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:
“Whose are the truly labored sentences? From the weak and flimsy periods of the politician and literary man, we are glad to turn even to the description of work, the simple record of the month’s labor in the farmer’s almanac, to restore our tone and spirits.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“He hath achieved a maid
That paragons description and wild fame;
One that excels the quirks of blazoning pens.”
—William Shakespeare (1564–1616)
“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)