AST: City Seals
Apr 15, 2009 20:02:46 GMT -5
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Apr 15, 2009 20:02:46 GMT -5
Thread Orientation: Some of you may recall the enenuru look at City Seals - I hope so! That was a nice little study. On the thread we are able to put this aspect of ancient seal symbolism within the greater context of Archaic Iconograhical research
For anyone not sure, A.S.T is an abbreviation for Archaic Symbolic Technology, the theme for this month's enenuru focus. Influenced largely by Holly Pittman, we are trying to see when systems of imagery, largely seal imagery, can be though of as administrative in use based on the premise that imagery is not just decorative but communicative - that it carries information. This is a premise that seems particularly viable when one can compare the images directly with the archaic script, the proto-cuneiform, which we know were information carrying. And this is what makes consideration of the City Seal symbol system particular exciting, as we have observed at an earlier date at enenuru, the city seals are undeniably present on both archaic seals and archaic scripts.
- For a summary of Pittman's discussion on categories of seal imagery in the post Uruk period (Classic, glazed Steatite, wheelcut, incised and city seal) please see the Symbol Systems used in Administration thread.
- For back reading on City seals please see the following enenuru.net link, which is a summary of notes from the board (particularly heading "geographic name".)
Pittman discuses the City Seal/
Pittman: "City seals are a category of glyptic designs known primarily at Ur where they were found in large numbers in the Seal Impression Strata [Legrain 1936: pls. 20-26.]. They are also found in smaller numbers at Uruk, Jemdat Nasr, Fara, al-Hiba and Susa [Noldeke 1932:tf. 15, no. g; Lambert 1970: 189l Martin 1988: no. 131; al Hiba unpublished; Amiet 1972 no. 1251; in general see Matthews 1993]. Their images are made up of design elements that have been identified as signs through their formal similarity to signs in archaic texts. The fact that the design elements of these seals can, with certainty, be identified as script will be of some interest for our consideration of the design elements of the glazed steatite style. ...."
Later in the book, in her closing comments, the author comes back to the topic of city seals perhaps again to strengthen the case for seal/script comparisons.
Pittman: "On parallel that may, through future work, prove to be revealing exists in the so-called city seals found in large numbers in the Seal Impression Strata at Ur. The imagery of this type of seal is abstract like that of most of the glazed steatite style. As Legrain noted [Legrain 1934: 4] the imagery of the city seals from Ur uses design elements that in some cases use highly elaborated and modified versions of signs known in the Ur Archaic texts, and in other cases the design elements are not attested in the texts but must carry the value of a sign. The identified signs in those impressions are names of cities... In his more recent analysis, Matthews has shown that the city seals are invariably related to tablets that refer to fruits and vegetables, perhaps specialty food items that were exchanged between cities."
Strangely, Pittman seems to state the Ur city seals derive from contemporary cuneiform text signs, without mentioning or considering the evidence for city seals from earlier Uruk which we have read about in Steinkeller's discussion "Archaic City Seals and the Question of Early Babylonian Unity" - (see summary at the enenuru.net url above.) I wonder if this evidence may indicate that the Ur seals derive from their Uruk precedents and not contemporary Ur script - or that both derive from the archaic seals - a possibility that would only help Pittman's arguement I would think.
A.S.T: City Seals[
For anyone not sure, A.S.T is an abbreviation for Archaic Symbolic Technology, the theme for this month's enenuru focus. Influenced largely by Holly Pittman, we are trying to see when systems of imagery, largely seal imagery, can be though of as administrative in use based on the premise that imagery is not just decorative but communicative - that it carries information. This is a premise that seems particularly viable when one can compare the images directly with the archaic script, the proto-cuneiform, which we know were information carrying. And this is what makes consideration of the City Seal symbol system particular exciting, as we have observed at an earlier date at enenuru, the city seals are undeniably present on both archaic seals and archaic scripts.
- For a summary of Pittman's discussion on categories of seal imagery in the post Uruk period (Classic, glazed Steatite, wheelcut, incised and city seal) please see the Symbol Systems used in Administration thread.
- For back reading on City seals please see the following enenuru.net link, which is a summary of notes from the board (particularly heading "geographic name".)
Pittman discuses the City Seal/
Pittman: "City seals are a category of glyptic designs known primarily at Ur where they were found in large numbers in the Seal Impression Strata [Legrain 1936: pls. 20-26.]. They are also found in smaller numbers at Uruk, Jemdat Nasr, Fara, al-Hiba and Susa [Noldeke 1932:tf. 15, no. g; Lambert 1970: 189l Martin 1988: no. 131; al Hiba unpublished; Amiet 1972 no. 1251; in general see Matthews 1993]. Their images are made up of design elements that have been identified as signs through their formal similarity to signs in archaic texts. The fact that the design elements of these seals can, with certainty, be identified as script will be of some interest for our consideration of the design elements of the glazed steatite style. ...."
Later in the book, in her closing comments, the author comes back to the topic of city seals perhaps again to strengthen the case for seal/script comparisons.
Pittman: "On parallel that may, through future work, prove to be revealing exists in the so-called city seals found in large numbers in the Seal Impression Strata at Ur. The imagery of this type of seal is abstract like that of most of the glazed steatite style. As Legrain noted [Legrain 1934: 4] the imagery of the city seals from Ur uses design elements that in some cases use highly elaborated and modified versions of signs known in the Ur Archaic texts, and in other cases the design elements are not attested in the texts but must carry the value of a sign. The identified signs in those impressions are names of cities... In his more recent analysis, Matthews has shown that the city seals are invariably related to tablets that refer to fruits and vegetables, perhaps specialty food items that were exchanged between cities."
Strangely, Pittman seems to state the Ur city seals derive from contemporary cuneiform text signs, without mentioning or considering the evidence for city seals from earlier Uruk which we have read about in Steinkeller's discussion "Archaic City Seals and the Question of Early Babylonian Unity" - (see summary at the enenuru.net url above.) I wonder if this evidence may indicate that the Ur seals derive from their Uruk precedents and not contemporary Ur script - or that both derive from the archaic seals - a possibility that would only help Pittman's arguement I would think.