Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)

8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)

1/14

British Institute of Persian Studies

Seals and Signs. Anatolian Stamp Seals of the Persian Period RevisitedAuthor(s): John BoardmanSource: Iran, Vol. 36 (1998), pp. 1-13Published by: British Institute of Persian StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299972

Accessed: 22/10/2009 15:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bips.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

British Institute of Persian Studiesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toIran.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299972?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bipshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bipshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4299972?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/14

SEALS

AND SIGNS.

ANATOLIAN

STAMP

SEALS OF

THE

PERSIAN

PERIOD

REVISITED

ByJohn

Boardman

Oxford

In

Iran

VIII

(1970)

pp.

19-45

(hereafter

simply

Iran

VIII)

I

assembled

and

discussed a

numerous

series

of

pyramidal

stamp

seals

most

of

which

seemed

to

be of

west

Anatolian

origin,

with

mainly

Achaemenid

Persian

figure

subjects,

but

with a

num-

ber which in

style

and

subject

related as

much

to

Lydo-Greek

orientalising

work.

Many

of

the

seals

were

clearly Lydian

in

origin

in

the

light

of

their

inscriptions.

Many

also

carried

linear

devices

which

could be

interpreted

as the

personal

mark

of

their

owners;

indeed,

one

declared itself

this is

the

mark

of...

.

This

article

includes an

updating

of the

lists

(in

the

Catalogue

at

the

end).

I

also

revert

to

discus-

sion

of

them-their

style

and

especially

the

linear

marks or devices

which,

in the

past twenty-fiveyears,

have taken

on

a far wider

significance, archaeologi-

cally

and

historically.

I

identify

additions

to the

Iran

VIII lists

by giving

the new items decimalised

num-

bers

(no.00.1,

00.2

etc.).

D-numbers

refer

to

my

list

of the linear

devices,

repeated

here

with

additions

(Fig.

1).

Virtually

all the seals

are

pyramidal

in

shape

(rectangular

with bevelled

corners),

have

convex

faces

and are of

chalcedony (commonly

blue).

Some

are

mounted

in silver in

a

Lydo-Achaemenid

fashion

readily

matched

on

other silverwork.

It

seems

probable

that

they begin

in the

early years

of

Persian

D1

D1.1

D1.2

D2

D2.1 D3

D4

D5 D6

D7

D8

D9 D9.1

DI0

D11

D12

D13 D14

D15

D16

D17

D18

D19

D19.1

D20

D21

D22

D23 D24

D25

D26

D27

D28 D29

D30

D31

D32

D33

D34

D34.1

D35

D35.1 D35.2 D36

D37 D38

D39

D40

D41

D42

D43

D44

D45

D46

D47

D48 D49

D50

D51.1

D52

D.52.1

D53 D54

D55 D56

D57

D57.1

D58

D59

D60

D61

D62

D63

D64

D64.1 D65

Fig.

1.

Linear

deviceson

pyramidal

and other eals.

1


3/14

2

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

rule in

Anatolia

(after

547

B.C.),

although

not neces-

sarily

from the

start,

and

may

continue

throughout

the

Persian

period

although

there

is

no clear evi-

dence

that the

seal

type

survived

so

long.

The solu-

tion here depends on parallelswith better dated seal-

ings

from

Persia,

but

such

parallels

as there are with

Greek

seals

seem no

later than

the

first

half of the

fifth

century.

The non-Greek

scripts

of Anatolia tend

to

cling

to

archaic

forms,

but

none

of

the

inscrip-

tions

on

these

seals includes

any

forms that need be

later

than

archaic. We

depend

much on the other

history

of the

linear

devices,

explored

below,

which

yields

at

least

the

possibility

of an

early

start.

1

Those

which

seem

related to

Lydo-Greek

oriental-

ising

works

of

the sixth

century present

the

potniai

theron,

some

monsters and

the

lion

v.

bull

groups,

which

are

not an

early

motif in

Achaemenid arts.2

The

majority

are

in

what

I

characterised

as an

archaic western form of the Persian Court

Style,

shown

at its

best in

Persian relief

sculpture

and seal-

ings

at

Persepolis

as well

as

more

generally

disposed

on

Persian

objects

in

various

parts

of the

empire.

It

might

be

noted that

the lion and

bull

foreparts

of

the

Croeseid

coins,

struck in

Lydia

for Persians

through

most of

the second

half

of

the

sixth

century,

seem

to

carry

something

of this

style

(which

is ulti-

mately

a

variety

of

Mesopotamian

styles

of earlier

years),

as

well as much

of

west

Anatolian orientalis-

ing

as

seen

on the East

Greek

Wild

Goat vases from

the

later

seventh

century

on.

It is a

reminder that

the

west

had

already

been

exposed

to

a

long

period

of

(As)

syrianisation

which had been

well

absorbed,

per-

haps

to a

greater

degree

than it

had been

in

Persia,

where

Elamite

traditions,

related

but

distinct,

were

strong,

aswell

as eastern

styles

of

non-Mesopotamian

origin

(e.g.

the

Luristan

bronzes).

From

Darius on

the

coins

attract

figure

subjects

(the archer)

more

readily

related

to

sculptural

styles

in

the

homeland,

and

displaying

the same

superficial

stylistic

elements

derived

from

the

west

(mainly

dress).3

Publication

and

study

of

sealings

from the

Fortification

tablets at

Persepolis,

undertaken

by

Margaret

Cool

Root and

Mark

Garrison,

extend the

possibilities

of

understanding

the

Anatolian

phe-

nomenon.

The

sealings

are of

509-494

B.C.,

within

the

reign

of

Darius,

and

include by 500 B.C. an

impression

from

one of our

seals

carrying

also a

linear

device

of

the

standard

variety

(no.45.1

with

D2.1),

and

another,

of

495

B.C.,

explicitly

owned

by

a

man from

Sardis

carrying

a

sealed document of

Artaphernes

(no.26.2).4

The

western

pyramidals

are

a

Babylonian

shape

which

continued

in

use

in

Persia,

and

with

Babylonian

devices,

apparently

into the

period

of

empire.

Whether or not

these

had

any

real

currency

in

Lydia

(highly improbable),

one can

hardly

suppose

that the

Lydo-Persian

use

of them

was

adopted

initially

in

the

west,

rather than

carried

from Persia.

But,

stylistically

the

subjects

and

style

in

the initial

stages

seem as much Anatolian

as

Persian;

thereafter,

as

already

remarked,

keeping

in

touch

with Persian taste. The special western usage, notably

with

the linear

devices,

seems not to have

been

shared

in

Persia,

where the linear devices are

not

conspicuous

on seals

(though

they

are in

other

media;

see

below).6

Moreover,

the east

remained

devoted to the

cylinder

for serious

sealing,

mainly

ignored

in the west

apart

from some

significantly

notable

exceptions

(see

below).

The seals

used

in

Persepolis

for the Fortification

tablets are in various

styles,

including

one

detected

by

Garrison as a local

invention,

the

Fortification

Style .7

n

attributing

the western

pyramidal

sealing

of 500

B.C.

(no.45.1)

to the

style,

Root

raises the

question

whether

the whole

phenomenon

starts

in

the east (if so, with no real following). But the stylis-

tic attribution

might

be

questioned,

and raises

prob-

lems

of

dealing

with seal

iconography

and

interpre-

tation,

especially

where

sealings

are involved.

