British Institute of Persian Studies

Seals and Signs. Anatolian Stamp Seals of the Persian Period Revisited
Author(s): John Boardman
Source: Iran, Vol. 36 (1998), pp. 1-13
Published by: British Institute of Persian Studies
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.
British Institute of Persian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iran.
http://www.jstor.org
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-five years,
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 devices on
pyramidal
and other seals.
1
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
parallels
with 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,
as well 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
In
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
this
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.
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 turns out 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:
Bakivas son 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)
to 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
is
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'
function 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
atas. 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
"right way up" vis-a-vis
the
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.
4
JOURNAL
OF PERSIAN STUDIES
Fig.
3. Borowski Collection.
No. 18.1
(P1.
I, 4)
has a
mysterious subject
where a
Greek
(because naked)
disputes
with a Persian over
the smaller
figure
of a
woman,
apparently being
mal-
treated
by
the Greek. This is neither
mythological
nor a usual
protection
motif;
the woman is not
characterised as
Persian,
but is
unlikely
to be
given
Persian
physique
and features
(such
as a
pigtail)
in
glyptic
before the later fifth
century.
I am reluctant
to think that this
may
reflect some local
(Sardian?)
event,
for
instance,
during
the
Ionian
revolt and
attack on Sardis in 499 B.C. No. 190.1
(P1. I, 8),
a
"weight-stamp"
is the most
unusual,
with a
strange
assemblage
of motifs. The woman
holding
a child
and
being
crowned
by
an Eros-like
figure
is not
readily identified,
unless she is some eastern
god-
dess,
heavily graecised.
The siren and bird in the
field seem to have no
function,
and the
dotting
of
part
of the woman's
profile
is
unexplained; perhaps
a veil. There
is,
I
think,
no reason to doubt authen-
ticity.
LinearDevices
The linear devices which
appear
on
many
of the
seals are
by
no means their least
interesting
feature,
and have
important
associations and later
history.
Some
seventy-five
are known
(Fig. 1).
About
twenty
of these take the form
of,
or are
clearly
derived
from,
alphabetic letters,
mainly
Aramaic,
used administra-
tively throughout
the Persian
empire,
but some
might pass
as Greek. There is also a
pseudo-
cartouche
(D65)
and four small devices which seem
to
suggest objects (D51.1,
a
flower; D52,
a
drill;
D52.1,
bow and arrow or
drill; D53).
I shall not dwell
further on these. Most of them
probably
have the
same function as the other devices
(and
some
names)
identifying
individual
owners,
but
they
raise
the
possibility
that the
phenomenon
was not
pecu-
liar to the
Lydian (and
now
Phrygian)
areas within
the western
empire,
which are attested
by
the full
names
given
on some
seals,
but
might
be wider
spread.
Some
appear
on seals and
rings
of
purely
Greek
style, shape
and
subject,
as
already
observed.
The
majority
are
clearly
west Anatolian.
They
are
highly
distinctive,
and
any
met in other contexts are
immediately recognisable. They
do not derive from
the letter forms of Anatolian
scripts,
which were all
devised
by
the sixth
century,
which
might
seem
sur-
prising. Only
the triskeles D64
might
be a
Lydian
let-
ter.
They
have been
deliberately composed
from a
very
narrow
repertory
of
shapes-basically
the circle,
hook,
open
and closed
arc,
short
lines,
some at
angles
or
T-shaped,
some
omegas.
Some are
simply
differently
oriented or stretched versions of the
same device. The
eye easily picks
out the common
features on
Fig.
1. The
composition
is
generally
verti-
cal but a few seem
composed horizontally
and
might
possibly
be intended as
ligatures
of two devices
(D43-46).
