DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3044#0215
200 TECHNIQUE
B. Technique88
A variety of techniques was used to fashion early Cretan seals. Prepalatial ivory seals show
the incisions of non-rotary instruments. The seals of the MM IB-II Malia Workshop Complex are
gouged, incised and drilled with a slow-turning borer or gimlet. Two different kinds of drill ap-
pear to have been in use for the working of soft stones, the slow and fast-turning drills. The
holes of the slow drill are uneven and sometimes somewhat eccentric. The fast-turning drill,
which leaves geometrically regular, solid or tubular cuts, is well attested on seals in both soft
and hard stone. The hand-held drill falls unter the category of slow drills and may account for
much of the work in soft stone. However, tool marks, particularly on seals in hard stone, are
geometrically precise to an extent that it is inconceivable that they were cut with an unstable
bow drill. Much more probable is a fixed lapidary lathe. The seal is attached to a stick and
is then brought into contact with the spinning cutting bit.
The earliest evidence for the use of a fast-turning drill is provided by a seal in rock crystal:
CMS HI 366, which was excavated from a context containing no material later in date than MM
IB. The dating of the hard stone seals of the MM IB-II Malia Workshop Subgroup is difficult
to assess. These pieces possibly belong to MM II, partly on the grounds of iconography.
In MM II much more drill work is in evidence, particularly on the seals of the Hieroglyphic
Deposit Group. On these the tubular drill was often applied at an angle to produce crescents ,
or perpendicular to the surface to cut circles. Motifs, particularly of the MM II (-III?) Drilled
Lions Group, were roughed out by means of a solid and/or tubular drill and the material between
the borings worked by either a wheel, hand polisher or both. As the existence of the fast-turn-
ing drill was already acknowledged, that of the engraving wheel is not surprising. Files are not
used nowadays for carving seals in materials the hardness of chalcedony as these stones are too
hard. Nevertheless, a sort of abrasive file appears to have been used to engrave certain seals,
particularly those of the Neopalatial Cuti Style and tectonic ornament.9 There is no evidence for
the use of the running drill for cutting Aegean seals. Hand polishers must have played an impor-
tant role in the final polishing of the devices, particularly those of the MM II (-?) Hieroglyphic
Deposit Group. These polishers would have been especially useful where the ends of the cuts are
deep and do not feather out.
Several different techniques are in evidence for the production of Minoan metal seals.
The motifs appear to have been chased or engraved in the true sense. That is, a tool actually
removed pieces of metal from the intaglio. Pini has suggested that this tool could have been in
obsidian, which is of a sufficient hardness to work gold.
As a postscript, it may be added that nowadays for engravers of seals and coin dies, the
magnifying glass is not essential. All other factors equal, the engraver's period of activity seems
to be relatively unaffected by advancing age.
In summary, on the basis of stylistic, iconographic as well as typological considerations, it
appears that certain kinds of materials were preferred at certain times. Soft stone is documented
from EM II or possibly earlier and continues throughout the Bronze Age. Ivory is first document-
ed in EM II and is clearly in production until MM IA. Frit/faience, another important material,
is documented principally in EM III-MM IA. In MM IB the use of ivory is difficult to ascertain.
Hard stones come into common use in MM II, although the dating of the few earliest examples
is also difficult. They comprise about forty-one percent of the extant Middle Bronze Age seals.
Generally, early Cretan seals in ivory and in hard stone show better workmanship than do
B. Technique88
A variety of techniques was used to fashion early Cretan seals. Prepalatial ivory seals show
the incisions of non-rotary instruments. The seals of the MM IB-II Malia Workshop Complex are
gouged, incised and drilled with a slow-turning borer or gimlet. Two different kinds of drill ap-
pear to have been in use for the working of soft stones, the slow and fast-turning drills. The
holes of the slow drill are uneven and sometimes somewhat eccentric. The fast-turning drill,
which leaves geometrically regular, solid or tubular cuts, is well attested on seals in both soft
and hard stone. The hand-held drill falls unter the category of slow drills and may account for
much of the work in soft stone. However, tool marks, particularly on seals in hard stone, are
geometrically precise to an extent that it is inconceivable that they were cut with an unstable
bow drill. Much more probable is a fixed lapidary lathe. The seal is attached to a stick and
is then brought into contact with the spinning cutting bit.
The earliest evidence for the use of a fast-turning drill is provided by a seal in rock crystal:
CMS HI 366, which was excavated from a context containing no material later in date than MM
IB. The dating of the hard stone seals of the MM IB-II Malia Workshop Subgroup is difficult
to assess. These pieces possibly belong to MM II, partly on the grounds of iconography.
In MM II much more drill work is in evidence, particularly on the seals of the Hieroglyphic
Deposit Group. On these the tubular drill was often applied at an angle to produce crescents ,
or perpendicular to the surface to cut circles. Motifs, particularly of the MM II (-III?) Drilled
Lions Group, were roughed out by means of a solid and/or tubular drill and the material between
the borings worked by either a wheel, hand polisher or both. As the existence of the fast-turn-
ing drill was already acknowledged, that of the engraving wheel is not surprising. Files are not
used nowadays for carving seals in materials the hardness of chalcedony as these stones are too
hard. Nevertheless, a sort of abrasive file appears to have been used to engrave certain seals,
particularly those of the Neopalatial Cuti Style and tectonic ornament.9 There is no evidence for
the use of the running drill for cutting Aegean seals. Hand polishers must have played an impor-
tant role in the final polishing of the devices, particularly those of the MM II (-?) Hieroglyphic
Deposit Group. These polishers would have been especially useful where the ends of the cuts are
deep and do not feather out.
Several different techniques are in evidence for the production of Minoan metal seals.
The motifs appear to have been chased or engraved in the true sense. That is, a tool actually
removed pieces of metal from the intaglio. Pini has suggested that this tool could have been in
obsidian, which is of a sufficient hardness to work gold.
As a postscript, it may be added that nowadays for engravers of seals and coin dies, the
magnifying glass is not essential. All other factors equal, the engraver's period of activity seems
to be relatively unaffected by advancing age.
In summary, on the basis of stylistic, iconographic as well as typological considerations, it
appears that certain kinds of materials were preferred at certain times. Soft stone is documented
from EM II or possibly earlier and continues throughout the Bronze Age. Ivory is first document-
ed in EM II and is clearly in production until MM IA. Frit/faience, another important material,
is documented principally in EM III-MM IA. In MM IB the use of ivory is difficult to ascertain.
Hard stones come into common use in MM II, although the dating of the few earliest examples
is also difficult. They comprise about forty-one percent of the extant Middle Bronze Age seals.
Generally, early Cretan seals in ivory and in hard stone show better workmanship than do