digging the neolithic stamp-seals of se europe from

231

UDK 903.2'12\'16(4–12)''633\634''>902Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007)

Digging the Neolithic stamp-seals of SE Europefrom archaeological deposits, texts and mental constructs

Agni PrijateljDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

[email protected]

Introduction

This article represents an attempt to enliven one ofmost visually striking categories of artefacts withinNeolithic materiality that has petrified under layersof problematic interpretations and misuses withinarchaeological literature. The act of reanimatingNeolithic stamp-seals from SE Europe is carried outin two steps: first, we lift up the dusty veil of uncon-sciously regulated discourse from the patient. Se-cond, we bring the patient back to life with intensivework on the vital functions (i.e. on the cultural bio-graphy of Neolithic stamp-seals of SE Europe).

Archaeology of the texts

The basic material we are following in this part ofthe article comprises not the Neolithic stamp-seals ofSE Europe themselves, but texts by different authorsdevoted to this subject. Since the main goal of thearchaeological process could be described as “ ... lin-guistic transformation of the object into a word in-to a text” (Tilley 1998.141), this part of the article

deals with ways of transforming the material intothe immaterial: with the help of 31 selected textswritten by 21 different authors, we observe the re-lations between discourse, scientific thought and theobserved phenomenon of the Neolithic stamp-sealsof SE Europe. We use the following statement by C.Tilley (1998.147) as a methodological starting-pointfor the intended analysis:

“ ... all archaeological texts are primarily literaryconstructions and can be analysed in an analo-gous manner to literary texts, bracketing aside thequestions of truth, falsity, adequacy, or inadequacyin relation to the physical artefact world that arenormally asked from the outset ... The concernmight rather more pertinently be to do with themanner in which the language itself is structuredand mobilised to create meaning and sense.”

Within the Early Neolithic of Europe the phenome-non of stamp-seals is frequently taken advantage of

ABSTRACT – The article presents the archaeological and experimental data on the Neolithic stamp-seals from phenomenological perspective. An alternative view to their production, consumption andsymbolic values is proposed by employing concepts of affordances, constraints, icons, indexes andsymbols. It is argued that the stamp-seal motifs probably conveyed specific information, while objectswere included in various networks of meaning. Similar importance is given to the fact that the stamp-seals probably evolved a secondary mode of use.

IZVLE∞EK – V ≠lanku so predstavljeni arheolo∏ki in eksperimentalni podatki o neolitskih pe≠atnikih-∫igih s fenomenolo∏ke perspektive. S pomo≠jo konceptov ponujenosti, omejitev, ikon, indeksov insimbolov oblikujemo alternativni pogled na njihovo produkcijo, rabo in simboli≠ne vrednosti. Zago-varjamo tezo, da so bili pe≠atniki-∫igi vklju≠eni v razli≠ne pomenske mre∫e, njihovi motivi pa so bilinosilci specifi≠nih informacij. Enako pomembno se nam zdi dejstvo, da so pe≠atniki-∫igi razvili se-kundarne oblike rabe.

KEY WORDS – stamp-seals; affordances/constraints; icons; indexes; symbols

Agni Prijatelj

232

as a fundamental argument to support an author’stheoretical model of Neolithisation. We want to ana-lyse the use of the term within different archaeolo-gical discourses. The main questions we tackle are:has the meaning of the term ‘stamp-seal’ shiftedthrough time? How does the term capture the realityof the artefacts it is used to discuss? Could the func-tion of the stamp-seals be different from those de-scribed by our authors? Do the presented uses of theterm help towards a better understanding of the past?

The sample of literature consists of 60 years writingabout the Neolithic stamp-seals of SE Europe. It in-cludes all the major works dealing with the subject,

a number of general surveys mentioning stamp-seals, as well as various book chapters and articleson stamp seals of different dates and of differentstyles of archaeological thinking. Thus texts, writtenwithin ‘traditional’, ‘processual’ and ‘post-processual’discourse are presented within the sample.

No uniform terminology for the observed phenome-non is employed within the archaeological literatureon the Neolithic stamp-seals of SE Europe. Sincestamped/sealed material is not preserved, the useof the objects remains difficult to define. It has beensuggested that these artefacts were used as pintade-ras for adorning the human body (e.g. Younger 1995.

1. I. Kutzián (1944 and 1947), The Körös Culture. Plates and Text, 82. V. Gordon Childe (1950), The Dawn of European Civilization, sixth, revised edition, 25, 60–61, 81, 89, 91, 95, 103, 126,

135, 144–1453. V. Gordon Childe (1959), Der Mensch schafft sich selbst, 1804. John Nandris (1970), ‘The development and relationships of the earlier Greek Neolithic’ ∂22 pp.]5. Marija Gimbutas (1984), The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, third edition, 91–92, 112–1176. János Makkay (1984), Early Stamp Seals in South-East Europe ∂123 pp.]7. Paul Halstead (1987), ‘The economy has a normal surplus> economic stability and social change among early farm-

ing communities of Thessaly, Greece’ ∂12 pp.]8. Colin Renfrew (1987), ‘Old Europe or Ancient East| The Clay Cylinders of Sitagroi’ ∂33 pp.]9. Colin Renfrew (1987), Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, 169–17110. John G. Younger (1987), ‘A Balkan-Aegean-Anatolian Glyptic Koine in the Neolithic and EBA Periods’11. Marija Gimbutas (1989), The Language of the Goddess, 3, 13,19, 25, 75, 81, 83, 89, 100, 122–123, 144, 1 167, 308–30912. Mihael Budja (1992), ‘Pe;atniki v slovenskih naselbinskih kontekstih’ ∂12 pp.]13. John G. Younger (1992), ‘Seals| From Middle Helladic Greece’ ∂19 pp.]14. Henrieta Todorova, Ivan Vajsov (1993), Novo kamenata epoha v Bulgarija, 233–23415. Elisabeth Ruttkay (1993\1994), ’Neue Tonstempel der Kanzianiberg-Lasinja Gruppe’ ∂17 pp.]16. Paul Halstead (1995), ‘From sharing to hoarding> the Neolithic foundations of Aegean Bronze Age society|’ ∂10 pp.]17. Artemis Onassoglou (1996), ‘Seals’, 163–16418. Mihael Budja (1998), ‘Clay tokens – accounting before writing in Eurasia’ ∂16 pp.]19. Mehmet Özdögan (1999), North Western Turkey> Neolithic Cultures in Between the Balkans and Anatolia, 216, 21920. Doglass W. Bailey (2000), Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, incorporation and identity, 109–110, 112, 234, 28221. John Chapman (2000), Fragmentation in Archaeology, 85–91, 22522. Catherine Perlès (2001), The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first farming communities in Europe, 44, 54, 63, 221–223,

252–253, 285, 288–289, 296–29723. Mihael Budja (2003), ‘Seals, contracts and tokens in the Balkans Early Neolithic> where in the puzzle’ ∂15 pp.]24. Tanya Dzhanfezova (2003), ‘Neolithic Pintaderas in Bulgaria’ ∂11 pp.]25. Emanuela Montagnary Kokelj (2003), ‘Evidence of long distance connections at the edge of the Balkans> economic

or symbolic value’ ∂8 pp.]26. Catherine Perlès (2003), ‘An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of Neolithisation in Greece’ ∂14 pp.]27. Mihael Budja (2004), ‘The transition to farming and the ‘revolution’ of symbols in the Balkans. From ornament to

entoptic and external symbolic storage’ ∂22 pp.]28. Mihael Budja (2005), ‘The process of Neolithisation in South-eastern Europe> from ceramic female figurines and

cereal grains to entoptics and human nuclear DNA polymorphic markers’ ∂20 pp.]29. Çiler Çilingiroglu (2005), ‘The concept of the ‘Neolithic package’> considering its meaning and applicability’ ∂13 pp.]30. Clemens Lichter (2005), ‘Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolitic> the actual state of research’

∂15 pp.]31. Catherine Perlès (2005), ‘From the Near East to Greece> Let’s reverse the focus. Cultural elements that didn’t trans-

fer’ ∂15 pp.]

Tab. 1. The sample of analysed texts.

Digging the Neolithic stamp-seals of SE Europe from archaeological deposits, texts and mental constructs

233

on-line; Chapman 2000; Montag-nary Kokelj 2003; Çilingiroglu2005), perhaps as stamps for print-ing onto organic materials such astextile, leather, bread, maybe astools for decorating walls, or evenas devices for stamping live animals(e.g. Makkay 1984.104; Chapman2000.86; Perlès 2001.252; Montag-nary Kokelj 2003.366). Most of thewriters agree upon the fact that Neo-lithic stamp-seals – contrary to prac-tices in the Aegean, where stampsfor decorating ceramics and hearthrims appear from EH and EC on-wards (Younger 1995.on-line) –were not employed for ornamentingceramics. The majority of the au-thors also agree that the stamp-seals were not usedas true seals. Nevertheless, some archaeologists (Bai-ley 1993.212; Onassoglou 1996a.163–164) see themas a marker for the development of the concept ofprivate property.

In addition to the lack of direct evidence (i.e. im-prints) in the archaeological record, archaeologistsmanage to overlook even the meagre evidence avai-lable. The fact that the modelling of motifs varies onthe stamp-seals is mentioned only in very few of thetexts analysed: Perlès (2001.252) emphasizes thatthe majority of Greek stamp-seals has the high-reliefmotif and only a few specimens have low relief mo-tif.1 There are also some undecorated specimensmodelled as cones that were interpreted as tokensby Budja (1998; 2003). The authors of the selectedtexts are very often prone to forget that the bases ofthe stamp-seals are modelled not only as flat, but so-metimes as conical or convex surfaces (cf. Makkay1984.Fig.V: 10; Fig. X: 5, 9, 10, 13; Fig. XVI: 7; Fig.XXII: 8). It remains ambiguous – similarly to the caseof undecorated cones – whether the group of stamp-seals with concave bases was actually used for stam-ping. Perhaps the group of artefacts with ornamentsinterpreted as proto-writing symbols constitutes aspecial category (e.g. Makkay 1984.Fig. XXIII: 1, 6).

When closely examining how stamp-seals are model-led (Fig. 1), it becomes obvious that the monolithiccategory of stamp-seals artificially unifies artefacts

that probably had separate functions. Why is this so?The answer can be sought in the dichotomy of ar-chaeological thought.2 Archaeological thought has atendency to expose and privilege identity and unityabove difference. An additional problem stems fromthe unconsciously regulated discourse which directsscientific thought, shapes explanatory models, andeven constrains the development of new, unbiasedinterpretations.

The main weak points of the analysed texts could besummed up as the self-evidence of their terminologyand as their operating within an unconsciously regu-lated discourse which guides the authors in theirthinking, in formulating arguments and in formingtheir interpretations.

All archaeologists ‘know’ what the terms ‘pintadera’and ‘stamp-seal’ mean. Hence, it happens regularlythat authors unite artefacts with only general, broadsimilarities, and probably distinct functions withinone category. Because the meaning of these terms isself-evident, authors rarely define them. Instead ofbeing clear and consistent, the semantic level of theterm remains elusive and shifting. For Dzhanfezova(2003) and Çilingiroglu (2005) the pintaderas theydiscuss are no longer stamps used for decorating thehuman body. As Dzhanfezova (2003.note 1) states:

“In this paper, the term [pintadera – our emph.] isnot used in accordance with the functional defini-

Fig. 1. A sample of Neolithic stamp-seals of SE Europe with diffe-rently modelled bases (Makkay 1984.Fig. V: 10; Fig. VI: 1, 4, 9; Fig.VII: 1; Fig. X: 5, 9, 10, 13; Fig. XV: 3, 4, 6; Fig. XVI: 7; Fig. XXII: 8; Fig.XXIII: 6; Fig. XXVII: 5, 8).