The

seal in

question

shows a lion

attacking

a

bull,

not

quite

in the

pose

usual on the western

pyramidals

since

the bull reclines with head

back,

attacked

from

behind,

though

this is common on Greek

seals;8

his

is a

subject

which is well at home in the

west,

but

in

the

east

appears

to be an innovation

of Darius'

later

years .9

The Fortification

Style

is less

emphatic

and

detailed

than the

Court

Style,

but in this case it

is

possible

to

be misled

by sealing

impressions

not

driven

home

fully

in the

clay,

and with

fine-drill

detail

(as

for

paws)

clogged

by previous

use.

The

phenomenon

is familiar

to me at least

in

dealing

with

later

sealings

which

are often less

crisp

and

detailed

than their related

originals

which can

be

cleanly

impressed

for

study.

It is also

necessary

to

approach

such

stylistic

matters from the

point

of

view of

seal

technique

of miniaturist

proportions,

rather

than

straight

comparison

with monumental

reliefs.

From the

photograph

I think the

published

drawing

can be criticised

for

being over-simplified,

and

I can see traces of far more

body-marking,

even

drilling

(muzzle

and

paw),

which

places

it

securely

with

the other

orientalising

westerners,

as do

its sub-

ject,

and

the

presence

of a

typical

western

linear

device.

The

origins

of the western

pyramidals

remain

something

of a

problem.

I

regard

them as a seal

type

introduced

from the east

but

specially adopted

for

administration

in Persian

Lydia,

an area better used

to

stamps

than

cylinders,

and

to suitable

intaglio

techniques

and

style

(for

coins and

seals).

Moreover,

in

Lydia they

attract

unique

means

of

indicating personal

ownership

to which we

now

turn.


4/14

SEALS

AND

SIGNS.

ANATOLIAN

STAMP

SEALS OF

THE PERSIAN PERIOD

REVISITED

3

Inscriptions

I

listed

in

Iran

VIII

ten

seals

with

Lydian

inscrip-

tions

(nos.

1-10).

All

were

pyramidal

except

the

scaraboid

no.5,

and

no.7

which

turnsout to

be a

cylin-der

(see

below).

No.1

declared

the

device at

its centre

to be the

mark

(sadmes

=

Greek

sema)

of

Mitratas,

a

good

Persian

name.

Others had

Lydian

names:

Bakivasson of

Sams,

Sivams son of

Ates,

and three

(or

four)

times

the

common

Anatolian

name

Manes. On

three

others

the

names

seemed

obscure

(nos.8-10).

R.

Gusmani10

observed

that

I

omitted

the

final

m

of

the

manelim

on

no.4,

and

adds

to those

with

Lydian

inscriptions

my

no.98

which

I

had

taken to be

carrying

an

Aramaic

inscription.

This

reads

nanas,

a

Lydian

name.

He

also

takes no.7

(mane..omen)

o

be

Phrygian,

in

which

he is

supported

by

O.

Masson.

Masson,

with

Edith

Porada's

help,

found

where

no.7

is (Buffalo C15046), which reveals it as a cylinder.

There

are

by

now

four

additions:

two

more

pyra-

midal with

Lydian

names

(nos.

10.1,2)

ubnadtolim

P1.

I,

1)

and

milas

(Fig.

2),

the

second of

which

also

car-

ries a linear

device,

an

inverted

version

of

one

already

known

(D21)

on

a

gem

of

similar

style

(no.33).

There

is

also a

name

on

a

cylinder

seal

(no.10.4)

which

car-

ries a far

more

elaborate

figure

subject,

as

well as

a

linear

device

(inverted

D23

on

the

weight

stamp

no.189)

in

the

same

style

(Fig.

3).

Its

authenticity

could be in

doubt,

however,

there are

epigraphical

problems

(it

uses a

Greek

pi),

and

Gusmani

does not

list it.

The

name,

however,

is

suggestive-pakpuvas.

Poetto

thinks

it

could

easily

be

a

variant

(or,

I

sup-

pose, simply mis-spelling) of the known Anatolian

name

Paktyas/es.

If

so

it

inevitably

calls to

mind

that

Paktyas

who,

according

to

Herodotus

(1,

153-60),

was a

Lydian

appointed

to

collect

revenue from

the

Greek

cities.

His

attempt

at

revolt

was

suppressed

and

he

was

eventually

surrendered

to the

Persians

by

the

Chians.

That

this

should

be our

Paktyas

s

perhaps

too

much to

hope,

and

the seal

is

possibly

somewhat later

(depending

on

when

we think

the

series

started,

but

it is not

a

stamp,

after

all,

nor with a

usual

subject

and

style).

However,

Paktyas'

unction

was

very

much

one

for

which

personal

identity

on an

official

seal

(and

a

cylinder,

not a

stamp)

would

have

been

highly appro-

priate,

indeed

necessary.

Another pyramidal seal (no.10.3) is now known

(P1.

I, 2),

to

add to

no.7 as an

example

with

what

seems

to be a

Phrygian

inscription,

pserkeyoy

tas. It

may

be noted

that

all

the

Lydian

inscriptions

run

rightward

on

the

seals,

leftward in

impression,12

which is

the reverse

of

the

practice

on the

two with

Phrygian

inscriptions.

Two

seals

already

known

(nos.13,

15)

carry

Cypriot

names and

Greek-style subjects.

These do

not

have linear

devices

(nor

do other

Greek-style

pyramidals),

and it

seems

unlikely

that

they

are to be

Fig.

2. Borowski

Collection.

understood in quite the same light as the Anatolian.

But there

is a

scarab,

a

scaraboid

and three metal

fin-

ger rings

of Greek

style

with

the devices

(nos.

194-6,

194.1,

196.1),

all of

probable

Anatolian

(or

Greek

Cypriot) origin.

Most of

the seals with

Lydian

or

Phrygian

names

seem to have been

cut with

the

intention of

including

the name

and linear

device;

other

linear devices seem

subsidiary

to the

figure

subjects

but not

necessarily

added

on

any

later

occa-

sion;

I

have therefore

assumed

that

they

were cut

the

rightwayup

vis-a-vis

he

figure

device.

Subjects

In the appended supplementary Catalogue I have

listed

additions

to the list in Iran

VIII,

confining

myself

more

rigorously

to the

pyramidal shape

except

where the

presence

of

an

obvious

linear

device

suggests

inclusion.

The

majority

of the

sub-

jects

are

conventional

and within the

usual

Persian

range, heavily

influenced

by

the

iconography

of

Mesopotamia.

I draw attention

here

only

to

some

less usual

subjects:

The inscribed

cylinder

no.

10.4

(Fig.

3)

carries

one

of the most elaborate

subjects, graced

with

an

already

known

but inverted device

(D23).

Two

Persians(?)

are seen with

a table between

them

and

the whole

ensemble

displays

disturbing

features

without quite being obviously a forgery. Three new

stamps

(nos.

17.1,

2,

and

3,

possibly

18.3)

extend

the

range

of

Greek-style

devices with

a

satyr

(P1.

I, 3),

a

sea-monster

and a

ploughing

scene. The

satyr

is

late

archaic

in

type,

and

so is the sea-monster

(ketos)

since it is shown

as a lion-headed

fish,

which

is

the

pre-classical type

that

helps

Thetis

in her

struggle

with

Peleus in vase

painting,

although

then

it has

no

legs

and the

wings

are

improper.'3

This

may

be

a

further

hint that the

majority

of these

pyramidals

belong

early

in the Persian

period

in the

west.


5/14


6/14

SEALS

AND

SIGNS.

ANATOLIAN STAMP

SEALS OF THE PERSIAN PERIOD REVISITED

5

Fig.

5.

Devices

on

Lycian

coins.

(broadly

Lydo-Carian)

in

character,

but

partly

resembling

our

devices.'9

Less

formal

use of such

marks is

not

always

easy

to

identify

in

Anatolia,

but

there

are

several

roughly

similar

graffiti

on

pottery

from

Gordion of

the

sixth

to

fourth

century

(Lydian

period)

.20

The

home

of

the

devices

seems

clear,

or

at

least

the area of their major use. Their inspiration or ori-

gin

is

less

easily

determined.

