Mia Capobianco

Background

It is well documented and generally accepted that cylinder seals were multi-functional throughout the course of ancient Near Eastern history. Recognized uses for cylinder seals include verifying legal contracts, defending goods from tampering, naming the owners of objects, and providing amuletic protections.1 Furthermore, it is essentially undisputed that cylinder seals were worn, serving as bodily adornment throughout the history of the ancient Near East. 2 What have been harder to define are the precise socio-political implications of using cylinder seals in these ways, or not.

Irene Winter’s examination of late Ur III Period royal presentation seals revealed a mutual validation of power by bureaucrats and the royal bureaucracy. 3 A little over a decade later, Leonard Gorelick and A. John Gwinnett published “The Ancient near Eastern Cylinder Seal as Social Emblem and Status Symbol,” which argued that the use of cylinder seals maintained social control under stratified systems. 4 Here, Gorelick and Gwinnet, claiming the art of the period was bound with the ideology of the ruling establishment, incorrectly stated that by wearing cylinder seals, ancient Mesopotamians across classes identified themselves with their rulers. 5 This sort of approach favors dominant groups, purporting that the ideologies of ruling establishments are necessarily imposed on the rest of society, and in turn neglecting the ability of subordinate groups to develop their own ideologies. 6 Therefore, their model for examining class relationships is inadequate, largely because it suggested that dominant groups yield overwhelming social control. 7

When ancient Near Eastern cylinder seal use is investigated through a framework that does not require the dominance of one ideology over another, the relationships between seal, individual, and authority are clarified. Ultimately, under large bureaucratic systems, a cylinder seal owner either aligned himself with or distanced himself from these systems when he publicly displayed his seal, i.e. wore it.

Beaudry, et al., offering an alternative to dominant ideology theory, claimed that analysis of material items reveals how people establish cultural identities, which manifest themselves in the “public…mediation between self and other.” 8 Public interaction includes assessing others and providing readings of oneself. This requires interpreting symbols encoded in appearance. 9 Subcultures, the piece claims, use style as a means of identifying who ‘belongs,’ a concept tied to social stratification and power structures more broadly. Style most powerfully manifests itself in the removal of material symbols from their traditionally accepted context, such as punk appropriation of safety pins as earrings. 10

The following analysis of ancient Near Eastern cylinder seals uses these conclusions as an important touchstone. It focuses on cylinder seals used under large empires during the second and third millennium B.C., more specifically those used during the Akkadian, Ur III, and Old Babylonian Periods.

Bureaucratic systems and their resulting social structures were particular to each period. Sargon of Akkad united conflicting Sumerian city-states and organized them into an ever-expanding empire. 11 Thus, there was a shift of power and authority from the local to the regional state, that is, from city-states to the empire.12 Sargon appointed royal officials to work alongside the established rulers of the city-states. These royal officials received lands, while workers were conscripted and paid rations.13 Also during the Akkadian Period, Naram-Sin established the concept of the deified king, whose rule was justified because he was above humans, at least ostensibly. 14 Under the Akkadian Empire was a stratified system—the king and the royal officials of Akkad constituted the highest classes; followed by the local royal officials and the established rulers of city-states; officials; and, finally, the people. 15

After the fall of the Akkadian Empire and a period of divided jurisdiction of Mesopotamia, Utuhegal, king of Uruk, took control of Ur, marking the beginning of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Then, Ur-Namma, son or brother of Utuhegal, began to consolidate power. 16 Ur-Namma’s son, Shulgi, completely transformed political administration in Mesopotamia, affecting every aspect of social and economic life. 17 Under Shulgi, local officials reported to the local rulers, who were now subordinate to royal officials. 18 Soldiers, who along with the general people occupied the lowest tier, reported to military officials, who were under the sagina, military governors. These military governors were equal to the local rulers, and all reported to the royal officials, who were directly under the king. 19 Somewhere above the soldiers and the general populace were merchants, who functioned fairly independently from the crown. 20

Again, the large, unified empire collapsed and was followed by a period of divided control of the region. Sumulael of Babylon eventually unified central Mesopotamia, and his forth successor, Hammurabi, conquered Larsa, uniting central and southern Mesopotamia under the Old Babylonian Empire. 21 Hammurabi consolidated the role of the state when he organized his kingdom, influencing its social structure. Ultimately, the palace gained more power and responsibilities, while the private sector and the temple lost many privileges. 22 During this time, the king and royal officials were of the highest status, followed by high and middle ranking officials, landowners, the poor laboring class, and slaves. 23