1 The first group is interpreted as stamps for decorating textiles by Perles (2001.252) and the second as true seals. The author doesnot define specifically what the second group sealed.

2 We are following the Derridean supposition of Western thought being based on dualities. There is no balance within dual pairs;one concept always has primacy over another. Some examples of such dualities: speech/writing, presence/absence, identity/diffe-rence (Yates 1990.261).

Agni Prijatelj

234

tion of the finds. Here pintadera denotes thosekinds of ceramic objects called ‘stamp seals’ and ha-ving a handle, shaped body and ‘decorated’ base.”

Thus the term pintadera becomes a terminologicalsubstitute for the term stamp-seal. The use of bothterms unconsciously guides archaeologists on howand what to write about the artefacts discussed.Nowadays, the illusion of positivism in science isgone. The following quote from Tilley (1998.152)conveys the criticism of unconscious discourse withparticular clarity:

“ ... all writers ... including myself, inhabit a disco-urse, a series of largely anonymous and habitualrules and constraints for thinking and writing,that structures, in part, both what can be writtenand what can actually be thought. Because of thediscourse we inhabit, and because it acts largelyunconsciously, archaeologists are doomed to re-peat it, whether in the form of the spatial structu-res of their narratives, the types of diagrams theyemploy, or the modes of explanation adopted.”

The symptoms of unconsciously regulated discoursecan also be recognized within the first group of ana-lysed texts. This group consists of works that employdiffusionist models for the explanation of the ear-liest appearance of stamp-seals in Europe (Kutzián1947; Childe 1950; 1959; Nandris 1970; Makkay1984; Özdögan 1999; Perlès 2001; 2003; 2005;Montagnary Kokelj 2003; Çilingiroglu 2005; Lich-ter 2005). In each of the listed works we observeone or more of the following characteristics: an ob-session with origins, typological arrangements ofstamp-seals, formulating the text as a grand narra-tive. Our aim is to show not only how diffusionistdiscourse leads authors unconsciously to the ques-tions they raise, but also how it directs their line ofthought and influences the way their thoughts areformulated.

Stamp-seals belong within diffusionist discourse –like figurines, red slipped and painted pottery, al-tars, M amulets, marble and stone bracelets, discs,beads, celts, fine stone bowls, polishers, belt hooks,spatulae, sling bullets and ear studs – among a groupof small finds that represent the main component ofthe ‘Neolithic package’, along with domesticates (Çi-lingiroglu 2005.3). The presence of the listed arte-

facts at European Neolithic sites is taken as a proofthat these sites can be defined as Neolithic. Typolo-gical similarities between small finds from the Euro-pean and Near Eastern sites are considered as an ar-gument, supporting theories conditioning the begin-ning of the Neolithic in Europe with migration orthe diffusion of cultural elements from the Near East(cf. Makkay 1984; Perlès 2001).

Diffusionist models in which stamp-seals appear asone of the main arguments supporting the Neolithi-sation scenario are formulated as grand narratives.3Authors from Childe to Perlès assume the existenceof something linking European Neolithic stamp-seals both at the regional and inter-regional level.Within the diffusionist paradigm this something is,understood as a single origin and the same modesof use. An additional argument that should havesupported those assumptions becomes in diffusio-nist models the narrative itself: authors tend to di-minish the value of data that weaken their theories;hypotheses are often backed up with various tableslisting elements of the ‘Neolithic package’ and withdistribution maps, all with intent of proving that theelements of the ‘Neolithic package’ diffused from Ana-tolia to SE Europe (cf. Renfrew 1987; Perlès 2001;2003; 2005; Çilingiroglu 2005; Lichter 2005). Thespatial and narrative courses are as essential as ar-guments themselves: authors define the earliestexamples of stamp-seals (they are from Anatolia)and describe their motifs. They point to Nea Nikome-deia as a crucial European Neolithic site in the se-cond step and then list all the types of motifs docu-mented in both Anatolia and SE Europe, using themas proof of connections between the two regions (cf.Makkay 1984; Özdögan 1999; Perlès 2001; 2003;2005; Lichter 2005). Thus narrative lines becomeimplicit arguments supporting the basic premise ofEuropean Neolithic stamp-seals being linked to theAnatolian specimens.

Yet in their aspiration to unify and link the Neolithi-sation process in the Near East and Europe the au-thors are incapable of thinking, let alone acceptingfacts that they (in passing) mention, and which de-construct diffusionist discourse. Archaeologists tendto ‘overlook’ the fact that Neolithic stamp-seals donot appear until painted pottery came in use, thefact that similar artefacts from the Near East andEurope are sometimes dated from several centuriesor even millennia apart, and the fact that grounding

3 We observe the characteristics of grand narrative also in autochthonous models. However, since such models do not deal withstamp-seals, we leave them out of our analysis.


235

connections between Anatolia and Europe on the ba-sis of stamp-seal motifs is extremely problematic.

Archaeological discussion of Neolithic stamp-seals isrepeatedly threatened by doubts as to whether theartefacts so named are not disparate things after all.Archaeological writings on stamp-seals consist of con-stant definitions, redefinitions and modifications ofterminology. Perlès (2001.252) writes of stamps and‘true’ seals, while Budja (1998) eliminates undeco-rated cones and cylinders from the group and treatsthem as tokens. There are also some (cf. Kutzián1947; Barber 1991) who express doubts as to whe-ther cylindrical objects with incised decoration canbe defined as stamp-seals at all.

As already stated, the simple act of closely exami-ning how stamp-seals are modelled leads towardsthe recognition that only a superficially uniformgroup of artefacts consists of functionally disparateobjects. Yet this cannot be accepted in the archaeo-logical discourse. Why can we not assume that Neo-lithic stamp-seals comprise (like Neolithic figurines4)a group of multifunctional objects? Why can we notaccept the supposition that the function, and equallythe meaning, of an undecorated clay cone from Po-rodin-Tumba are essentially different from the func-tion and meaning of a stone stamp-seal with a laby-rinth motif from Achilleon? Furthermore, why canwe not recognize the difference in meaning and func-tion of stamp-seals having the same motifs? A res-ponse to these questions can be sought in the follo-wing quote from Tilley (1998.155):

“Perhaps this is a failure to think and allow for dif-ference, a desire to tame and domesticate the dif-ference of the past within a single narrative struc-ture.”

The selected texts also share a tendency to link theSE European and Anatolian region together with thehelp of the typological similarities of stamp-seal mo-tifs. This principle, of course, originates from study-ing ceramic typological sequences. ‘Traditional’ ar-chaeology used these not only to set up relative chro-nologies, but also to define relations between neigh-bouring regions: typological sequences, along withstyle analysis, were supposed to help define the placeof origin from where the influence in ceramic designdispersed to regions nearby. We find the describedprinciple as applied to stamp-seals problematic, to

say the least. True, designs on painted pottery,through their complexity, enable an opportunity tostudy social interactions among neighbouring aswell as among distant communities.5 In contrast,stamp-seal motifs remain simple geometrical de-signs. Arguing for diffusionist theories with the helpof these is, in our opinion, questionable at least. Eventhough some stamp-seal motifs are documented inboth regions, the designs are so simple that we finddiffusionist models to explain their appearance inEurope unnecessary and redundant. Similarly to thecase of entoptics (Budja 2004; 2005), the stamp-sealmotifs are universal.

The idea of the stamp-seals sharing a single origin isrepresented in all of the texts from the first group.Through the 60 years of writing on the topic, per-spectives shifted in that the place of origin, still de-fined as the Levant by Childe, was transposed toAnatolia: Mellaart’s excavations in Central Anatolia(i.e. Çatal Höyük and Hacilar) caused a shift in theperception of the Anatolian region, formerly inter-preted as peripheral to the Levant, and defined Ana-tolia as one of the centres of the ‘Neolithic revolu-tion’. Neolithic stamp-seals are interpreted withindiffusionist discourse as an element of the ‘Neolithicpackage’ that came to Europe either with migrantsor by cultural diffusion. Why arguing for the originof European Neolithic stamp-seals in Anatolia on thegrounds of their motifs is questionable to say theleast has already been explained above.

Deconstructive claims that inhibitIn order to show how deconstructive elements inhi-bit the meaningfulness of the texts, we analyticallyread works by Makkay (1984) and Perlès (2001;2005). Immediately after, we debate some texts inthe second group (Bailey 1993; 2000; Budja 1992;1998; 2003; 2004; 2005; Chapman 2000; Dzhanfe-zova 2003) which offer the opportunity of alterna-tive readings of the phenomenon of the stamp-seals.

Although, even today, Makkay’s work (1984) remainsunsurpassed as a catalogue, it contains many contra-dictory claims that weaken and deconstruct the au-thor’s interpretative model. The analyzed text is writ-ten in diffusionist discourse and in a reductionistmanner: the Neolithisation process is thus equatedwith defining the origins of the earliest Neolithic pot-tery of South East Europe and with defining coursesof cultural diffusion. Since the paper is written with

4 Cf. Talalay (1987; 1993).5 Cf. Plog (1980); Hodder (1978; 1979; 1981); Talalay (1993).

Agni Prijatelj

236

conviction, the Early Neolithic in Europe formed un-der Anatolian influences, Makkay (1984.75–79) in-troduces Europe as a secondary production centrefor the clay stamp-seals. The production and use ofstamp-seals would have reached this region by cul-tural diffusion simultaneously with the diffusion ofpainted pottery from Anatolia. The first cultural im-pulses should have reached the central and northernBalkans across the plains of Thrace and eastern Ma-cedonia, where Nea Nikomedeia is situated. Sincesome of the stamp-seal motifs from Nea Nikomedeiaare similar to the motifs from Çatal Höyük, whileothers share similarities with SE European stamp-seals, the site retains the utmost importance for the-ses aiming to prove cultural diffusion from Anatoliato SE Europe. The excavator of the site, R. J. Rodden(1965.85), who was the first to use the stamp-sealsfrom Nea Nikomedeia (along with ear plugs, pins,belt-hooks, pottery decoration, architecture and theeconomy) as proof of similarities between SE Eu-rope and the Anatolian region, wrote:

“Nea Nikomedeia thus exhibits a distinct Europeancharacter, although it has traits in common withsites as distant as Tepe Siyalk. This suggests thatSouth-eastern Europe was not peripheral to the re-gion within which the Neolithic revolution began,but was an integral part of it.”

If Rodden (1965) used the listed artefacts and featu-res to emphasize the equivalence of the SE Europeanregion and Anatolia, other authors exploited thesame parallels to support their diffusionist and mi-gratory models (cf. Makkay 1984; Renfrew 1987b;Perlès 2001; 2003; 2005).

