Stylesheet style.css not found, please contact the developer of "arctic" template.
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| form_and_manufacture [2015/08/20 13:30] – [Hanging and Mounting] hawkins | form_and_manufacture [2015/08/20 13:35] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| Seals could be engraved through drilling or wheel-cutting (the two rotary technologies), microchipping, or sawing and filing. Each technique produces a distinctive type of cut which can be generally recognised with close study (Sax et al 2000: 157). Perhaps the most influential technological innovation was the development of the free-standing rotary cutting-wheel. This method allowed the engraving of much harder stones than it had previously been possible to use. In a study using a low-power binocular microscope and scanning electron microscopy (Sax and Meeks 1994), Sax found no evidence of mounted wheel-cutting techniques before the mid eighteenth century BC (the Old Babylonian period), and the technique appears not to have been widely adopted until the Kassite period (Sax et al 2000: 167-172). This was in contradiction to previous theories which put the invention of wheel-cutting technology as early as the mid-fourth millennium (Nissen 1977: 16). It was not merely the wheel itself that mattered, ‘the introduction of wheel-cutting was part of a complex framework of technological change involving the adoption of a new abrasive, a range of new working techniques, improvements to the design of rotary equipment and, presumably, a consumer preference for hard stones.’ (Sax et al 2000: 173). | Seals could be engraved through drilling or wheel-cutting (the two rotary technologies), microchipping, or sawing and filing. Each technique produces a distinctive type of cut which can be generally recognised with close study (Sax et al 2000: 157). Perhaps the most influential technological innovation was the development of the free-standing rotary cutting-wheel. This method allowed the engraving of much harder stones than it had previously been possible to use. In a study using a low-power binocular microscope and scanning electron microscopy (Sax and Meeks 1994), Sax found no evidence of mounted wheel-cutting techniques before the mid eighteenth century BC (the Old Babylonian period), and the technique appears not to have been widely adopted until the Kassite period (Sax et al 2000: 167-172). This was in contradiction to previous theories which put the invention of wheel-cutting technology as early as the mid-fourth millennium (Nissen 1977: 16). It was not merely the wheel itself that mattered, ‘the introduction of wheel-cutting was part of a complex framework of technological change involving the adoption of a new abrasive, a range of new working techniques, improvements to the design of rotary equipment and, presumably, a consumer preference for hard stones.’ (Sax et al 2000: 173). |
| |
| Seals could be recarved, and this practice was common. Sometimes a seal inscription was added or changed to update personal information (Steinkeller 1977: 46-48). A design could be added to or modified, sometimes soon after (BM 89225, BM 89138, Ur III seals in which inscription and features of one figure were recut also in the Ur III period) or inscriptions could simply be erased (see Teissier 1994: 67; MMA 1986.311.37; Rohn 918), sometimes to the tastes or needs of a later time (Ashm 1915.241, on which Old Babylonian figures were recut in Neo-Babylonian times, Kist 160, an Ur III seal whose design was recut perhaps a millennium later). | Seals could be re-carved, and this practice was common. Sometimes a seal inscription was added or changed to update personal information (Steinkeller 1977: 46-48). A design could be added to or modified, sometimes soon after ([[http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=762226&partId=1&searchText=89225&page=1|BM 89225]], [[http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=762167&partId=1&searchText=89138&page=1|BM 89138]], Ur III seals in which inscription and features of one figure were recut also in the Ur III period) or inscriptions could simply be erased (see Teissier 1994: 67; MMA 1986.311.37; Rohn 918), sometimes to the tastes or needs of a later time ([[http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/archival_view.php?ObjectID=P473132|Ashm 1915.241]], on which Old Babylonian figures were recut in Neo-Babylonian times; Kist 160, an Ur III seal whose design was recut perhaps a millennium later). |
| |
| The seal-maker was known as the b u r - g u l in Sumerian, loaned into Akkadain as purkullu. Seals vary greatly in quality from crude mass-productions to bespoke works of miniature art, such as the seal (N A 4. K I Š I B D U B) commissioned by Sennacherib in an unusual Neo-Assyrian text (Sm 1893, see Kirk Grayson and Ruby 1997). Some seal workshops have such distinctive styles that their products can be easily identified (Al-Gailani Werr 1986). | The seal-maker was known as the b u r - g u l in Sumerian, loaned into Akkadain as purkullu. Seals vary greatly in quality from crude mass-productions to bespoke works of miniature art, such as the seal (N A 4. K I Š I B D U B) commissioned by Sennacherib in an unusual Neo-Assyrian text (Sm 1893, see Kirk Grayson and Ruby 1997). Some seal workshops have such distinctive styles that their products can be easily identified (Al-Gailani Werr 1986). |
