GLAZED STEATITE STYLE
Mar 28, 2009 11:27:13 GMT -5
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Mar 28, 2009 11:27:13 GMT -5
Thread Orientation: This thread is dedicated to consideration of Holly Pittman's 1994 study of Glazed Steatite Style seals. These seals are basically the Archaic Urukian counterpart to the Seals we have examined elsewhere from Ur - refer here to Legrain.
The study I am reading through here is rather massive, and of course we are impatient to get to what is a Glazed Steatite Style, and how does this have to do with the focus of the month, examining Archaic Symbolic Technology? Basically this medium, the Archaic Seals, are in large part a reason for Pittman's ideas which themselves inspired the focus this month. To explain that will require a lengthy review of the book on hand. The author's own description of her study reads: "the focus of this study is on the glazed steatite style, the approach to its analysis is guided by a more general interest in the role of the glyphic art within the economic administration of greater Mesopotamia during the late fourth and early third millennia."
For a brief review of the book submitted to JAOS by Collon, Dominique, please see the following url. This review gives an idea of the scope of the book, some of its limitations and some of its successes:
I'm beginning by reviewing Pittman's introductory discussions which at times focus on "The Administrative Function of Gylptic Art in the Proto-literate Periods". This chapter attempts to give context to the study be providing an overview of scholarly studies thus far on the topic of Archaic seal imagery, particularly those which relate it to administrative purposes - thus Hans J. Nissen and his followers are extensively referred to. This chapter does not discuss specifically the sort of seals Pittman's will examine, but seal imagery in general to include also Cylinder Seal imagery.
Nissen's stance/
Nissen asserted that Cylinder Seals were used for Administrative purpose and that they functioned by means of the various patterns that were rolled on them. In other words, a cylinder seals was rolled onto a clay tablet - and the function of the seal was to leave behind a pattern, which in theory, would identify the user of the cylinder seal, proving that they were present at a given administrative act (like a signature for example). Pittman states she will propose a similar dynamic (in so far as a seals function is its pattern) for the glazed statetite seals.
While the owner of a seal can be positively established by accompanying inscriptions for seals in the historical periods, in preliterate or protoliterate periods proposes that "anyone who knew the "code" of the images would be able to identify a user by his design". Here Pittman's discussion on Nissen's work gets quite interesting with regard to image patterns:
Pittman:
Thus the number of variations employed in a seal design would depend directly on the number of people participating in the system in which the seals were used. When the number of people using seals was small, simple patterns on seals would be sufficient; the number of variations would be increased by creating new combinations of simple patterns... if an administrative system required a greater number of seals, than it was necessary to change the entire system of patterns to one that accommodated greater variation.
We might see this problem of increasing number of seal users and increasingly necessity for variation in pattern as a little like how in modern times, phone number keep getting longer the more people inhabit a particular area - not to say that seal users grew to be more than a minority. As a result of the need for greater variation another type of seal came about in the late Uruk period - the "complex" type of seal with imagery capable of depicting a range of compositional formulae. Nissen has identified two seal types:
Simple patterns: Because these patterns are so simple they cannot be differentiated from one another, these probably would have been used by a "legal person" representing an institution: "Thus all impressions with rows of fish, or rows of pigtailed ladies would have been made by anonymous users whose act indicated institutional rather than individual participation."
Complex patterns: Nissen believes each example of a complex pattern seal would be unique in every instance. Because these patterns had to be individually designed and cut by skilled workman, thus expensive, he believe they would have been the reserved for the use of the elites.
Dittmann's stance/
Reinhardt Dittmann was a student of Nissen's whose views the author considers next. Dittmann's actually reject the notion that naturalistically modeled seals (complex) were for use by individuals and schematic seals were for use of legal persons - instead, he divides the seals into "thematic categories." So images showing men carrying boxes on their heads refer to the transportation of goods; images showing industrial activities refer to particular industries; ritual scenes refer directly to the ritual or to the temple or palace institution with which it was associated.