Deconstructing elements appear in Makkay’s work(1984) from the outset. Eighteen Early Neolithicstamp-seals from Nea Nikomedeia should prove thetypological similarities and consequently chronologi-cal synchronicity of Nea Nikomedeia’s stamp-sealswith stamp seals from Çatal Höyük layers VI–II. Ne-vertheless, it gradually becomes obvious that the ty-pological arguments are far weaker than the authorwould like them to be. Thus motifs, as the most im-portant element of stamp-seals, do not connect thestamp-seals from Nea Nikomedeia and Çatal Höyük(Figs. 2, 3). It appears that the only characteristicsthey shared are the techniques used in their makingand the material employed, or as Makkay (1984.73) states:

“All of the 21 stamp seals found in EN levels VI–IIof Çatal Höyük were made of clay. Their material

and characteristic features are very similar tosome of the Nea Nikomedeia seals and suggest areal contemporaneity, or rather, a cultural connec-tion. In fact, these similarities are apparent inshapes and decorative techniques (i.e. the deeply-cut incised lines) rather than in their patterns.”

Could the same preferences for material and model-ling techniques truly suffice to prove cultural con-nections between the two regions? Hence, Makkay’shypothesis deconstructs itself right at the point thatis supposed to connect both regions: there are no ty-pological similarities between the stamp-seals fromNea Nikomedeia and Çatal Höyük. On the other hand,Makkay’s model lacks an explanation of the motifsappearing exclusively in the SE European region(Makkay 1984.101–102):

“In the case of South-East European clay cylindersand stamp seals, one sees the result of direct or in-direct influences, but at the same time, one witnes-ses the signs of a simplified technique and use.Early and Late Neolithic cultures adopted the ma-nufacture of these artefacts and adapted them totheir own heritage and needs. Accordingly, the ENstamp seals do not seem to have differed from theirAnatolian parallels, either as regards their typologyor their use.”

Since parts of the motifs (e.g. some derivatives of alabyrinthine motif, zigzags, a motif of impressed shal-low bosses on the oval base, a motif of ‘barbotine’-like bosses) appear on European objects exclusively,the author’s interpretation of European stamp-sealsas identical with Anatolian specimens or as their sim-plified derivatives, strikes the eye even more stron-gly.

The interpretation of Greek stamp-seals represents aspecial problem within Makkay’s model. Some ofthem, unlike other SE European specimens, aremade of stone. Accordingly, the author puts forwardthe hypothesis that cultural impulses for the pro-duction and use of Greek stone stamp-seals came bya different route than for other SE European speci-mens. Since the Levant is defined as the oldest pri-mary production centre for stone stamp-seals, Mak-kay (1984.79–80) argues that it was also from herethat the production of stone stamp-seals spread intoThessaly:

“ ... these Thessalian stone seals do not appear tobe a local variant of the Anatolian Neolithic seals,associated with them as an influencing group from


237

Fig. 2. Stamp-seals from Çatal Höyük (after Türkcan 1997; 2003; 2004; 2005).

Agni Prijatelj

238

the beginning. It may also be noted that a greatpart of these Thessalian seals – bearing very littleresemblance to the Anatolian or Levantine Neoli-thic seals [our emph.] – cannot be securely dated ...The use of stone draws a distinction between theGreek, and the Karanovo and Körös-Star≠evo seals... But these differences could also indicate the exi-stence of independent connections with Cyprusand the Levant, undiscovered as yet.”

Makkay therefore anticipates the transmission of cul-tural impulses for production and use of stamp-sealsin the Early Neolithic via two different routes: thefirst should have been a continental one, leadingthrough the plains of Thrace and Eastern Macedonia;the second should have been maritime, connectingAnatolia or The Levant with Thessaly (Makkay 1984.81). The described exposition of the genesis of Thes-salian stamp seals contains several deconstructivestatements: first, Makkay stresses a small typologicalsimilarity not only between Thessalian and Anato-lian objects, but also between the Thessalian and Le-vantine specimens. Then, in spite of the stated, heconditions, merely because of the use of the samematerial, the appearance of stamp-seals in Thessalywith the cultural diffusion from Levant. Why thiskind of hypothesis? The answer, of course, could besought in diffusionist discourse that does not allowthe author to consider, let alone mention, the possi-bility of stamp-seals having been independently in-vented in SE Europe.

The analyzed model represents Europe merely as apassive recipient of external influences. External im-pulses are not only seen as a trigger for the begin-ning of the production and use of stamp-seals in SEEurope, but also as a precondition. According to Mak-kay, in the Middle Neolithic, when there were no cul-tural impulses from Anatolia, the industry of stamp-seals in SE Europe almost died out. This kind of rea-soning would make sense if author succeeded in pro-ving continuing contacts between Anatolian and SEEuropean Neolithic sites, in showing why these con-tacts were crucial for the production of stamp-sealsin Europe, and in defining the role of stamp-seals forsuch contacts. Makkay’s hypothesis contains none ofthese. Instead, the author merely mentions that thespread of stamp-seals along with painted pottery wasa result of cultural diffusion from Anatolia.

Perlès’ model of Neolithisation (2001; 2005) has so-me features of Makkay’s scenario. Thus Perlès (2005.286) also argues for the idea of two main routes(maritime for Greece, continental for the rest of SE

Europe). Yet there are also some major differencesbetween the models. Contrary to Makkay (1984),who builds his model upon idea of cultural diffu-sion, Perlès (2001; 2005) asserts that small groupsof colonists settled in Europe. The author constructsher theoretical model not only with a comparison ofceramic sequences and typological similarities be-tween the stamp-seals of both regions (as Makkaydoes), but also by paralleling other elements of the‘Neolithic package’ within SE Europe and Anatolia.The main problem when citing small objects (suchas sling bullets, discs, belt-hooks, ear studs, stamp-seals, stone bowls, bone spatulae etc.) from the‘Neolithic package’ as evidence of diffusion lies in thefact that some of the similarities arise merely fromthe function of the objects (as in the case of sherdspindle whorls, sling bullets and axes). On theother hand, objects requiring particular technicalknowledge, and stylistically distinctive artefacts(such as figurines, bone hooks, earstuds and stamp-seals), which could suggest connections betweenEurope and Anatolia/ Levant, are quite often datedseveral centuries apart. The contextual isolation ofsmall objects is another big hindrance. These prob-lems are recognized by author, yet they are imme-diately suppressed: Perlès (2001.54) supports herNeolithisation model exactly with those analogies

Fig. 3. Stamp-seals from Nea Nikomedeia (afterMakkay 1984.Fig. III: 10; Fig. IV: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7; Fig. VI:1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10; Fig. X: 1, 7, 8, 12, 14).


239

previously described as problematic. Since theauthor is trying to solve the problem of the hugetemporal discrepancies between similar elementsof the ‘Neolithic package’ in the Levant, Anatoliaand Europe, she introduces the idea of small groupsrepeatedly colonizing Greece (Perlès 2005.280):

“I have already argued (Perlès 2001) that I viewedthe colonisation of Greece as a maritime pheno-menon, by small groups of different origins – mo-stly Levantine – and, I would now add, at differentperiods. Many stylistic and technical parallels canbe underlined between the two regions …”

This hypothesis triggers the questions why wouldLevantine colonists abandon their homeland and mi-grate into Greece at different periods. If Perlès(2001) looked for the reasons for the departure ofcolonists within the PPNB exodus and the collapseof the ritual elite in the first place, the new variantof the model leaves many questions unanswered:did different communities abandon their land for thesame reasons? What kinds of reasons were they?Over what kind of time span did these colonisationsoccur?

Deconstructive claims can be found in the case ofstamp-seals also. Greek specimens are thus chrono-logically and typologically compared with Çatal Hö-yük stamp-seals. As Perlès (2001.54) writes: “ ... thebone hooks, stamp-seals and ear studs from Thes-saly undoubtedly strongly resemble those of ÇatalHüyük.” Hence, interpretations by Perlès (2001.54)and by Makkay (1984.79–80) are diametrically oppo-site to each other. If Perlès (2001.54) compares Thes-salian stamp-seals with objects from Çatal Hüyük,Makkay (1984.79–80) on the other hand, sees no ty-pological similarities between Anatolian and Thessa-lian stamp-seals at all. Instead, he emphasizes resem-blances between Levantine and Thessalian objects.Therefore, the case of Thessalian stamp-seals raisesthe question of scientific objectivity in searching fortypological parallels between stamp-seals from dif-ferent regions. Looking for the place of origin withthe help of a typology of motifs is extremely proble-matic, since patterns on Neolithic stamp-seals con-sist of simple geometrical designs which are not cul-turally and chronologically specific. Perlès (2001.288–289), obviously aware of this fact, refers to itwhen writing about the problems of individual iden-tification on the grounds of luxury stone stamp-seals:

“Stone ‘stamp-seals’ are not only rare, but, on firstreading, they would seem to be good candidates

for individual identification. Unfortunately, this isthe one interpretation that can be thoroughly re-jected: the motifs consist of a small range of geo-metric patterns that can be found from the Industo the Carpathians. There is clearly no attempt atany individualization of the motifs, and therefore,of their owner.”

The author employs the universality of the motifs asan argument against the individualization of stamp-seals, yet she ‘overlooks’ the same argument the mo-ment she uses stamp-seals to support her Neolithisa-tion model.

Now, it is appropriate to note also some of the ap-proaches that offer alternative perspectives on Neo-lithic stamp-seals of SE Europe. An analysis under-taken by Dzhanfezova (2003) has shown a correla-tion between the shapes of the bases and the typesof motifs found on them. Equally significant is thefact one group of stamp-seals shares decorationswith other categories of artefacts (particularly withcontemporary ceramic vessels, figurines and ‘altars’),while the other does not (Dzhanfezova 2003.103–104). Consequently, the author concludes that stamp-seals constitute a multifunctional group of artefacts,some of them carrying more specific types of infor-mation than others.

On the other hand, Chapman (2000) observes stamp-seals through the prism of fragmentation. Statisticalanalysis has shown the majority of the stamp-sealswere not intentionally broken. Unlike the group ofobjects with ‘incised signs’, the purpose of stamp-seals was not to enchain information within two in-tentionally broken pieces, but to imprint the motifon some other kind of material.

We conclude this short review by summing up somepoints presented by Budja (2003). Stamp-seals aresometimes documented at Neolithic sites togetherwith figurines, ‘altars’, pins, amulets, anthropomor-phic and zoomorphic vessels, and painted pottery.Budja propose that these assemblages indicate thefunction of stamp-seals (Budja 2003.124).

While the majority of works treat stamp-seals as anelement of the ‘Neolithic package’ and therefore asinactive material reflections of the Neolithisationprocess in SE Europe, as a typological fossil whichshould help locate their place of origin, as static,fixed entities within firmly defined social networksand last, but not least as the immovable foundationstones of meta-narratives, we strive towards alter-

Agni Prijatelj

240

native approach. In order to enliven the Neolithicstamp-seals of SE Europe, we employ a phenomeno-logical approach towards material culture, expressedthrough the concept of the cultural biographies ofartefacts (cf. Hoskins 1998; Gosden, Marshal 1999;Tilley 2004; Knappett 2005; Hoskins 2006; Tilley2006; Skeates 2007). Cultural biographies of stamp-seals and therefore both their material and non-ma-terial attributes are thus presented through the con-cepts of affordances, constraints, semiotic triad, icon,index and symbol (cf. Knappett 2005).

Within networks of meaning

Affordances and constraintsNeolithic stamp-seals are first and foremost objectsused for stamping; and therefore artefacts meant forreproducing the motifs they carried on their bases.6We shall prove this statement with an analysis of thephysical affordances7 of the objects. Since affordan-ces derive from the material characteristics of arte-facts, let us describe them first.