As a
group they
are not
any
sort of
alpha-
bet or
syllabary,
a
point
made
equally
well
by
the fact
that
apart
from the
possible ligatures they
are
always
isolated. It
might
well be
thought
that it is
wrong
to
attempt
to detect such a
"family"
of
signs
or to insist
on their common
"syntax",
but
inspection
of
scripts
and
groups
of devices
(usually
of
masons)
of all
periods
and
places
worldwide reveals their coherent
quality, significantly
unlike those devised else-
where.14
I
noted in Iran VIII that their
"syntax" exactly
matched that of the devices seen on Achaemenid
coins of the
fifth/fourth
century,
which are
mainly
a
western and southern Anatolian
phenomenon
(Fig. 4).15
A
closely comparable range
is seen on
silver issues of
subject
states in southern Anatolia of
the fourth
century: Lycia (Fig. 5), Caria,
Pamphylia,
and the countermarks on Athenian coins
circulating
in Persian
Cilicia/Cyprus.16
Two
appear
on
Lycian
tombs,
cut below the
inscriptions
as
though
indicat-
ing
mason or
scribe.17
All are
closely comparable
with the seal devices but have little in common with
the
alphabets
of the same
regions, except
for the
stray sign.
Indeed we
may
well believe that such let-
ters in these
alphabets
as had not been borrowed or
adapted
from Greek or Semitic
scripts
were influ-
enced
by
the
syntax
of the devices we are
studying.'8
Thus,
at the Belevi
quarries
that
supplied
archaic
Ephesus,
the masons' marks are
mainly alphabetic
Fig.
4. Devices on Achaemenid coins.
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.21 In 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
then 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
thirty
odd 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 post
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 ashlar blocks 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 in 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
there
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-
6
JOURNAL
OF PERSIAN STUDIES
Fig.
7. Masons'marks on
Karmiyarik Tepe,
Sardis.
Fig.
8. Masons' marks on the
Acropolis wall,
Sardis.
Fig.
9. Masons'marks on the MMS-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),
and 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.31 The date is
early sixth-century,
before the destruction
by
SEALS AND SIGNS. ANATOLIAN STAMP SEALS OF THE PERSIAN PERIOD REVISITED 7
Fig.
10. Masons' marks on 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.33 Many
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,38
which
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.
8
JOURNAL
OF PERSIAN STUDIES
Fig.
12. Masons' marks on the
Treasury, Persepolis.
Fig.
13.
Sculptors'
marks on the
Apadana, Persepolis.
Fig.
14. Masons' marks
from Parthian,
Sasanian and Islamic
buildings, Iran.
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 tamgas.
Fig. 16. Marble lion from Olbia.
SEALS AND SIGNS. ANATOLIAN STAMP SEALS OF THE PERSIAN PERIOD REVISITED 9
Fig.
17. Brahmi
inscription ofAshoka.
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 marks which
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 collection.
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
anatolica di E. Borowski
(1981),
no.
39,
pl.
39
(the
inscribed "seal" no. 38 is
really
an
amulet).
R.
Gusmani,
Lydisches Worterbuch
Erginzungsheft
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
atas. R.
Gusmani
and M.
Poetto, Kadmos 20
(1981), pp.
64-7 "valeat Atas"?
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,
Auktion 26 (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,
Auktion 11
(1981), pl.
59, no. 1074.
33.3
(once 4)
Basel market. Rock
crystal.
Two
rampant
lions with heads turned back. Miinzen und
Medaille;n
Auktion 40
(1969), pl.
1.2.
34.1 Basel market. Blue
chalcedony.
Two
rampant
lions
with heads turned back, a tree between them. Miinzen und
Medaillen Liste
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." The Anatolian Civilisation II (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 Medaillen Liste 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.
SEALS AND SIGNS. ANATOLIAN STAMP SEALS OF THE PERSIAN PERIOD REVISITED 11
59.1 Basel market. Mottled
yellowish quartz. Dog
attacks
deer.
60.1
(P1.
I, 7)
Basel market. A bird attacks a
running
deer.
Miinzen und Medaillen Liste
379,
no. 43.
66.1
Bonn, Muiller Coll.
Chalcedony.