There

seems

nothing

comparable

surviving

in

the

east

which

is

pre-

Achaemenid

and

which

can

readily

be

taken

as

proto-

type.

For

example,

Old

Elamite

script

comprises

a

variety

of

linear

devices,

one or

two of

which

are not

unlike

ours,

but

the

whole

syntax

is

basically

differ-

ent.21In

Anatolia

Hittite

and

neo-Hittite

hieroglyphs

offer

nothing

to

suggest

direct

influence

or

inspira-

tion.22

Nor

does

any

major

class

of

eastern

seal

appear

to

employ

such

devices,

like

or

unlike

ours. In

Iran

VIII

I

thought

the

scheme

had been

derived

from

Greek

practice

with

incised

or

painted

mercantile

marks

on

pottery,

which

go

well

back

into

the Iron

Age; none of

early

date, however, observe the same

principles

of

composition.

In

the

early

Iron

Age

the

Greek

marks

are

usually

no

more

than

simple

crosses

and I

doubt

whether

any

are

personal

identifications

rather

than a

signal

that

a

pot

is

full/empty,

for a

par-

ticular

purpose,

or

the

like.23

(That

they

are

not

let-

ters is a

further

indication

that

the

Greeks

knew no

alphabet

before

the

eighth

century.)

From

that

time

on

such

marks on

Greek

vases

and

other

objects

are

either

simple

geometric

forms

that

may

approximate

to

letters,

or

they

are

letters

or

monograms.

Some

archaic

Rhodian

pottery

dipinti

(late

seventh-early

sixth

centuries)

offer a

few

similarities,

which

is

hard-

ly surprising

(cf.

Iran

VIII,

fig. 5).

The

earliest clear

sequence

is

Corinthian-all

letters;24

hen

the

major

Attic

series

from

before the

mid-sixth

century

on.

Among

the

Athenian

graffiti

a

very

small

group

stands

out

as

belonging

with

our

seal

devices

(Fig.

6).

They

are

all on

figure-decorated

vases

exported

to

Fig.

6.

Merchant

marks

on

Athenian

pottery.

Italy.25

The

first

appears

soon after the mid-sixth

cen-

tury

and is in use

for a

generation,

a

period

in which

a

vase-painter

who

signs

himself

the

Lydian

was

work-

ing

in

Athens;

the rest

are

late-sixth

to

early-fifth

cen-

tury,and the thirtyodd known tend to cluster around

particular workshops,

which

is a common feature

for

such

marks.26

They

must indicate

the

presence

of

Anatolian merchants

(not

necessarily

non-Greek)

or

others

who had

picked up

an Anatolian

practice,

but

they

are an extreme

minority among

the

merchant

marks

on

Athenian

vases.

Apart

from

these, the

Greek connection

can now be

ignored.

This

brings

us no closer

to

determining

the

origin

of

the devices for

which,

on the

seals,

the

terminus

ost

quem

must

be the establishment

of Persian

rule

in

Anatolia,

after 547 B.C..

Their immediate

fore-

runners

are

probably

to be

sought

on

Lydian

mason-

ry

of the first half of

the sixth

century,

before

the

Persian invasion. The dating is highly probable-vir-

tually

certain.

The marks

are

carved,

often

rather

roughly

on ashlarblocks

with bold drafted

margins,

a

new

style

of

masonry

for the

west,

probably

learnt

from

the east and

picked up by Lydians

and Greeks

at

about

the same

time. There

is

usually

only

one

mark

per

block,

at best two. It

is more than

likely

that

all

are masons'

marks,

and

since their

disposition

on

the

walls shows that

the marks

do not indicate

placing,

it

is

likely

that

they

were

put

on

just

before

construc-

tion,

in the

quarry,indicating

the work

of a mason

or

team. Some resemble

letters

but

they

are,

as a

group,

certainly

not a

sample

of the

Lydian alphabet.

Other

explanations

for

individual

signs

have been offered:

a

monogram gugu

for what was once

thought

the

Tomb of

Gyges,

or

religious/ magic

symbols.

But

they

seem to serve

the same

purpose

as marks

we have

yet

to

consider,

in

Persia,

and that most

or all

indicate

some individual

masonic

activity

seems

certain.

The

group

at

Karniyarik

Tepe

(the

former

Tomb

of

Gyges )

at Sardis is on

a

monument

confidently

dated to

the latest seventh or first

half of the sixth

cen-

tury, pre-Persian

(Fig.

7).27

The

first

mark,

the

once-

alleged gugu, appears twenty-five

times in one

or

an-

other

of its

forms,

once with each on one

block.

The

other

signs

once each

except

for

four swastikas

n

all.

These are

all masons' marks

in the

light

of

what

appears elsewhere. At Sardis itself, on a wall at the

north side

of the

Acropolis

which

is taken

to be

pre-

Persian,28

here

are several

pairs

of

angle

marks

while

the others

begin

to look more like

the seal

devices

(Fig.

8).

Finally,

on

a massive fortification

wall

in

Sector MMS-N29

there is a

comparable

selection

(Fig.

9).

Some

are

reported

as

being partly

erased

by

the

cutting

of the block

margins,

which

was done

in

situ. This

is a

further

indication that the marks

are

ear-

lier than

the erection of the

wall,

probably

from

the

quarry.

The

stratigraphy strongly

indicates

a

pre-


7/14

6

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN STUDIES

Fig.

7.

Masons'marks

on

Karmiyarik

Tepe,

Sardis.

Fig.

8.

Masons' markson the

Acropolis

wall,

Sardis.

Fig.

9.

Masons'marks

on theMMS-N

wall,

Sardis.

Persian

date.

There

is a

greater

range

of

marks

here,

with

more

resembling

the seal

devices.

Occasionally

marks are

paired

on

a

block

(always

very

simple

linear

ones: Vs, Xs and an A) and most are one to a block.

The

greatest

of

the

tombs

at

Sardis,

confidently

identified

as

the

Tomb of

Alyattes,

who died in

560

B.C.,

has

no

marks

preserved,

but

Herodotus'

description

of

it

contains

an

interesting

comment on

Lydian

interest

in

the

teams

involved in

such monu-

mental

constructions,

and

although

it

gives

us

no

serious

information

even

about

the use

of masons'

marks,

it

does

reflect on

a

style

of

organisation

in

which

they

perhaps

played

an

important

part.

He

writes

(1,

93):

[The

tomb]

was raised

by

the

joint

labours

of

the

tradesmen

(agoraioi),

handicraftsmen

(cheironaktes),

nd

courtesans

of

Sardis,

and

had

at

the

top

five

stone

pillars

(ouroi

=

horoi),

which

remained to

my day,

with

inscriptions

cut

on

them,

showing

how

much

of the

work

was

done

by

each

class of

work

people.

It

appeared

on

measurement

that

the

portion

of

the

courtesans

was

the

largest.

The

last

remark

was

probably

a

tourist

anecdote,

but

there was

perhaps

some

such

record.

The

pillars

are

long

gone

and

only

one

large

and

one

small

globe

marker

survived to

the

nineteenth

century.

One

further

Sardian

monument

needs to

be

men-

tioned,

though

it

is

post-547

B.C.

(possibly

not

by

much)

and is

of

more

potential

interest

for its

archi-

tectural

relationship

to

the

east,

which I

shall

further

explore

elsewhere. It is

the

so-called

Pyramid

Tomb.