In the context of this paper, ‘bureaucracy’ is defined as the administration of the state—including the king, royal officials, and local rulers and officials, as well as their administrative procedures. ‘Bureaucratic context’ refers to situations and actions directly related to the bureaucracy. It is worth noting here that specific seals and their functions were not necessarily used in bureaucratic contexts or non-bureaucratic contexts mutual-exclusively.

Figure 1:

An image of a classic Akkadian contest scene.

c. 2400–2200 B.C. Greenstone, 2.78 cm x 1.68 cm.

The British Museum 134753.

Seals as Extension of Identity

Ancient Near Eastern cylinder seals were highly personal objects, to the degree that each seal was an extension of the wearer’s individual identity. The essential indivisibility of identity from cylinder seals was readily apparent in seal inscriptions. Cylinder seal inscription conventions shifted throughout the Akkadian, Ur III, and Old Babylonian Periods. The frequency of seals that gave the owner’s family relationships increased, for example, as emphasis on title/profession waned, moving from the Akkadian into the Ur III Period. Still, throughout each period, the personal name of the owner was consistently prioritized, present on the vast majority of seals regardless of shifting inscription trends. 24

From the time that cylinder seals began to bear personal names in the second half of the Early Dynastic Period, seal owners were able to make certain choices about their seals. The preferences of the owner likely influenced the choice of a seal’s material and imagery. Thus, seals were customizable to the individual owner, not only with inscriptions, but also with personally selected material and visual elements. Certain groups of people, however, may not have had access to certain seal materials or types. 25

In addition to the individuality of many seals’ material, visual, and textual content, a seal's various administrative and legal functions were inextricably bound with the owner’s identity. Beginning before the third millennium B.C. and continuing for some three thousand years, cylinder seals were used to seal various vessels that contained items for storage and trade. 26 In one stroke, a seal both created a physical restraint and manifested its owner’s personal name. These elements combined to identify who was immediately accountable for a vessel and its contents. 27 It follows that a seal’s function of sealing vessels was necessarily bound with the sealer’s identity.

Cylinder seals were also rolled across tablets, which documented transactions related to trade, more widely beginning around the Old Akkadian-Ur III time. As writing developed and documents became more complex, cylinder seal use expanded; impressions appeared on legal texts, administrative documents such as receipts, and letters. 28 The presence of seal impressions on official documents allowed for investigation; an impression could be traced to an individual, who would be held accountable for the terms laid out in the text. Thus, a seal’s function of authenticating documents was also importantly tied to the sealer’s individual identity.

An Ur III document that publicly announces a merchant’s loss of his cylinder seal exemplifies seals’ necessary entanglement with personal identity vis-à-vis its administrative function. The document first gives the personal name and profession of the man whose seal was lost. It then states that all have been notified, and therefore no one can hold him accountable for objects or documents bearing his seal’s inscription. The announcement goes on to list witnesses. 29 Evidently there was a fear of the seal’s unsanctioned use by someone other than its owner, especially because the owner was a merchant, likely responsible for a large quantity of goods. Thus, the announcement confirms, a seal’s administrative and legal functions were tied to its owner’s personal identity; the unauthorized use of a seal at the hand of someone other than the owner invalidated its impressions, because they were no longer records of the owner’s answerability.

Throughout Akkadian, Ur III, and Old Babylonian times, people did use others’ seals in several fairly common circumstances—accidentally discovered seals came back into circulation after many years, occasionally a seal owner would sanction another person’s use of his seal, and officials sometimes used the seals of their predecessors. One might initially assume that reuse undermined the individual nature of cylinder seals. However, this was not the case.

When a person used a seal that belonged to someone else on a legal document, there would sometimes be an inscription next to the impression, naming who used the seal. In any case, the parties involved in a legal transaction were identified within the text, making it readily apparent that the named parties made the impressions. 30 Under these circumstances, the seal’s use did not create any meaningful association between the borrower and the seal because the seal was not specific to the user’s identity, nor could its impression alone establish accountability. Therefore, the seal was an extension of the identity of its owner, and only of its owner.

