_UDK 903.2'I2/'I6(4-12)''633/634'':9Q2_
Documenta PraehistoricaXXXIV (2007)
Digging the Neolithic stamp-seals of SE Europe
from archaeological deposits, texts and mental constructs
Agni Prijatelj
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
agni_prijatelj@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT - The article presents the archaeological and experimental data on the Neolithic stamp-
seals from phenomenological perspective. An alternative view to their production, consumption and
symbolic values is proposed by employing concepts of affordances, constraints, icons, indexes and
symbols. It is argued that the stamp-seal motifs probably conveyed specific information, while objects
were included in various networks of meaning. Similar importance is given to the fact that the stamp-
seals probably evolved a secondary mode of use.
IZVLEČEK - V članku so predstavljeni arheološki in eksperimentalni podatki o neolitskih pečatnikih-
žigih s fenomenološke perspektive. S pomočjo konceptov ponujenosti, omejitev, ikon, indeksov in
simbolov oblikujemo alternativni pogled na njihovo produkcijo, rabo in simbolične vrednosti. Zago-
varjamo tezo, da so bili pečatniki-žigi vključeni v različne pomenske mreže, njihovi motivi pa so bili
nosilci specifičnih informacij. Enako pomembno se nam zdi dejstvo, da so pečatniki-žigi razvili se-
kundarne oblike rabe.
KEY WORDS - stamp-seals; affordances/constraints; icons; indexes; symbols
Introduction
This article represents an attempt to enliven one of
most visually striking categories of artefacts within
Neolithic materiality that has petrified under layers
of problematic interpretations and misuses within
archaeological literature. The act of reanimating
Neolithic stamp-seals from SE Europe is carried out
in 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 intensive
work 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 of
the article comprises not the Neolithic stamp-seals of
SE Europe themselves, but texts by different authors
devoted to this subject. Since the main goal of the
archaeological 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 into
the immaterial: with the help of 31 selected texts
written by 21 different authors, we observe the re-
lations between discourse, scientific thought and the
observed phenomenon of the Neolithic stamp-seals
of SE Europe. We use the following statement by C.
Tilley (1998.147) as a methodological starting-point
for the intended analysis:
"... all archaeological texts are primarily literary
constructions and can be analysed in an analo-
gous manner to literary texts, bracketing aside the
questions of truth, falsity, adequacy, or inadequacy
in relation to the physical artefact world that are
normally asked from the outset ... The concern
might rather more pertinently be to do with the
manner in which the language itself is structured
and mobilised to create meaning and sense."
Within the Early Neolithic of Europe the phenome-
non of stamp-seals is frequently taken advantage of
Copyright by Department of Archaeology, Faculty of arts, University of Ljubljana.
231
as a fundamental argument to support an author's
theoretical 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' shifted
through time? How does the term capture the reality
of 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 the
term help towards a better understanding of the past?
The sample of literature consists of 60 years writing
about 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 articles
on stamp seals of different dates and of different
styles of archaeological thinking. Thus texts, written
within 'traditional', 'processual' and 'post-processual'
discourse are presented within the sample.
No uniform terminology for the observed phenome-
non is employed within the archaeological literature
on the Neolithic stamp-seals of SE Europe. Since
stamped/sealed material is not preserved, the use
of the objects remains difficult to define. It has been
suggested that these artefacts were used as pintade-
ras for adorning the human body (e.g. Younger 1995.
1.	I. Kutzian (1944 and 1947), The Körös Culture. Platesand Text, 8
2.	V. Gordon Childe (1950), The Dawn of European Civilization, sixth, revised edition, 25, 60-61, 81, 89, 91, 95, 103, 126,
^ 144-145_
3.	V. Gordon Childe (1959), Der Mensch schafft sich selbst, 180
4.	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, 112-117
6.	Janos 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, 169-171
10.	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, 308-309
12.	Mihael Budja (1992), 'Pečatniki 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, 233-234
15.	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', 163-164
18.	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, 219
20.	Doglass W. Bailey (2000), Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, incorporation and identity, 109-110, 112, 234, 282
21.	John Chapman (2000), Fragmentation in Archaeology, 85-91, 225
22.	Catherine Perles (2001), The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first farming communities in Europe, 44, 54, 63, 221-223,
252-253, 285, 288-289, 296-297
23.	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 Perles (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.	etiler Qlingiroglu (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 Perles (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.
on-line; Chapman 2000; Montag-
nary Kokelj 2003; Qilingiroglu
2005), perhaps as stamps for print-
ing onto organic materials such as
textile, leather, bread, maybe as
tools for decorating walls, or even
as devices for stamping live animals
(e.g. Makkay 1984.104; Chapman
2000.86; Perles 2001.252; Montag-
nary Kokelj 2003.366). Most of the
writers agree upon the fact that Neo-
lithic stamp-seals - contrary to prac-
tices in the Aegean, where stamps
for decorating ceramics and hearth
rims appear from EH and EC on-
wards (Younger 1995.on-line) -
were not employed for ornamenting
ceramics. The majority of the au-
thors also agree that the stamp-seals were not used
as true seals. Nevertheless, some archaeologists (Bai-
ley 1993.212; Onassoglou 1996a.163-164) see them
as a marker for the development of the concept of
private property.
In addition to the lack of direct evidence (i.e. im-
prints) in the archaeological record, archaeologists
manage to overlook even the meagre evidence avai-
lable. The fact that the modelling of motifs varies on
the stamp-seals is mentioned only in very few of the
texts analysed: Perles (2001.252) emphasizes that
the majority of Greek stamp-seals has the high-relief
motif and only a few specimens have low relief mo-
tif.1 There are also some undecorated specimens
modelled as cones that were interpreted as tokens
by Budja (1998; 2003). The authors of the selected
texts are very often prone to forget that the bases of
the stamp-seals are modelled not only as flat, but so-
metimes as conical or convex surfaces (cf. Makkay
1984.Fig. V-10; Fig. X: 5, 9, 10, 13; Fig. XVI: 7; Fig.
