was apparently identical with what is now called carnelian, a bright red chalcedony of clear rich tint; whereas the darker kind probably corresponded to what is now called sard, usually a deep brownish-red chalcedony that becomes blood-red in color when light shines through it, though the color of the stone is sometimes so intense that it approaches black. It is interesting to note that both Theophrastus and modern writers on mineralogy distinguish only two varieties of red chalcedony suitable for gems, the difference being that a single name, suitably qualified, was used in his day, whereas two distinct terms are now employed.
The ancients made abundant use of red chalcedony for seals, as is shown by the large number of engraved stones of this material that have survived to the present day, and apparently red chalcedony was more often engraved by the peoples of the Aegean region than any other kind of precious or semiprecious stone. About twenty per cent of the Mycenaean engraved stones that are listed by Furtwangler,215 thirty-five per cent of the early Greek stones, and thirty-five per cent of the Hellenistic and early Roman stones are made of red chalcedony. This early preference for red chalcedony is noted by Pliny in these words: nee fuit alia gemma apud antiquos usu frequeniior216 (among the ancients there was no precious stone in more common use). Carnelian was apparently the variety generally preferred in the earliest periods, and sard came into widespread use only in the Hellenistic period. About forty per cent of the stones made of red chalcedony that are listed by Furtwangler as Hellenistic are classified as sard, whereas less than five per cent of such stones that belong to the early Greek period are classified in this way. Possibly the exhaustion of the old sources of red chalcedony or the discovery of new sources would account for this variation in distribution, though it may have been simply the result of a change in fashion.
30. And there are others, as has been mentioned before, which differ from one another, though they have the same name. No previous statement of this kind occurs in the treatise as it is
215 Furtwangler, Die antiken Gemmen, Vol. II, pp. 7-18, 25-27, 37-69, 130-46, 15253. 153-73·
216 XXXVII, 106.