What we can observe directly in the case of stamp-seals, without using cultural knowledge, is that theyare portable objects, having a decorated base, and ahandle growing out vertically from the base. Thesurface of the base is usually flat, or sometimes sligh-tly convex/concave. In all of the three cases, the cen-tre of gravity of stamp-seals remains in the lowerpart of the object. The artefact therefore reaches op-timal stability when placed on a flat surface in sucha way that the base and surface are parallel. It is cru-cial to note that the motif, when in this position, de-spite being the most important constitutive elementof a stamp-seal, is not visible (Fig. 4).

The majority of the documented objects (Makkay1984; 2005) are of clay, although some stone speci-

mens occur in Greece.8 Both materials give solidityto the objects. Bases range in size from around 3and 7 centimetres, while the height of the objectsvaries between 5 and 8 centimetres. Bases are mo-delled in various rectangular, circular, oval, rhombo-idal forms, sometimes even in cross-like or foot-likeforms.9 They are decorated with geometrical motifsin high or low relief. Patterns include circles, dots,spirals, labyrinths, crosses, chevrons, triangles, andstraight, curving and zigzag lines. Some handles areperforated. Since the handle is usually small and for-med in a cone-like fashion, we reach optimal gras-pability if we handle it with the thumb and secondfinger, with the other fingers closed. If the handle isbig enough, it can be grasped with all fingers form-ing a fist (Fig. 4).

The following four characteristics are reckoned amongthe physical affordances of stamp-seals: the affor-dance to stand in the most stable position on the le-vel surface when the base is in parallel with the sur-face; the affordance to manipulate the stamp-sealeasily when the handle is grasped; the affordance toimprint geometrical designs on various surfaces; theaffordance to be suspended on a string as a pendantin the case of stamp-seals with perforated handles(Fig. 4).

The crucial affordance of stamp-seals to transfer geo-metrical designs to various materials originates fromthe following combination of physical affordances:that of having a handle, to imprint geometrical de-signs with the base of a stamp-seal on various surfa-ces and to stand in the most stable position on levelsurface when the base is parallel with the surface.Because of these, the principles of making imageswith stamp-seals differ greatly from those of makingimages with other types of tools. As Skeates (2007.194–195) puts it:

6 However, this does not mean all stamp-seals were included in the same networks of meaning; neither did they share the samefunctions. We intend to demonstrate that stamp-seals gradually developed some secondary functions.

7 The concept of affordances was introduced by psychologist James Gibson (1979) when developing the notion of direct perception(Knappett 2005.44–58). The potential of objects for various forms of actions (i.e. affordance) was described by Gibson (1979.139)as follows: “The observer may or may not perceive or attend to the affordance, according to his needs, but the affordance,being invariant, is always there to be perceived. An affordance is not bestowed upon an object by a need of an observer andhis act of perceiving it. The object offers what it does because of what it is.”

8 We list Greek Neolithic sites and the number of stone stamp-seals discovered on them. Achilleion: 1 (Gimbutas 1989b.212); Ne-mea: 1 (Blegen 1975.272); Nessonis: 3 (Makkay 1984.41–42; Theocharis 1973.Fig. 272: e); Pyrassos: 1 (Makkay 1984.47); Sesklo:2 (Arachoviti 1996a.333; 1996b.333); Tsani magoula: 1 (Makkay 1984.62); Zerelia: 1 (Makkay 1984.66); a stamp-seal of unknownprovenience from the museum in Larissa (Onassoglou 1996b.332). See Fig. 11.

9 Stamp-seals with a base in the form of a foot were documented at 4 Neolithic sites in SE Europe: Gura Vaii (Romania), Bikovo-Don≠ova mogila (Bolgaria), Nessonis (Greece), Szentes (Hungary) (Makkay 1984.13, 26, 41, 70). A handle in the form an animalhead is the other special characteristic of a stamp-seal from Szentes.The type of stamp-seals with a base shaped like a foot has wide chronological and geographical distribution. It appears not only atNeolithic sites in SE Europe, but also in the Neolithic Byblos, as well as at Minoan and Levantine Bronze Age sites (cf. Younger 1995).


241

“What sets such objects apart from other hand-heldartistic tools, such as brushes, gouges and sharppoints (which were also used in the Neolithic toproduce similar images on a range of media), istheir ability to reproduce – simply, quickly and ma-nually – a large number of almost identical copiesof an original graphic image ... “

Can we recognize some of the constraints10

that represent decisive counterpart to theobjects’ affordances? First, let us describesome of the physical and logical constraintswhich can be defined through the underta-ken experiment.

The experiment was undertaken with theaim of testing three different types of stam-ping techniques: stamping on unbaked, un-leavened bread, stamping on textile, andprinting on human skin. Therefore, some re-plicas of stamp-seals with high and low re-lief motifs were made.

When examining stamping on different ma-terials, we came to the following conclu-sions: if stamping unbaked, unleavenedbread, all types of motifs are clearly imprin-ted on it, no matter in what kind of reliefthey are designed. The major constraint ofmarks of this kind is thus not connected

with the type of relief motif, but withthe property of the unleavened bread.When unleavened bread is baking,air bubbles appear in the dough, the-refore reducing the visibility of themotif (Fig. 5).

The main constraint, when stampingon textiles originates from the mo-delling bases of Neolithic stamp-seals. If the textile to be stamped isput on a solid flat surface, only thestamp-seals with completely level ba-ses leave imprints on it. This condi-tion is rarely fulfilled in the case ofNeolithic stamp-seals, whether a mo-tif is in high or low relief. The majo-rity of objects has, as a consequenceof manual modelling, a pattern on

the slightly unevenly levelled surface of the base (cf.Makkay 1984).11 Now, when examining stampingon textile, the following question should be asked:did the people of the Neolithic know how to fix dyeson textiles? Contrary to the recognized fact that peo-ple employed dyes made from minerals, plants oranimals in the Neolithic (Barber 1991.223–243),the question as to whether people knew of a sub-

Fig. 4. Physical affordances of stamp-seals. Photograph by B. πirca.

10 Norman (1998.82) defines constraints as “ ... whereas affordances suggest the range of possibilities, constraints limit the num-ber of alternatives.” We need to distinguish four types of constraint. Physical constraints are thus conditioned by the materialand physical characteristics of an object; semantic and logical constraints rely upon the meaning of the situation in which anobject resides; while cultural restraints are preconditioned by cultural conventions (Knappett 2005.52–54).

11 We managed to get good quality imprints only when a soft backing (i.e. foam) was put under the textile (Fig. 4).

Fig. 5. Baked unleavened bread with imprinted motifs. (A,B, C) various types of motifs. Photograph by B. πirca.

Agni Prijatelj

242

stance for fixing dyes and preventing dis-colouration when in contact with water, re-mains unanswered.12

Like bread, the skin is a type of soft mate-rial enabling good imprints of all types ofmotifs (Fig. 6). Therefore, constraints whenstamping human skin are less conditionedby the physical properties of objects thanby cultural contexts. Some of the culturalconstraints could be associated with thesequestions: on what occasions do people de-corate their skin with paintings? Do modesof decorating men and women differ? Whois allowed to decorate their skin with pain-tings? When printing on skin, how manypintaderas and colours are employed?

Let us reiterate: due to the physical constra-ints we observed through experiment, it isvery probable that stamp-seals were not used forstamping solid and flat surfaces (such as walls or tex-tiles placed on solid surface). More probably, theywere employed for stamping soft materials (e.g.bread, skin).

The semiotics of stamp-seals: iconicity, indexi-cality, symbolismSince stamp-seals are primarily objects designed tocarry and reproduce motifs on various surfaces, weshould analyze the semiotics13 of the imprints fore-most. Inasmuch as imprints are not preserved, we canpartially reconstruct their semiotics through the ob-servation of motifs modelled on the bases of stamp-seals. However, we should not forget when definingnetworks of meaning between stamp-seals, peopleand other artefacts, that we are primarily defining re-lations between a type of tool, people and other ob-jects. Some aspects of relations between imprints,objects and other people will remain unreachable.

IconicityWhen considering iconicity14, we must ask whattype of artefacts stamp-seals resembled. Since iconi-

city of stamp-seals resides primarily within their vi-sual characteristics, various motifs, as the main com-ponents of analyzed objects, are the most importantsources for the relation of visual similarity betweenNeolithic stamp-seals and other categories of objects.

In the case of cylinder seals and stamp-seals, the si-milarity of the motifs remains broad: both typesshare basic geometrical designs. Yet there are alsosome major differences. Motifs on cylinder seals arethus often executed in zones; moreover, rolling ofthe cylinder enables the filling of a larger surfacecontinually than stamping itself (cf. Collon 1990).

It has been shown that similar patterns are sharedby certain stamp-seals and other types of artefacts:synchronic vessels, figurines and ‘altars’ may be de-corated with patterns of straight or curving parallellines, zigzag lines, concentric circles, spirals, andmeanders, or with deeply engraved or impresseddots, which appear on some stamp-seals (Dzhanfe-zova 2003). However, we can assume that motifs onstamp-seals exhibited a visual similarity with weav-ing, basketry decorations and wall paintings also.

Fig. 6: Examples of the body paintings – done either withsharp points or with pintaderas – of the people of Kau andfrom the experiment. Photographs by Riefenstahl 1976; πirca.

12 Barber (1991.175) mentions a textile find from the site at Lago di Ledro which was described by the excavator as a textile de-corated by stamping with resinous substances. Perhaps these substances were used to fix dyes.

13 When writing on the semiotics of artefacts, we employ a modified Peircean model (cf. Pharies 1985; Peirce 2004; Knappett2005). Three different types of signs are thus acknowledged: an icon, an index and a symbol. Each of those signs is defined byspecific relationship existing between object and a sign, which in Peirce words “ ... stands for something, its object” (Pharies1985.14). According to Peircean model various things such as objects, animals, plants, people, emotions, when having a specificrelationship with their object, become sign (Prijatelj 2007.85–87).

14 Peirce defines an icon with following words: “I call a sign which stands for something merely because it resembles it, an icon.”(Pharies 1985.34). Thus a portrait is an icon of the portrayed person (visual similarity), onomatopoetic words are icons for ani-mal sounds or natural phenomena (aural similarity), a ship-like cloud is an icon for a ship (visual similarity), and artificial leatheris an icon for genuine leather (visual and tactile similarity) (cf. Knappett 2005.95–100; Prijatelj 2007.88).


243

Since none of these are preserved,assumptions are grounded on ethno-graphic studies (cf. Ortman 2000)and excavations of Anatolian Neoli-thic sites. The excavated materialfrom Haçilar, Can Hasan and ÇatalHöyük yielded stamp-seals, potteryfragments, parts of wall paintingsand wall reliefs with identical mo-tifs of a rotating meander with a cen-tral dot, a vegetal motif, a hand, abear, and a leopard (Miloj≠i≤ 1964.59–62; Türkcan 2003.on-line; 2007.in this volume) (Figs. 7, 8).

A special form of visual similaritycould be recognized among a fewspecimens of anthropomorphic, zoo-morphic stamp-seals, people, animalsand certain types of objects. Contraryto the majority of analyzed objects,having a base and handle modelledas a simple geometrical body, thesespecimens are characterized by abase or handle designed as part of human or animalfigures.15 That is why this particular group of Neoli-thic examples could be interpreted as icons for manor animal but also as icons for human, animal figuri-nes, as well as anthropo- and zoomorphic vessels(Fig. 9).