When people discovered older seals, they frequently came back into circulation because seals’ materials, most often imported, made them intrinsically valuable. Sometimes inscriptions were erased or altered to reflect a new owner, but this kind of reworking was fairly infrequent. 31 Regardless of inscription, new owners would be personally responsible for the objects they sealed, creating an essential bond between the seal and the individual identity of its owner.

This argument holds true for an official or king who used a predecessor’s seal because it corresponded with his specific office, another identifying quality. Under these circumstances, officials aligned themselves with their forerunners by means of the seals’ inherent connection to both predecessor and new owner. Cylinder seals, in any context, were highly personal items, extensions of their owners’ identities. Thus, a publically worn seal would have provided a reading of its owner’s individual identity to be decoded by others, establishing cultural identity.

Figure 2:

An imitation of the same themes by a less skillful

craftsman. c. 2100 B.C. Rock crystal with copper

caps, 3.9 cm x 2.3 cm. The British Museum 120529.

Seals as Conveyer of Status 32

Due to their varying value and the hierarchies reflected in their materials, inscriptions, and glyptic imagery, cylinder seals were inextricably bound with class stratification. Therefore, when a person publicly presented his cylinder seal, he also presented his status.

As has been previously discussed, inscriptions on cylinder seals primarily functioned to identify seal owners. However, they consistently served a second purpose—to situate the owner in a broader bureaucratic system. It was common during the Akkadian and Ur III Periods for a cylinder seal inscription to give a royal or official name, followed by a personal name, other personal information, then “your servant.” 33 Old Babylonian inscriptions most frequently stated the personal name of the owner, followed by other personal information, “servant of," and a divine name, or, in other cases, a royal or official name. Relatively common was a personal name, followed by “beloved of," and a divine name. 34 Furthermore, personal information, such as the owner’s family relationships and title or profession, appeared on cylinder seal inscriptions throughout time. These details—most obviously a title or position—also spoke to a seal owner’s placement within society. 35

There are several interpretations of the Akkadian arád, which translates literally to “servant.” It is not likely that arád referred to the seal owner as a laboring slave to the official. The exact relationship between the official and the seal owner that the use of arád was intended to suggest is not clear. 36 What is unmistakable, however, is an association between two individuals, wherein one is dominant and the other subordinate. Without fail, the seal owner was the subordinate figure throughout the history of the ancient Near East. In general, seal inscriptions that positioned their owners as subordinate to figures of authority—officials, kings, and gods—appeared frequently during the control of Mesopotamia by all three empires.

Regardless of inscription, cylinder seals conveyed status with a variety of other visual markers. Throughout the Akkadian, Ur III, and Old Babylonian Periods, there was a hierarchy of seal materials. Although it manifested itself variously throughout history, the prevailing bias was towards a stone of high quality, i.e. hard stone, above all else. With serpentine appearing most frequently, the materials used to make cylinder seals during the Akkadian Period were much harder than those used during Post-Akkadian and Ur III times. 37 Under the Akkadian Empire there were well-established trade routes, which were subsequently disrupted due to Gutian invasions. 38 Changing seal proportions during Post-Akkadian and Ur III times indicate attempts to be more economical with raw materials, suggesting their scarcity; the harder materials provided by Akkadian trade routes were probably no longer available. 39

Chlorite was the most popular material for cylinder seals during the Ur III Period. Although chlorite is visually similar to the previously popular serpentine, it is a much softer material, rendering it less valuable. Furthermore, it has a pronounced cleavage that makes it more difficult to carve. Due to these factors, in combination with the indications that harder stones were scarce, chlorite was likely used out of necessity rather than preference.40

During the Old Babylonian Period, hematite was favored over softer black stones, which would have been less costly and easier to work with. Therefore, hematite must have had some other appeal, most likely its hardness.41 Although the softer chlorite was popular in the Ur III Period, it is safe to say that throughout Akkadian, Ur III, and Old Babylonian times, hardness greatly informed a stone’s value.