Griffin
(Greek)
and
fawn. RA
1976, 46,
fig.
2.
71.1
"Heidelberg".
Red
jasper.
Three-bodied deer with
one facing
head. RA
1976,
p.
48,
fig.
6.
Court
Style
76.1 New
York, Rosen 79. Blue
chalcedony.
Mede
fights
lion.
83.1
Moscow, Pushkin.
Grey chalcedony.
Persian
fights
lion.
I.
M.
Nikulina, Iskusstvo
Jonii
i
Achemenidskogo
Irana
(1994), pl.
444.
83.2 Zurich market.
Chalcedony.
Persian
fights
lion.
Sternberg,
Auktion 11
(1981), pls.
59, 63,
no. 1073.
83.3 New
York,
Rosen
144,
from
Turkey.
Obsidian. Persian
fights
lion.
83.4 New York 93.17.53. Blue
chalcedony.
Persian
fights
lion.
D.
Schmandt-Bessarat,
Ancient Persia
(Malibu, 1980),
no. 39.
83.5
Paris, Cab.Med., Chandon de Briailles.
Grey
lime-
stone in silver
mount,
with
palmettes.
Persian
fights
lion.
83.6 Zurich market.
Grey chalcedony.
Persian
fights
lion.
Sternberg,
Auktion 27
(1994),
no. 689.
92.1 Private,
from
Turkey.
Blue
chalcedony.
Persian
fights
lion
griffin.
Erasure
above;
between them D57.1
92.2 New
York, Rosen 141. Blue
chalcedony.
Persian
fights
lion
griffin.
106.1
London, WA,
the
Layard
necklace. Blue
chalcedony.
Persian holds two lions inverted.
Archaeology
in the Levant
(Essays
for K.
Kenyon, Warminster, 1978), p.
174,
no. 17.
106.2 New
York, Rosen 89.
Grey chalcedony.
Persian holds
two lions inverted.
106.3 Borowski Coll. Blue
chalcedony.
Persian holds two
lions inverted.
Above, D1.2. Poetto and
Salvatori,
no. 43.
110.1 Bollmann Coll.
Chalcedony (cut).
Persian holds two
goat sphinxes.
110.1
Moscow, Pushkin. Blue
chalcedony.
A Persian holds
two
goats. I.
M.
Nikulina,
Iskusstvo
Ionii i
Achemenidskogo
Irana
(Moscow, 1994), pl.
443.
111.1 Mtskheta (Georgia) from a second-century A.D.
tomb.
Chalcedony.
A
winged
Persian holds two lions
inverted. The two characters above seem neither like the
usual devices nor an
inscription (? chi-lambda). Antiquaries
Journal
74 (1994), pp. 50-1, no. 53; Antike
Welt 26 (1995),
p. 191, fig.
13.
116.1 Encino market. Blue
chalcedony. Royal sphinx. Joel
L.Malter, Auction 38 (1988), no. 185.
118.1 New York, Rosen 55. Blue
chalcedony.
Two
sejant
royal sphinxes;
D64.1 between them.
121.1 Moscow,
Pushkin. Red
jasper.
A
royal sphinx walking.
123.1 Bonn, Mfiller Coll.
Grey/white chalcedony.
Two
horned winged lions seated, heads turned back.
123.2 Istanbul
(once
New
York).
From
Ugak. Carnelian,
squarish
face,
on twisted
gold loop.
Two horned
winged
lions seated,
facing. Heritage
Recovered. The
Lydian
Treasure
(eds. I.
Ozgen andJ.
Oztiirk, Ankara, 1996),
no. 95.
129.1 New
York,
Rosen 78. Blue
chalcedony.
A
goat-sphinx
walking.
Miinzen
und Medaillen Liste
(Basel), 450, no. 417.
129.2 Vandoeuvres,
Ortiz Coll. Blue
chalcedony. Standing
goat-sphinx
with
paw
raised behind a
leaping
hare.
