Insects In Amber: Fossil Or Not?

[Doctor Mud]

I bought this piece of Baltic amber a while back. I think it cost me 70 Euro.

(I'll post an overview of the piece soon - I only have pictures from the scope with me)

I thought I was being careful and bought from what I thought looked like a reputable dealer. They may still be, but I have suspicions that the insects I bought are not fossils.

I was somewhat disappointed when it arrived as there were a number of cracks through the piece. At the time I received it I didn't even think that the presence of cracks might be a clue that the insects could have been implanted into the amber.

All of the insects seem to occur on the fractures and my suspicion is that this piece of amber has been fractured, insects inserted and then glued back together.

The image below is taken at 20 X magnification with lighting from below. So the insects would be about 2 -3 mm long.

The insects are suposed to be midges (non biting midges - Chironomidae). You might be able to see what I suspect is adhesive that has formed air bubbles before it has dried. All of the insects you see occur on fracture planes.

Caution: Images are 1 meg so may take a while to load for some people

Edited August 8, 2013 by Doctor Mud

[Doctor Mud]

Here is a further image of the lower right midge. This time 40X

You might be able to see what I suspect is adhesive. More opaque than the amber - air bubbles in it and what might even be brush strokes.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Doctor Mud

[painshill]

From those (excellent) pictures, I would say that unfortunately your suspicions are extremely well-founded.

A good sign for genuine insects in Baltic amber is that the insects themselves often have the appearance of being covered in a whitish powdery-looking surface deposit. I only see bad signs in your pictures.

[Auspex]

Bugger

[Doctor Mud]

Going back to the site I now see them selling a scorpion in amber from what I understand this is
Very unlikely to occur.
I sent images of these midges I have to the chironomid homepage, the international site for chironomid specialists.
Interested to see if these are modern genera and species. Won't be surprised.
Very, very unlikely for 30 million year plus fossils!
I'd be interested to see if any entomologists recognize any if the other "fossils" up for sale.

[painshill]

My initial reactions to that site are that it's focussed on jewellery rather than palaeontology, which is never a good sign (and polished amber is a lot easier to fake than natural pieces); the array of insects and other arthropods is remarkably (and suspiciously) diverse; the colouration of the insects and almost complete lack of obscuring deposits and inclusions is rather remarkable; a large majority of the insects are rather conveniently placed in areas that bulge or jut out from the piece and/or in cracked/faulted areas like your piece; the seller believes Baltic amber dates between 30 and 90 million years old (that would take in to the upper Cretaceous! which wouldn't be my understanding). Hmmmm.

Edited August 8, 2013 by painshill

[AgrilusHunter]

Hi Dr. Mud,

I agree your midges look awfully suspicious ... sorry. I'd love to help with the site as well but I don't see a link. Am I just missing it?

[JohnJ]

It's best that we leave out the names of particular dealers for legal reasons. If anyone is really interested, then please discuss those details via PM. Thanks guys.

[snolly50]

I have never seen an inclusion in amber that matches the bubbly smear your excellent photo shows. As yourself and all the other posters - I view the piece as most suspicious.

[Doctor Mud]

I got around to taking some photos of the amber nugget this morning. It is about 3.5 cm long.

This first one is lit from below. Kind of how it is presented usually on the site. It isn't 100% obvious that there are fractures through the piece due to the way it is lit.

[Doctor Mud]

Now one lit from the side. It now becomes more obvious that there is a serious fracture (concoidal) through the entire piece and you might even be able to see that one insect is on that crack.

It is much harder to see, but the other insects are on another fracture plane.

[Doctor Mud]

O.k.

Sorry some of the previous files were a bit big. But here are a couple of images that summarize what I have learnt. Much smaller file size.

It seems that there is a growing concensus that these are modern midges inserted into real amber.

In a nutshell:

- In future I would not buy amber with inclusions where there are obvious fractures and where there is a chance that the inclusion in situated on or near the fracture.

This may not be obvious in pictures posted by the dealer (since obviously they may want to hide this!) - so ask for images with the piece lit from different angles. Not much to ask especially if you are going to pay decent money for a specimen.

- If unfortunately you still end up with a piece in your possession I hope these images will help you decide whether you have a real fossil insect or not.

The other way to tell is if you can get an entomologist to look at the specimen. If they recognise the genus...and even the species....then chances are this is not a 30 million plus year old fossil. Species go extinct all the time in geological time so the chances of having a living species present as a fossil a slim.

- Also Painshill mentioned that fossils usually have a white powdery coating which these do not.

- Unfortunately for me I realised months afterwards (after reading a post on the forum - can't remember where it is...), but if you have any doubts and there is a return policy I would make use of it.

