The “Mask of Agamemnon” is one of the most famous gold artifacts from the Greek Bronze Age. Found at Mycenae in 1876 by the distinguished archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann, it was one of several gold funeral masks found laid over the faces of the dead buried in the shaft graves of a royal cemetery. The most detailed and stylistically distinct mask came to be known as the Mask of Agamemnon, named after the famous king of ancient Mycenae whose triumphs and tribulations are celebrated in Homer’s epic poems and in the tragic plays of Euripides. The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s replica of this mask molded by Emile Gilliéron père (manufactured and sold by the Würtemberg Electroplate Company) is an example of an electroformed reproduction, also commonly known as an electrotype—or by the historic term, “galvanoplastic”—reproduction.
Electrotype technique was developed in the nineteenth century and was used to reproduce many different kinds of historic metalworks. It became an important means of disseminating information about historic cultures throughout the world in a time before readily accessible color images and widespread travel. An electrotype reproduction was thought of as a precise replica, even though the method of manufacture and the materials were not the same as those of the original artwork. In A Brief Account of E. Gilliéron’s Beautiful Copies of Mycenaean Antiquities in Galvano-plastic, the sales catalogue for the replicas, they were described as “exact imitations of the objects in Galvano-Plastic, in which the forms, no less than the brilliancy and colours of the metals, are faithfully reproduced.” Gisela M. A. Richter—the eminent Metropolitan Museum curator who was instrumental in the acquisition of many of these reproductions—wrote that the copies were “of sufficient accuracy to give us a vivid idea of the originals.”
In antiquity, the original mask was most likely raised from a single sheet of gold, just thick enough to hold its form without any waste of the precious metal. An example of an object in the Metropolitan Museum’s collection that was made using this technique is the Late Helladic (ca. 1550–1500 B.C.) gold kantharos.
Gilliéron’s mask replica, however, was made by a completely different process. A comparison of radiograph images of these two objects clearly shows that a different method of manufacture was used to form the metal. Although it is already known—both from documentary records and visual inspection of the surface—that the replica mask under discussion is an electrotype, a lesser known object might be deceptively similar to an original artwork; a radiograph can provide valuable information as part of a thorough technical examination.
Several steps are involved in the manufacture of an electrotype. First, a mold of one surface of the original object must be made. In the case of the mask, the mold was clearly taken of the front surface in order to record the fine details of this featured side. The molding material must be able to separate easily from the original artwork while preserving its surface detail and overall form, and must also be capable of withstanding immersion in an electroplating solution. Several molding materials have typically been used, including plaster, sulfur, stearin, wax, gelatin, and gutta-percha, the latter substance being derived from the latex sap of the Palaquium tree found in the Malay Archipelago. In an 1887 catalogue discussing techniques used to make electroformed reproductions of objects from the Musée des Arts Décoratifs in Paris, the author notes that in his experience gutta-percha yielded the best results. Although it is possible that this was the choice of Gilliéron, his exact methods are not known. It is also possible that an additional step was used to preserve the initial mold—while moving further from the original artwork and, in some cases, losing detail in the process—this would have allowed for more copies to be made. A master mold would have been taken off the surface of the original artwork and a secondary mold taken from the master.
Once a mold was successfully made, it was coated with a fine, electrically conductive material such as graphite. This coating allowed the mold to act as an electrode onto which copper or another base metal could be plated in an electrolyte bath. In the case of the Mask of Agamemnon and most of the other gilded electrotypes in the Gilliéron group, copper was used. When the copper plating was deemed sufficiently thick, the process was stopped and the metal replica was removed from the mold. The front of the resulting copper electroform would be smooth and would preserve the surface features of the original, while the back would have an irregular topography reflecting the columnar growth of adjacent grains of metal in the electroforming bath.
To complete the process, a layer of gold was added to the surface. Analysis of the Metropolitan Museum’s replica using nondestructive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) shows traces of mercury to be present (XRF spectra on file in the Department of Scientific Research). Although this could indicate fire gilding—a process known since antiquity and widely used for more than fifteen hundred years—it is more likely in the case of a modern electroform that mercury was used as a so-called quicking agent in order to facilitate the adherence of electroplated gold to the copper substrate.