Visual similarity represents the loosest mode of pos-sible relationships between stamp-seals as icons andtheir objects. Hence, artefacts, corded together withvisual similarity, share only associative connections.Stamp-seals can be therefore understood as icons ofcylindrical seals, meaning, in the case of settlements

where both types were used (e.g. Sitagroi) (cf. Ren-frew 2003), the view of one could trigger an associa-tion of the other (and vice versa). Similarly, stamp-seals could also become icons of vessels, human andanimal figurines, ‘altars’, textiles, basketry or wallpaintings, when having identical motifs. Therefore,when seeing a stamp-seal with a specific motif, pots,figurines, ‘altars’, textiles, basketry or wall paintingswith similar motifs could come to the mind of a Neo-lithic observer. Likewise, anthropo- and zoomorphicstamp-seals could become icons for people, animalsor anthropo- and zoomorphic vessels and figurines.Again, the view of anthropo- and zoomorphic stamp-

seals could initiate associations with othertypes of artefacts modelled on human oranimal forms. Presumably, during associa-tive lines of thought, not only objects cometo mind due to their visual similarity withstamp-seals, but so do activities and ideaswhich are indivisibly connected with them(cf. Knappett 2005.114).

However, if we wish to define tighter con-nections between stamp-seals, people andother types of objects, we need to search forother modes of relationships between them.

Fig. 7. Anatolian stamp-seals and fragments of wall paintings withidentical motifs (after Miloj≠i≤ 1964.Abbs. 1, 2).

Fig. 8. Stamp-seals with leopard and bear from Çatal Höyük (afterTürkcan 2003.on-line).

15 The only known specimen of a stamp-seal with zoomorphic handle comes from Szentes, Hungary (Makkay1984.70). Five docu-mented examples with anthropomorphic handles derive from Usoe, Bolgaria (Makkay 1984.63); the neighbouring area of DikiliTash, Greece (Makkay 1984.18); Cerje-Govrelvo, Macedonia (Bilbija 1985.36); Zelenikovo-Slatina, Macedonia (Makkay 1984.66)and Smederevska Palanka, Serbia (Gimbutas 1984.91).

Fig. 9. Zoomorphic stamp-seal (after Makkay 1984.Fig. XXX:1) and anthropomorhic examples (after Makkay 1984.Fig.XII: 9; Gimbutas 1984. Fig. 47; Bilbija 1985.Fig. 3).

Agni Prijatelj

244

IndexicalityWhen exploring the indexicality16 of stamp-seals,one must consider relationships of contiguity, facto-rality and causality. To recognize these we need totackle the following questions: what kind of arte-facts do we usually find in spatial contiguity withstamp-seals? To what extent is the stamp-seal an in-dex for various other objects, activities and thoughts(cf. Knappett 2005.114–115)?

One of most obvious aspects of contiguity relates tothe question of how stamp-seals were used for ma-king imprints. Were colours applied to the bases ofstamp-seals and then stamped on human skin, walls,textiles or wooden objects? Were stamp-seals merelyimpressed onto softer surfaces, or were they heatedto stamp wood, human or animal skin? Even thoughimprints do not survive, different traces on the basesof stamp seals hint at various uses: several objectswith traces of colour on the bases have been docu-mented,17 one with an extremely burnt base,18 andsome with heavily worn base surfaces have alsobeen found. Considering the preserved traces on thebases of stamp-seals, as well as the results of the un-dertaken experiment, the Neolithic stamp-seals of SEEurope can be interpreted as indexes for the use ofcolours, and as indexes that speak against stampingon solid and flat surfaces.

A further aspect of indexicality relates to the modesof production of stamp-seals. The way it is modelledindicates the input of effort and work invested intothe making of a specific object. Every stamp-seal couldtherefore be seen as index of all those activities thatcaused the artefact to take on its fi-nal form. Different levels of preci-sion can be recognised in the mo-delling of stamp-seals.19 The rangein quality is most obvious in themodelling of motifs. While designson clay objects vary from accurateto superficial, the execution of mo-tifs on the stone specimens is ex-tremely precise (Fig. 10).

Stone stamp seals (which derive exclusively fromGreek Neolithic sites) could therefore be understoodas causal indexes for the great skill, effort and timethat were put into their production, most probablyby craftsmen specialized in making stone objects (cf.Perlès 2001.288–289). These specimens (Fig. 11)share a magical quality, since they are produced withsuch technical virtuosity that they catch the obser-ver’s attention and enchant him/her (cf. Gell 2006;Hoskins 2006).

Given that stamp-seals are not only causal indexesfor modes of their production, but also causal indexesfor agents who used them, we need to pose the fol-lowing question: were stamp-seals employed by spe-cific gender, age or status groups? In order to ap-proach the answers, we analyse the spatial contextsin which stamp-seals are embedded. First, we ana-lyse the relationships between stamp-seals themsel-ves within closed archaeological contexts. Second,we observe the associations between stamp-sealsand other categories of objects within closed archa-eological contexts. Finally, we analyse the intra- andintersite distribution of contemporary stamp-seals.

When dealing with the problem of the spatial con-texts in which stamp-seals are embedded, one is con-fronted with several taphonomic filters: publicationsof archaeological sites usually quote only those ar-chaeological layers in which stamp-seals were found,while data on archaeological features are usually mis-sing. It may even happen (especially in older litera-ture) that even facts on the archaeological layers inwhich stamp-seals were found are not presented.

16 Peirce defines an index as a sign which “signifies its object solely by virtue of being really connected with it. Of this nature areall natural signs and physical symptoms” (Pharies 1985.39). An index can be in one or more of the following types of relation-ship with its object: contiguity, causality and factorality. Thus puddles are icons for rain (causal relationship), a market sign isan icon for a market (relationship of contiguity and factorality), and the smell of freshly baked bread is an icon for the bread(contiguity and causality) (cf. Knappett 2005.91–95, 97–100; Prijatelj 2007.88–89).

17 Traces of colour were discovered on the following objects: on 3 stamp-seals from Frumusica-Cetatuia (Makkay 1984.23), on astamp-seal from Oltszem (Makkay 1984.42) and on a cylinder seal from Sitagroi (Renfrew 1987b.343).

18 Only one specimen from Frumusica-Cetatuia is mentioned within Makkay’s catalogue as a stamp-seal with burnt base (Makkay1984.42).

19 Modelling clay stamp-seals is not a demanding and time-consuming task. With only basic skills in modelling clay, one could makea stamp-seal within half an hour.

Fig. 10. Selected examples of differences in modelling the same motif.A: zigzag (after Makkay 1984.Fig. IV: 1, 8). B: cross (after Makkay 1984.Fig. XV: 189; Fig. XXIII: 4). C: spiral (after Makkay 1984:Fig. XVIII: 1, 6).


245

The publications of the following sites Frumusica-Ce-tatuia, Gura Baciului (Romania); Karanovo, Rakito-vo, Vinica-Kljisedjik (Bolgaria); Achilleion, Eutresis,Sesklo, Sitagroi (Greece); Cerje-Govrlevo (Macedo-nia); Grabovac-Vinogradi (Serbia), Endröd 39, Alpár-Nagyvárdomb and Hódmezövásárhely-Zsoldos (Hun-gary) are exceptions. These are sites at which stamp-seals were discovered, as well as documented, with-in closed archaeological contexts.20 The listed sitesyielded stamp-seals within buildings, working areasor waste pits (Tab. 2). Since the role of objects inwaste pits as a filling is secondary, we focus prima-rily on other archaeological features.

We must stress that stamp-seals appear within buil-dings and working areas regularly as one specimenand only exceptionally as two or three specimens,which is the most indicative fact that can be extrac-ted from Table 2. All archaeological features, fromthe platform in Gura Baciului, the burnt building inKaranovo, the sanctuary and public building in Ra-kitovo, the building in Vinica-Kljisedik, the claybench and street near to one of the buildings in Ac-hilleion, the working space in Sitagroi, the buildingin Govrlevo up to the building in Grabovac-Vinogra-di, yielded only one stamp-seal (Tab. 2). The numberof stamp-seals differs only in two cases: two were di-scovered within the area of a lower platform near toone of the hearths at Frumusica-Cetatuia, while threestamp-seals were found in House A in Sesklo (Tab. 2).Even though the number is higher in the cases men-

tioned above, the motif remains the same: both exam-ples from Frumusica-Cetatuia shared a spiral design,while all three examples from House A in Sesklo aredecorated with concentric circles.

This pattern is typical of the Anatolian site at ÇatalHöyük also. Even though the stamp-seal contextswithin the site are more diverse and include, besidesdwellings and waste material, shrines and burials(Türkcan 1997.on-line; 2003.on-line; 2004.on-line;2005.on-line), the distribution pattern of one stamp-seal within a building (either a dwelling or a shrine)(cf. Miloj≠i≤ 1964.61) remains similar to the SE Eu-ropean pattern.

Recognized distribution patterns (Tab. 2) indicatethat specific motifs were connected with particularNeolithic households and were therefore used asidentification signs for those households. Althoughthis hypothesis needs further examination throughan analysis of the spatial distribution of synchronicstamp-seals within a site, the fact that several fromthe same closed context shared the same motif, su-stains it for the moment.

Now let us observe the relationship of contiguity be-tween stamp-seals and other categories of objectswithin closed archaeological contexts (Tab. 3).

While doing so, we need to consider the following:the available examples from sites at Gura Baciului,

Fig. 11. Stone stamp-seals from Greek Neolithic sites (after Blegen 1975.Plate 69: 1; Makkay 1984.Fig. III:1, 3, 6; Fig. XII: 1, 2; Gimbutas 1989b.Fig. 7.73; Arachoviti 1996a.Fig. 280; 1996b.Fig. 281; Onassoglou 1996b.Fig. 278).

20 We list the complete literature on analysed closed archaeological contexts: Frumusica-Cetatuia (Makkay 1984.23); Gura Bacuilui(Lazarovici 1995.368, 396); Rakitovo (Radun≠eva et al. 2002.17–22, 26–30; Matsanova 2003.65), Karanovo (Makkay 1984.31),Vinica-Kljisedjik (Makkay 1984.64); Achilleion (Winn, Shimabuku 1989.53–54, 63–64; Gimbutas 1989b.212, 215, 217), Eutresis(Makkay 1984.21–22), Sesklo (Kotsakis 1981), Sitagroi (Renfrew 1986.212–217; 2003.416; Nikolaidou, Elster 2003.456–458);Cerje Govrlevo (Bilbija 1985.35–36); Grabovac-Vinogradi (Makkay 1984.24); Endröd 39 (Makkay 1984.19–20), Alpár-Nagyvár-domb (Makkay 1984.10); Hódmezövásárhely-Zsoldos (Makkay 1984.28).

Agni Prijatelj

246

Tab. 2. Types of stamp-seals appearing within closed archaeological contexts.


247

Rakitovo, Achilleion, Sitagroi and Govrlevo differ intheir chronology, cultural group affiliation, size of set-tlement, spatial organization, and way of life. Hence,there are major differences between the listed sitesaccording to the variety and amount of excavatedmaterial. Acknowledging mentioned, the search forpatterns within closed archaeological contexts re-mains a demanding and even a somewhat problema-tic task.

