✅ SOLVED Ornate Object Depicting Woman with Stars and Headscarf?

[sierraipa]

Any help appreciated. I found this item in a place that I would not expect. It was in soil that was not filled that I know of. It is near an old 1800s road through the South Carolina Lowcountry. It seems to depict an Asian / Persian design to me. The woman appears to be wearing a scarf over her nose and mouth. Just not sure what it is.

Any thoughts?

Here are a couple of pics...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[DCMatt]

It is Pharaoh - not a woman. Possibly part of Victorian Egyptian Revival belt or necklace.



DCMatt

 

[surf]

Hello sierraipa,

I see stars & crescents, and a woman wearing a burkha. The reverse appears to have Arabic writing...

 

[sierraipa]

I agree with you, Surf. It definitely looks more to me like a woman wearing a burkha than the Pharaoh. And, it didn't occur to me that the back may be Arabic writing. I am trying to find someone that may be able to read Arabic just to see. I wonder if it could have come off of a belly dancer's outfit?!? I can't quite figure out how it would be attached. It doesn't look like a belt buckle or necklace or anything that I am commonly familiar with.

Thanks and HH

 

[sierraipa]

Interesting - The last flag of the Ottoman empire (1844-1923) has the same crescent and 5 pointed star as seen on this item - either side of the front - mirroring each other. There are other Turkish / Byzantine symbols with the star and the crescent, but this was one that I found with the 5 pointed star.

 

[surf]

Hey sierraipa,

Am I seeing the remnants of silver on this piece? I'm getting a Victorian charm bracelety vibe.

 

[Rawhide]

1981 Lincoln penny

 

[sierraipa]

Surf,

I don't know how to test for the presence of silver necessarily. If it is there, then it must be a silver coating that has largely eroded. The base metal appears to be copper or something of the like. It is not magnetic at all. I do like where you are going with the charm bracelet idea. I had not considered that possibility.

 

[Breezie]

It's a cape/cloak hook. Generally cloak hooks had one piece with the 'hook' and the other piece carried the chain. The pic below is showing an example of the hook & chain idea, certainly not the image.

Neat find Breezie

 

[austin]

Better listen to DCMatt and Breezie...

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

I was gonna say cape closure but Breezies fast!

 

[surf]

It's a cape/cloak hook.

By George, Breezie,

Well identified!

 

[yaxthri]

This looks turkish to me (Ottoman one could say) but can also be a piece from the time when Orientalism was fashionable.
I think the piece is "re-worked".
The ornament on the back is actually a sultans signature, called a "Tughra". On the photo of the backside the signature is inverted and turned on it's side, so originally the piece had the
Tughra on it's front and was hanging from where the hook now is placed.



The face was mounted on top of the Tughra afterwards, that's what I mean by "re-worked".
Every Sultan had a unique Tughra so one could date the piece by that, that is if it is an actual artifact of that time
and not a "fantasy-piece", not meaning this is not authentic and old, just that fashion ornaments were reproduced
in older times, too.
I have no idea what is was used for, cape-hook is plausible to me, but it sure has a "colourfull" history... Nice find!

 

[sierraipa]

I am blown away with the knowledge on this forum. Breezie and Cypress, that totally makes sense about the cloak clasp. I was wondering why there was a hook on one side, but no evidence of a hook on the other side.

yaxthri, I am really interested in this signature. I will have to see what I can find that matches this signature. I am certainly no expert, but I can't see any evidence of the piece being re-worked. Is there a telltale sign that IO could look for?

Thanks to everyone for your help on this!

HH

 

[sierraipa]

yaxthri, you nailed it on the "re-working" of this cloak clasp. Now, that I have had a chance to get home from work and look at it up close, I can see exactly where the woman's face is slightly de-laminating from the underlying Tughra piece at one part. I also re-read your post, and I see what you mean by it being sideways and reversed. I'll try to get a macro shot up for you guys to see if you are interested.

I would love to be able to date the piece, but I don't know if the Tughra is detailed enough to be able to do that. And, like you said, this may have been made well after the Sultan's rule.

HH

 

[yaxthri]

Ok you do that with the pic.
Try to get light to hit it sideways at an angle so that the low relief of the ornaments really "pops-out".
I'll check if there is an index or a photo gallery online with known individual signatures when you post the pic.

Cheers

 

[sierraipa]

yaxthri,

Sorry - just getting to this. Here are two pics. One is showing the de-lamination of the face from the Tughra. The other is the best I could do to get a high relief to pop out with a low angle of incidence with a flashlight. I also reversed the Tughra digitally, so it should look as one would have seen it on the side the face now occupies.

Thanks!

 

[surf]

Nice photo, sierraipa,

Lyrically calligraphic, those Tugras.

Tughra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Osmanlý Padiþah Tuðralarý - Ottoman Sultan Tugras

 

[sierraipa]

Thanks, Surf.

The Tugra certainly is beautiful. I don't think that there is enough detail in the "Stand" area especially to be able to identify the specific Sultan's signature for this piece. There are several elements that are shared by all of the signatures, and these are prominently displayed. But the identifying marks seem to be rather lacking in detail. I am thinking that this would indicate that this piece is of the "Oriental-ism" period during the mid to late 1800s. That would also be consistent with the other objects found at this site. It is likely a costume piece (still old, and cool), but not made during the rule of an actual Sultan which was much earlier according to my research (read 1400s...).

Does anyone have other thoughts on this?

HH

 

[yaxthri]

Excellent pics !!! Kudos on these.

You are right, not sure about the detail, too, but I'll make a search when I find time (at the office now...).

Great find anyway.