Pittman's stance/
The author herself takes a view that seal imagery carries essentially the same sort of meanings whether through "simple" or "complex" imagery. She further states her belief that while imagery in the historical period may have been associated with its owner, in the protoliterate period under consideration, imagery may pertain to the user or "other kinds of information relevant to the transaction such as commodity, destination, source, or time-table."
What Pittman takes from Ditmann's stance (yes they rhyme!), chiefly, is his notion regarding "the role of seal imagery in the period during which writing was being invented. He concludes that there was a close relationship between seal imagery and scripts in the early phases of the development of writing", which is also the hypothesis of Pittman's study.
Pittman:
What is documented through the archeological record is that seals played a central role in the administration in which and for which writing was invented.
The author relates that of all the scholars taking a fresh view of the history of writing within the last decade or so, and the subject has enjoyed renewed investigation, only Dittman has made a special effort to analyze seal imagery as a possible forerunner to writing itself! Could these patterns have had denotive meaning? Part of her goal than is to test this possibility methodically.
Supposing that imagery in the period before writing has a huge potential for ambiguity the author relates.. to roughly use the given analogy, that a image of a pot may suggest a container, but whether a container of beer? or grain? Only a convention we are at a lose for would stipulate. Therefore she suggests a strategy of comparing the images from the protoliterate period to images which we know had conventional notational meaning - that is signs that carried linguistic meaning - the signs from the Archaic Uruk texts. Below are some characteristics of early text the author identifies based on the Uruk scripts:
[/li][li][/color] In each instance the sign appears essentially the same. Although there is certainly a range in graphic presentation, only significant variation would mark a change in conventional meaning
[/li][li][/color]The signs appear outside of a strictly depictive setting.
[/li][li][/color]The signs are arranged in visual patterns that are compatible with the transmission of verbal messages. It is in the patterned arrangement of the signs that the structure of the system of the notation is revealed.
[/li][/ul]
Finally, Pittman adds that each of the several glyphic styles much be analyzed separately due to differing design elements and rules. She believes that the traits of the imagery, combined with context of use, suggest that they did have notational significance, which was used alongside and perhaps related to what is more conventional understood to be early ancient script.
Still to come...... Notes on Chap. 2 "Administrative Background"
THE GLAZED STEATITE STYLE
The study I am reading through here is rather massive, and of course we are impatient to get to what is a Glazed Steatite Style, and how does this have to do with the focus of the month, examining Archaic Symbolic Technology? Basically this medium, the Archaic Seals, are in large part a reason for Pittman's ideas which themselves inspired the focus this month. To explain that will require a lengthy review of the book on hand. The author's own description of her study reads: "the focus of this study is on the glazed steatite style, the approach to its analysis is guided by a more general interest in the role of the glyphic art within the economic administration of greater Mesopotamia during the late fourth and early third millennia."
For a brief review of the book submitted to JAOS by Collon, Dominique, please see the following url. This review gives an idea of the scope of the book, some of its limitations and some of its successes:
Chapter 1: Imagery and Administration
I'm beginning by reviewing Pittman's introductory discussions which at times focus on "The Administrative Function of Gylptic Art in the Proto-literate Periods". This chapter attempts to give context to the study be providing an overview of scholarly studies thus far on the topic of Archaic seal imagery, particularly those which relate it to administrative purposes - thus Hans J. Nissen and his followers are extensively referred to. This chapter does not discuss specifically the sort of seals Pittman's will examine, but seal imagery in general to include also Cylinder Seal imagery.
Nissen's stance/
Nissen asserted that Cylinder Seals were used for Administrative purpose and that they functioned by means of the various patterns that were rolled on them. In other words, a cylinder seals was rolled onto a clay tablet - and the function of the seal was to leave behind a pattern, which in theory, would identify the user of the cylinder seal, proving that they were present at a given administrative act (like a signature for example). Pittman states she will propose a similar dynamic (in so far as a seals function is its pattern) for the glazed statetite seals.