A

recent

study

makes it

look

less

of

a

pyramid but

dates

it

probably

during

the

first

generation

of

Persian

occupation

at

Sardis,

with

the

suggestion

that

it

may

have

been

built and

designed

locally

for

the

burial of

a

Persian

noble.

Masons'

marks on its

ashlar

blocks

comprise

two

swastikas,

and

two

circles

linked

horizontally,

which

are

not

unlike

a

Lydian

letter

variant.30

Although

most or

all of

these

marks

are not

exact-

ly

letters,

it

will

be

seen

that

the

range

is

not

quite

that

of

the

seal

devices

and

overall,

fewer use

circle

and

crescent,

which

may

be easier

to

manage

with

a

drill on

a

gem

than with

a chisel

on a

big

ashlar,

but

the

general appearance

is

similar

and the

apparent

use, to identify individual work, is the same. This

conclusion

will be reinforced

by

observations

in

Persia

(see below).

We

may

take

it that

for the

seals

and Anatolian

coins

a more

sophisticated

series

of

devices had

to be devised for a

number of individu-

als,

officials

or the like, who

wished

to mark

their

authority

or

ownership

on and

with

objects

of

some

value.

There would

have been

many

more such

folk

than

quarry

masters, and we must have

but

a

small

proportion

of

the total

corpus

of devices.

It is

cer-

tainly

possible

that the new

Persian

administration

was

a

positive

incentive

to hasten

the evolution

of

the

practice

for more administrative

purposes, involving

also additions to the

formal elements

from which the

devices

were

composed,

since

some seem

to

recall

sun-discs

and

their

trappings

(D2,

4,

9.1).

If these

observations

are correct

we

may

place

the

beginning

of the

practice,

so far as

the

evidence

goes,

in

Lydia,

before

the arrival

of the

Persians,

and

assume

that their

presence

lent

impetus

to

the

prac-

tice for

more exalted

customers. But the future

history

of the devices remains

long

related to

mason-

ry

in a Persian

context,

as we shall see.

This need

not

mean that

the

concept

was invented

in

Lydia

and

only

for masons.

At best we can

say

only

that for

the

next

two centuries

the observable

history

of

such

marks

is

heavily

Anatolian

and

Persian,

the

latter

apparently deriving from the former.

Any

other

possible

Greek associations

need

a

moment's

discussion,

since

in Iran VIII

I

had

thought

that

the

practice

was derived from

Greece,

and the

subject

has

now moved

from seals or

pots

to

masonry.

At

Old

Smyrna

fine

masonry

(without

drafted

margins

and

unlike the

Lydian just

dis-

cussed)

carries

mason

marks which

seem to

be

let-

ters,

though

whether

any

of them are

Lydian

(or

Carian)

rather

than

Greek

is not clear.31The date

is

early

sixth-century,

before

the destruction

by


8/14

SEALS AND SIGNS. ANATOLIAN STAMP SEALS

OF

THE

PERSIAN

PERIOD

REVISITED

7

Fig.

10. Masons'markson Tall-i

Takht,

Pasargadae.

Alyattes.

Elsewhere on

sixth

century

Ionian

architec-

ture

only

letters

appear, nothing

like

our

devices;

there

is

negative

evidence

from

Samos,

Ephesus

and

Miletus.32

So

the

Ionian

practice

for masons is as that

for

pot

merchants, and has

nothing

to do with our

devices. Greek

involvement

can

thus be eliminated

although

the earlier

Greek

practice

with

other

signs,

discussed

already, might

have been

inspirational,

and

earlier

pot

marks

in Anatolia

offer

no

good

precedents,

to

judge

from

what has

been

published

from

Phrygia.

We

turn

now

to

the Persian

homeland

and

have

to do with masons

not

seals.

We

know that

Lydian

and

Ionian

masons

were

employed

by

Darius at

Susa-he

tells

us as

much-and there is

good

archaeological

evidence

for their influence and

probable

presence

earlier,

under

Cyrus,

at

Pasargadae.33Many

marks have been recorded on

the

standing

terrace

walls of Tall-i

Takht,

the

great

platform overlooking

the

site,

now

fully

studied

by

D. Stronach.

Some

had been illustrated

compara-

tively recently by

E.

Herzfeld

(a

fact

unknown

to me

when

I

wrote

in

Iran

VIII)34

but

they

had also been

observed

by

earlier travellers

(e.g.,

J.

Dieulafoy

in

1821)

who took

them to be the

script

of an

unknown

language.

R.

Ker Porter took

them

for

positioning

marks

which had

already

been

planned

in the

quarries

where

they

were

cut.35

A later

visitor,

E.

G.

Browne,

in

1887/8,

mentioned that

they

had

been

taken

for

some

ancient

language,

but

revealed

that the locals

had

what we now see to be the

right

answer, or near it: The villager that accompanied

me declared that

they

were marks

placed by

each

mason on the stones at

which he had

worked,

in

order

that the amount

of his work and the

wages

due

to

him

might

be

proved;

and

I

have

no doubt

that

such

is

their

nature. At

any

rate

they

in no

wise

resemble

any

known

alphabet. 36

The

range

of

marks recorded

by

Stronach's team is remarkable

(Fig.

10),17

many

closely

resembling

the Anatolian

seal

devices. A few

appear

also on the core

masonry,

not

just

the

facade

ashlars,

and

they

are

often

grouped,

suggesting

some

quarry

organisation

that

can

be

imagined

rather

than

demonstrated.

That

they

may

also

have

something

to

do with

the

placing

of

the blocks

may

be

suggested

by

different

group-

ing

north and south,38which might equally reflect

period

of

construction

and

the

operation

of

differ-

ent individual

masons

or teams

at

different

stages.

Comparable

marks

appear

on blocks

at

Susa

on

the

Apadana

(Fig.

11),

built

by

Darius,

and these

include

some

based

on the

circle,39

which are

matched

by

the

far

more

numerous

marks

on

the

Treasury

at

Persepolis

(Fig.

12).40

These are

on the

top

surfaces

of

the

many

column

bases,

on the

upper

member

(tori)

and

the lower

square

plinth.41

The

style

of

the

marks

is

familiar

by

now,

including

sever-

al

interesting

close

parallels

to

those

on

seals

(e.g.

with

D39).

Most

are

singletons,

and similar

devices

are

grouped

on

bases

on

the

site,

some

in

twos

and

threes.

They

are

on bases

of all three

building

periods,

mainly

of

the

period

of

Darius

and

early

Xerxes.42

Roaf

has

collected

and

published

the

marks that

appear

on

sculpture

reliefs

at

Persepolis,

notably

on

the

Apadana

and

the

Central

Building.43

A

distinction can

be

drawn

between

these

sculptors'

marks

(Fig.

13),

where

individual

hands

can

be

proved

by

observation

of the

rendering

of

detail,

and

masons'

marks,

some

of which

on

Treasury

bases

match

those

on

the

Apadana,

and

might

indicate

teams

as well

as

individuals,

though

where

there is

a

cluster

of

marks

it

seems

more

likely

to indicate

sev-

eral

individuals

than

several

teams.

There is, to my knowledge, not much more

evi-

dence

for

their

use in

the

period

of

the

Achaemenid

empire.

A

single

graffito

on

a

pot,44

and of

a

type

with

a

long

later

history,

suggests

that

the

practice

was

not

altogether

confined

to

stoneworkers,

only

that

it is

their

usage

that

has

survived.

Fig.

11.

Masons'

marks

at

Susa.


9/14

8

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

Fig.

12. Masons'

marks

on the

Treasury, ersepolis.

Fig.

13.

Sculptors'

marks

on

the

Apadana, Persepolis.

Fig.

14. Masons'

marks

from

Parthian,

Sasanian

and Islamic

buildings,

ran.