Happy amber collecting!

[Auspex]

Your pictures are very, very good, and certainly up to the task of 'looking for trouble'. Indeed, some troubling anomalies are revealed.

I would like to add that there is also the practice of molding (by heat and pressure) small pieces of amber into one large one. This is fine for the carving trade, and even some of the jewelry applications, but I for one don't like its use in the fossil amber business. Some of the stress cracks you can see may have resulted from this technique.

[painshill]

I would suspect that what you have is a genuine piece of amber which has been deliberately broken, within which a small cavity has been created to house modern insects plus a dollop of melted amber and then glued back together. That’s the easiest way to create fakes that would pass all the simple tests for genuine amber (but don’t withstand closer scrutiny or satisfy entomological likelihood).

Even museums get caught out… that “break and re-glue” technique is how this one in the London Natural History Museum collection was made:

http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/results.asp?image=028712

The comment I made about whitish powdery deposits is something that is a frequent occurrence on Baltic specimens. I wouldn’t want anyone to take that as a confirmation of authenticity from the Baltic (or other localities), or that all Baltic specimens have it… just that when you see it in Baltic material, it’s generally a good sign. I guess if you were a determined faker, you could reproduce that too.

[Doctor Mud]

I would suspect that what you have is a genuine piece of amber which has been deliberately broken, within which a small cavity has been created to house modern insects plus a dollop of melted amber and then glued back together. That’s the easiest way to create fakes that would pass all the simple tests for genuine amber (but don’t withstand closer scrutiny or satisfy entomological likelihood).

Even museums get caught out… that “break and re-glue” technique is how this one in the London Natural History Museum collection was made:

http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/results.asp?image=028712

The comment I made about whitish powdery deposits is something that is a frequent occurrence on Baltic specimens. I wouldn’t want anyone to take that as a confirmation of authenticity from the Baltic (or other localities), or that all Baltic specimens have it… just that when you see it in Baltic material, it’s generally a good sign. I guess if you were a determined faker, you could reproduce that too.

Thanks Painshill,

I like the link - the fake fly in amber fossil was dubbed "The Piltdown Fly"

I think you are right. Once the "artisans" know what details may reveal their fakes, they can work to reproduce the qualities of the real thing.

[Adie_uk]

when I first saw the post I thought you were just being a bit paranoid, I would not expect something like small midges as the are normally too inexpensive to bother faking (however you did pay 70 euros so worth faking for that) small insects are common and cheap to buy on a well known auction site,( sounds like flea bay) you can often pick something up like a nice fly or even a spider up for as little as £3 to £10. buy it now prices are normally higher but there is stiff competition from sellers in Poland/ Latvia regions so auctions are often started at £0.99 and see where it ends. i have no doubt there are fakes out there but normally they are obvious starting the things like butterflies and big scorpions from china, anyone that knows anything about amber will know they are fake but i guess sometimes others do get putted in (these are often cheep just 99p or a few pounds, but then a £25 postage fee, surly fakes are only worth making if there is money to be made and in your case 70 euros there was or if the bugs are rare.

Its opened my eyes a little to hear more about the split and glue technique used.

[Adie_uk]

looking at the photo where you think you can see adhesive i have seen very similar to this in amber i have polished from raw, looks like there is a split and its sat on it you do seen to get this quite often in amber, more so in Baltic, you can see it in copal but rather than it looking like a crack or split you can see its as additional layers of tree sap settled on different days and changing weather .

im going to go against the grain and say its probably not a fake, there is a guy on here from Poland that is really into his amber, he has posts , have a look for him and ask he will know for sure.

[painshill]

I would just caution that many of the cheaply sold items on flea-bay (and also in "gift" shops selling gems and fossils and at geological fairs etc) are Madagascan copal and may be only tens of years old. Be particulalry wary of the larger, flatter polished pieces. Putting a small drop of acetone (or nail polish remover) on an inconspicuous area, letting it dry for about 20 seconds and then seeing if a piece of paper tissue sticks to it will tell you. If it sticks it's copal. One other thing to look out for is colouration of the insects. It rarely survives, so black or brown is most usual (and sometimes with whitish deposits on the surface as I mentioned for Baltic specimens). I've seen partial butterfly wings, beetles and such with almost their original colouration in poor fakes).

Incidentally, amber is fossilized resin, not sap.