While the owner of a seal can be positively established by accompanying inscriptions for seals in the historical periods, in preliterate or protoliterate periods proposes that "anyone who knew the "code" of the images would be able to identify a user by his design". Here Pittman's discussion on Nissen's work gets quite interesting with regard to image patterns:
Pittman:
Thus the number of variations employed in a seal design would depend directly on the number of people participating in the system in which the seals were used. When the number of people using seals was small, simple patterns on seals would be sufficient; the number of variations would be increased by creating new combinations of simple patterns... if an administrative system required a greater number of seals, than it was necessary to change the entire system of patterns to one that accommodated greater variation.
We might see this problem of increasing number of seal users and increasingly necessity for variation in pattern as a little like how in modern times, phone number keep getting longer the more people inhabit a particular area - not to say that seal users grew to be more than a minority. As a result of the need for greater variation another type of seal came about in the late Uruk period - the "complex" type of seal with imagery capable of depicting a range of compositional formulae. Nissen has identified two seal types:
Simple patterns: Because these patterns are so simple they cannot be differentiated from one another, these probably would have been used by a "legal person" representing an institution: "Thus all impressions with rows of fish, or rows of pigtailed ladies would have been made by anonymous users whose act indicated institutional rather than individual participation."
Complex patterns: Nissen believes each example of a complex pattern seal would be unique in every instance. Because these patterns had to be individually designed and cut by skilled workman, thus expensive, he believe they would have been the reserved for the use of the elites.
Dittmann's stance/
Reinhardt Dittmann was a student of Nissen's whose views the author considers next. Dittmann's actually reject the notion that naturalistically modeled seals (complex) were for use by individuals and schematic seals were for use of legal persons - instead, he divides the seals into "thematic categories." So images showing men carrying boxes on their heads refer to the transportation of goods; images showing industrial activities refer to particular industries; ritual scenes refer directly to the ritual or to the temple or palace institution with which it was associated.
Pittman's stance/
The author herself takes a view that seal imagery carries essentially the same sort of meanings whether through "simple" or "complex" imagery. She further states her belief that while imagery in the historical period may have been associated with its owner, in the protoliterate period under consideration, imagery may pertain to the user or "other kinds of information relevant to the transaction such as commodity, destination, source, or time-table."
What Pittman takes from Ditmann's stance (yes they rhyme!), chiefly, is his notion regarding "the role of seal imagery in the period during which writing was being invented. He concludes that there was a close relationship between seal imagery and scripts in the early phases of the development of writing", which is also the hypothesis of Pittman's study.
Pittman:
What is documented through the archeological record is that seals played a central role in the administration in which and for which writing was invented.
The author relates that of all the scholars taking a fresh view of the history of writing within the last decade or so, and the subject has enjoyed renewed investigation, only Dittman has made a special effort to analyze seal imagery as a possible forerunner to writing itself! Could these patterns have had denotive meaning? Part of her goal than is to test this possibility methodically.
Supposing that imagery in the period before writing has a huge potential for ambiguity the author relates.. to roughly use the given analogy, that a image of a pot may suggest a container, but whether a container of beer? or grain? Only a convention we are at a lose for would stipulate. Therefore she suggests a strategy of comparing the images from the protoliterate period to images which we know had conventional notational meaning - that is signs that carried linguistic meaning - the signs from the Archaic Uruk texts. Below are some characteristics of early text the author identifies based on the Uruk scripts:
[/li][li][/color] In each instance the sign appears essentially the same. Although there is certainly a range in graphic presentation, only significant variation would mark a change in conventional meaning
[/li][li][/color]The signs appear outside of a strictly depictive setting.
[/li][li][/color]The signs are arranged in visual patterns that are compatible with the transmission of verbal messages. It is in the patterned arrangement of the signs that the structure of the system of the notation is revealed.
[/li][/ul]
Finally, Pittman adds that each of the several glyphic styles much be analyzed separately due to differing design elements and rules. She believes that the traits of the imagery, combined with context of use, suggest that they did have notational significance, which was used alongside and perhaps related to what is more conventional understood to be early ancient script.
Still to come...... Notes on Chap. 2 "Administrative Background"