Seal materials were admired and valued for other qualities, such as color or amuletic attributes. Beatrice L. Goff’s extensive study of amulets in ancient Mesopotamian texts revealed that throughout history, certain stones were thought to have specific

amuletic powers, 42 which would have influenced the choice of a seal’s material. 43 Visually striking stones such as lapis lazuli, amazonite, and cornelian were also used during these times with varying frequency. 44 Lapis lazuli, oftentimes a scarce material, was obtained through trade from distant sources, indicating a great motivation to acquire fine stones. 45 Gold, highly valued for its luster,46 was used to adorn some of the finest seals.47 Displaying exotic materials acquired via long-distance trade signaled access to great wealth.48 Overall, stones’ hardness as well as their aesthetic and amuletic qualities dictated the value of various seal materials.

There also existed hierarchies of carvings’ subject matter, specific to each period. During the Akkadian Period, contest scenes changed drastically, and their style was widely influential. Contestants originally in separate groups eventually grew more independent of one another until they became pairs of competitors. Consistent with Early Dynastic tradition, seals depicting contest scenes were better cut than seals with any other theme.49 Of prominent style and skillfully carved, contest scenes were most likely highly desirable. However, all contest scenes were probably court seals, 50 carved in royal workshops. Less skillful craftsmen copied their popular style as a result. 51 Thus although a fixed hierarchy was in place that theoretically barred the lower classes from contest scenes, common people appropriated their content. (see: Figures 1 and 2). 52

Complicated power structures under the Third Dynasty of Ur created new standards for differentiation of presentation scenes amongst the upper classes. The lower classes, which did not operate within or around the official royal bureaucracy, continued to use presentation schema for some other end. The standardized Ur III presentation scenes depicted a goddess leading the seal owner before a seated deity or the seated, deified king.53 Seals depicting presentation to the deified king belonged only to officials. The last two rulers of the Ur III Period selected some of the highest officials to receive innaba seals, which also had royal presentation iconography. 54 Innaba seals were unique because, in addition to the depiction of the deified king, they contained lengthy inscriptions that gave the owner’s name and other personal information as well as a dedication containing his ruler’s name and titles. 55

At the same time, presentation scenes on the seals of the lowest classes depicted a prayerful seal owner led before his god. The quality of these carvings reflected the owner’s class—an elite figure, though not granted the royal presentation scene, would have had a detailed, skillfully carved seal, while that of a carpenter was extremely terse. 56 In short, Ur III presentation seals introduced another hierarchy of subject matter, with high bureaucratic officials and their subordinates granted royal presentation iconography, in varying degrees. The seals of the lower classes continued to use formulaic presentation iconography on their seals, taking it up for their own purpose—whether that was class emulation, the affection of the gods, or anything else. (See Figures 3 and 4). 57

Common peoples’ desire for fashionable seals was more fully realized at the end of the Old Babylonian Period due the expanded use of drills and cutting-wheels. These technologies allowed seals to be produced from even hard materials quickly at the expense of fine, precise work. Importantly, this moment marks a radical change in style—from finely carved details to flat planes, geometric forms, and drill holes. 58 These cruder characteristics persisted within certain groups of cylinder seals from that point on. 59 The subordinate classes, in taking up the styles of the elite, ultimately brought about a new style—one that privileged cost effectiveness and valued subject matter over highly detailed scenes. (See Figure 5) 60

It is important to note that it is not clear exactly how much control people had over the imagery on their seals at any given time. What is clear, however, is that certain types of seals were reserved for certain classes, making a person’s status readily available on his seal.

Figure 3:

An example of an Ur III royal presentation scene.

c. 2100–2000 B.C. Limestone, 3.22 cm x 2 cm.

The British Museum 102510.

Seals as Security

Cylinder seals universally provided a sense of protectedness to their owners. Within the context of the official royal bureaucracy, this sense of security was dependent on the existence of the bureaucracy. Outside of such circumstances, seals’ protections were wholly personal, freed from reliance on the bureaucracy.

