suzmccarth wrote:

>
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, Jonathon Blake <jonathon.blake@...>
> wrote:
> > Suzanne wrote:
> >
> > > > (a) Does that mean it's never been tried?
> > > Have *you* tried? Please quote some relevant research.
> >
> > I have shown blind people how tablets were made, and cuniform was
> > written. The major problem was/is learning the writing system.
>
> Thanks. This makes sense.
>
> The relief blockprint cuneiform I saw is described here. I am not
> sure what it is and I don't want to argue about it. It just seemed
> like an interesting detail.

Did you even _read_ this description before you posted it?

It is _not_ a cuneiform clay tablet, but it is claimed to be a stamp
with which building-brick inscriptions were stamped into bricks.

Schoyen is very well known as a fantastically wealthy and credulous
purchaser of fakes, so the genuineness of this object is prima facie
highly suspect anyway.

> "AMAR-SIN IN NIPPUR, CALLED BY ENLIL WHO SUPPORTS THE TEMPLE OF
> ENLIL, POWERFUL MALE, KING OF UR, KING OF THE 4 QUARTERS OF THE WORLD
>
> Blockprint in blind in Neo Sumerian on clay, Nippur, Sumer, reign of
> King Amar-Sin, 2047-2038 BC, 1 brick, 17x19x6 cm, originally ca.
> 33x33x6 cm, 9 columns, (10x11 cm) in cuneiform script.
>
> Context: A original brick printing block of Amar-Sin is MS 2764.
>
> Commentary: Enlil was the chief Sumerian god, whose main temple was
> in Nippur.
>
> See also MS 1876/1, Hammurabi brick, Babylonia, 1792-1750 BC"
>
> In the Schoyen collection.
>
> http://www.nb.no/baser/schoyen/5/5.18/
>
> And this one.
>
> "AMAR-SIN OF NIPPUR, CHOSEN BY ENLIL, MIGHTY HERO, THE TEMPLE OF
> ENLIL, BRICK STAMP INSCRIPTION
>
> MS in Neo Sumerian on white marble, Sumer, 2046-2038 BC, 1 brick
> printing block, 18,5x10,0x3,5 cm, single column, 7 lines in cuneiform
> script, with a handle on the back.
>
> Context: Bricks of King Amar-Sin with full texts are MSS 1878 and
> 1914.
>
> Commentary: Brick printing blocks are so rare as objects that there
> is a theory that they were broken when a production run was finished.
> Those that are known are almost never intact. There are some broken
> ones from the Old Akkadian Period, including the intact MS 5106, but
> made of terracotta. Until this one there were no examples of an UR
> III brick printing block known at all, and the material of their
> construction was a complete mystery.
>
> The inscription is a well known one, but the last 3 lines have not
> been cut, apart from the first sign in line 7. This printing block
> was never used, but discarded by the scribe due to a slight chipping
> to the inscription. Since the natural medium for writing at this
> time, was clay, the process of impressing a block into wet soft clay
> can be seen as the first known example of true printing. Some of the
> printing blocks even had "movable type" so that the inscription
> relating to more than one building could be accommodated with a
> minimum of effort.
>
> Exhibited: TEFAF Maastricht International Fine Art and Antiques Fair,
> 12-21 March 1999."

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...