XXII: 8). It remains ambiguous - similarly to the case
of undecorated cones - whether the group of stamp-
seals with concave bases was actually used for stam-
ping. Perhaps the group of artefacts with ornaments
interpreted as proto-writing symbols constitutes a
special 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 monolithic
category of stamp-seals artificially unifies artefacts
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).
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 a
tendency to expose and privilege identity and unity
above difference. An additional problem stems from
the unconsciously regulated discourse which directs
scientific thought, shapes explanatory models, and
even constrains the development of new, unbiased
interpretations.
The main weak points of the analysed texts could be
summed up as the self-evidence of their terminology
and as their operating within an unconsciously regu-
lated discourse which guides the authors in their
thinking, in formulating arguments and in forming
their interpretations.
All archaeologists 'know' what the terms 'pintadera'
and 'stamp-seal' mean. Hence, it happens regularly
that authors unite artefacts with only general, broad
similarities, and probably distinct functions within
one category. Because the meaning of these terms is
self-evident, authors rarely define them. Instead of
being clear and consistent, the semantic level of the
term remains elusive and shifting. For Dzhanfezova
(2003) and gilingiroglu (2005) the pintaderas they
discuss are no longer stamps used for decorating the
human body. As Dzhanfezova (2003.note 1) states:
"In this paper, the term [pintadera - our emph.] is
not used in accordance with the functional defini-
1	The first group is interpreted as stamps for decorating textiles by Perles (2001.252) and the second as true seals. The author does
not 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).
tion of the finds. Here pintadera denotes those
kinds of ceramic objects called 'stamp seals' and ha-
ving a handle, shaped body and 'decorated' base."
Thus the term pintadera becomes a terminological
substitute for the term stamp-seal. The use of both
terms unconsciously guides archaeologists on how
and what to write about the artefacts discussed.
Nowadays, the illusion of positivism in science is
gone. The following quote from Tilley (1998.152)
conveys the criticism of unconscious discourse with
particular clarity:
"... all writers... including myself, inhabit a disco-
urse, a series of largely anonymous and habitual
rules and constraints for thinking and writing,
that structures, in part, both what can be written
and what can actually be thought. Because of the
discourse we inhabit, and because it acts largely
unconsciously, archaeologists are doomed to re-
peat it, whether in the form of the spatial structu-
res of their narratives, the types of diagrams they
employ, or the modes of explanation adopted."
The symptoms of unconsciously regulated discourse
can also be recognized within the first group of ana-
lysed texts. This group consists of works that employ
diffusionist models for the explanation of the ear-
liest appearance of stamp-seals in Europe (Kutzian
1947; Childe 1950; 1959; Nandris 1970; Makkay
1984; Özdögan 1999; Perles 2001; 2003; 2005;
Montagnary Kokelj 2003; iilingiroglu 2005; Lich-
ter 2005). In each of the listed works we observe
one or more of the following characteristics: an ob-
session with origins, typological arrangements of
stamp-seals, formulating the text as a grand narra-
tive. Our aim is to show not only how diffusionist
discourse leads authors unconsciously to the ques-
tions they raise, but also how it directs their line of
thought and influences the way their thoughts are
formulated.
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 group
of small finds that represent the main component of
the 'Neolithic package', along with domesticates (ii-
lingiroglu 2005.3). The presence of the listed arte-
facts at European Neolithic sites is taken as a proof
that 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 or
the diffusion of cultural elements from the Near East
(cf. Makkay 1984; Perles 2001).
Diffusionist models in which stamp-seals appear as
one of the main arguments supporting the Neolithi-
sation scenario are formulated as grand narratives.3
Authors from Childe to Perles assume the existence
of 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 modes
of use. An additional argument that should have
supported 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 tables
listing elements of the 'Neolithic package' and with
distribution maps, all with intent of proving that the
elements of the 'Neolithic package' diffused from Ana-
tolia to SE Europe (cf. Renfrew 1987; Perles 2001;
2003; 2005; iilingiroglu 2005; Lichter 2005). The
spatial and narrative courses are as essential as ar-
guments themselves: authors define the earliest
examples 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 them
as proof of connections between the two regions (cf.
Makkay 1984; Özdögan 1999; Perles 2001; 2003;
2005; Lichter 2005). Thus narrative lines become
implicit arguments supporting the basic premise of
European Neolithic stamp-seals being linked to the
Anatolian 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 accepting
facts that they (in passing) mention, and which de-
construct diffusionist discourse. Archaeologists tend
to 'overlook' the fact that Neolithic stamp-seals do
not appear until painted pottery came in use, the
fact that similar artefacts from the Near East and
Europe are sometimes dated from several centuries
or 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 with
stamp-seals, we leave them out of our analysis.
connections between Anatolia and Europe on the ba-
sis of stamp-seal motifs is extremely problematic.
Archaeological discussion of Neolithic stamp-seals is
repeatedly threatened by doubts as to whether the
artefacts so named are not disparate things after all.
Archaeological writings on stamp-seals consist of con-
stant definitions, redefinitions and modifications of
terminology. Perles (2001.252) writes of stamps and
'true' seals, while Budja (1998) eliminates undeco-
rated cones and cylinders from the group and treats
them as tokens. There are also some (cf. Kutzian
1947; Barber 1991) who express doubts as to whe-
ther cylindrical objects with incised decoration can
be defined as stamp-seals at all.
As already stated, the simple act of closely exami-
ning how stamp-seals are modelled leads towards
the recognition that only a superficially uniform
group of artefacts consists of functionally disparate
objects. 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 not
accept the supposition that the function, and equally
the 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 can
we 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 the
SE European and Anatolian region together with the
help 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 with
style analysis, were supposed to help define the place
of origin from where the influence in ceramic design
dispersed to regions nearby. We find the described
principle as applied to stamp-seals problematic, to
4	Cf. Talalay (1987; 1993).
5	Cf. Plog (1980); Hodder (1978; 1979; 1981); Talalay (1993).
say the least. True, designs on painted pottery,
through their complexity, enable an opportunity to
study social interactions among neighbouring as
well as among distant communities.5 In contrast,
stamp-seal motifs remain simple geometrical de-
signs. Arguing for diffusionist theories with the help
of these is, in our opinion, questionable at least. Even
though some stamp-seal motifs are documented in
both regions, the designs are so simple that we find
diffusionist models to explain their appearance in
Europe unnecessary and redundant. Similarly to the
case of entoptics (Budja 2004; 2005), the stamp-seal
motifs are universal.