The electroform process was used to replicate many famous artworks through the end of the nineteenth and into the twentieth century, and the results were exhibited in museums all over the world. These copies allowed the public to view facsimiles of works of art when the originals were not available. Even now, in the case of three-dimensional artworks, electrotypes give a close physical representation of an original object’s form and size and allow one to experience comprehensive views of an artwork in the round. Today, the Gilliéron electrotypes also remind us of the collecting practices of the Metropolitan Museum during its formative years.
That beard. They shaved only under the lip.
What a coincidence. It was just yesterday that I was admiring this exhibit at the greek National Archaeological museum!
Heinrich Schliemann, the same guy who found the ancient Troy.
“When sharing his findings with the public, Schliemann once again over exaggerated, claiming that he had found the grave site of the great king Agamemnon. He had no solid proof, other than his own inspection and speculation of one of the masks he had discovered. There was no grave-marker indicating it was the final resting place of Agamemnon, and even though the mask and body were found with a wealth of coins and other artifacts, that does not mean that Schliemann’s claim was justified. As in his claim that he had found “Priam’s Treasure”, this claim, too, was based in emotion.”
>The Mask of Agamemnon differs from three of the other masks in a number of ways: it is three-dimensional rather than flat, one of the facial hairs is cut out, rather than engraved, the ears are cut out, the eyes are depicted as both open and shut, with open eyelids, but a line of closed eyelids across the center, the face alone of all the depictions of faces in Mycenaean art has a full pointed beard with handlebar moustache, the mouth is well-defined (compared to the flat masks), the brows are formed to two arches rather than one.
>
>The defense presented prior arguments that the shape of the lip, the triangular beard and the detail of the beard are nearly the same as the mane and locks of the gold lion-head rhyton from Shaft Grave IV. Schliemann’s duplicity, they claim, has been greatly exaggerated, and they also claim that the attackers were conducting a vendetta.
>
>Modern archaeological research suggests that the mask is genuine but pre-dates the period of the Trojan War by 300–400 years.[8][9] Others date the contents of the find even earlier, to approximately 2500 BC.[10]
​
​
Considering that some amateur guy with no respects to archeology did this, I wouldn´t be surprised
>Schliemann smuggled the treasure out of Turkey into Greece. The Turkish government sued Schliemann in a Greek court, and Schliemann was forced to pay a 10,000 gold franc indemnity.
The mask looks like Prince Charles.
Just casually looting this dude’s grave. Imagine going to a graveyard and “finding” a wrist watch. I found it, in this coffin, in this hole, in this crypt. And at the time Schliemann did it, archeology wasn’t a thing yet, he was just a private person digging holes in foreign countries t loot graves.
Just weird to think about.
Discovered the mask in your what?
Cool soon everything will be alright I believe that okay
Agamemnons.
It isn’t, and there was never any reason to think it was.
That looks nothing like Sean Connery, it must be a fake.
He didn’t find the mask of Agamemnon, FFS how can people still peddle this bullshit?
He found artifacts from an earlier period, and just grifted his way as that he found Agamemnon.
I thought this was a fake made by Schliemann to stir up inter
Actually it is not confirmed that the mask really belonged to Agamemnon. **Heinrich Schliemann like a great business man just selled the idea.**
Little known fact: Agamemnon translates as ‘jug ears’.
Oh i just studied this in art history. Did you know it actually can’t be Agamemnon because he died like a century before the mask was made? Source: my school book and my own memories of it
Thankfully, its not in an museum in Germany. Thankfully it is not blown up by dynamite. Its in its homeland. Heinrich Schliemann was a burglar, a liar and an asshole.