Later,

however,

the

general

concept

of

using

such

devices

to

identify

individuals

continued

strongly,

and

with

the

same

basic syntax of construction

though

the

range

of

basic

types

becomes

more

limited.

The

phenomenon

was

investigated

by

H.

Janichen

in

Bildzeichen

der

k6niglichen

Hoheit

bei den

iranischen

Vl1kern

Bonn,

1956),

but he

did

not con-

sider

their

predecessors.

The

devices,

and

others

which

very

clearly

belong

in

the

same

tradition,

are

recorded

on

Parthian,

Sasanian

and

Islamic

build-

ings

in

Persia.

Many

have

been

illustrated

more

recently,

and I

select

some

whose

ancestry

is un-

mistakable

(Fig.

14).45

Comparable

devices,

in vari-

ous

forms,

served

as

the

mark

of

kings

on

Parthian

coins

(Jinichen,

pl.

26

top)

and

for

individuals on

Sasanian

seals

(ibid.,

pl.

23)

and on

the

royal

crowns

(ibid., pl. 24). The seal devices are mainly based on

crescents

and

horns,

and

may

be in

their

way

mono-

grams.46

Farther

east

comparable

devices

appear

on

the

Kushan

coins of

north

India,

much

influenced in

other

ways

by

Persian

example

(ibid.,

pl.

27);

these

are

based

mainly

on

triple

(Buddhist)

or

quadruple

fork-motifs,

one

of the

more

persistent

forms surviv-

ing

from

Lydian

D49

through

Persian.

Seljuks

and

the

Golden

Horde

are

not

exempt

(ibid.,

pl.

28).

To

the

north,

the

Sarmatians

use

what are

called

tamgas

for

a

similar

purpose

and

these

are

similarly

composed

(Fig.

15).47

They

are

prolific

on the

north

Black Sea

sites

and

I

illustrate one

of

the

stone

lions

from Olbia which has been generously decorated

with them

(Fig.

16). The

whole

practice

is

naturally

applied

also

to horse

branding

in this area

and

the

whole

phenomenon

has been

thought

to

derive

from brands.

It is not

impossible

that there

was

such

an

origin

since

such

simple

demonstration

of

Fig. 15.

Sarmatian

amgas.

Fig.

16. Marble

ion

rom

Olbia.


10/14

SEALS

AND

SIGNS.

ANATOLIAN STAMP

SEALS

OF

THE

PERSIAN

PERIOD REVISITED

9

Fig.

17.

Brahmi

inscriptionofAshoka.

Fig.

18. South

Arabian

script.

personal

possession

must

lie

behind

the

usage,

but if

it

has to do

with

branding

it is

lost

to us

because

for

the

early

period

evidence from

representations

is

lacking.

It

would

have

been an

essentially

Asian

phe-

nomenon,

and

its

appearance

first on

masonry

in

Lydia

is at

best

a

little

odd.48

There

would

be

good

reason for

quarrymen

and

masons

to mark

their

work in

any

period,

and

the

practice

since

antiquity

is

common.

It is

perhaps

surprising

that

the

marks

do

not

appear

regularly

on

metalwork

or

other

objets

d'art.

It

suggests

that

they

are not

so

much

sig-

natures

as for

purely

administrative

identification,

which applies even to those markswhich identify the

individual

sculptors

on

the

Apadana

at

Persepolis;

they

are

by

no

means

advertising

their

skills

rather

than

justifying

their

contracts.

Sulimirski

observed

that similar

marks

persisted

for

Polish

heraldry

of

the

eleventh to

eighteenth

centuries.

No

doubt

the

tradition

can

be

traced further in

time and

space

by

others

familiar

with

the

evidence;

it

survived

to

recent

times

in

some

eastern

areas,

to account

for

the

observations

of

the

locals

at

Pasargadae

to

Browne

(see

above).

Thus,

a

study

of

traditional

crafts

in

Persia

remarks

how

the

craftsman

chisels

his

stone-mason's

mark

into

each

stone.

This is a

spe-

cial

sign

that

he

has

chosen at

the

end

of his

appren-

ticeship

and that he uses for the rest of his

life .49

We

have

come

far

from

the

repertory

of

the

Lydian

masons

and

seal

engravers,

but

I

think

the

succession

of

the

general

concept

of creation

and

practice

is

clear

though

it

obviously

requires

more

refinement

for

the

later

periods

and

places

than

can

be

attempted

here. I

repeat

that

its

unity

is

best

demonstrated

by

contrasting

the

series with the

way

in

which

alphabetic

and

similar

scripts

or

groups

of

signs

have

been

composed

in

other

periods

and

places.

Throughout,

the

usage

in

our series

has

been

non-alphabetic

and there

is no

suspicion

that

it is

peculiar

to

any particular language.

However,

we

might

have

expected

that such a

simple

formula

for

the

creation

of

distinctive

devices

might

have

recommended

itself

to

anyone

devising

a

script.

I

think

it is

just possible

that

this can

be

detected

in

the

early

development

of

scripts, especially lapidary

versions of

scripts,

for two

languages,

probably

with-

in the

period

of

the

Achaemenid

empire,

which

fell

within

the

interests,

albeit

peripheral,

of the

Persian

court.

Both derive

ultimately

from

Aramaic,

the

administrative

script

of the

empire,

but the

lapidary

form in which the scripts can be presented, especial-

ly

where

there

are

ligatures

or

monograms,

bears

a

strong

resemblance

to the marks

discussed

above.

The two

scripts

are

Brahmi,

as we

see it best on

the

columns

inscribed

for

King

Ashoka

in the third

cen-

tury

B.C.,

and with the

full

array

of diacritical

marks

(as

Fig.

17);5o

and

South Arabian

(Fig.

18).51

All

that

can be said

is that there

are

suggestive

similarities

in

the

composition

of

many

of the characters

and

of

their

overall

appearance.

One cannot

say

more,

and

some

might

think that

I have

already suggested

too

much.

Fig.

19. Gold

ring

and lion. Borowski

ollection.


11/14

10

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN STUDIES

CA

TALOGUE

The

following

are addenda

to

Iran

VIII that

have

come

to

my

notice,

but

with no

attempt

to

update

the biblio-

graphy

of

the

original

list,

many

pieces

in

which

have since

appeared

in museum

catalogues.

Inscribed

10.1

(P1.

I, 1)

London,

Malcolm

Hay.

Chalcedony.

Two

rearing

lions,

heads

turned

back,

a

tree

between. Inscribed

ubnadtolim

retr.

in

impression).

10.2

(Fig.

2)

Borowski Coll.

Blue

chalcedony,

with

gold

cap

and

ring.

Two

rearing

goats,

head

turned back.

Between

them

D21

(inverted).

Inscribed

in

exergue

with

last

letter

in

field

milas. M.

Poetto

and S.

Salvatori,

La

collezione

natolica

di E.

Borowski

1981),

no.

39,

pl.

39

(the

inscribed

seal

no.

38 is

really

an

amulet).

R.

Gusmani,

Lydisches

Worterbuch

rginzungsheft

III

(1986),

no.

106.

Since the middle letter has equal legs like a Greek lambda,

it

could

equally

be

read as

Greek.

10.3

(P1.

I,

2)

Borowski

Coll.

Blue

chalcedony.

Crouching

lion.

The

style

is

neither

Achaemenid nor

Greek. D1.1

in

the

field and

inscribed in

Phrygian

pserkeyoy

tas.

R.

Gusmani

and

M.

Poetto,

Kadmos

0

(1981),

pp.

64-7

valeatAtas ?

10.4

(Fig.

3)

Borowski Coll.

Grey

chalcedony

cylinder.