The idea of the stamp-seals sharing a single origin is
represented 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 to
Anatolia: Mellaart's excavations in Central Anatolia
(i.e. ^atal Höyük and Hacilar) caused a shift in the
perception 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 within
diffusionist discourse as an element of the 'Neolithic
package' that came to Europe either with migrants
or by cultural diffusion. Why arguing for the origin
of European Neolithic stamp-seals in Anatolia on the
grounds of their motifs is questionable to say the
least has already been explained above.
Deconstructive claims that inhibit
In order to show how deconstructive elements inhi-
bit the meaningfulness of the texts, we analytically
read works by Makkay (1984) and Perles (2001;
2005). Immediately after, we debate some texts in
the 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) remains
unsurpassed 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 reductionist
manner: the Neolithisation process is thus equated
with defining the origins of the earliest Neolithic pot-
tery of South East Europe and with defining courses
of cultural diffusion. Since the paper is written with
conviction, the Early Neolithic in Europe formed un-
der Anatolian influences, Makkay (1984.75-79) in-
troduces Europe as a secondary production centre
for the clay stamp-seals. The production and use of
stamp-seals would have reached this region by cul-
tural diffusion simultaneously with the diffusion of
painted pottery from Anatolia. The first cultural im-
pulses should have reached the central and northern
Balkans across the plains of Thrace and eastern Ma-
cedonia, where Nea Nikomedeia is situated. Since
some of the stamp-seal motifs from Nea Nikomedeia
are similar to the motifs from ^atal Höyük, while
others share similarities with SE European stamp-
seals, the site retains the utmost importance for the-
ses aiming to prove cultural diffusion from Anatolia
to SE Europe. The excavator of the site, R. J. Rodden
(1965.85), who was the first to use the stamp-seals
from Nea Nikomedeia (along with ear plugs, pins,
belt-hooks, pottery decoration, architecture and the
economy) as proof of similarities between SE Eu-
rope and the Anatolian region, wrote:
"Nea Nikomedeia thus exhibits a distinct European
character, although it has traits in common with
sites as distant as Tepe Siyalk. This suggests that
South-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 European
region and Anatolia, other authors exploited the
same parallels to support their diffusionist and mi-
gratory models (cf. Makkay 1984; Renfrew 1987b;
Perles 2001; 2003; 2005).
Deconstructing elements appear in Makkay's work
(1984) from the outset. Eighteen Early Neolithic
stamp-seals from Nea Nikomedeia should prove the
typological similarities and consequently chronologi-
cal synchronicity of Nea Nikomedeia's stamp-seals
with stamp seals from ^atal Höyük layers VI-II. Ne-
vertheless, it gradually becomes obvious that the ty-
pological arguments are far weaker than the author
would like them to be. Thus motifs, as the most im-
portant element of stamp-seals, do not connect the
stamp-seals from Nea Nikomedeia and ^atal Höyük
(Figs. 2, 3). It appears that the only characteristics
they shared are the techniques used in their making
and the material employed, or as Makkay (1984.
73) states:
"All of the 21 stamp seals found in EN levels VI-II
of iatal Höyük were made of clay. Their material
and characteristic features are very similar to
some of the Nea Nikomedeia seals and suggest a
real contemporaneity, or rather, a cultural connec-
tion. In fact, these similarities are apparent in
shapes 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's
hypothesis deconstructs itself right at the point that
is supposed to connect both regions: there are no ty-
pological similarities between the stamp-seals from
Nea Nikomedeia and ^atal Höyük. On the other hand,
Makkay's model lacks an explanation of the motifs
appearing exclusively in the SE European region
(Makkay 1984.101-102):
"In the case of South-East European clay cylinders
and 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 to
their own heritage and needs. Accordingly, the EN
stamp seals do not seem to have differed from their
Anatolian parallels, either as regards their typology
or their use."
Since parts of the motifs (e.g. some derivatives of a
labyrinthine 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-seals
as identical with Anatolian specimens or as their sim-
plified derivatives, strikes the eye even more stron-
gly.
The interpretation of Greek stamp-seals represents a
special problem within Makkay's model. Some of
them, unlike other SE European specimens, are
made of stone. Accordingly, the author puts forward
the hypothesis that cultural impulses for the pro-
duction and use of Greek stone stamp-seals came by
a 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 here
that the production of stone stamp-seals spread into
Thessaly:
"... these Thessalian stone seals do not appear to
be a local variant of the Anatolian Neolithic seals,
associated with them as an influencing group from
Fig. 2. Stamp-seals from (atal Höyük (after Türkcan 1997; 2003; 2004; 2005).
the beginning. It may also be noted that a great
part of these Thessalian seals - bearing very little
resemblance to the Anatolian or Levantine Neoli-
thic seals [our emph.] - cannot be securely dated...
The use of stone draws a distinction between the
Greek, and the Karanovo and Körös-Starcevo seals
... But these differences could also indicate the exi-
stence of independent connections with Cyprus
and the Levant, undiscovered as yet."
Makkay therefore anticipates the transmission of cul-
tural impulses for production and use of stamp-seals
in the Early Neolithic via two different routes: the
first should have been a continental one, leading
through the plains of Thrace and Eastern Macedonia;
the second should have been maritime, connecting
Anatolia or The Levant with Thessaly (Makkay 1984.
