Description
Including the part now missing, the 'hat' would have weighed about 330 g. Like its counterparts, it was hammered from a single piece of gold, decorated in the repoussé technique with bands and rows of symbols, had a somewhat convex, cap-like, lower portion and was originally equipped with a 'brim', which was probably lost during its recovery. Like the Berlin example, it was reinforced by one or several bronze rings near the bottom.
The cone is now (in reconstructed form) 88.3 cm high, but was probably somewhat shorter, at 72 cm or more.
Along its whole length, the object's surface is subdivided and decorated by horizontal bands or ribs and by rows of symbols. In total, there are 154 bands and symbol rows. The symbols are mostly circular bosses enclosed by up to seven concentric circles, as known from all other specimens. There are three sets of unusual special motifs: small horizontal ovals resembling eyes (row 92, also known from Schifferstadt and Berlin), small eight-spoked wheels (row 120) and miniature cones (rows 127 and 105). The latter are unique to the Ezesldorf-Buch cone and appear to represent the shape of a gold 'hat'. The tip of the cone is embellished with a ten-point star. The area where the cone joins the cap-like area is embellished with a 30 mm wide band of vertical grooving, as is the case on the Berlin example.
Read more about this topic: Golden Cone Of Ezelsdorf-Buch
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“Everything to which we concede existence is a posit from the standpoint of a description of the theory-building process, and simultaneously real from the standpoint of the theory that is being built. Nor let us look down on the standpoint of the theory as make-believe; for we can never do better than occupy the standpoint of some theory or other, the best we can muster at the time.”
—Willard Van Orman Quine (b. 1908)
“A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.”
—John Locke (1632–1704)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)