22 comments
[Context](https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-the-met/features/2011/mask-of-agamemnon)
The “Mask of Agamemnon” is one of the most famous gold artifacts from the Greek Bronze Age. Found at Mycenae in 1876 by the distinguished archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann, it was one of several gold funeral masks found laid over the faces of the dead buried in the shaft graves of a royal cemetery. The most detailed and stylistically distinct mask came to be known as the Mask of Agamemnon, named after the famous king of ancient Mycenae whose triumphs and tribulations are celebrated in Homer’s epic poems and in the tragic plays of Euripides. The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s replica of this mask molded by Emile Gilliéron père (manufactured and sold by the Würtemberg Electroplate Company) is an example of an electroformed reproduction, also commonly known as an electrotype—or by the historic term, “galvanoplastic”—reproduction.
Electrotype technique was developed in the nineteenth century and was used to reproduce many different kinds of historic metalworks. It became an important means of disseminating information about historic cultures throughout the world in a time before readily accessible color images and widespread travel. An electrotype reproduction was thought of as a precise replica, even though the method of manufacture and the materials were not the same as those of the original artwork. In A Brief Account of E. Gilliéron’s Beautiful Copies of Mycenaean Antiquities in Galvano-plastic, the sales catalogue for the replicas, they were described as “exact imitations of the objects in Galvano-Plastic, in which the forms, no less than the brilliancy and colours of the metals, are faithfully reproduced.” Gisela M. A. Richter—the eminent Metropolitan Museum curator who was instrumental in the acquisition of many of these reproductions—wrote that the copies were “of sufficient accuracy to give us a vivid idea of the originals.”
In antiquity, the original mask was most likely raised from a single sheet of gold, just thick enough to hold its form without any waste of the precious metal. An example of an object in the Metropolitan Museum’s collection that was made using this technique is the Late Helladic (ca. 1550–1500 B.C.) gold kantharos.
Gilliéron’s mask replica, however, was made by a completely different process. A comparison of radiograph images of these two objects clearly shows that a different method of manufacture was used to form the metal. Although it is already known—both from documentary records and visual inspection of the surface—that the replica mask under discussion is an electrotype, a lesser known object might be deceptively similar to an original artwork; a radiograph can provide valuable information as part of a thorough technical examination.
Several steps are involved in the manufacture of an electrotype. First, a mold of one surface of the original object must be made. In the case of the mask, the mold was clearly taken of the front surface in order to record the fine details of this featured side. The molding material must be able to separate easily from the original artwork while preserving its surface detail and overall form, and must also be capable of withstanding immersion in an electroplating solution. Several molding materials have typically been used, including plaster, sulfur, stearin, wax, gelatin, and gutta-percha, the latter substance being derived from the latex sap of the Palaquium tree found in the Malay Archipelago. In an 1887 catalogue discussing techniques used to make electroformed reproductions of objects from the Musée des Arts Décoratifs in Paris, the author notes that in his experience gutta-percha yielded the best results. Although it is possible that this was the choice of Gilliéron, his exact methods are not known. It is also possible that an additional step was used to preserve the initial mold—while moving further from the original artwork and, in some cases, losing detail in the process—this would have allowed for more copies to be made. A master mold would have been taken off the surface of the original artwork and a secondary mold taken from the master.
Once a mold was successfully made, it was coated with a fine, electrically conductive material such as graphite. This coating allowed the mold to act as an electrode onto which copper or another base metal could be plated in an electrolyte bath. In the case of the Mask of Agamemnon and most of the other gilded electrotypes in the Gilliéron group, copper was used. When the copper plating was deemed sufficiently thick, the process was stopped and the metal replica was removed from the mold. The front of the resulting copper electroform would be smooth and would preserve the surface features of the original, while the back would have an irregular topography reflecting the columnar growth of adjacent grains of metal in the electroforming bath.
To complete the process, a layer of gold was added to the surface. Analysis of the Metropolitan Museum’s replica using nondestructive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) shows traces of mercury to be present (XRF spectra on file in the Department of Scientific Research). Although this could indicate fire gilding—a process known since antiquity and widely used for more than fifteen hundred years—it is more likely in the case of a modern electroform that mercury was used as a so-called quicking agent in order to facilitate the adherence of electroplated gold to the copper substrate.
