Minoan versus Mesopotamian Seals: Comparative methods of Manufacture

Abstract

In a previous article we reported a study of Ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seals. The purpose was to provide insights, based on experimental evidence for the change from stone to metal drills in seal manufacture. These findings were correlated to earlier research in which the proportion of medium and hard stone seals (Mohs 5–7) e.g. hematite, quartz, etc. to those of soft stones (Mohs 1–3) e.g. steatite, marble, etc. was documented. The time span encompassed the beginning of cylinder seal history at Uruk (4% medium and hard stone seals) at the end of the 4th millennium B.C. through the Sasanian period c. A.D. 200–600 (99% medium and hard stone seals). Inferences were drawn relating the tremendous increase in the proportion of hard stones to advances in the technology of hard stone seal manufacture. The growing fashion for hard stone seals was attributed to their desirability as status symbols as well as to economic factors. These findings and explanations in no way contradicted the important well documented multi-functional purpose of seals for legal, political, amuletic and funerary use as well as for the protection of property.The purpose of the present article is to provide comparable data for Minoan seals. We sought evidence for the following questions:(1) What was the proportion of medium and hard stone seals to soft stone seals during the time frame of Minoan history?(2) What were the tools and technology used for the manufacture of Minoan seals and how did these change over time?(3) What inferences might be drawn from this data to Minoan culture and history?(4) What comparisons could be made to Mesopotamian glyptic?