[Adie_uk]

when you see lots of amber its quite easy to spot the difference between the ambers not just by what they look like but also by whats inside, i find it easy to tell the difference between Madagascan copal and Columbian, also between Dominican and Baltic. you CAN get Genuine Baltic from as little as 99p if you willing to bid on a few bits. one tip is to look as where the seller is from, if from the Baltic region there is a lot of people making a living from Amber as they can find it themselves on trips to the coast or through friends that have. don't forget wages in Poland and Latvia are a fraction of what u.k and u.s get.

[Adie_uk]

resin, tree sap does it really matter? im sure people will wont get confused if I choose to refer to it as sap. missing the point a little I would be interested to know if anyone would bother faking some basic migets? surly if they were going to go through the effort of faking it would at least be a wasp/bee/spider, small flies are quite common and they could easily buy them cheap and still make a big profit at 70 euros.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Adie_uk

[painshill]

some people call it resin lot of people also refer to it as tree sap, its the same.

Negatory. Sap is transported via the plant's xylem or phloem and mostly has a nutrient function. Resins (and latexes) are completely different substances which may exude naturally or from damage to the exterior of the stem. They have completely different compositions to sap and serve entirely different functions.

Extract from Wiki:

Other liquid compounds found in plants or exuded by plants, such as sap, latex, or mucilage, are sometimes confused with resin, but are not chemically the same. Saps, in particular, serve a nutritive function that resins do not. There is no consensus on why plants secrete resins. However, resins consist primarily of secondary metabolites or compounds that apparently play no role in the primary physiology of a plant. While some scientists view resins only as waste products, their protective benefits to the plant are widely documented. The toxic resinous compounds may confound a wide range of herbivores, insects, and pathogens; while the volatile phenolic compounds may attract benefactors such as parasitoids or predators of the herbivores that attack the plant.

Edited August 15, 2013 by painshill

[painshill]

resin, tree sap does it really matter? im sure people will wont get confused if I choose to refer to it as sap. missing the point a little I would be interested to know if anyone would bother faking some basic migets? surly if they were going to go through the effort of faking it would at least be a wasp/bee/spider, small flies are quite common and they could easily buy them cheap and still make a big profit at 70 euros.

The item we started with was purchased from a site that trades principally in items for jewellery. The higher prices there reflect a combination of things – the size of the amber pieces themselves (which are generally quite large), the perceived rarity of the claimed inclusions and the probable lack of knowledge of their typical customer base (probably not palaeontologists, I would suggest). From their point of view it most certainly would be worthwhile faking what we know to be common specimens. There is a very wide range of arthropod types on that site (which is in itself suspicious) and it would be even more suspicious if that range did not include some more “common” types. The added advantage for them would be offering something to cater for all budgets. It’s a different market.

The typical genuine pieces of Baltic material with insects on flea-bay are rather smaller. I was just recommending a high degree of caution for larger amber pieces with insects which are claimed to be Baltic (and extreme caution about anything with a more exotic inclusion). There, for small pieces and those with “common” inclusions the problem is less about fakery and more about false provenance and age. Recent Madagascan copal is available in abundant quantities and frequently rich in insect life. There’s no need to fake it… but the temptation to try and pass it off as something more ancient from another location is high.

Here’s a piece of modern Madagascan copal. It’s quite large and has over 100 inclusions. Flies, midges, fungus gnats, spiders, plant fragments… even animal hairs.

You could get a piece like that for a few dollars, break it up, polish the pieces and sell them on with a false heritage for substantially more to someone who doesn’t know how to determine amber authenticity.

The same kinds of issues may apply to Colombian amber - some of which has been established by chemical testing to be not much more than 100 years old.

Also, with respect to the original specimen posted, I would personally never buy a specimen with a fracture running through it. Apart from the increased likelihood of it having been faked, the crack may well develop into crazing and the amber may oxidise – both darkening in colour and losing clarity.

Edited August 15, 2013 by painshill

[Doctor Mud]

Thanks for the feedback on this piece everyone.

For me, the evidence seems to be strongly leaning towards modern insects in real Baltic amber. Some people might think "why bother?". Why go to all that trouble to insert a couple of little midges in real amber? Creating the rarer inclusions makes perfect sense since you could make quite a lot of moeny if someone was prepared to buy them. I guess it depends on how long it takes to create the fake inclusions and if the balance between effort put in and profit is right - why not? I guess we also have to think of the economic circumstances in some of the areas where fake fossils are made. You might think that someone with the skill set to create excellent fake fossils should turn their talents to something else? Maybe this is the best buisness oppurtunity available to them?

Anyway we could speculate all day on the reasons, but for me I won't be buying amber with fractures and I'm not sure if I will purchase amber online again. Its such tricky territory to navigate and so hard to judge a piece from a photo online. I guess this is risk a lot of us take many times a year (if we are lucky) with purchasing fossils online.