The electroform process was used to replicate many famous artworks through the end of the nineteenth and into the twentieth century, and the results were exhibited in museums all over the world. These copies allowed the public to view facsimiles of works of art when the originals were not available. Even now, in the case of three-dimensional artworks, electrotypes give a close physical representation of an original object’s form and size and allow one to experience comprehensive views of an artwork in the round. Today, the Gilliéron electrotypes also remind us of the collecting practices of the Metropolitan Museum during its formative years.
That beard. They shaved only under the lip.
What a coincidence. It was just yesterday that I was admiring this exhibit at the greek National Archaeological museum!
Heinrich Schliemann, the same guy who found the ancient Troy.
Fun fact: Schliemann’s house has turned into an entire museum (the “[Numismatic Museum of Athens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numismatic_Museum_of_Athens)”)
[Schliemann has long been known for being extremely untrustworthy, if not a straight up fraud.](https://sites.psu.edu/heinrichschliemann/controversial-questions-arise/)
“When sharing his findings with the public, Schliemann once again over exaggerated, claiming that he had found the grave site of the great king Agamemnon. He had no solid proof, other than his own inspection and speculation of one of the masks he had discovered. There was no grave-marker indicating it was the final resting place of Agamemnon, and even though the mask and body were found with a wealth of coins and other artifacts, that does not mean that Schliemann’s claim was justified. As in his claim that he had found “Priam’s Treasure”, this claim, too, was based in emotion.”
First selfie ever
Woah.
Allegedly,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_of_Agamemnon
​
>The Mask of Agamemnon differs from three of the other masks in a number of ways: it is three-dimensional rather than flat, one of the facial hairs is cut out, rather than engraved, the ears are cut out, the eyes are depicted as both open and shut, with open eyelids, but a line of closed eyelids across the center, the face alone of all the depictions of faces in Mycenaean art has a full pointed beard with handlebar moustache, the mouth is well-defined (compared to the flat masks), the brows are formed to two arches rather than one.
>
>The defense presented prior arguments that the shape of the lip, the triangular beard and the detail of the beard are nearly the same as the mane and locks of the gold lion-head rhyton from Shaft Grave IV. Schliemann’s duplicity, they claim, has been greatly exaggerated, and they also claim that the attackers were conducting a vendetta.
>
>Modern archaeological research suggests that the mask is genuine but pre-dates the period of the Trojan War by 300–400 years.[8][9] Others date the contents of the find even earlier, to approximately 2500 BC.[10]
​
​
Considering that some amateur guy with no respects to archeology did this, I wouldn´t be surprised
.He was also a THIEF.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schliemann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Schliemann)
​
>Schliemann smuggled the treasure out of Turkey into Greece. The Turkish government sued Schliemann in a Greek court, and Schliemann was forced to pay a 10,000 gold franc indemnity.
The mask looks like Prince Charles.
Just casually looting this dude’s grave. Imagine going to a graveyard and “finding” a wrist watch. I found it, in this coffin, in this hole, in this crypt. And at the time Schliemann did it, archeology wasn’t a thing yet, he was just a private person digging holes in foreign countries t loot graves.
Just weird to think about.
Discovered the mask in your what?
Cool soon everything will be alright I believe that okay
Agamemnons.
It isn’t, and there was never any reason to think it was.
That looks nothing like Sean Connery, it must be a fake.
He didn’t find the mask of Agamemnon, FFS how can people still peddle this bullshit?
He found artifacts from an earlier period, and just grifted his way as that he found Agamemnon.
I thought this was a fake made by Schliemann to stir up inter
Actually it is not confirmed that the mask really belonged to Agamemnon. **Heinrich Schliemann like a great business man just selled the idea.**
Little known fact: Agamemnon translates as ‘jug ears’.
Oh i just studied this in art history. Did you know it actually can’t be Agamemnon because he died like a century before the mask was made? Source: my school book and my own memories of it
Thankfully, its not in an museum in Germany. Thankfully it is not blown up by dynamite. Its in its homeland. Heinrich Schliemann was a burglar, a liar and an asshole.
It’s not actually Agamemnon though, right?