_museum_numbers
rights
3
shape
site_code
VA
slug
bowl-unknown
sys_updated
2014-07-31T00:00:00.000Z
techniques
title
updated
vanda_exhibition_history
year_end
50
year_start
-25