Within the administrative context, seals functionally served to seal items, lessening the threat of tampering, theft, and the likes. As was stated previously, this was a function of seals for about three thousand years. Dominique Collon claims that the protective nature of a cylinder seal, following its use marking objects, gave it amuletic value; the seal’s protection was understood to extend to the owner and wearer of the seal. 61

Seals were thought to have inherent amuletic qualities, drawn from their materials and forms. Edith Porada argues for cylinder seals’ amuletic qualities originating with the forms of stamp seals and pendants, which were shaped to symbolize male and female genitalia, respectively. She claims that this amuletic quality was intrinsic to cylinder seals for the duration of their use in the ancient Near East. 62 Following her examination and synthesis of a great many sources in “The Role of Amulets in Mesopotamian Ritual Texts,” Beatrice L. Goff concluded that cylinder seals were first and foremost amulets, whose magic proved extremely useful in several contexts, including ritual and administrative functions alike. 63

Throughout the history of the ancient Near East, specific stones carried specific powers. 64 As amulets, cylinder seals were used variously to ensure personal wellbeing—in rituals to ward off enemies and to alleviate illness for example. 65 Thus, though their specific powers and mode of employment as amulets shifted over time, cylinder seals were powerful and useful protectors because of their inherent amuletic qualities.

Turning back to the bureaucratic context, a seal that suggested a relationship between its owner and an official gave the owner a sense of security within his bureaucratic role. As has been established, cylinder seal inscriptions commonly identified the seal owner with his personal name and other identifying information, before declaring that he was a servant to a royal or official name. Additionally, the use of the word arád implies a hierarchical relationship wherein the seal owner is always subordinated. Thus, it is characteristic of cylinder seals of these times to emphasize their owners’ subservience to those of higher rank.

In his depiction as a servant to an official—especially on an object with as much bureaucratic function as a cylinder seal—it is reasonable to assume that a seal owner would have expected to garner that official’s favor, assuring his office’s safety. Furthermore, by revealing its owner’s identity as fundamentally linked to that of an official, and the owner as necessarily subordinate to him, a seal would at once validate the owner’s bureaucratic position and emphasize its dependence on bureaucratic hierarchy; the seal owner was firmly situated within, even locked into, a highly stratified bureaucracy. Royal presentation iconography must have had a similar effect; depicting its owner in the presence of a deified king, royal presentation seals suggested an association between the two figures. The foregrounded relationship between king and seal owner would suggest to the latter his position’s legitimization by the king, offering him a sense of security in his bureaucratic role. Further, this security is bound to the official’s service to the king, and to the royal bureaucracy more broadly.

Similar in theory but wholly different in its implications, a seal that suggested a relationship between a god and its owner assured the owner of that god’s favor. The inscriptions of religious presentation seals mirrored those of their royal counterparts, including use of the word arád. Thus, they emphasized the same sort of subservience as did royal cylinder seals, but in these cases, the seal owners served gods instead of kings. This ready servitude could be expected to gain the favor of the gods, offering the seal owner a sense of protectedness. 66

The very end of the Old Babylonian Period marked the appearance of the first prayers inscribed on cylinder seals.67 This period was characterized by an increase in personal religion, which changed how people interacted with the gods. They demanded the care of personal deities, and eventually, any deity could serve as a personal god. 68 Perhaps because of the possibility of reaching a god through personal prayer, the first prayers inscribed on cylinder seals appeared at this time. 69 These prayers would have evoked the gods referenced in the inscription, calling their attention to the seal owner.

Throughout all three periods, specific gods were selected for depiction on seals because of their distinct qualities. Seals during this time placed the seal owner in relation to gods with which he most wanted to be associated; a seal’s depiction of a specific god would relate those qualities with the owner. 70 During the Akkadian period, Sumerian terrestrial deities and Akkadian astral deities were reorganized into one official, unified pantheon. In turn, it became extremely popular to depict deities on Akkadian seals. Deities and humans were often depicted in the same types of scenes from everyday life and myth, suggesting an attempt to bridge the two realms. 71

As has been discussed, presentation scenes for those of lower status, who did not warrant the king’s presence, showed the seal owner led before a god. Depicted as a prayerful subordinate to the god, the seal owner could expect to win the god’s favor. 72 The religious presentation scenes related the seal owner with the god, visually occupying the same space and facing one another (though separated by an leading goddess) as if engaging in a dialogue. Thus, they suggested a personal relationship between the god and the seal owner. This kind of closeness to a god, in both visual proximity and suggested personal relationship, would have been reassuring to the seal owner, who looked to the gods for the fate of his wellbeing.

