DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3044#0219
204 TECHNIQUE
65 Stone Vases 134.
66 CMS VII 14, 213; CS 159.
67 CMS VII 21; XII 151.
68 Warren, Stone Vases 137 n. 1.
69 AEMI 388-389, 402-403. Cf. Btihler, Antike Gefasse aus Edelstein (Mainz 1973) 2-3 on Egyptian amethyst.
70 Personal communication 10.VII.76; Grohmann, SUdarabien 180.
71 AGD II 14; CMS I 5; HI 118; 112 18; VII 39; VIII 104, 134; CS 126, 133.
72 CM 159; CMS 112 56; X 246.
73 CM 161, 192.
74 CMS VII 36. This seal is internally fractured, probably from rapid variations in temperature. The color of
amethyst may be altered to yellow and then to brown by heating.
75 CM 156 is near to this subgroup.
76 On this dating, supra 91,
77 CMS III 103, 432, 468; 112 68, 246; VII 39; VIII 134; XII 118; HM 1567.
78 CMS III 103, 432, 468; HM 1567 (?).
79 On this dating, PM I 271, 273.
80 Cf. CMS VII 12, 17, 20, 26, which Kenna thinks may be marble. On the basis of hardness, they are catal-
ogued here as "serpentine".
81 Stone Vases 140-141.
82 Ibid. 138-139.
83 Ibid. 129-130.
84 Island Gems (London 1963) 15.
85 Stone Vases 138-139; cf. also Hankey, Levant 6 (1974) 163.
86 Personal communication with Dr. Schiirmann, 2.1.78. After testing about seventy seals, I found only one
which was 1.-1.5 in hardness, i.e. in steatite, although many of these seals may well have been in this ma-
terial. Significantly, the surface of a stone is often harder than the center, owing to weathering. Thus, the
testing of hardness must be used with caution.
87 Younger, Seals 192-193.
88 Cf. Yule, Technical Observations on Glyptic, in press for the 1978 Marburg Seal Symposium report.
89 Cf. CMS 112 96, 99, 107, 117, 146, 157, 169 etc.
90 Such a tool could also have been powered by a bow: Cf. Vienna p. 19 fig. g for a representation of a man-
ually belt-driven lathe. Cf. Boardman, GGFR 381 fig. 316 for a representation of a Roman glyptic lathe.
65 Stone Vases 134.
66 CMS VII 14, 213; CS 159.
67 CMS VII 21; XII 151.
68 Warren, Stone Vases 137 n. 1.
69 AEMI 388-389, 402-403. Cf. Btihler, Antike Gefasse aus Edelstein (Mainz 1973) 2-3 on Egyptian amethyst.
70 Personal communication 10.VII.76; Grohmann, SUdarabien 180.
71 AGD II 14; CMS I 5; HI 118; 112 18; VII 39; VIII 104, 134; CS 126, 133.
72 CM 159; CMS 112 56; X 246.
73 CM 161, 192.
74 CMS VII 36. This seal is internally fractured, probably from rapid variations in temperature. The color of
amethyst may be altered to yellow and then to brown by heating.
75 CM 156 is near to this subgroup.
76 On this dating, supra 91,
77 CMS III 103, 432, 468; 112 68, 246; VII 39; VIII 134; XII 118; HM 1567.
78 CMS III 103, 432, 468; HM 1567 (?).
79 On this dating, PM I 271, 273.
80 Cf. CMS VII 12, 17, 20, 26, which Kenna thinks may be marble. On the basis of hardness, they are catal-
ogued here as "serpentine".
81 Stone Vases 140-141.
82 Ibid. 138-139.
83 Ibid. 129-130.
84 Island Gems (London 1963) 15.
85 Stone Vases 138-139; cf. also Hankey, Levant 6 (1974) 163.
86 Personal communication with Dr. Schiirmann, 2.1.78. After testing about seventy seals, I found only one
which was 1.-1.5 in hardness, i.e. in steatite, although many of these seals may well have been in this ma-
terial. Significantly, the surface of a stone is often harder than the center, owing to weathering. Thus, the
testing of hardness must be used with caution.
87 Younger, Seals 192-193.
88 Cf. Yule, Technical Observations on Glyptic, in press for the 1978 Marburg Seal Symposium report.
89 Cf. CMS 112 96, 99, 107, 117, 146, 157, 169 etc.
90 Such a tool could also have been powered by a bow: Cf. Vienna p. 19 fig. g for a representation of a man-
ually belt-driven lathe. Cf. Boardman, GGFR 381 fig. 316 for a representation of a Roman glyptic lathe.