Evidence for Ancient Movable Type Printing

[Eleatic Guest]

...the concept of individual letters forming a message...

Correct me, but isn't this the movable type principle, as opposed to woodblock printing where an entire sheet is printed with a block?

In any case, I believe we need to learn more about the pipe inscription, our understanding of the technicalities is still too fragmentary. Unfortunately, though, I have not found another description, and the scholars I contacted have yet to reply.

[D B Campbell]

It's a tricky definition, Stefan.

If we concede that the ancients knew how to cut an inscription in stone, it is a small step to replace each cut letter with a cast brass/bronze letter, which is then fixed to the stone in the same position that an incised letter would have occupied. I don't think this is necessarily preparing the way for the invention of movable type. (The individual letters are not intended to "move" -- they are not re-usable, unless the inscription is dismantled and a new one constructed.)

For movable type, the important feature (I think) is the fact that individual re-usable letters are pressed so that they leave their impression on some medium (whether it's paper or, in this case, sand). The individual letters can be collected and re-assembled into a new message -- say, to label the lead pipes for a different client.

The evidence that we have -- until it is further elucidated -- is unclear. It could be explained as the result of an "entire message" stamp (i.e., no individual re-usable letters) simply being pressed onto the rear of the sheet of lead before it is wrapped up into a pipe. This method has the attraction of being similar to the known method of stamping tiles (and the probable method of branding barrels). The stamp itself can be re-used, provided you require exactly the same message. (But fails to fulfil the requirements of a movable type system.)

The method which Hodge has suggested sounds wonderfully inventive, but also seems overly complicated. In addition, the pipe illustrated earlier doesn't seem to display the qualities of "typewriter" text that Hodge expects -- namely, that letters are often slightly offset.

We must await further evidence ... :|

[Tarbicus]

2. Printing does neither necessarily mean book printing nor printing on paper. You can also print on vellum, glass, cloth and ...lead. In fact, (woodblock) printing of images on clothes is far older than (woodblock) printing of text on paper, the earliest evidence in the Roman Empire dating to Coptic Egypt (4th century AD).

As today we have 3D printing: http://www.bourgoynestudio.com/BMBSculpt_3dprint.html

[A_Volpe]

Interesting discussion indeed. I want to think more about this and try to re-define my perception and theory of what this pipe thing is and how it compares to printing...Just don't have time at the moment.

Sean:
but I think that to print a whole page the ancients would have needed an ink which doesn't smudge easily (I think ancient inks were all water-based and good printer's inks tended to be oil-based) and a machine to do the pressing.

Yes and No. classic/traditional letterpress printing typically uses a linseed oil based black ink, but today there are some water-based inks that are good. Japanese woodblocks used water based inks as well. But there are lots of branches in printing and technique here and it'll get complicated really quickly, so I'm going to try and stick with European tradition of letterpress. The problem with oily ink is it can bleed and smudge, so part of the mechanical aspect of the printing press is you are pressing the entire raised inked surface with a flat, even pressure - an enormous amount of pressure no less. There is a concept in letterpress in how "hard" the press presses the paper and how that transfers the impression and ink, it's called a "kiss", with the right settings and pressure, the image and letters will not make an impression into the paper, thus making 2-sided printing more practical. Of course, the technique of pressing the type into the paper to create a texture and 3D effect is also seen in printing, but there starts a fine line between lettepress and embossing. If these sets of letters and words for pressing into lead pipes is pressed into the lead surface to create a 3D raised surface, that to me spells Embossing. Moveable type? Yes, I can agree to that, but it is not letterpress or "printing" IMprinting we can split hairs on...If these movable letters are being inked and only the surface is having ink placed/transferred onto the lead pipe, that to me spells Printing.....It gets complicated quickly!

Without splitting more hairs, later in the 19th century with illustrations in wood engraving / xylograph, letterpress (used) the same oil based ink, but powder was added (a modern material I've used is magnesium powder), this "tightens" the ink, making it very stiff, reducing the smudge problem

Eleatic Guest - I'm trying to avoid going off track, but yes, the concept of moveable type does not necessarily condition a mechanical printing press, as you've said - but I am trying to stay on the definition of specifically using a set of arranged individual letters/type put into a frame, and into a press, to print out copies of that single image repeatedly. Printing with a block of wood, or lead by itself, by rubbing onto a surface - that to me starts to head into the realm of a Stamp, not a press.

Like I said I think my definitions are too black-and-white...Must think more about this. I agree that what may be going on with this lead pipe deal is very CLOSE to the concept of moveable printing type in letterpress, but I do not think it is the earlier development of that process.

[Eleatic Guest]

I have meanwhile received a kind reply of Mr. Hodge:

It had indeed often struck me that here we had a prototype example of printing, long before Gutenberg. And indeed there is also the Phaestos Disc, which at least used cut and reusable types, instead of inscribing each symbol by hand, though, unlike the Roman pipes, the types were not formed together in some kind of locked frame.

He recommended contacting a Dutch expert on all sorts related to ancient piping, and that's what I am going to do. :mrgreen:

----

I have found another incidence of what it believed to be early movable type before Gutenberg, in 12th century Bavaria. The technique is very similar to that of the Phaistos disc, that is a complete text is created by stamping letters with individually cut stamps. Unlike the Roman example, though, there is no kind of locked frame involved. Thus, it may be perceived as being 'more distant' to movable type in the Gutenberg tradition.