However, when analyzing the listed examples, wenotice the following: there are several examples ofbuildings in Rakitovo, Sitagroi and Govrlevo, whichdue to the excavated material, are described as ob-

jects with special functions. All four buildings fromthe sites mentioned above yielded artefacts whichare rare in other parts of settlements (Tab. 3). Thesanctuary in Rakitovo (House 8, Phase I) is thuswhere both anthropomorphic vessels from the sitewere discovered, as well as twelve bucrania fromthe thirty within the site’s documented specimens(Fig. 12). House 8 also yielded an unusual structure,perhaps an altar, without known analogies and greatquantities of painted pottery (Matsanova 1996; Ra-dun≠eva et al. 2002; Matsanova 2003). A specialstatus for House 10 in Rakitovo has been assumeddue to its spatial organization (Macanova 2000.60;Radun≠eva et al. 2002). A peculiar character for

Tab. 3. Stamp-seals and other categories of objects within closed archaeological contexts.

Agni Prijatelj

248

House 2 in Govrlevo is suspected because of an an-thropomorphic vessel found there, or perhaps a fi-gurine, also with no known parallels and becauseof the anthropomorphic altar, which is one of thespecifics of the Anzabegovo-Vr∏nik cultural group(Bilbija 1985.35–36; Zdravkovski 2006.109) (Fig.13). While the described buildings at Rakitovo andGovrelvo are marked as shrines by excavators, aburnt house from phase III at Sitagroi (Fig. 14) is de-fined as a place for extracting copper ore. Specialfinds excavated within the building include plasticvessels, a stone vessel, fourteen miniature models(of houses, hearths, vessels, furniture and axes), andobjects used as mnemonic devices (Elster, Nikola-diou 2003.441–442; Nikoladiou, Elster 2003.456–458).

The four cases described show stamp-seals appearwithin contexts with rare and exceptional ritual ob-jects. Unlike figurines and altars connected with va-rious cults and rituals, yet appearing in larger num-bers at Neolithic sites, anthropo- and zoomorphicvessels, bucrania and miniature models are foundin much smaller numbers. The presented pattern ofspatial contiguity between stamp-seals and exceptio-nal objects is confirmed once again in the two casesfrom Achilleion: there, a stone stamp-seal was foundon a clay bench together with figurines, an altar anda ladle (Fig. 15). In a second case (Fig. 16), a claystamp-seal was discovered with an anthropomorphicvessel (Gimbutas 1989b.215, 217–218).

However, there are also some contexts in which nospatial contiguity between stamp-seals and cult ob-jects was documented. Such is the case of platformVIa at Gura Bacuilui (Fig. 17). Three obsidian bladesmight be pointed to as significant finds among thepottery, stone and bone toolsexcavated within the platform(Lazarovici 1995. 368).

These assemblages indicatethat stamp-seals appear in arelationship of contiguity withcult objects. However, it isalso evident that stamp-sealswere discovered with a greatnumber of everyday objects(e.g. coarse ware, stone andbone tools, grinders, querns,

loom weights). Even though the analyzed sample al-lows the interpretation of stamp-seals along with cultobjects as a factoral index, indicating complex rituals,further investigations of a larger sample are neededto confirm this.

Given that negative data are as important as posi-tive data, when describing the spatial contiguity ofstamp-seals and cult objects, we have to mention theabsence of stamp-seals within the ritual building21

at Nea Nikomedeia. The only building from the sitewith completely published material, consisting of 5female figurines, 2 outsized axes, 2 unusually gourd-shaped pottery vessels, 2 large caches of unused flintblades and several hundred clay roundels (Rodden1964.114), did not yield even one stamp-seal, al-though the site is known as one with the highest

Fig. 12. Rakitovo, House 8, (Phase I). Selection ofartefacts (after Budja 2003.Fig. 7.1).

Fig. 13. Cerje Govrlevo, House 2. Selection of artefacts (after Bilbija1985.Fig. 2; 3, 4).

21 Several interpretations are offered for the building of unusual size, ranging from its being a collective ritual building (Rodden1964; Pyke 1996), the dwelling of a family involved in long-distance trade (Halstead 1995), to being a public place with econo-mic and social functions (Talalay 1993).


249

number of stamp-seals discovered.22 Could it, there-fore, be assumed that stamp-seals are indexes of peo-ple whose high status was not conditional upon ma-terial wealth or ritual leadership, but on other para-meters? Since the relationship of factorality betweenstamp-seals and other objects from Nea Nikomedeiaremains, due to (un)published data, unknown, thesequestions remain unanswered.

In continuing our discussion on factorality, we shallobserve the spatial distribution of stamp-seals withsame motifs at the regional level to discover whattype of meaning networks conditioned with the useof stamp-seals existed between Neolithic settlements.We need to acknowledge when writing on the spa-tial distribution of motifs on a range of objects (e.g.stamp-seals, figurines, ‘altars’, vessels, wall paintings,textiles) that we are broaching the subject of style.Therefore, the recognized large-scale distribution ofmotifs of zigzag, labyrinth, impressed dots and spi-rals (Halstead 1989; Bailey 2000; Perlès 2001; Bu-dja 2003) could be understood as a factoral indexfor the inner dynamics of the style or common dif-ference (cf. Wilk 1995; 2004). It was actually com-mon difference that influenced the selection of mo-tifs in such a way that some were limited to small-scale distribution (e.g. motif of shallow impresseddots, labyrinth) while others (e.g. motif of zigzag,spiral) occurred across large areas of the Balkans.

When analyzing the spatial distribution of motifs ap-pearing over large areas, we have to consider largevariations in their execution, as is most evident inthe case of the zigzag and labyrinth (Figs. 18. 19).

That said, there are some stamp-seals with comple-tely or nearly identically executed motifs. Now, let usallege some of those cases (cf. Prijatelj 2007). First,the most familiar and also the only one quoted intexts (Halstead 1989; Perlès 2001) is the motif of acomplex linear labyrinth occuring on stone stamp-seals from Pyrassos, Nessonis and on a clay stamp-seal from Philia (Fig. 20).23 There are only two slightdifferences in the execution of the motif. Thus linesof the labyrinth are wider on the specimen from Py-rassos, which is probably a consequence of usingclay as raw material. The specimen from Nessonislacks a central dot.

The similarity of the complex concentric labyrinthmotif on a stone example from Sesklo and a clayspecimen from Tsani magoula is inescapable (Fig.21). The only difference in design derives from thefact that the Tsani magoula example has two concen-tric ways modelled around the central cross, whilethe Sesklo example has only one.

Stamp-seals with identical motifs occur outside Gre-ece also. Thus we mention one from Transilvanian

Fig. 14. Sitagroi, burnt house (phase III). Selection of artefacts (after Renfrew 1986.Fig. 8.20; Elster, Ni-kolaidou 2003.Fig. 11.25; Fig. 11.34; Fig. 11.39; Fig. 11.45; Fig. 11.53; Renfrew 2003.Fig. 10.6; Fig. 10.7;Fig. 10.8).

22 While stamp-seals generally appear in small numbers, ranging between one and four per site (cf. Makkay 1984), higher numbersof specimens found were documented at the following sites: Tordos (15 stamp-seals), Kova≠evo (15), Asprovalta (16), Sesklo (12),Nea Nikomedeia (21), Maliq (17) (Makkay 1984, Korkuti 1995; Adam-Veleni et al. 2002; Dzhanfezova 2003).

23 Halstead (1989) lists in this group a specimen from Tsangli. We excluded it from our analysis, since the similarity of the motifbetween the Tsangli stamp-seal and others is broad only.

Agni Prijatelj

250

Zauan and two from Karanovo thatshare a motif of a plastically model-led zigzag base with zigzag incisions(Fig. 22).

Similar principles of modelling alsoconnect three Bulgarian stamp-sealsfrom Kird∫ali, Separeva Banja andKova≠evo. All three specimens havea base with a plastically modelled zig-zag edge and central hollow (Fig. 23).

We bring the list of examples withidentical motifs to an end by citingtwo objects from the Copper Age Mo-ravian site at Znojmo and a burialfrom the Hungarian site at Pilisma-rót-Basaharc, thereby going beyondthe geographical and temporal frame-work of the article (Fig. 24) Bothexamples have a honeycomb motifwith centrally impressed dots. Theslight difference in the execution isin the number of centrally impres-sed dots: while the Moravian stamp-seal has four, the Hungarian exam-ple has three.

These examples with identical motifsmight be understood as objects ha-ving the relationship of factorality. Consequently,stamp-seals could be – like split-leg figurines (Tala-lay 1993) – interpreted as indexes of social networksamong Neolithic villages. Stamp-seals with identicalmotifs might take on a secondary function and the-refore represent indexes for inter-settlement contactssuch as alliances, obligations, exogamy or long-dis-tance trade. Perhaps these stamp-seals could havebeen used to ‘attach, reveal, reinforce and reproducea range of culturally and personally significant con-cepts: of classification, identity, status, genealogy,production, ownership, order, authority, protection,fertility, potency, quality, authenticity, morality andvalue’ (Skeates 2007.195), therefore defining rela-tionships between individuals or whole distant com-munities. Of course, this hypothesis needs further

testing. If other indexes of networks between thesettlements as mentioned above are found, the pro-posed model of stamp-seals having secondary func-tions would gain weight too.

SymbolismWhen writing of the symbolism24 of stamp-seals, wejoin those authors (e.g. Thomas 1996; Knappett2005; Pinney 2006) who do not separate the practi-cal/functional and symbolic/communicative aspectsof an object. We prefer to say that functional as wellas symbolic and communicative characteristics canbe recognised in any object.25 While the functionalattributes of objects are conditioned by their mate-riality and could be therefore recognized throughdefining the physical and logical affordances and

Fig. 17. Gura Baciului, platform VI a (after Lazarovici1995.Fig.17: 1, 17, 22; Fig. 30: 5).

Fig. 15. Achilleion, clay bench near to large, circular hearth (phaseIIIb). Selection of artefacts (after Gimbutas 1989 b.Fig. 7.73: 1; Fig.7.124; Fig. 7.125).

Fig. 16. Achilleion, street/courtyard? (phase IVb). Selection of arte-facts (after Gimbutas 1989b.Fig. 7.73; Fig. 7.23: 1; Fig. 7.54: 3).

24 Peirce defines symbol as “a sign which refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue of a law, usually an association of generalideas, which operates to cause the Symbol to be interpreted as referring to that Object ... The symbol is connected with its ob-ject by virtue of the idea of symbol-using mind, without which no such connection would exist” (Pharies 1985.40). Paradi-gmatic examples of symbols (signs, having relationship of formal convention with their objects) are thus writing systems andnumerals.

25 The following example conveys this with particular clarity: as late as in 1983, old people from Grgarske Ravne (Gori∏ka) weretelling how pagans around the time of the First World War were brandishing sickles in the air in order to cut through the stormclouds and lightning to chase away storms (Medve∏≠ek 2006.135).


251

constraints of an object, its attributes as a sign de-rive from networks of meaning in which objects andpeople are incorporated. Defining different types ofrelationships (i.e. similarity, contiguity, causality,factorality, formal convention) between objects orbetween objects and people, enables us to distin-guish various semiotic levels – often unrecognizedby archaeologists – within artefacts more clearly.

A symbol is a sign having a relationship of a formalconvention or code with its object. Without knowingthe formal convention or code, the interpretation ofa sign remains problematic. Because access to cul-tural knowledge (i.e. to shared knowledge, formingcodes) is severely limited, we shall define the ele-ments of symbolism of stamp-sealswithout interpreting them.