It is worth mention that some religious inscriptions and images might have been part of larger programs supported by royal bureaucracies; indeed, the temple and state were inseparable throughout each period in question. However, the resulting protective qualities of seals did not require any mediation from bureaucratic systems; they required only an association between the seal owner and the religious content on the seal. In other words, state religion sometimes influenced seal content, but it was the seal owner alone who brought forth the object’s protective qualities. Thus, a seal that suggested a relationship between a god and its owner assured the owner of that god’s favor, providing protection independent of the bureaucracy.

In summation, seals that provided protection outside of bureaucratic contexts—with their inherent amuletic qualities and by creating a close association between owner and a deity, for example—were not dependent on the bureaucracy for their protective qualities. Seals related to the bureaucracy in function and content also provided security to their owners. This security, however, was wholly dependent on the existence of the bureaucracy—its systems and officials.

Figure 4:

An example of a presentation scene to a deity.

c. 2100–2000 B.C. Limestone, 2.5 cm x 1.3 cm.

The British Museum 89042.

Seals as Relative Displays of Allegiance

Cylinder seals suggest the relative allegiances of their owners to bureaucrats and bureaucratic systems. Specifically, they reveal that seals used within bureaucratic contexts require a sense of loyalty to the bureaucracy, while those used outside of the bureaucracy do not necessitate this sort of allegiance.

With their emphasis on social differentiation, the form and content on cylinder seals reinforced a sense of distance between bureaucratic officials and the lower classes, i.e. those who did not operate within the bureaucracy. It has been established that cylinder seals are inextricably bound with status. In emphasizing social stratification, the many ways a lower class person is not on equal footing with higher officials, cylinder seals created a meaningful sense of distance between lower class owners and the bureaucracy.

As was demonstrated in the previous section, using seals for non-bureaucratic functions did not require allegiance to the bureaucracy. In addition to their widely documented administrative and legal uses, cylinder seals functioned as protective objects. The protective function of seals outside of bureaucratic contexts—mediation of communication with a god, warding off harm as an amulet, etc.—were freed from any sort of dependence on bureaucracy.

Alternatively, using seals for bureaucratic functions ensured personal responsibility on the part of the user to the bureaucracy, and its officials and procedures. A seal’s administrative and legal function was dependent on its owner’s personal identity, so that he might be held accountable. This sense of personal responsibility to one’s office or position is a symptom of the obligatory allegiance that accompanies bureaucratic function.

The concept of personal accountability also applied to relationships; cylinder seals increased loyalty to the bureaucracy by representing personal relationships between seal owners and officials. It is possible that the widely used naming formula presently discussed—which gave the personal name of the seal owner and other identifying information, followed by a statement of servitude to an official or royal name—was an active attempt to render the seal owner a deferential attendant to the needs of the official and, in turn, the bureaucracy more broadly. This “master–servant,” or even “leading man–supporting role” dynamic requires the seal owner’s personal accountability, not only to his bureaucratic duties but also to another person, one to whom he is directly related. Furthermore, as stated above, seals that show relationships to superiors offer a sense of security to their owners by suggesting a secure position. That sense of security, though, is foregrounded in both the existence of the bureaucracy and the seal owner’s service to it.

Figure 5:

An example of an Old Babylonian seal of low

carving quality, carved with a drill.

Late 18th–17th century B.C. Agate,

3.25 cm x 1.8 cm. The British Museum 102528.

Conclusions

In each use of cylinder seals during the Akkadian, Ur III, and Old Babylonian periods, and in each quality that seals suggested in their owners, there was a distinction between the bureaucratic, which fed bureaucracy, and the non-bureaucratic, which fed other motivations or proclivities. The traditionally accepted context of cylinder seals use lied within bureaucratic systems. Those who did not operate in or around the royal bureaucracy—the lowest classes—represented an alternative context for cylinder seal use. Therefore, in the public construction of personal identity, the display of a cylinder seal suggested the owner’s association with or divergence from bureaucracies. This suggestion is ultimately based on the context of the seal’s use—within or outside bureaucracy—and the many ways in which seals visually manifested such contexts.