81). The described exposition of the genesis of Thes-
salian stamp seals contains several deconstructive
statements: first, Makkay stresses a small typological
similarity not only between Thessalian and Anato-
lian objects, but also between the Thessalian and Le-
vantine specimens. Then, in spite of the stated, he
conditions, merely because of the use of the same
material, the appearance of stamp-seals in Thessaly
with the cultural diffusion from Levant. Why this
kind of hypothesis? The answer, of course, could be
sought in diffusionist discourse that does not allow
the 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 a
passive 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 SE
Europe, 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 SE
European Neolithic sites, in showing why these con-
tacts were crucial for the production of stamp-seals
in Europe, and in defining the role of stamp-seals for
such contacts. Makkay's hypothesis contains none of
these. Instead, the author merely mentions that the
spread of stamp-seals along with painted pottery was
a result of cultural diffusion from Anatolia.
Perles' model of Neolithisation (2001; 2005) has so-
me features of Makkay's scenario. Thus Perles (2005.
286) also argues for the idea of two main routes
(maritime for Greece, continental for the rest of SE
Fig. 3. Stamp-seals from Nea Nikomedeia (after
Makkay 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;.
Europe). Yet there are also some major differences
between the models. Contrary to Makkay (1984),
who builds his model upon idea of cultural diffu-
sion, Perles (2001; 2005) asserts that small groups
of colonists settled in Europe. The author constructs
her theoretical model not only with a comparison of
ceramic sequences and typological similarities be-
tween the stamp-seals of both regions (as Makkay
does), but also by paralleling other elements of the
'Neolithic package' within SE Europe and Anatolia.
The main problem when citing small objects (such
as sling bullets, discs, belt-hooks, ear studs, stamp-
seals, stone bowls, bone spatulae etc) from the
'Neolithic package' as evidence of diffusion lies in the
fact that some of the similarities arise merely from
the function of the objects (as in the case of sherd
spindle whorls, sling bullets and axes). On the
other hand, objects requiring particular technical
knowledge, and stylistically distinctive artefacts
(such as figurines, bone hooks, earstuds and stamp-
seals), which could suggest connections between
Europe and Anatolia/ Levant, are quite often dated
several centuries apart. The contextual isolation of
small objects is another big hindrance. These prob-
lems are recognized by author, yet they are imme-
diately suppressed: Perles (2001.54) supports her
Neolithisation model exactly with those analogies
previously described as problematic. Since the
author is trying to solve the problem of the huge
temporal discrepancies between similar elements
of the 'Neolithic package' in the Levant, Anatolia
and Europe, she introduces the idea of small groups
repeatedly colonizing Greece (Perles 2005.280):
"I have already argued (Perles 2001) that I viewed
the colonisation of Greece as a maritime pheno-
menon, by small groups of different origins - mo-
stly Levantine - and, I would now add, at different
periods. Many stylistic and technical parallels can
be underlined between the two regions ..."
This hypothesis triggers the questions why would
Levantine colonists abandon their homeland and mi-
grate into Greece at different periods. If Perles
(2001) looked for the reasons for the departure of
colonists within the PPNB exodus and the collapse
of the ritual elite in the first place, the new variant
of the model leaves many questions unanswered:
did different communities abandon their land for the
same reasons? What kinds of reasons were they?
Over what kind of time span did these colonisations
occur?
Deconstructive claims can be found in the case of
stamp-seals also. Greek specimens are thus chrono-
logically and typologically compared with ^atal Hö-
yük stamp-seals. As Perles (2001.54) writes: " ... the
bone hooks, stamp-seals and ear studs from Thes-
saly undoubtedly strongly resemble those of Qatal
Hüyük." Hence, interpretations by Perles (2001.54)
and by Makkay (1984.79-80) are diametrically oppo-
site to each other. If Perles (2001.54) compares Thes-
salian stamp-seals with objects from ^atal 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 raises
the question of scientific objectivity in searching for
typological parallels between stamp-seals from dif-
ferent regions. Looking for the place of origin with
the 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. Perles (2001.
288-289), obviously aware of this fact, refers to it
when 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 first
reading, they would seem to be good candidates
for individual identification. Unfortunately, this is
the 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 Indus
to the Carpathians. There is clearly no attempt at
any individualization of the motifs, and therefore,
of their owner."
The author employs the universality of the motifs as
an 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 types
of motifs found on them. Equally significant is the
fact one group of stamp-seals shares decorations
with other categories of artefacts (particularly with
contemporary 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. Statistical
analysis has shown the majority of the stamp-seals
were not intentionally broken. Unlike the group of
objects with 'incised signs', the purpose of stamp-
seals was not to enchain information within two in-
tentionally broken pieces, but to imprint the motif
on some other kind of material.
We conclude this short review by summing up some
points presented by Budja (2003). Stamp-seals are
sometimes documented at Neolithic sites together
with figurines, 'altars', pins, amulets, anthropomor-
phic and zoomorphic vessels, and painted pottery.
Budja propose that these assemblages indicate the
function of stamp-seals (Budja 2003.124).
While the majority of works treat stamp-seals as an
element of the 'Neolithic package' and therefore as
inactive material reflections of the Neolithisation
process in SE Europe, as a typological fossil which
should help locate their place of origin, as static,
fixed entities within firmly defined social networks
and last, but not least as the immovable foundation
stones of meta-narratives, we strive towards alter-
native approach. In order to enliven the Neolithic
stamp-seals of SE Europe, we employ a phenomeno-
logical approach towards material culture, expressed
through the concept of the cultural biographies of
artefacts (cf. Hoskins 1998; Gosden, Marshal 1999;
Tilley 2004; Knappett 2005; Hoskins 2006; Tilley
2006; 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 constraints
Neolithic stamp-seals are first and foremost objects
used for stamping; and therefore artefacts meant for
reproducing the motifs they carried on their bases.6
We shall prove this statement with an analysis of the
physical 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 they
are portable objects, having a decorated base, and a
handle growing out vertically from the base. The
surface 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 lower
part of the object. The artefact therefore reaches op-
timal stability when placed on a flat surface in such
a 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 element
of a stamp-seal, is not visible (Fig. 4).
