[pbhjpbhj]

With wax tablets being used it's surprising too if none of the Romans thought to use an impression mechanism¹ to print with.

--

1 - Perhaps drawing initially on foil, backing with clay, heat and press and then wipe over an "ink" (which could also then be set on to paper). Or maybe simply forming letter shapes which are put together on a board and heating and impressing them in to the wax.

Indeed this brings me to think how easy duplication of clay tablets bearing cuneiform would be – impress a fired/set tablet on to a piece of wet clay, set that as the master and then "potato print" with that in to fresh clay pieces. It couldn’t really be simpler than that – why didn’t the Sumerians have printing presses in 4000BC?.

[00010]

Printing, as a technology for creating duplicate images (eg, with wood blocks), was in use at least a millenium prior to Gutenberg in many societies, including parts of late Rome. Moveable type came much later, and it was Gutenberg's incorporation of this with a whole slew of engineering improvements that led to the printing revolution in Europe.

[pbhjpbhj]

Perhaps I should have done some research before opening my fat mouth ... but duplicate images only or was it extended to duplicate "written" works?

Ex post facto lots of this sort of thing (block printing images -> movable type) seem pretty straight forward, doesn't it.

[00010]

I think one of the hallmarks of any truly revolutionary technology is the ease and speed with which it spreads, becomes assimilated, and soon seems 'obvious' to those who were born after its adoption. The wheel being the archetypal example.

I'm no expert on printing presses, but the Wikipedia page on Moveable Type has some good material, including the suggestion that Gutenberg's most important innovation was a greatly improved method for casting letters. I find the elegance of this quite inspiring -- that Gutenberg did not invent 'the printing press' out of thin air but rather made this seemingly minor, but in fact absolutely crucial improvement that almost immediately propelled it from a niche technology into a cornerstone of intellectual life. There are many contemporary parallels...

(Incidentally, printing's rapid adoption was surely in part due to its usefulness not just for intellectuals, but also for the ever-present propaganda efforts of government officials.)

[WalterBright]

Printing supported not only governments, but revolutions. I have a hard time believing the American Revolution could remotely have happened without the printing press.

Consider the modern parallel of the Egyptian Revolution being enabled by Facebook.

[philwelch]

Incidentally, printing's rapid adoption was surely in part due to its usefulness not just for intellectuals, but also for the ever-present propaganda efforts of government officials.

Not to mention the ability to print bibles, which was pretty important at the time.

[wazoox]

In fact much revolutionary technologies come from small incremental improvements, and often were invented by several people at the same time : the telephone, the radio, the steam engine, television...

[dwiel]

Just a thought, but paper is a much more information dense medium. Perhaps transportation of the clay tablets was expensive enough to make doing them by hand each time easier than printing them.

[pbhjpbhj]

Indeed, but clay tablets could have been thinned, they could also have used organic material (with fired pieces it burns away, cf paper-clay) to lighten the resulting tablets without much loss in ruggedness (paperclay is stronger than clay alone, like concrete vs cement).

I think such a development would lead naturally to think "damn this epic of Gilgamesh needs a few camels to transport, perhaps instead of impressing back in to clay I can press it on something lighter" and then possibly with the realisation that pressing on a damp cloth with an unfired tablet impression produces a great serviceable print ...

[gte910h]

Romans had paper/papyrus by the late republic period (Caesar, Antony, Cicero, Cleopatra)