Beneath

a

winged

sun

disc

of

Achaemenid

type

is

enthroned a

man

wearing

what

looks like

a

combination

of

the

Persian

spiked

crown,

as

it

appears

on

seals,

and the

rounded

Median

hat. He

holds

three

sticks

which

in

other

circumstances

might

be

taken

for a

barsom. A Mede

(?)

faces him

proffering

a

small

cup

on

finger tips,

with

a sub-

missive

gesture.

Between

them

is an

animal-legged

table

bearing a calf's head, a stemmed cup (?) and a loaf(?).

Before

the Mede

the

linear

device

D23

(inverted)

and

behind him

the

vertical

inscription

pakpuvas

(?=

Paktyas/es;

retr. in

impression).

The

initial

letter

is as a

Greek

pi

rather

than

the

usual

Lydian.

The

unusual

but

not

implausible

elements

in

the

scene

perhaps

tell

in

favour

of

its

authenticity

which

might

otherwise

be doubt-

ed.

Poetto

and

Salvatori,

op.

cit.,

no. 40.

Greek

Style

17.1

(P1.

I, 3)

Basel

market.

Blue

chalcedony

in silver

mount. A

satyr

(hooved)

runs

holding

a

cup.

17.2.

Switzerland,

Private.

Blue

chalcedony.

Sea

monster

(lion

head

and

neck,

equine

forelegs, wings, long fishy

tail),

over a

dolphin.

17.3

Unknown. A

man

driving

an

ox-plough

over

ground

line as

on no.

122.

Orientalising

18.1

(P1.

I,

4)

Basel

market.

Chalcedony.

Beneath a

winged

sun

disc a naked

male

with

raised club holds

by

the hair a

small

woman who

supplicates

a

facing

Persian. He holds a

dagger

and seizes the

naked

male

by

his hair.

RA

1976, 48,

fig.

7.

18.2 Zurich market.

White

chalcedony.

A

Mede

holds

a

branch over

a

seated

Mede

holding

a

cup.

Sternberg,

Auktion 11

(1981),

pl.

59, no.

1072.

18.3

Sealing

on

a

Persepolis

Fortification tablet, PFS

1309s.

Possibly even Greek Style .A seated man being attacked

by

a

lion;

a

snake

(?)

in the field. Root

(see

n.

4),

fig.

6,

pl.

8.

19.1 Basel market. Blue

chalcedony.

Winged

goddess

holds

two lions inverted. Miinzen

und Medaillen Liste

450,

no. 415.

19.2

Borowski

Coll.

Winged goddess

holds two lions.

D34.1

in the field. Poetto and

Salvatori,

no.

42.

26.2

Sealing

on a

Persepolis

Fortification

tablet,

PFS1321s.

495 B.C.

The tablet is of

Dauma,

travelling

from Sardis

to

Persepolis

with a sealed document

from

Artaphernes.

Winged

Mede holds

two lions

inverted;

cross-hatched

exergue.

Root

(see

n.

4),

fig.

5,

pl.

7.

31.1 New

York,

Rosen 58.

Yellow/grey

agate.

Walking

lion.

31.2

Zurich,

market. Rock

crystal. Walking

lion.

Sternberg,

Auktion26 (1992),

no. 519.

32.1 Moscow, Pushkin. Blue

chalcedony.

A

winged

horse

walking;

long tail (not Persian type).

33.1

(P1.

I, 6)

New

York,

Rosen

57. Blue

chalcedony

with

silver mount

from Asia Minor.

Two

rampant

lions;

between them D9.1

33.2 Zurich

market. White

chalcedony.

Two

rampant

lions.

Sternberg,

Auktion11

(1981),

pl.

59,

no.

1074.

33.3

(once

4)

Basel

market. Rock

crystal.

Two

rampant

lions with heads turned back.

Miinzen und

Medaille;n

Auktion40

(1969),

pl.

1.2.

34.1 Basel market. Blue chalcedony. Two rampant lions

with heads turned

back,

a tree between them.

Miinzen

und

MedaillenListe

450,

no.

416.

34.2

(P1.

I,

5)

Malibu 81.AN.76.86.

Chalcedony.

Two

ram-

pant

lions with heads turned

back,

a tree-standard

between

them. D64.1 in the field.

J. Spier,

Ancient Gems

and

Finger

Rings

(Malibu, 1992),

pl.

57,

no.

109.

43.1 Izmir

3353,

from Old

Smyrna. Chalcedony

in

silver

mount. Lion attacks

bull,

bird on

rump.

Aramaic(?)

sign

in front of the bull.

TheAnatolian Civilisation

I

(Istanbul,

1983),

69,

B156.

43.2

New

York,

Morgan

Coll.

Blue

chalcedony.

Lion

attacks

bull. W. H.

Ward,

Cylinders..

J.

P.

Morgan

(New

York,

1909),

pl.

38,

308.

43.3 Basel market.

Red banded

agate.

Lion attacks

bull.

Miinzen

und

MedaillenListe

379,

no.

42.

43.4 Borowski Coll. Lion

attacks bull. D52.1

in the

field.

Poetto and

Salvatori,

no.

41.

45.1

Sealing

on a

Persepolis

Fortification

tablet,

PFS

1532s.

500 B.C.. Lion

attacks

bull,

flying

bird,

D2.1

behind;

cross-

hatched

exergue.

Root

(see

n.

4),

fig.

2,

pl.

4.

55.1

Cyrene.

Rock

crystal.

Lion attacks

goat.

The

Extra-

mural

Sanctuary

of

Demeter and

Persephone

at

Cyrene

III

(Philadelphia,

1987),

no.

30,

pl.

11.


12/14


13/14

12

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

1

I

am

indebted

to

Professor

Michael Roaf

for

comment and ref-

erences

to

material

relevant for

this

article,

and to Dr

Roger

Moorey

for

his

comments on

an

early

draft. I

am also

grateful

for

various comments

and

assistance

from

Maria

Brosius,

Margaret

Cool

Root,

Sinclair

Hood,

Jeffrey Spier,

and the

cooperation of various museum curators and collectors

named.

2

D.

Stronach,

Early

Achaemenid

Coinages ,

IA

XXIV

(1989),

p.

263.

3

For

the

coins,

Stronach,

op.

cit.,

pp.

255-79,

Croeseids

on

pl.

1.1-2. For

the

status of the

Court

style,

also

J.

Boardman,

Greek

Gemsand

FingerRings

(London,

1970),

p.

305;

it is

being

more

fully

studied

by

Mark

Garrison.

4

M.

C.

Root,

Pyramidal

Stamp

Sealings-the

Persepolis

Connection ,

in

Persian

Studies

Mem.

Volume

... D.

M.

Lewis;

ed.

A.

Kuhrt and M.

Brosius,

Oxford,

1998).

I

am much

indebt-

ed to

Maria

Brosius and

Professor Root

for

allowing

me access

to

her

text

before

publication.

The two

sealings

are

PFS 1532s

(fig.

2,

pl.

4;

see also eadem

and M.

Garrison,

Persepolis

Seal

Studies

(Leiden,

1996),

p.

4,

fig,

1)

and

PFS

1321s

(fig.

5,

pl.

7)

=

my

nos.

45.1,

26.2. Others

published

by

Root

could

belong

here,

but

I

have

included

only

my

no.

18.3

(which

she takes to

be western too and

might

even be Greek

Style ),

since it is not

altogether

clear

whether

the

other

four

non-Babylonian

pyra-

midal

stamps

she

publishes

are

locally

made or

from other

areas

of

the

empire.

Much

depends

on

analysis

of the

so-called

Fortification

Style

(see below)

which

is

better demonstrated on

cylinder

sealings.