The majority of the documented objects (Makkay
1984; 2005) are of clay, although some stone speci-
mens occur in Greece.8 Both materials give solidity
to the objects. Bases range in size from around 3
and 7 centimetres, while the height of the objects
varies between 5 and 8 centimetres. Bases are mo-
delled in various rectangular, circular, oval, rhombo-
idal forms, sometimes even in cross-like or foot-like
forms.9 They are decorated with geometrical motifs
in high or low relief. Patterns include circles, dots,
spirals, labyrinths, crosses, chevrons, triangles, and
straight, curving and zigzag lines. Some handles are
perforated. 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 second
finger, with the other fingers closed. If the handle is
big enough, it can be grasped with all fingers form-
ing a fist (Fig. 4).
The following four characteristics are reckoned among
the 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-seal
easily when the handle is grasped; the affordance to
imprint geometrical designs on various surfaces; the
affordance to be suspended on a string as a pendant
in 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 from
the 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 level
surface when the base is parallel with the surface.
Because of these, the principles of making images
with stamp-seals differ greatly from those of making
images 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 same
functions. 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 and
his 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 unknown
provenience 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-
Doncova mogila (Bolgaria), Nessonis (Greece), Szentes (Hungary) (Makkay 1984.13, 26, 41, 70). A handle in the form an animal
head 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 at
Neolithic sites in SE Europe, but also in the Neolithic Byblos, as well as at Minoan and Levantine Bronze Age sites (cf. Younger 1995).
Fig. 4. Physical affordances of stamp-seals. Photograph by B. Sirca.
" What sets such objects apart from other hand-held
artistic tools, such as brushes, gouges and sharp
points (which were also used in the Neolithic to
produce similar images on a range of media), is
their ability to reproduce - simply, quickly and ma-
nually - a large number of almost identical copies
of an original graphic image ... "
Can we recognize some of the constraints10
that represent decisive counterpart to the
objects' affordances? First, let us describe
some of the physical and logical constraints
which can be defined through the underta-
ken experiment.
The experiment was undertaken with the
aim of testing three different types of stam-
ping techniques: stamping on unbaked, un-
leavened bread, stamping on textile, and
printing 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, unleavened
bread, all types of motifs are clearly imprin-
ted on it, no matter in what kind of relief
they are designed. The major constraint of
marks of this kind is thus not connected
with the type of relief motif, but with
the property of the unleavened bread.
When unleavened bread is baking,
air bubbles appear in the dough, the-
refore reducing the visibility of the
motif (Fig. 5).
The main constraint, when stamping
on textiles originates from the mo-
delling bases of Neolithic stamp-
seals. If the textile to be stamped is
put on a solid flat surface, only the
stamp-seals with completely level ba-
ses leave imprints on it. This condi-
tion is rarely fulfilled in the case of
Neolithic stamp-seals, whether a mo-
tif is in high or low relief. The majo-
rity of objects has, as a consequence
of manual modelling, a pattern on
the slightly unevenly levelled surface of the base (cf.
Makkay 1984).11 Now, when examining stamping
on textile, the following question should be asked:
did the people of the Neolithic know how to fix dyes
on textiles? Contrary to the recognized fact that peo-
ple employed dyes made from minerals, plants or
animals in the Neolithic (Barber 1991.223-243),
the question as to whether people knew of a sub-
Fig. 5. Baked unleavened bread with imprinted motifs. (A,
B, C) various types of motifs. Photograph by B. Sirca.
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 material
and physical characteristics of an object; semantic and logical constraints rely upon the meaning of the situation in which an
object 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).
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 of
motifs (Fig. 6). Therefore, constraints when
stamping human skin are less conditioned
by the physical properties of objects than
by cultural contexts. Some of the cultural
constraints could be associated with these
questions: on what occasions do people de-
corate their skin with paintings? Do modes
of decorating men and women differ? Who
is allowed to decorate their skin with pain-
tings? When printing on skin, how many
pintaderas and colours are employed?
Let us reiterate: due to the physical constra-
ints we observed through experiment, it is
very probable that stamp-seals were not used for
stamping solid and flat surfaces (such as walls or tex-
tiles placed on solid surface). More probably, they
were employed for stamping soft materials (e.g.
bread, skin).
Fig. 6: Examples of the body paintings - done either with
sharp points or with pintaderas - of the people of Kau and
from the experiment. Photographs by Riefenstahl 1976; Sirca.
city of stamp-seals resides primarily within their vi-
sual characteristics, various motifs, as the main com-
ponents of analyzed objects, are the most important
sources for the relation of visual similarity between
Neolithic stamp-seals and other categories of objects.
The semiotics of stamp-seals: iconicity, indexi-
cality, symbolism
Since stamp-seals are primarily objects designed to
carry and reproduce motifs on various surfaces, we
should analyze the semiotics13 of the imprints fore-
most. Inasmuch as imprints are not preserved, we can
partially reconstruct their semiotics through the ob-
servation of motifs modelled on the bases of stamp-
seals. However, we should not forget when defining
networks of meaning between stamp-seals, people
and 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.
Iconicity
When considering iconicity14, we must ask what
type of artefacts stamp-seals resembled. Since iconi-
In the case of cylinder seals and stamp-seals, the si-
milarity of the motifs remains broad: both types
share basic geometrical designs. Yet there are also
some major differences. Motifs on cylinder seals are
thus often executed in zones; moreover, rolling of
the cylinder enables the filling of a larger surface
continually than stamping itself (cf. Collon 1990).
It has been shown that similar patterns are shared
by certain stamp-seals and other types of artefacts:
synchronic vessels, figurines and 'altars' may be de-
corated with patterns of straight or curving parallel
lines, zigzag lines, concentric circles, spirals, and
meanders, or with deeply engraved or impressed
dots, which appear on some stamp-seals (Dzhanfe-
zova 2003). However, we can assume that motifs on
stamp-seals exhibited a visual similarity with weav-
ing, basketry decorations and wall paintings also.
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; Knappett
2005). Three different types of signs are thus acknowledged: an icon, an index and a symbol. Each of those signs is defined by
specific relationship existing between object and a sign, which in Peirce words "... stands for something, its object' (Pharies
1985.14). According to Peircean model various things such as objects, animals, plants, people, emotions, when having a specific
relationship 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 leather
is an icon for genuine leather (visual and tactile similarity) (cf. Knappett 2005.95-100; Prijatelj 2007.88).
