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-pdf8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
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
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
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.
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
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.
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
5/14
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
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-
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
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
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
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.
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
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.
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
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.
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
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.
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
12/14
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
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
8/10/2019 Boardman AnatStampSealsPersPer(1998)
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.