Darius'

brother,

Artaphernes,

was

governor

of

Sardis

in

these

years

(Herodotus 5,

25,

et

alibi;

cf.

D. M.

Lewis,

Sparta

and Persia

(Leiden, 1977),

p.

2,

no.

2).

5

Root,

op.

cit.,

36-7.

6

Root,

op.

cit.,

41

remarks that

the

linear

device on

PFS1532s

(D2.1)

is

quite

unlike

any

of

the

devices I

listed;

but this

is

irrelevant

since

it is

clearly

composed

according

to

the same

syntax,

or

as

she

puts

it,

is

in

the

family .

The bisected

circle on

PFS1463s

(her

fig.

7,

pl.

9)

is

probably

not

of the

same class at

all,

nor

in

any way

a

personal

device

rather

than

some other

symbol.

With

this

syntax

of

composing

the

devices

(on

which

more,

below)

exact

matches

are

very

rare,

indeed would be

undesirable on most

personal

seals

of

a

single

context and

close

date,

unless an

owner had

more

than

one.

7

M.

Garrison,

Seals and the

Elite at

Persepolis ,

Ars

Orientalis

21

(1991),

pp.

1-29,

esp.

10-12.

8

For

the

Greek

see

J.

Boardman,

Archaic

Greek

Gems

London,

1968),

p.

123,

Scheme

A;

the

other

pyramidals

prefer

Scheme

C.

9

See n.

2.

10

Lydische

Siegelaufschriften

und

Verbum

Substantivum ,

Kadmos

11

(1972),

pp.

47-54.

11

Le

sceau

palho-phrygien

de

Mane ,

Kadmos 26

(1987),

pp.

109-12.

12

Pace

R.

Gusmani,

Lydisches

W6rterbuch

Ergdinzungsheft

I

(Heidelberg,

1980),

p.

18. No.

9

is

known

only

from

a

drawing

which,

I

suspect,

was made

from

the

stone

not the

impression

(despite

my

caption

in

Iran

VIII,

fig.

2).

13

LIMCVIII,

s.v.

Ketos

p.

732.

14

See D.

Diringer,

The

Alphabet

London,

1968).

In C. W.

King's

The

Gnosticsand their

Remains

(London,

1864)

Plate

O

is of

Hindoo

Symbols

and

Caste-Marks ,

each

set

being

in its

way

coherent,

and,

significantly,

the

only

set

that

resembles

ours is

from

the

old

Palace of

Sadilat

near

Isfahan.

15

Iran

VIII,

fig.

4

and no.

20.

16

See

Iran

VIII,

25,

fig.

5 and

references in

nn.

20-22.

Examples

for

my

Fig.

5 from

Lycia

are

taken

from

O.

Morkholm

and

J.

Zahle,

The

Coinages

of

the

Lycian

Dynasts ,

Acta

Archaeologica

47

(1976),

p.

63,

fig.

6

and the Index

to SNG

Sammlung

von

Aulock

(1981),

p.

179.

For

Pamphylia,

see

S.

Atlan,

Die

Miinzen

der

Stadt

Side mit

sidetischen

Aufschriften ,

Kadmos

7

(1968),

p.

72-they appear

singly,

in

pairs

or threesomes;

for Cilicia,

E. T. Newell, ACilician

Find ,

Numismatic

Chronicle

914,

p.

5.

17

The

last two in the

Lycian

shown in

Fig.

5, also

from

Morkholm

and

Zahle,

op.

cit.

18

For

Lycian

and

Carian

scripts

see

O.

Masson,

Anatolian

Languages , in CAHIII.2, ch. 34b; for Pamphylian, C. Brixhe,

L'alphabet

epichorique

de Side ,

Kadmos (1969),

pp.

54-84.

19 W.

Dressler, KaroideInschriften

im Steinbruch

von

Belevi ,

Jahreshefte

es

Osterreichisches

rchdologischen

nstituts

in Wien

48

(1966/7),

pp.

73-6.

20

L. E.

Roller,

Nonverbal

graffiti, dipinti

and

stamps

(Gordion

Special

Studies 1,

1987),

pp.

12-13;

her Chart B

gives

compar-

isons

with various other Anatolian

non-alphabetic

signs

of

the

type

we have discussed, but

the Gordion

examples

are

very

rough

and mixed

with

a

variety

of linear

patterns

which

might

not be

identifying

marks at

all.

21 W.

Hinz,

Altiranische

Funde

und

Forschungen

(Berlin,

1969),

p.

44.

Cf.

Borbu also

in the third millennium,

D. T. Potts,

The

Potter's Marks

of

Tepe

Yahya ,

Paleorient

7/1

(1981),

pp.

107-22,

including

lists of marks

from the Indo-Iranian

bor-

derlands, Central Asia

and India. I am indebted

to

Professor

Potts

(Melbourne)

for the

reference.

22 For stamped and incised devices on pottery, U. Seidl,

Boghazk6y-Hattusa

III

(1972);

and

early Syrian,

R.

Kolinski,

Early

Dynastic

Potter's Marks

from Polish Excavations

in

Northern

Syria ,

Berytus

41

(1993/4),

pp.

4-27. An

abortive

fourteenth/thirteenth-century Byblite syllabary,

mainly

derived from

Egyptian hieroglyphs,

has

a few similar

signs:

M. S.

Drower,

Syria,

1550-1400

B.C. , in

CAHII.1, 517;

Plates

to Vols.

/IIpl.

103a;

III.1,

794;

as do some

proto-Sinaitic,

ibid.,

799-802.

In

Egypt

from the fifth

Dynasty

on some

masons'

marks

are

found,

and include

circular elements,

not

on

the

whole natural

to

lapidary

marks outside

our series;

see

A.

Badawy,

Ancient

Egyptian

Architectural

Design

(Berkeley,

1965),

pp.

44-6

(I

am indebted

to Michael Roaf for the

refer-

ence).

Sinclair Hood

is

studying

the

masons'

marks at

Knossos;

they

bear

no

relationship

to

ours.

23

On these

marks,

J.

K.

Papadopoulos,

Early

ron

Age

Potters'

Marks in the

Aegean , Hesperia

63

(1994),

pp.

437-507.

Another,

R.

W. V.

Catling,

A

tenth-century

trade-mark

from

Lefkandi ,

in Minotaur

and Centaur

(Studies...

Mervyn

Popham,

ed. D.

Evely

et

al.,

Oxford,

1996),

pp.

126-132

probably

non-literate .

24

A.

W.

Johnston,

Rhodian

Readings ,

Annual

of

the

British

School

at Athens 70

(1975),

pp.

148-9;

and for the

Rhodian

marks,

which

are also of

owners,

it

seems.

25

A. W.

Johnston,

Trademarks

n Greek

Vases

Warminster, 1979),

pp.

86-7,

105-6.

Dr

Johnston

has

kindly

told

me of

other

examples

of the same

marks.

26

Johnston Type

33A has

Lydan

and

Group

E

affinities,

but

Lydos

may

himself have marketed:

Johnston,

op.

cit.,

48,

192.

27

R.

Gusmani,

Neue

epichorische

Schriftzeugnisse

aus

Sardis

(1958-1971)

(Cambridge,

1975),

pp.

67-71.

On the

date

and

gugu

C.

Ratte,

Not the tomb of

Gyges ,

JHS

114

(1994),

pp.

157-161.

I am indebted

to Dr Ratt6 for remarks

on

these

matters.

28

Gusmani,

op.

cit.,

pp.

71-73.

29

R.

Gusmani,

Steinmetzmarken

aus

Sardis ,

Kadmos

7

(1988),

pp.

27-34.

30

C.