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 material
from Hagilar, Can Hasan and Catal
Höyük yielded stamp-seals, pottery
fragments, parts of wall paintings
and wall reliefs with identical mo-
tifs of a rotating meander with a cen-
tral dot, a vegetal motif, a hand, a
bear, and a leopard (Milojčić 1964.
59-62; Türkcan 2003.on-line; 2007.
in this volume) (Figs. 7, 8).
A special form of visual similarity
could be recognized among a few
specimens of anthropomorphic, zoo-
morphic stamp-seals, people, animals
and certain types of objects. Contrary
to the majority of analyzed objects,
having a base and handle modelled
as a simple geometrical body, these
specimens are characterized by a
base or handle designed as part of human or animal
figures.15 That is why this particular group of Neoli-
thic examples could be interpreted as icons for man
or 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 and
their objects. Hence, artefacts, corded together with
visual similarity, share only associative connections.
Stamp-seals can be therefore understood as icons of
cylindrical seals, meaning, in the case of settlements
Fig. 7. Anatolian stamp-seals and fragments of wall paintings with
identical motifs (after Milojčić 1964.Abbs. 1, 2).
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).
Fig. 8. Stamp-seals with leopard and bear from fatal Höyük (after
Türkcan 2003.on-line).
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 and
animal figurines, 'altars', textiles, basketry or wall
paintings, when having identical motifs. Therefore,
when seeing a stamp-seal with a specific motif, pots,
figurines, 'altars', textiles, basketry or wall paintings
with similar motifs could come to the mind of a Neo-
lithic observer. Likewise, anthropo- and zoomorphic
stamp-seals could become icons for people, animals
or anthropo- and zoomorphic vessels and figurines.
Again, the view of anthropo- and zoomorphic stamp-
seals could initiate associations with other
types of artefacts modelled on human or
animal forms. Presumably, during associa-
tive lines of thought, not only objects come
to mind due to their visual similarity with
stamp-seals, but so do activities and ideas
which are indivisibly connected with them
(cf Knappett 2005.114).
However, if we wish to define tighter con-
nections between stamp-seals, people and
other types of objects, we need to search for
other modes of relationships between them.
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 Dikili
Tash, Greece (Makkay 1984.18); Cerje-Govrelvo, Macedonia (Bilbija 1985.36); Zelenikovo-Slatina, Macedonia (Makkay 1984.66)
and Smederevska Palanka, Serbia (Gimbutas 1984.91).
Indexicality
When exploring the indexicality16 of stamp-seals,
one must consider relationships of contiguity, facto-
rality and causality. To recognize these we need to
tackle the following questions: what kind of arte-
facts do we usually find in spatial contiguity with
stamp-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 to
the question of how stamp-seals were used for ma-
king imprints. Were colours applied to the bases of
stamp-seals and then stamped on human skin, walls,
textiles or wooden objects? Were stamp-seals merely
impressed onto softer surfaces, or were they heated
to stamp wood, human or animal skin? Even though
imprints do not survive, different traces on the bases
of stamp seals hint at various uses: several objects
with traces of colour on the bases have been docu-
mented,17 one with an extremely burnt base,18 and
some with heavily worn base surfaces have also
been found. Considering the preserved traces on the
bases of stamp-seals, as well as the results of the un-
dertaken experiment, the Neolithic stamp-seals of SE
Europe can be interpreted as indexes for the use of
colours, and as indexes that speak against stamping
on solid and flat surfaces.
A further aspect of indexicality relates to the modes
of production of stamp-seals. The way it is modelled
indicates the input of effort and work invested into
the making of a specific object. Every stamp-seal could
therefore be seen as index of all those activities that
caused 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 range
in quality is most obvious in the
modelling of motifs. While designs
on clay objects vary from accurate
to superficial, the execution of mo-
tifs on the stone specimens is ex-
tremely precise (Fig. 10).
Stone stamp seals (which derive exclusively from
Greek Neolithic sites) could therefore be understood
as causal indexes for the great skill, effort and time
that were put into their production, most probably
by craftsmen specialized in making stone objects (cf.
Perles 2001.288-289). These specimens (Fig. 11)
share a magical quality, since they are produced with
such 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 indexes
for modes of their production, but also causal indexes
for 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 contexts
in 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-seals
and other categories of objects within closed archa-
eological contexts. Finally, we analyse the intra- and
intersite 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: publications
of 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 in
which stamp-seals were found are not presented.
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).
16	Peirce defines an index as a sign which "signifies its object solely by virtue of being really connected with it. Of this nature are
all 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 is
an 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 Frumu§ica-Cetat,uia (Makkay 1984.23), on a
stamp-seal from Oltszem (Makkay 1984.42) and on a cylinder seal from Sitagroi (Renfrew 1987b.343).
18	Only one specimen from Frumu§ica-Cetat,uia is mentioned within Makkay's catalogue as a stamp-seal with burnt base (Makkay
1984.42).
19	Modelling clay stamp-seals is not a demanding and time-consuming task. With only basic skills in modelling clay, one could make
a stamp-seal within half an hour.
Fig. 11. Stone stamp-seals from Greek Neolithic sites (after Biegen 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).
The publications of the following sites Frumu§ica-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, Alpar-
Nagyvardomb and Hödmezövasarhely-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 sites
yielded stamp-seals within buildings, working areas
or waste pits (Tab. 2). Since the role of objects in
waste 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 specimen
and only exceptionally as two or three specimens,
which is the most indicative fact that can be extrac-
ted from Table 2. All archaeological features, from
the platform in Gura Baciului, the burnt building in
Karanovo, the sanctuary and public building in Ra-
kitovo, the building in Vinica-Kljisedik, the clay
bench and street near to one of the buildings in Ac-
hilleion, the working space in Sitagroi, the building
in Govrlevo up to the building in Grabovac-Vinogra-
di, yielded only one stamp-seal (Tab. 2). The number
of stamp-seals differs only in two cases: two were di-
scovered within the area of a lower platform near to
one of the hearths at Frumu§ica-Cetatuia, while three
stamp-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 Frumu§ica-Ceta|uia shared a spiral design,
while all three examples from House A in Sesklo are
decorated with concentric circles.