Ultimately, cylinder seal owners who used their seals in bureaucratic contexts aligned themselves with the bureaucracy when they wore their seals. Alternatively, those who did not use their seals in bureaucratic contexts separated themselves from the bureaucracy. Importantly, they also removed cylinder seals from their traditionally accepted context, giving seals a new symbolic meaning. This meaning, bound up in its fundamental detachment from bureaucracy—a subversion of authority—might have suggested something like punk to the seal owners’ contemporaries.

Endnotes

1 Dominique Collon, First Impressions: Seals and Sealings In the Ancient Near East (London: British Museum Press, 1987), 113–119.

2 Ibid., 13.

3 Irene Winter, “Legitimation of Authority through Image and Legend: Seals Belonging to Officialsin the Administrative Bureaucracy of the Ur III State,” in Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East, ed. McGuire Gibson and Robert D. Biggs (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1987), 59–100.

4 Leonard Gorelick and A. John Gwinnett, “The Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seal as Social Emblem and Status Symbol,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49 (1990): 45–56.

5 Ibid., 49.

6 Mary C. Beaudry, Lauren J. Cook, and Stephen A. Mrozowski, “Artifacts and Active Voices: Material Culture as Social Discourse,” In The Archaeology of Inequality, ed. Randall H. McGuire and Robert Paynter, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991), 278.

7 Ibid., 279.

8 Ibid., 276.

9 Ibid., 276-277.

10 Ibid.,277.

11 Norman Yoffee, “Political Economy in Early Mesopotamian States,” Annual Review of Anthropology 24 (1995): 290.

12 Ibid., 292.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid., 293.

15 Winter, “Legitimation of Power,” 77. See note 88.

16 Yoffee, “Political Economy in Early Mesopotamian States,” 294.

17 Ibid., 295.

18 Winter, “Legitimation of Power,” 76–77.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid., 68.

21 Yoffee, “Political Economy in Early Mesopotamian States,” 296.

22 Mario Liverani, The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy, (Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013), 242.

23 Ibid., 244–247.

24 I. J. Gelb, “Typology of Mesopotamian Seal Inscriptions,” in Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East, ed. McGuire Gibson and Robert D Biggs, (Malibu: Undena, 1977), 115–126.

25 Collon, First Impressions, 3.

26 Ibid, 113.

27 Bonnie Magness-Gardiner, “The Function of Cylinder Seals in Syrian Palace Archives,” in Aegean seals, sealings and administration: proceedings of the NEH-Dickson Conference of the Program in Aegean scripts and prehistory of the Department of classics, University of Texas at Austin, january 11–13, 1989, ed. Thomas G Palaima, (Liège: Université de Liège, 1990), 64.

28 Collon, First Impressions, 113–116.

29 J.A. Black, G. Cunningham, J. Ebeling, E. Flückiger-Hawker, E. Robson, J. Taylor, and G. Zólyomi, The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, (Oxford 1998–2006).

30 Collon, First Impression, 116

31 Ibid., 120–122.

32 I use this phrase in opposition to ‘status symbol’, the term Gorelick and Gwinnett chose for their essay. Status symbols, unlike cylinder seals, are displays of wealth and high social position. Seals, present amongst members of all classes, often displayed a relative lack of wealth and low social positioning. To label seals ‘status symbols’ is to assume their functions for the higher classes dominated their functions for the lower. Further, it requires that the goal of cylinder seals for the lower classes be reduced to class emulation.

33 Gelb, “Seal Inscriptions,” 115–126.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid., 113–114.

37 M. Sax, D. Collon, and M.N. Leese, “The Availability of Raw Materials for Near Eastern Cylinder Seals During the Akkadian, Post Akaddian and Ur III Periods” Iraq 55 (1993): 82.

38 Ibid., 87.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid., 85.

41 Gorelick and Gwinnett, “Status Symbol,” 54.

42 Beatrice L. Goff, “The Role of Amulets in Mesopotamian Ritual Texts,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 19 (1956): 17–18. For a discussion of seals’ use as amulets, see also 23–29.

43 Collon, First Impressions, 100.

44 Ibid., 100–102.

45 Ibid., 100.

46 Irene J. Winter, “Gold! Divine Light and Lustre in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in vol. 2 of Proceedings of the 7th International Congress On the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 12 April - 16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London, ed. Roger Matthews and John Curtis, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012): 153–169.