Ratte,

The

'Pyramidal

Tomb' at

Sardis ,

Ist

Mitt

42

(1992),

pp.

135-61;

and see

now W.

Kleiss,

Bemerkungen

zum

'Pyramidal

Tomb'

at

Sardes ,

Ist

Mitt 46

(1996),

pp.

135-40.

31

E.

Akurgal, Alt-Smyrna

(1983),

pp.

98-9;

R. V.

Nicholls,

Early

Monumental

Religious

Architecture

at Old

Smyrna ,

in

New

Perspectives

in

Early

Greek Art

(ed. D.

Buitron-Oliver,

Washington,

1991),

pp.

170,

no.

62.

32

I am

indebted to Professors

A.

Bammer,

V. von

Graeve

and

H.

J.

Kienast

for information

about

these sites.

There

are

Megarian

letters on

masonry

of the

late seventh

century

at


14/14

SEALS

AND SIGNS. ANATOLIAN

STAMP SEALS

OF THE PERSIAN

PERIOD

REVISITED

13

Leontini

in

Sicily:

G.

Rizza,

Leontini

nell'VIII

e nel VII

secolo

a.C. ,

Cronache

7

(1978),

p.

28,

cf. 38.

33

See

C.

Nylander's

Jonians

at

Pasargadae Uppsala,

1970),

a fun-

damental and

perceptive study

of

importance

far

beyond

Persia.

34 E. E. Herzfeld, Iran in theAncientEast (Boston, 1941), p. 237,

with

figs.

338-9

showing

select marks from

Pasargadae

and

Persepolis;

The

constituent elements are

either old inherited

symbols

or

combinations

of cuneiform

elements;

perhaps

some

of

them

are

connected with

Egyptian

marks.

35

R. Ker

Porter,

Travels in

Georgia,

Persia, Armenia,

Ancient

Babylonia

tc.

(London,

1821),

p.

486

with

sketches.

36

E.

Granville

Browne,

A

Year

Amongst

he

Persians

(Cambridge,

1893),

p.

260.

He noted

similar

signs

on a

wall near the Palace

(i.e.

Palace

S)

and on

the

steps

of the Tomb of

Cyrus (p.

264),

where there

are various

signs

of

various

dates, none,

I

think,

certainly

of

the

period

of

construction.

37

D.

Stronach,

Pasargadae

Oxford,

1978),

pp.

21-2.

38

Pointed out

to

me

by

Michael

Roaf.

39

C.

Nylander

in

Monumentum

H. S.

Nyberg

Acta

Iranica

6,

1975)

figs.

1, 2,

4,

6.

40

E.

F.

Schmidt,

Persepolis

(Chicago,

1953),

pp.

161, 178,

181,

189-90, 193, 195, 198. There are also two on damaged bases,

perhaps

fallen

from

an

upper

story

of the

Apadana

(ibid.,

p.

74).

For

marks on a

parapet

of the

period

of

Xerxes,

A.

B.

Tilia,

Reconstruction of

the

parapet

on the terrace at

Persepolis,

south

and

west of

Palace

H ,

EW19

(1969),

p.

34,

fig.

7.

41

nearly

always

the

same : M.

Roaf,

Sculptures

and

Sculptors

at

Persepolis

Iran

XXI,

1983),

p.

90.

42

C.

Nylander,

Masons' Marks in

Persepolis ,

in AMI

Ergdinzungsband

6

(1979),

p.

237,

takes

them

to

reflect a

higher

and

more

complex

order of

organisation

than individ-

ual

stonemasons;

but see

on the

Apadana

relief

marks,

above.

Marks are also

reported

on

Takht-i

Rustam,

in the

Persepolis

plain, possibly

a

copy

of

the Tomb of

Cyrus:Pasargadae

2, 302;

for

the

monument,

W.

Kleiss,

Der

Takht-i

Rustam bei

Persepolis

und das

Kyros-Grab

in

Pasargadae ,

AA

1971,

pp.

157-62.

43

op.

cit.and cf. IranXV

(1977),

p.

149. He remarks to me that

some

appear

also

on

capitals,

foundation

tablets,

stone rosette

squares

and a

stone

weight.

This is welcome

indication of their

more

general

use,

though mainly

still

in

the area

of

architec-

ture

and

stone-working.

44

U.

Scerruto,

Excavations

at Dahan-i

Ghulaman ,

EW

16

(1966),

p.

26,

fig.

58,

from

Sistan,

similar

to our

D49.

45

D.

Huff,

Takht-i

Suleiman.

Bericht

fiber die

Ausgrabungen ,

AA

1975,

pp.

196-204;

W.

Kleiss,

Steinmetzmarken

an

iranis-

chen

Bauten ,

AMI 13

(1980),

pp.

113-7,

from

drawings

col-

lected by Hinz and others; Bisutun (edd. W. Kleiss and

P.

Calmeyer,

Berlin, 1997),

pp.

129-30.

46

Also,

D.

Bivar,

BritishMuseum

Catalogue f

W.

Asiatic

Seals;

Stamp

Seals

II

The

Sassanian

Dynasties

(London,

1969),

pp.

27-9,

129,

and

Details

and 'Devices'

from the

Sassanian

Sculptures ,

OrientalArt

(1959),

p.

11,

n. 7.

47

There

is

a

copious

literature.

T.

Sulimirski,

The

Sarmatians

(London,

1970),

pp.

151-4

gives

a

useful

summary

and

my Fig.

15 derives

from his

illustrations.

See

also

Jinichen, op.

cit.,

ch.

1,

from which

I

take

Fig.

16.

48

In the Greek

world

horse brands

of

the

sixth to third

centuries,

represented

on vases

and

cavalry

tokens,

are

of different

ori-

gin, mainly

letters

or animals

or

realia.

See

M.

Moore,

Horses

by

Exekias ,

AJA

72

(1968),

p.

358;

R.

Blatter,

Neue Werke

des

Schaukel-Malers ,

AA

1969,

pp.

73-4;J.

H.

Kroll,

An

Archive

of the Athenian

Cavalry ,Hesperia

6

(1977),

pp.

86-8.

49

H.

E.

Wulff,

The Traditional

Crafts

of

Persia

(London,

1966),

p.

128; I am indebted to Michael Roaf for the reference.

Sinclair

Hood draws

my

attention

to W.

Waples

article,

An outline

of

the

usage

of

marks

of medieval

men ,

in Transactions

of

the

Quatuor

Coronati

Lodge

58

(1947),

pp.

171-224,

which

collects

mainly

British

masons'

and

other

marks.

Almost all

are linear

except

for some sixteenth-

century

Fenland

brands.

Roaf also

refers

me to R. C. H.

Davis,

A

Catalogue

of

Masons' Marks

as

an Aid to

Architectural

History , Journal

of

the

British

Archaeological

Association

17

(1954),

pp.

43-7,

for

British

masons'

marks

of the four-

teenth-sixteenth

centuries.

These

are

usefully

classified

according

to construction

and

all avoid

the

circle.

A

com-

parable

classification

of

major groups

of ancient

signs

might

be

revealing,

if

only

of

ancient

ingenuity.

50

F.

R.

Allchin,

The

Archaeologyof

Early

Historic

South

Asia

(Cambridge,

1995),

pp.

176-9,

209-11.

51 B.

S.J.

Isserlin,

The earliest

alphabetic writing ,

in

CAHIII.1,

p.

809;

L. H.

Jeffery,

Greek

alphabetic

writing ,

ibid.,

p.

829;

beside other

Semitic

scripts.

The

drawings

in this article

are

intended

to

convey

the

general

subject,

not

details

of

figures

and

style,

for which

the

published

photographs

cited

should

be consulted.

Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)

Documents