This pattern is typical of the Anatolian site at ^atal
Höyük also. Even though the stamp-seal contexts
within the site are more diverse and include, besides
dwellings 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. Milojčić 1964.61) remains similar to the SE Eu-
ropean pattern.
Recognized distribution patterns (Tab. 2) indicate
that specific motifs were connected with particular
Neolithic households and were therefore used as
identification signs for those households. Although
this hypothesis needs further examination through
an analysis of the spatial distribution of synchronic
stamp-seals within a site, the fact that several from
the 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 objects
within closed archaeological contexts (Tab. 3).
While doing so, we need to consider the following:
the available examples from sites at Gura Baciului,
20 We list the complete literature on analysed closed archaeological contexts: Frumusica-Cetatuia (Makkay 1984.23); Gura Bacuilui
(Lazarovici 1995.368, 396); Rakitovo (Radunčeva 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), Alpar-Nagyvar-
domb (Makkay 1984.10); Hödmezöväsarhely-Zsoldos (Makkay 1984.28).
Site	Dat.	Cultural feature	Closed context /all documented stamp-seals	motif										
				zigzag	conc. circles	spiral	impressed dots	labyrinth	conc. squares	square with parallel lines	1 a	parallel lines	unusual signs	Anthropomorph. s.
Frumu$ica- Cetätuia	LN	dwelling	2 i»			• •								
	Cucuteni A	lower platform near the hearth												
Gura Baciului	EN	dwelling	l/i				•							
	Starcevo- Cri? IVA	Platform 6 a (horizon IV)												
Karanovo	LN	dwelling	1/9										•	
	Karanovo VI	burnt building												
Rakitovo	EN	sanctuary?	1/2				•							
	Karanovo I-II	House 8 (phase I)												
Rakitovo	EN	public building?	1/2	•										
	Karanovo I- II	House 10 (phase I)												
Vinica-Kljisedik	LN/En	dwelling	l/l		•									
		House 3												
Achilleion	MN	clay bench	1/2					•						
	Achilleion Illb/Sesklo	near to large, circular hearth												
Achilleion	MN	dwelling/ courtyard/ street?	1/2		O									
	Achilleion IVb/Sesklo	at E wall												
Eutresis	LN	waste pit	1/2						•					
		Upper tilling of pit Z												
Sesklo	MN III	dwelling	3		• • •									
Sitagroi	LN	dwelling/outer working area	1/6			•								
	Sitagroi III	burnt building; square MM, layers MM 17,21-50												
Cerje-Govrlevo	MN	dwelling	l/l											•
	Anzabegovo- Vršnik IV	House 2 (horizon IV)												
Grabovac- Vinogradi	EN/MN Starčevo	dwelling?	1/2						•					
		pit l												
Endröd 39	EN/MN	waste pit	3/s	• •				•						
	Körös	pit 1. upper ashy layer												
Alpär- Nagyvärdomb	EN/MN	waste pit	l/i							•				
	Körös													
Hödmezöväsärhely- Zsoldos	EN/MN	waste pit	1/2	•										
	Körös													
Tab. 2. Types of stamp-seals appearing within closed archaeological contexts.
Rakitovo, Achilleion, Sitagroi and Govrlevo differ in
their chronology, cultural group affiliation, size of set-
tlement, spatial organization, and way of life. Hence,
there are major differences between the listed sites
according to the variety and amount of excavated
material. Acknowledging mentioned, the search for
patterns within closed archaeological contexts re-
mains a demanding and even a somewhat problema-
tic task.
However, when analyzing the listed examples, we
notice the following: there are several examples of
buildings in Rakitovo, Sitagroi and Govrlevo, which
due to the excavated material, are described as ob-
Tab. 3. Stamp-seals and other categories of objects
jects with special functions. All four buildings from
the sites mentioned above yielded artefacts which
are rare in other parts of settlements (Tab. 3). The
sanctuary in Rakitovo (House 8, Phase I) is thus
where both anthropomorphic vessels from the site
were discovered, as well as twelve bucrania from
the thirty within the site's documented specimens
(Fig. 12). House 8 also yielded an unusual structure,
perhaps an altar, without known analogies and great
quantities of painted pottery (Matsanova 1996; Ra-
dunceva et al. 2002; Matsanova 2003). A special
status for House 10 in Rakitovo has been assumed
due to its spatial organization (Macanova 2000.60;
Radunceva et al. 2002). A peculiar character for
Site	Dat.	Cult, feature.	Nr. of stamp-seals	Artefacts from closed archaeological deposits								
				painted pottery	anthropomorph. pottery	zoomorph. pottery	figurines	animal figurines	altars	amuletes/bucrania	obsidian tools	other
Gura Baciului	EN	dwelling	1								• (3)	Stone tools, pottery
	Starčevo- Cri? IVA	platform 6a (horizon IV)										
Rakitovo	EN	dwelling	1	•	• (2)				• (l)	• (12)		Stone, polished and bone tools, biconoid and round sling bullets, pottery
	Karanovo I-II	House 8 (phase I)										
Rakitovo	EN	public b.?	1	•								Stone, polished and bone tools, biconoid and round sling bullets, pottery, bobbins, loom- weights
	Karanovo I-II	House 10 (Phase I)										
Achilleion	MN	clay bench	1	•			• (7)		• (l)		•	axe, grinders, quems, fine pottery, ladle
	Achilleion Illb/Sesklo	near to the large, circular hearth										
Achilleion	MN	dwelling/ courtyard/ street?	1		• (1)		• (7)					broken stone tools, grinders, quems
	Achilleion IVb/Sesklo	near E wain										
Sitagroi	LN	dwelling/ outer working area	1	•		• (2)	• (29)		• (6)			Stone, polished and bone tools, querns, pottery, ladles, spindle whorls, miniatures, ornaments (spondylus bracelet)
	Sitagroi III	burnt building; square MM, layers MM 17.21-50										
Govrlevo	MN	dwelling	1	•	• (1)				• (1)			Stone and bone tools, quem, askos
	Anzabegovo- Vršnik IV	House 2 (horizon IV)										
within closed archaeological contexts.