Since the primary role of stamp-sealswas to transfer motifs onto varioussurfaces, we first need to analyze thesymbolism of imprints. The meaningand communicative characteristics ofan imprint were constructed througha combination of motif, the coloursused for printing and the type ofstamped material. However, the act

of stamping itself might also carrysymbolic meaning.

Considering various designs, wewould like to draw attention to agroup of stamp-seals with motifs thatare possibly equivalent to linguisticor numeral units. This group consistsof stamp-seals from Emen Cave (Mak-kay 1984.19), Karanovo (Makkay1984.31), Asprovalta (Adam-Veleniet al. 2002.181) and Něm≠ice na Ha-nou (Makkay 1984.40–41) (Fig. 25).Motifs on these stamp-seals could beinterpreted as lingustic or numericalsigns, since they meet the followingrequirements: asymmetry of the mo-tif, the use of the most basic abstractelements (lines and dots), and theuse of vertical and horizontal divi-ding lines between individual signs(cf. Merlini 2005.239–241).

Now, let us ask ourselves how muchthe meaning of the motifs presentedabove differs from the meaning ofother stamp-seal motifs? To para-

phrase, how does one distinguish between the com-municative value of numerical/linguistic signs onthe one hand and the communicative value of orna-mentation on the other? Could the majority of stamp-seal motifs be marked as ornaments at all, or do theyhave specific communicative value also? Accordingto the fact that only one type of motif is presentedwithin closed archaeological contexts, we can assumeeach motif on a Neolithic stamp-seal became a bearerof concrete information through formal convention.

The symbolic aspect of an imprint depended on theuse of various types of colours also. From finds atFrumusica-Cetatuia, Oltszem and Sitagroi (Makkay1984, Renfrew 1987b) we know that colours (red-

Fig. 18. Motif of zigzag, variants (after Makkay 1984.Fig. IV: 9; Fig.V: 10, 11; Fig. VI: 3, 4; Fig. VII: 8; Fig. XXIX: 1).

Fig. 19. Motif of labyrinth, variants (after Makkay 1984.Fig. III: 4,5, 9; Fig. XII: 2).

Fig. 20. Stamp-seals with identical motifs of a complex linear laby-rinth (after Makkay 1984.Fig. III: 1, 3, 4).

Agni Prijatelj

252

dish yellow, red and white) were used for printingat least on some occasions. It has been stated thatcolours are communicative media, influencing themeaning of the ideas which they help to construct.Their meanings depend on the types and combina-tions of colour used, as well as on the colour rela-tionship between base and imprints. Colours are ableto cause emotional reactions, synaesthesia, or conveythe specific social contexts of which they are part(Young 2006.173–185). Hence, we can assume thiswas also the case with colours used for stamping inthe Neolithic.

However, thought must be also given to a secondarysymbolic aspect of stamp-seals. According to factoralrelationships between Neolithic stamp-seals withidentical motifs, a hypothesis was advanced thatstamp-seals could be seen as indexes of social rela-tionships between various settlements at a regionallevel.

Conclusions

Stamp-seals constitute a multifunctional group of ob-jects being used from the Neolithic up to the present.The grounding characteristic of a group nowadaysuniting such various objects as official stamps, pinta-deras for decorating the human body, stamps formarking bread, and stamps for decorating textiles,originates in the affordances and constraints of thoseobjects. Those namely condition listed objects astools, meant to transfer motifs onto various surfaces.While those objects are unified by the principle ofstamping/sealing, they differ greatly from each otheraccording to the networks of meaning in which theyare incorporated.

The same holds for Neolithic stamp-seals. Accordingto the various contexts in which they were found inAnatolia, SE Europe and Italy, we assume stamp-seals

from these three regions were included in variousnetworks of meaning (cf. Prijatelj 2007). Differenttraces on the bases of the stamp-seals show eventhese had different functions and meanings. Ratherthan for stamping solid and flat surfaces, they wereemployed for printing on soft materials (e.g. breador skin), as indicated by experiments.

The analysis of the available data has shown onlyone stamp seal and one motif (in rare cases model-led on several stamp-seals) was connected with clo-sed archaeological contexts. Hence, we might assumethe motif on a stamp-seal was an index of a specificNeolithic household. That said, the value of the mo-tif could not be merely decorative; they probablyconveyed specific information.

We find the fact that stamp-seals probably evolved asecondary mode of use of similar importance. The

Fig. 21. Stamp-seals with identical motifs of a com-plex concentric labyrinth (after Makkay 1984.Fig.XIII: 1; Arachoviti 1996.Fig. 280).

Fig. 22. Stamp-seals with identically modelled zig-zag base with zigzag incisions (after Makkay 1984.Fig. V: 10, 12, 13).

Fig. 23. Stamp-seals with identically modelled basewith zigzag edge and central hollow (after Todoro-va, Vajsov 1993.Fig. 167: 2, 4, 6).

Fig. 24. Stamp-seals with identical honeycomb mo-tif with centrally impressed dots (after Makkay 1984.Fig. XXVIII: 10, 11).


253

spatial distribution of stamp-seals with identical mo-tifs indicates the analyzed objects might have be-come a symbol for various social interactions amongNeolithic settlements. Ultimately, the presented hy-potheses require further testing. The qualitative leapforward in the case of Neolithic stamp-seals of SE Eu-rope will not be possible until archaeologists starttrying to answer following questions: is the patternof stamp-seal motif as an index for specific Neolithichouseholds confirmed or negated by larger test sam-

ples of closed archaeologicalcontexts? What kind of infor-mation could be extractedfrom the spatial distributionof synchronic stamp-sealswithin one site? Are there anyother correlates beside stamp-seals with identical motifsconfirming the existence ofsocial networks between spe-cific sites? We firmly believethese tasks for future research

on stamp-seals, with the help of concepts of affordan-ces, constraints, icons, indexes and symbols, shouldnot be difficult ones.

Fig. 25. Selected examples of stamp-seals with unusual motifs, numerical/linguistic signs perhaps (?) (after Makkay 1984.Fig. XXIII: 6; Fig. XXVII: 5,8; Adam-Veleni 2002.Fig. 8).

The paper is based on a graduate thesis defended at theDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, LjubljanaUniversity in 2007. I would like to thank ProfessorMihael Budja, who supervised and guided my thesis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ADAM-VELENI P., VIOLATZIS M., KARATASSIOS A., STAN-GOS A. 2002. Neolithic Sites in the Interior of the Strymo-nic Gulf. Neolithic Settlement at Asprovalta. To Arhaiolo-giko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 16: 171–190.

ARACHOVITI P. 1996a. 280. Stone seal. In G. A. Papatha-nassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic culture in Greece. NicholasP. Goulandris foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art. Athens:333.

1996b. 281. Stone seal. In G. A. Papathanassopoulos(ed.), Neolithic culture in Greece. Nicholas P. Goulan-dris foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art. Athens: 333.

BAILEY D. W. 1993. Chronotypic tension in Bulgarian pre-history: 6500–3500 BC. World Archaeology 25/2: 199–222.

2000. Balkan prehistory: exclusion, incorporationand identity. Routledge. London, New York.

BARBER E. J. W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles. The Develop-ment of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. PrincetonUniversity Press. Princeton (NJ).

BILBIJA M. 1985. Cerje. Neolitsko naselje. Arheolo∏ki pre-gled 1985: 35–36.

BLEGEN C. W. 1975. Neolithic Remains at Nemea. Hespe-ria 44/3: 251–279.

BUDJA M. 1992. Pe≠atniki v slovenskih naselbinskih kon-tekstih. Poro≠ilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita ineneolita v Sloveniji XX: 95–107.

1998. Clay tokens – accounting before writing in Eura-sia. In M. Budja (ed.), 5th Neolithic Studies. Documen-ta Praehistorica XXV: 219–235.

2003. Seals, contracts and tokens in the Balkans EarlyNeolithic: where in the puzzle. In M. Budja (ed.), 10th

Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXX:115–130.

2004. The transition to farming and the ‘revolution’ ofsymbols in the Balkans. From ornament to entopticand external symbolic storage. In M. Budja (ed.), 11th

Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXXI:59–81.

2005. The process of Neolithisation in South-easternEurope: from ceramic female figurines and cerealgrains to entoptics and human nuclear DNA polymor-phic markers. In M. Budja (ed.), 12th Neolithic Studies.Documenta Praehistorica XXXII: 53–73.

REFERENCES

∴

CHAPMAN J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology. Peo-ple, places and broken objects in the prehistory of south-eastern Europe. Routledge. London, New York.

CHILDE V. G. 1950. The Dawn of European Civilization.Paladin. St. Albans.

1959. Der Mensch schafft sich selbst. Verlag der Kunst.Dresden.

COLLON D. 1990. Near Eastern seals. British Museum Pu-blications for the Trustees of the British Museum. London.

ÇILINGIROGLU Ç. 2005. The concept of ‘Neolithic pack-age’: considering its meaning and applicability. In M. Bu-dja (ed.), 12th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehisto-rica XXXII: 1–13.

DZHANFEZOVA T. 2003. Neolithic Pintaderas in Bulgaria.In L. Nikolova (ed.), Early Symbolic Systems for Commu-nications in South-East Europe. BAR IS 1139: 97–108.

ELSTER E., NIKOLAIDOU M. 2003. Paralipómena and Ot-her Plastic Forms. In E. S. Elster and C. Renfrew (eds.),Prehistoric Sitagroi. Excavations in Northeast Greece,1968–1970. Volume 2: The Final Report. Institute of Ar-chaeology, Monumenta archaeologica 20. Los Angeles:421–442.

GELL A. 2006. Umetnost in delovanje. πtudentska zalo∫-ba. Ljubljana.

GIBSON J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to VisualPerception. Houghton Mifflin. Boston.

GIMBUTAS M. 1984. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Eu-rope: 6500–3500 BC: Myths and Cult Images. Thamesand Hudson. London.

1989a. The Language of the Goddess. Thames andHudson. London.

1989b. Figurines and Cult Equipment: Their Role inthe Reconstruction of Neolithic Religion. In M. Gimbu-tas, S. Winn, D. Shimabuku (eds.), Achilleion. A Neoli-thic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400–5600 BC.Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta archaeologica 14.Los Angeles: 171–227.

GOSDEN C., MARSHALL Y. 1999. The cultural biographyof objects. World Archaeology 31/2: 169–178.

HALSTEAD P. 1989. The economy has a normal surplus:economic stability and social change among early farmingcommunities of Thessaly, Greece. In P. Halstead and J.O’Shea (eds.), Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responsesto Risk and Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press.Cambridge: 68–80.

1995. From Sharing to Hoarding. In R. Laffineur andW. D. Niemeier (eds.), Politea: Society and State in theAegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th Interna-tional Aegean Conference, Aegaeum, 12: 11–21.

HODDER I. 1978. The Maintenance of Group Identities inthe Baringo Distirct, Western Kenya. In D. Green, C. Ha-selgrove, M. Spriggs (eds.), Social Organization and Set-tlement: Contributions from Anthropology, Archaeologyand Geography. BAR SS 47 (i): 47–74.

1979. Economic and Social Stress and Material CulturePatterning. American Antiquity 44: 446–454.

1981. Society, Economy and Culture: An EthnographicCase Study amongst The Lozi. In I. Hodder, G. Isaac,N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies inHonour of David Clarke. Cambridge University Press.Cambridge: 67–95.

