[Previous][Contents][Next]


    the uplifted hand of the deity is a moon-crescent and between him and the worshipper are the cuneiform signs u and BA, positive on the seal and hence negative on the seal impression.
    On the other face a hero wearing a long fringed robe is extending his right hand toward a rampant lion taller than himself. An unknown cuneiform sign, negative on the seal impression and seemingly composed of the sign GIS With GA + su written inside it, appears between the two figures. The seal would seem to be a forgery. It is too fresh looking to be ancient. The cuneiform makes no sense and is positive rather than negative, although this occasionally occurs on genuine seals, particularly in the later period. The design, however, is early and is found only on cylinder seals and not on stamp seals. Fur- thermore, it is badly executed; e.g., the hero is regularly naked in the case of genuine seals and takes firm hold of the lion.
  1. (D. 1582). Red marble. Cylinder seal, slightly tapering toward one end. 31 x 14 mm.
    This seal is well executed, but it looks like a forgery. The inscription is un- readable in large part and it runs in the wrong direction. The design is likewise suspect. It shows a long-robed worshipper with the left leg bare, standing with left hand uplifted before a divine king with right hand uplifted, seated on an unusually lofty and highly ornamented throne. There is a monkey squatting on a pole between the worshipper and the king, at the bottom, and a small eight-rayed sun-disk set rather loosely within a crescent, at the top. Behind the worshipper, at the bottom, are two dancing manikins holding hands, each about to set down his foot on a low stool. Above them is a ladder-like device and above this is a large spread eagle with head turned to the right.
  2. -85 (D. 1583-1588). Soapstone. Cylinder seals. 34 x 12 mm.; 38 x 11 mm.; 34 x 13 mm.; 33 x 15 mm.; 36 x 10 mm.; and 32 x 14 mm. respectively.
    These seals are so palpably forgeries that they are not worth describing in detail. In every instance the cuneiform inscription reads in the wrong direction, many of the signs appear nowhere else, and the inscription is unreadable. The designs, too, are quite incorrect and are largely the product of the forger's own imagination or else very free copies from genuine seals. Furthermore, the stones themselves are artificially weathered, apparently by being immersed for a long time in wet sand.

THEOPHILE JAMES MEEK,
University of Toronto.

 

 


[Previous][Contents][Next]


Created by the Digital Documentation Center at AUB in collaboration with Al Mashriq of Høgskolen i Østfold, Norway.

981201 PN - Email: hseeden@aub.edu.lb