Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T14:49:39.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minoan versus Mesopotamian Seals: Comparative methods of Manufacture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Leonard Gorelick  and
A. John Gwinnett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a previous article we reported a study of Ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals. The purpose was to provide insights, based on experimental evidence for the change from stone to metal drills in seal manufacture. These findings were correlated to earlier research in which the proportion of medium and hard stone seals (Mohs 5–7) e.g. hematite, quartz, etc. to those of soft stones (Mohs 1–3) e.g. steatite, marble, etc. was documented. The time span encompassed the beginning of cylinder seal history at Uruk (4% medium and hard stone seals) at the end of the 4th millennium B.C. through the Sasanian period c. A.D. 200–600 (99% medium and hard stone seals). Inferences were drawn relating the tremendous increase in the proportion of hard stones to advances in the technology of hard stone seal manufacture. The growing fashion for hard stone seals was attributed to their desirability as status symbols as well as to economic factors. These findings and explanations in no way contradicted the important well documented multi-functional purpose of seals for legal, political, amuletic and funerary use as well as for the protection of property.

The purpose of the present article is to provide comparable data for Minoan seals. We sought evidence for the following questions:

(1) What was the proportion of medium and hard stone seals to soft stone seals during the time frame of Minoan history?

(2) What were the tools and technology used for the manufacture of Minoan seals and how did these change over time?

(3) What inferences might be drawn from this data to Minoan culture and history?

(4) What comparisons could be made to Mesopotamian glyptic?

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 54 , 1992 , pp. 57 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1992 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

School of Dental Medicine SUNY at Stony Brook New York 11794–8702.

References

1. Gwinnett, A. J. and Gorelick, L., Expedition 23 (1981), 17–29.Google Scholar
2. Gorelick, L. and Gwinnett, A. J., In publication.Google Scholar
3. Gwinnett, A. J. and Gorelick, L., Journal of Field Archaeology 10 (1983), 378–84.Google Scholar
4. Boardman, J., Greek gems & finger rings, Abrams Press, New York (1970).Google Scholar
5. Gorelick, L. and Gwinnett, A. J., Archeomaterials 3 (1989), 39–46.Google Scholar
6. Heimpel, W., Gorelick, L. and Gwinnett, A. J., JCS 40 (1988), 195–210.Google Scholar
7. Mackay, E., Chanhu-daro excavation, American Oriental Society, New Haven (1967).Google Scholar
8. Belts, J., CMS Beiheft 3 (1989).Google Scholar
9. Yule, P., Early Cretan Seals, Zabern, Mainz (1980).Google Scholar
10. Natter, L. A., A treatize on the ancient method of engraving on precious stones compared with modern, London (1754).Google Scholar
11. Petric, W. M. F., Tools and weapons. London (1917).Google Scholar
12. Noveck, M., The mark of ancient man—Ancient Near Eastern stamp seals and cylinder seals: The Gorelick collection. The Brooklyn Museum (1975), No. 11.Google Scholar
13. Teissier, B., Ancient Near Eastern seals from the Marcopoli collection, University of California Press (1984).Google Scholar
14. Collon, D., Catalogue of the Western Asiatic seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals II, Akkadian, Post-Akkadian and Ur III periods, British Museum Publications, London (1982).Google Scholar
15. Gwinnett, A. J. and Gorelick, L., Expedition 29 (1987), 15–24.Google Scholar