HOSKINS J. 1998. Biographical Objects: How Things tellthe Stories of People’s Lives. Routledge, London.

2006. Agency, Biography and Objects. In C. Tilley, WKeane, S. Küchler, M. Rowlands, P. Spyer (eds.), Hand-book of Material Culture. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publi-cations. London, New Delhi: 74–84.

KNAPPETT C. 2005. Thinking through material culture:an interdisciplinary perspective. University of Pennsyl-vania Press. Philadelphia.

KORKUTI M. 1995. Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum inAlbanien. Philipp von Zabern. Mainz am Rhein.

KOTSAKIS K. 1981. Excavations at Sesklo 1978: a prelimi-nary report. Anthropologica Volos 2: 87–108.

KUTZIÁN I. 1944 and 1947. The Körös Culture. Plates andText. Királyi Magyar Pázmány Péter TudományegyetemÉrem- és Régiségtani Intézete. Budapest.

LAZAROVICI G. 1995. Din istoria Transilvaniei: (mileni-ul VI î. Ch.): Gura Baciului. Muzeul National de Istorie aTrnasilvaniei. Cluj-Napoca.

LICHTER C. 2005. Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithicand Early Chalcolitic: the actual state of reserach. In C.Lichter (ed.), How did farming reach Europe? Anato-lian-european relations from the second half of the 7th

through the first half of the 6th millenium cal BC. BYZAS2: 59–74.

MACANOVA V. 2000. Neolitsche Siedlung bei Rakitovo.Stratigraphie und Chronologie. In S. Hiller and V. Nikolov(eds.), Karanovo III. Beitrage zum Neolithikum in Süd-osteuropa: 59–74.

Agni Prijatelj

254


255

MAKKAY J. 1984. Early Stamp Seals in South-east Eu-rope. Akadémiai Kiadó. Budapest.

2005. Supplement to the Early Stamp Seals of South-east Europe. J. Makkay. Budapest.

MATSANOVA V. 1996. Cult objects from the Early Neoli-thic Site at the town of Rakitovo. Poro≠ilo o raziskova-nju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXIII:105–127.

2003. Cult Practices in the Early Neolithic Village ofRakitovo. In L. Nikolova (ed.), Early Symbolic Systemsfor Communications in South-East Europe. BAR IS1139: 65–70.

MEDVEπ∞EK P. 2006. Let v lunino senco. Pripovedi o sta-rih verovanjih. Taura. Nova Gorica.

MERLINI M. 2005. Semiotic approach to the features ofthe ‘Danube Script’. In M. Budja (ed.), 12th Neolithic Stu-dies. Documenta Praehistorica XXXII: 233–251.

MILOJ∞I≥ V. 1964. Zur Frage der Herkunft des Mäandersund der Spirale bei der Bandkeramik Mitteleuropas. Jahr-buch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 11:57–80.

MONTAGNARY KOKELJ E. 2003. In L. Nikolova (ed.),Early Symbolic Systems for Communications in South-East Europe. BAR IS 1139: 361–369.

NANDRIS J. 1970. The development and relationships ofthe earlier Greek Neolithic. Man 5: 192–213.

NIKOLAIDOU M., ELSTER E. S. 2003. Contextual Commen-tary, Phases I–V. In E. S. Elster and C. Renfrew (eds.),Prehistoric Sitagroi. Excavations in Northeast Greece,1968–1970. Volume 2: The Final Report. Institute of Ar-chaeology, Monumenta archaeologica 20. Los Angeles:453–468.

NORMAN D. 1998. The Design of Everyday Things. MITPress. Cambridge, Mass.

ONASSOGLOU A. 1996a. Seals. In G. A. Papathanassopou-los (ed.), Neolithic culture in Greece. Nicholas P. Goulan-dris foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art. Athens: 163–164.

1996b. 281 Seal. In G. A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.),Neolithic culture in Greece. Nicholas P. Goulandrisfoundation, Museum of Cycladic Art. Athens: 332.

ORTMAN S. 2000. Conceptual metaphor in the archaeolo-gical record: methods and an example from the Americansouthwest. American Antiquity 65: 613–645.

ÖZDÖGAN M. 1999. Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cul-tures in Between the Balkans and Anatolia. In M. Özdö-gan and N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey: The Cra-dle of civilization. New discoveries. Arkeoloji ve sanatYayinlari. Istanbul: 203–223.

PEIRCE C. S. 2004. Izbrani spisi o teoriji znaka in pome-na. Krtina. Ljubljana.

PERLÈS C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The firstfarming communities in Europe. Cambridge UniversityPress. Cambridge.

2003. An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of Neoli-thisation in Greece. In M. Budja (ed.), 10th NeolithicStudies. Documenta Praehistorica XXX: 99–113.

2005. From the Near East to Greece: Let’s reverse thefocus. Cultural elements that didn’t transfer. In C. Lich-ter (ed.), How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-european relations from the second half of the 7th

through the first half of the 6th millenium cal BC.BYZAS 2: 275–290.

PHARIES D. S. 1985. Charles S. Peirce and the LinguisticSign. John Benjamins. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

PINNEY C. 2006. Four Types of Visual Culture. In C. Til-ley, W Keane, S. Küchler, M. Rowlands, P. Spyer (eds.),Handbook of Material Culture. Thousand Oaks, SagePublications. London, New Delhi: 131–145.

PLOG S. 1980. Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Cera-mics: Design Analysis in the American Southwest. Cam-bridge University Press. Cambridge.

PRIJATELJ A. 2007. Med neolitskimi pe≠atniki-∫igi JV Ev-rope. Graduate thesis available in the Library at the De-partment of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University ofLjubljana. Ljubljana.

PYKE G. 1996. Structures and architecture. In G. Pyke andP. Yiouni (eds.), The Excavation and the Ceramic Assem-blage. Nea Nikomedeia I. The Excavation of an EarlyNeolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961–1964 direc-ted by R. J. Rodden. Athens, The British School at Athens:39–54.

RADUN∞EVA A., MATSANOVA V., GATSOV I., KOVACHEVG., GEORGIEV G., CHAKALOVA E., BOZHILOVA E. 2002.Neolitno selishte do gr. Rakitovo. Razkopki i prouchva-niya 19. Gal-Iko, Sofija.

RENFREW C. 1986. The Excavated Areas. In C. Renfrew,M. Gimbutas, E. S. Elster (eds.), Excavations at Sitagroi.A Prehistoric Village in Northeast Greece. Volume 1. In-stitute of Archaeology, Monumenta archaeologica 13. LosAngeles: 175–224.

1987a. Archaeology and language: the puzzle ofIndo-European origins. Jonathan Cape. London.

1987b. Old Europe or Ancient East? The Clay Cylindersof Sitagroi. Proto-Indo-European, the Archaeology ofa Linguistic Problem. Studies in honor of Maria Gim-butas: 339–374.

2003. Special Clay Objects: Cylinders, Stamp Seals,Counters, Biconoids and Spheres. In E. S. Elster andC. Renfrew (eds.), Prehistoric Sitagroi. Excavationsin Northeast Greece, 1968–1970. Volume 2: The Fi-nal Report. Institute of Archaeology, Monumenta ar-chaeologica 20. Los Angeles: 403–420.

RIEFENSTAHL L. 1976. The People of Kau. Collins. London.

RODDEN R. J. 1964. Recent discoveries from PrehistoricMacedonia. An interim report. Balkan Studies 5: 109–124.

1965. An Early Neolithic Village in Greece. ScientificAmerican 212(4): 82–88.

RUTTKAY E. 1993/1994. Neue Tonstempel der Kanziani-berg-Lasinja Gruppe. Mitteilungen der AnthropologischenGesellschaft in Wien 123/124: 221–238.

SKEATES R. 2007. Neolithic stamps: Cultural Patterns,Processes and Potencies. Cambridge Archaeological Jour-nal 17/2: 183–198.

TALALAY L. E. 1987. Rethinking the Function of Clay Fi-gurine Legs from Neolithic Greece: An Argument by Ana-logy. American Journal of Archaeology 91: 161–171.

1993. Dieties, Dolls and Devices. Neolithic Figurinesfrom Franchti Cave, Greece. In T. W. Jacobsen (ed.),Excavations at Franchti Cave, Greece. Fascicle 9, In-diana University Press, Indianapolis.

THEOCHARIS R. D. 1973. Neolithic Greece. National Bankof Greece. Athens.

THOMAS J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity: an inter-pretive Archaeology. Routledge. London.

TILLEY C. 1998. Megaliths in Text. In M. Edmonds and R.Colin (eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of North-West-ern Europe. Cruithne Press. Glasgow: 141–159.

2004. The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Land-scape Phenomenology 1. Berg. Oxford.

2006. Objectification. In C. Tilley, W Keane, S. Küchler,M. Rowlands, P. Spyer (eds.), Handbook of MaterialCulture. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. London,New Delhi: 60–73.

TODOROVA H., VAJSOV I. 1993. Novo kamenata epohav Bulgarija. Sofija, Izdatelstvo nauka i iskustvo. Sofija.

TÜRKCAN A. 1997. Stamp seals. In Çatalhöyük Archive re-ports. Çatalhöyük 1997 Archive Report. Online: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/1997/ar97_18.html

2003. Stamp seals and clay figures. In Çatalhöyük Ar-chive reports. Çatalhöyük 2003 Archive Report. on-line http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2003/ar03_16.html

2004. Stamp seals. In Çatalhöyük Archive reports. Ça-talhöyük 2004 Archive Report. on-line http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/ar04_26.html

2005. Clay Stamp seals. In Çatalhöyük Archive reports.Çatalhöyük 2005 Archive Report. on-line http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2005/ar05_30.html

2007. Is it goddess or bear? The role of Çatalhöyükanimal seal in Neolithic symbolism. In M. Budja (ed.),14th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 34.

YATES T. 1990. Jacques Derrida: ‘There is nothing outsideof the text’. In C. Tilley (ed.), Reading Material Culture.Blackwell. Oxford: 206–280.

YOUNG D. 2006. The Colours of Things. In C. Tilley, W.Keane, S. Küchler, M. Rowlands, P. Spyer (eds.), Hand-book of Material Culture. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publica-tions, London, New Delhi: 173–185.

YOUNGER J. G. 1992. Seals? From Middle Helladic Greece.Hydra 8: 35–54 and on-line http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/articles/

1995. A Balkan-Aegean-Anatolian Glyptic Koine in theNeolithic and EBA Periods. on-line http://people.ku.edu/~jyounger/articles/

WILK R. 1995. Learning to be local in Belize: global sys-tems of common difference. In D. Miller (ed.), WorldsApart: Modernity through the Prism of Local. Routledge.London: 110–133.

2004. Miss Universe, the Olmec and the valley of Oaxa-ca. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(1): 81–89.

WINN S., SHIMABUKU D. 1989. Achitecture and Sequenceof Building Remains. In M. Gimbutas, S. Winn, D. Shima-buku (eds.), Achilleion. A Neolithic Settlement in Thes-saly, Greece, 6400–5600 BC. Institute of Archaeology,Monumenta archaeologica 14. Los Angeles: 171–227.

ZDRAVKOVSKI D. 2006. New Aspects of the Anzabegovo-Vr∏nik Cultural Group. In N. Tasi≤ and C. Grozdanov(eds.), Homage to Milutin Gara∏anin. Cicero, Beograd:99–110.

Agni Prijatelj

256

digging the neolithic stamp-seals of se europe from

Documents