Brekle is an expert and has even published a small monograph on his finding: http://www.typeforum.de/modules.php?op= ... le&sid=308

[D B Campbell]

Many scholars are disclined to call the Phaistos Disc an example of movable type, on the grounds that its symbols were apparently stamped in a sequence one by one. For being a print, the creator should have taken all necessary stamps in his hand and imprinted the whole disc in one move, thus making the stamps true movable type.

Definitely. In my opinion, it's just a sequence of individual stamps impressed into the clay disk. Hodge's "cut and reusable types, instead of inscribing each symbol by hand", is simply a definition of a stamp, such as were used for stamping tiles. So irrelevant to the discussion.

[A_Volpe]

Ok, so then I think it's safe (for me) to say there is evidence for the possibility for the development and use of a type of moveable type

but I'm still fond of, or perhaps support the idea, that Gutenberg's system is, if not the "first", then certainly the most successful version of what we can classify as "moveable printing type" D

..Beware the Devil's Tail :mrgreen:

[Eleatic Guest]

but I'm still fond of, or perhaps support the idea, that Gutenberg's system is, if not the "first", then certainly the most successful version of what we can classify as "moveable printing type" Afterall, the system has remained essentially unchanged for hundreds of years.

There are no two opinions on this. Gutenberg deserves the credit for the printing revolution. Take a look how his invention spread around the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_ ... ting_press

[Eleatic Guest]

Many scholars are disclined to call the Phaistos Disc an example of movable type, on the grounds that its symbols were apparently stamped in a sequence one by one. For being a print, the creator should have taken all necessary stamps in his hand and imprinted the whole disc in one move, thus making the stamps true movable type.

Definitely. In my opinion, it's just a sequence of individual stamps impressed into the clay disk. Hodge's "cut and reusable types, instead of inscribing each symbol by hand", is simply a definition of a stamp, such as were used for stamping tiles. So irrelevant to the discussion.

From a purely technological point of view, it's 'only' stamps, but you have to keep in mind that no-one in three thousand years of Ancient Near Eastern stamping ever thought of stamping a sequence. It was always just one, two or three stamps at most on this or that item.

The point is that neither before nor after the Phaistos disc (the Bavarian inscription aside) sequences of individual stamps were used to create whole texts. And this is exactly what you do with 'true' movable types in a locked frame: create entire texts by individually cut stamps. Therefore, IMO the Phaistos disc can very well be regarded as a typological (even though not genealogical) ancestor of true movable type printing. Because it was the first time somebody came up with the idea of breaking down a text to its smallest entities, the letters or symbols, cut a impression of each of them, and imprint a complete text with them. Whether stamps or types, frames or not were involved is only of secondary importance to the fact that both methods relied on the same principle, the typographical principle.

[D B Campbell]

Because it was the first time somebody came up with the idea of breaking down a text to its smallest entities, the letters or symbols, cut a impression of each of them, and imprint a complete text with them. Whether stamps or types, frames or not were involved is only of secondary importance to the fact that both methods relied on the same principle, the typographical principle.

Well ... if you put it like that ... I am happy to withdraw my objection!

[Sean Manning]

Also, isn't there a good chance that the Phaistos disk is a 20th century forgery? So it might not even be an ancient technology.

[Eleatic Guest]

Because it was the first time somebody came up with the idea of breaking down a text to its smallest entities, the letters or symbols, cut a impression of each of them, and imprint a complete text with them. Whether stamps or types, frames or not were involved is only of secondary importance to the fact that both methods relied on the same principle, the typographical principle.

Well ... if you put it like that ... I am happy to withdraw my objection!

No, you don't need to, from a technological point of view your observation is obviously correct, the Phaistos dics was imprinted with stamps, not movable type as we understand it. But the underlying typographical principle is no different than as with movable type.

[Eleatic Guest]

Also, isn't there a good chance that the Phaistos disk is a 20th century forgery? So it might not even be an ancient technology.

The same imprinting method was also much later used here, in 12th century Bavaria: http://www.typeforum.de/modules.php?op= ... le&sid=308 I ordered the publication today.

[Sean Manning]

Stamped brick to give the impression of an expensive inscription? How clever!
That's the second time today I've run into some German text which I wish I could read.

[Eleatic Guest]

Mr. Brekle, a German expert on printing with a research interest in possible cases of pre-Gutenberg typography, has swiftly responded to my email:

Vielen Dank für Ihre gestrige hochinteressante E-Post. Wie Sie vielleicht wissen, beschäftige ich mich schon längere Zeit mit Vor-Gutenberg-Typographie. Ich habe übrigens in den frühen 50er Jahren Schriftsetzer und Drucker gelernt.

Ich teile Ihre Auffassung, daß die von Hodge erwähnten Inschriften auf römischen Bleirohren auf der Basis des typographischen Prinzips hergestellt sein müssen. Ich habe schon mal ein kritisches Exzerpt von Hodges einschlägigem Textabschnitt gemacht, in dem ich einige Herstellungsoptionen im Detail diskutiere.

Die Sache ist es auf jeden Fall wert, näher untersucht zu werden. Ich bin dazu bereit. Dazu müßte ich natürlich solche Inschriften an Originalen mit der Lupe studieren können. Wissen Sie, wo sich hierzulande entsprechende Funde befinden?

So, on the basis of Mr. Hodges' technical description, he agrees that the typographical principle, which is the underlying principle of movable type printing, was applied at creating the raised lead inscriptions. He agrees to investigate further into the matter. However, what is now needed are actual excavated examples of these inscriptions for detailed investigation.

Here I need your help. If you know of such specimen in some museum or people who may know where to look for them, please share the information here.

[size=85:3d15xw9t]I have also contacted some other experts, their answers pending.[/size]