Hello Linda,
The vast majority of scarab beads are glazed steatite (soapstone).
Steatite was chosen because it is a soft easily-carved stone, that, when it is fired, becomes harder and more durable. And since the beads are fired, they could also be glazed to add color and sheen.
Some scarabs were entirely faience—which was also fired and self-glazes. It is not easy to distinguish between them.
The mistaken idea that scarabs are "glazed with faience," is a sometimes-repeated error. The glaze on faience and steatite is essentially glass. (The word "glazed" means "to have or be glass." The guy who installs your window is a "glazer.")
Your scarab looks pretty good. But there are many more modern beads or reproductions circulating than actual ancient scarabs.
Jamey
When it comes to antiquities, especially Egyptian, fake artifacts have been produced for centuries -- so the odds are always against an artifact being genuine. It may be easier to identify a fake than to authenticate a real artifact. An antiquities dealer or an antiquities online group will be able to tell you more. Here are some resources:
http://www.thefakebusters.com/scarabs/Orig%20fake%20menu%20Egyptian%20scarabs.htm
http://www.collector-antiquities.com/real-or-fake/fake-egyptian/fake-scarabs.html
A lot of "freshly made" scarabs for the tourist trade have hieroglyphs on the back that make no sense - in that they are contained within a royal cartouche but do not correspond to any known pharaoh. Instead, the hieroglyphs seem to have been chosen because they are easy to carve.
In this case, it is very difficult to make out the hieroglyphs in order to check which pharaoh may be indicated, but several appear to be quite intricate. I can't tell if they are surrounded by a cartouche.
Conclusion - I think it's unlikely to be a fairly modern, really cheap knock-off. Beyond that, it may be a very well done older repro. There may have been a mold made of an ancient piece which was used to make the repro, which accounts for the worn look of the inscription. When in Egypt, I saw numerous shops selling reproductions of all sorts of ancient statues and other artifacts. They were all artificially aged to mimic their ancient counterparts - often quite badly done IMHO. And some of the prices were very high. I got the impression that the sellers hoped that the buyer would actually think they were getting a real ancient artifact. Of course it is completely against the law to sell or buy ancient Egyptian artifacts unless one has a special license - not something a tourist would necessarily know about in advance. There is of course a black market in ancient Egyptian pieces that any sane person would be wise to avoid.
It may not be relevant to this particular scarab, but in researching old plastic beads I have found that the craftsmanship used on the old plastics - celluloid, Bakelite, and galalith (casein) - when they were first being used for jewelry, can be outstanding. When these materials were introduced, artisans were apparently spending a lot of time using them for imitations of more expensive materials. More modern (post - 1960 or so) plastic beads, by comparison, look and feel like cheap plastic beads not finely crafted imitations of anything in particular. My thinking is that the same sort of "evolution" occurred with repros of ancient Egyptian items - very obvious now, but possible finely crafted around 50-100 years ago.
I think the scarab is highly unlikely to be ancient, but of course it's possible. The British in particular took a large number of artifacts out of Egypt starting with the "hey-days" of archeological work that started in the early 1800s (the Rosetta stone was found in 1799) after Napoleon invaded Egypt, and peaked in the late 1800s- early 1900s. King Tut's tomb was discovered in 1922, one of the events that touched off the era of Egyptian Revival jewelry and art, and probably a lot of reproductions of everything Egyptian.
Linda,
I did some searching through the list of cartouches of the pharaohs since I love solving puzzles. I didn't find anything definitive but the fineness of the detail on the hieroglyphs for such a small piece is provocative, as is the possible translation of the two hieroglyphs in the upper left.
I make these out as a "hotep" which means offering and the figure of the god Amun. So the scarab could be something related to one of the Amenhotep pharaohs. The next figure to the right is another seated god figure - possibly Set. Amun and Set do appear on some cartouches but they usually face each other. However, there are many variations on how the hieroglyphs were inscribed for the exact same names.
Or I may be mistaken since the hieroglyphs are so faint. I cold not make out any of the others, except possibly an "r" (lips or mouth) below the hotep. This hieroglyph is seen a lot since it is part of the word for "beloved" and many royal cartouches include phrase like "beloved of Ra", "beloved of Maat", etc.
I would take this piece to your local antiquities department - there may be an Egyptian scholar at a university near you. Too bad you are not in the Bay Area since UC Berkeley has a large ancient Egyptian group that could probably sort it out for you.
A very interesting piece, for sure, and could be ancient!
Thank you Rosanna for all of your attention to this object.
As it happens, I will be in the Bay Area for about 9 days from tomorrow onward. I have a job to do while I'm there (in Fairfax) so I don't know what I'll be able to do re. the scarab, but I'll see when I get there. It would be lovely to have coffee or something with you while I'm in the area. I'll email you tomorrow when I know more about my schedule and mobility.