133.1 New
York,
Rosen 145. Rock
crystal.
Seated
goat-
sphinx
with
forepaw
raised.
133.2 Bonn,
Mfiller Coll. Blue
chalcedony.
Seated
goat-
sphinx.
133.3
Budapest, Academy. "Serpentine".
Seated
goat-
sphinx.
M.
Gramatopol,
Les
pierres gravies
du Cabinet numis-
matique
de
l'Acadimie
Roumaine
(Brussels, 1974), pl.
1,
no.
16.
144.1 Bollmann Coll. Lion
griffin
within border of lotus
and bud. RA
1976,
p.
48,
fig.
5.
Other
Shapes
185. Delete;
Dr Pinkworth
points
out to me that the mark
(D51)
is a South Arabian
monogram.
Cf.
J.
Pirenne,
La
Grice
et Saba
(Paris, 1955), pl.
5b.
190.1
(P1.
I, 8) Jerusalem,
Bible Lands Museum. Blue chal-
cedony weight stamp.
A woman
holding
a
child,
crowned
by
a
winged
male,
accompanied by
a siren and a bird. In
the field D20.
J.
Boardman in Ladders to Heaven
(ed.
O.
W.
Muscarella, Toronto, 1981), p.
168,
no. 141.
190.2 New
York,
Rosen 100. Cornelian
weight stamp
with
part
of bronze mount. Seated
royal sphinx
with head
turned back; before it D35.1.
194.1
(P1. I, 9) Toronto, Hindley
Coll. White chalcedony
scaraboid. Sow. D51.1 over its back.
194.2 Istanbul
(once
New
York)
from
Ugak.
Carnelian
scaraboid
in
gold
swivel
hoop.
Seated
royal sphinx,
with
D20. Archeo 120 (1995), 62; Heritage
Recovered. The
Lydian
treasure
(eds. I.
Ozgen andJ.
Oztfirk
1996),
no. 97.
195.1 (P1. I, 10) Paris,
Cab.
Med.,
Chandon de Briailles.
Carnelian scarab. Two horned
winged
lions,
seated.
Between them D19.1
196.1
(Fig. 19)
Borowski Coll. Gold
ring
with
slim
leaf-
shaped
bezel, thin
hoop.
A lion. D35.2 on its
body.
Poetto
and Salvatori, no. 46.
198.1
Jerusalem,
Bible Lands Museum. Blue
chalcedony
cylinder.
Mare and suckling
foal under a
winged
sun disc.
Hawk over a chick. In the field
D5. Boardman, op.
cit.
(no.190.1), p. 210, no. 173.
198.2 Malibu, J.
Paul
Getty
Museum.
Blue-grey chalcedony
cylinder.
Persian holds two
lions; winged
disc above.
Sign
like D3 inverted.
J. Boardman, Intaglios
and
Rings
(London, 1975), no. 85.
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 Gems and
Finger Rings (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 Gnostics and 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, "A Cilician Find",
Numismatic Chronicle 1914, 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 CAH III.2, ch. 34b; for Pamphylian, C. Brixhe,
"L'alphabet epichorique
de Side", Kadmos 8 (1969), pp. 54-84.
19 W. Dressler, "Karoide Inschriften im Steinbruch von Belevi",
Jahreshefte
des Osterreichisches Archdologischen Instituts 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
VIII (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.
I/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
Iron
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 on 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 27 (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
I
(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
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 17
(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 the Ancient East
(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
etc.
(London, 1821), p.
486 with sketches.
36
E.
Granville
Browne,
A Year
Amongst
the 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
I
(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", EW 19
(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 22, 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. Iran XV
(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,
British Museum
Catalogue of
W.
Asiatic
Seals; Stamp
Seals II The Sassanian
Dynasties (London, 1969), pp.
27-9,
129,
and "Details and 'Devices' from the Sassanian
Sculptures",
OrientalArt 5
(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
46
(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
Archaeology of 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.