47 Collon, First Impressions, 100.

48 Winter, “Gold! Divine Light and Lustre,” 162.

49 Collon, First Impressions, 32.

50 Ibdid.

51 Ibid.

52 For an image of a classic Akkadian contest scene, see figure 1, and for an imitation of these themes by a less skillful craftsman, see figure 2.

53 Collon, First Impressions, 36-39.

54 Ibid., 125. See also Winter, “Legitimation of Power,” 90.

55 Winter, “Legitimation of Power,” 71.

56 Collon, First Impressions, 36-37.

57 For an example of an Ur III royal presentation scene, see figure 3 and for an example of a presentation scene to a deity, see figure 4.

58 Collon, First Impressions, 52.

59 Ibid.

60 For an example of an Old Babylonian seal of low carving quality, carved with a drill, see figure 5.

61 Ibid., 113.

62 Edith Porada, “Why Cylinder Seals? Engraved Cylindrical Seal Stones of the Ancient Near East, Fourth to First Millennium B.C.” The Art Bulletin 75 (1993): 563–82.

63 Goff, “The Role of Amulets in Mesopotamian Ritual Texts,” 37.

64 Ibid., 17–18

65 Ibid., 24–16

66 Porada, “Why Cylinder Seals?,” 571.

67 Collon, First Impressions, 105.

68 Jeanna Nijhowne, Politics, Religion, and Cylinder Seals: A Study of Mesopotamian Symbolism In the Second Millennium B.C. (Oxford: J. and E. Hedges, 1999), 67.

69 Collon, First Impressions, 105.

70 Porada, “Why Cylinder Seals?,” 571.

71 Collon, First Impressions, 35.

72 Porada, “Why Cylinder Seals?,” 571.

Bibliography

Beaudry, Mary C., Lauren J. Cook, and Stephen A. Mrozowski. “Artifacts and Active Voices: Material Culture as Social Discourse.” The Archaeology of Inequality, edited by Randall H. McGuire and

Robert Paynter, 150–191. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.

Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, J. Ebeling, E. Flückiger-Hawker, E. Robson, J. Taylor, and G. Zólyomi. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. Oxford, 1998–2006.

Dominique Collon. First Impressions: Seals and Sealings in the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum Press, 1987.

Gelb, I. J. “Typology of Mesopotamian Seal Inscriptions,” Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East, edited by McGuire Gibson and Robert D Biggs, 107–126. Malibu: Undena, 1977.

Goff, Beatrice L. “The Role of Amulets in Mesopotamian Ritual Texts.” Journal of the

Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 19 (1956): 1–39.

Gorelick, Leonard, and A. John Gwinnett. “The Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seal as

Social Emblem and Status Symbol.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 49 (1990): 45–56.

Magness-Gardiner, Bonnie. “The Function of Cylinder Seals in Syrian Palace Archives.” Aegean seals, sealings and administration: proceedings of the NEH-Dickson Conference of the Program in Aegean scripts and prehistory of the Department of classics, University of Texas at Austin, january 11-13, 1989, edited by Thomas G Palaima, 61–82. Liège: Université de Liège, 1990.

Nijhowne, Jeanne. Politics, Religion, and Cylinder Seals: A Study of Mesopotamian Symbolism In the Second Millennium B.C.. Oxford: J. and E. Hedges, 1999.

Porada, Edith. “Why Cylinder Seals? Engraved Cylindrical Seal Stones of the Ancient Near East, Fourth to First Millennium B.C.” The Art Bulletin 75 (1993): 563–82.

Sax, M., D. Collon, and M. N. Leese.“The Availability of Raw Materials for Near Eastern Cylinder Seals During the Akkadian, Post Akaddian and Ur III Periods”. Iraq 55 (1993): 77–90.

Winter, Irene J. “Gold! Divine Light and Lustre in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In vol. 2 of Proceedings of the 7th International Congress On the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 12 April - 16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL, London, edited by Roger Matthews and John Curtis, 153-169. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.

Winter, Irene. “Legitimation of Authority through Image and Legend: Seals Belonging to Officials in the Administrative Bureaucracy of the Ur III State.” In The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy In the Ancient Near East, edited by McGuire Gibson and Robert D Biggs, 59–100. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1987.

Yoffee, Norman. “Political Economy in Early Mesopotamian States.” Annual Review of Anthropology 24 (1995): 281–311.