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 because
of the anthropomorphic altar, which is one of the
specifics of the Anzabegovo-Vršnik cultural group
(Bilbija 1985.35-36; Zdravkovski 2006.109) (Fig.
13). While the described buildings at Rakitovo and
Govrelvo are marked as shrines by excavators, a
burnt house from phase III at Sitagroi (Fig. 14) is de-
fined as a place for extracting copper ore. Special
finds excavated within the building include plastic
vessels, a stone vessel, fourteen miniature models
(of houses, hearths, vessels, furniture and axes), and
objects used as mnemonic devices (Elster, Nikola-
diou 2003.441-442; Nikoladiou, Elster 2003.456-
458).
The four cases described show stamp-seals appear
within 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 zoomorphic
vessels, bucrania and miniature models are found
in much smaller numbers. The presented pattern of
spatial contiguity between stamp-seals and exceptio-
nal objects is confirmed once again in the two cases
from Achilleion: there, a stone stamp-seal was found
on a clay bench together with figurines, an altar and
a ladle (Fig. 15). In a second case (Fig. 16), a clay
stamp-seal was discovered with an anthropomorphic
vessel (Gimbutas 1989b.215, 217-218).
However, there are also some contexts in which no
spatial contiguity between stamp-seals and cult ob-
jects was documented. Such is the case of platform
VIa at Gura Bacuilui (Fig. 17). Three obsidian blades
might be pointed to as significant finds among the
pottery, stone and bone tools
excavated within the platform
(Lazarovici 1995. 368).
These assemblages indicate
that stamp-seals appear in a
relationship of contiguity with
cult objects. However, it is
also evident that stamp-seals
were discovered with a great
number of everyday objects
(e.g. coarse ware, stone and
bone tools, grinders, querns,
Fig. 12. Rakitovo, House 8, (Phase I). Selection of
artefacts (after Budja 2003.Fig. 7.1).
loom weights). Even though the analyzed sample al-
lows the interpretation of stamp-seals along with cult
objects as a factoral index, indicating complex rituals,
further investigations of a larger sample are needed
to confirm this.
Given that negative data are as important as posi-
tive data, when describing the spatial contiguity of
stamp-seals and cult objects, we have to mention the
absence of stamp-seals within the ritual building21
at Nea Nikomedeia. The only building from the site
with completely published material, consisting of 5
female figurines, 2 outsized axes, 2 unusually gourd-
shaped pottery vessels, 2 large caches of unused flint
blades and several hundred clay roundels (Rodden
1964.114), did not yield even one stamp-seal, al-
though the site is known as one with the highest
Fig. 13. Cerje Govrlevo, House 2. Selection of artefacts (after Bilbija
1985.Fig. 2; 3, 4).
21 Several interpretations are offered for the building of unusual size, ranging from its being a collective ritual building (Rodden
1964; 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).
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).
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 between
stamp-seals and other objects from Nea Nikomedeia
remains, due to (un)published data, unknown, these
questions remain unanswered.
In continuing our discussion on factorality, we shall
observe the spatial distribution of stamp-seals with
same motifs at the regional level to discover what
type of meaning networks conditioned with the use
of 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 of
motifs of zigzag, labyrinth, impressed dots and spi-
rals (Halstead 1989; Bailey 2000; Perles 2001; Bu-
dja 2003) could be understood as a factoral index
for 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 impressed
dots, 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 large
variations in their execution, as is most evident in
the 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 us
allege some of those cases (cf. Prijatelj 2007). First,
the most familiar and also the only one quoted in
texts (Halstead 1989; Perles 2001) is the motif of a
complex 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 slight
differences in the execution of the motif. Thus lines
of the labyrinth are wider on the specimen from Py-
rassos, which is probably a consequence of using
clay as raw material. The specimen from Nessonis
lacks a central dot.
The similarity of the complex concentric labyrinth
motif on a stone example from Sesklo and a clay
specimen from Tsani magoula is inescapable (Fig.
21). The only difference in design derives from the
fact that the Tsani magoula example has two concen-
tric ways modelled around the central cross, while
the Sesklo example has only one.
Stamp-seals with identical motifs occur outside Gre-
ece also. Thus we mention one from Transilvanian
22	While stamp-seals generally appear in small numbers, ranging between one and four per site (cf. Makkay 1984), higher numbers
of specimens found were documented at the following sites: Tordos (15 stamp-seals), Kovačevo (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 motif
between the Tsangli stamp-seal and others is broad only.
Zauan and two from Karanovo that
share a motif of a plastically model-
led zigzag base with zigzag incisions
(Fig. 22).
Similar principles of modelling also
connect three Bulgarian stamp-seals
from Kirdžali, Separeva Banja and
Kovačevo. All three specimens have
a base with a plastically modelled zig-
zag edge and central hollow (Fig. 23).
We bring the list of examples with
identical motifs to an end by citing
two objects from the Copper Age Mo-
ravian site at Znojmo and a burial
from the Hungarian site at Pilisma-
rot-Basaharc, thereby going beyond
the geographical and temporal frame-
work of the article (Fig. 24) Both
examples have a honeycomb motif
with centrally impressed dots. The
slight difference in the execution is
in the number of centrally impres-
sed dots: while the Moravian stamp-
seal has four, the Hungarian exam-
ple has three.
Fig. 15. Achilleion, clay bench near to large, circular hearth (phase
Illb). 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).
Fig. 17. Gura
17: 1, 17, 22;
These examples with identical motifs
might 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 networks
among Neolithic villages. Stamp-seals with identical
motifs might take on a secondary function and the-
refore represent indexes for inter-settlement contacts
such as alliances, obligations, exogamy or long-dis-
tance trade. Perhaps these stamp-seals could have
been used to 'attach, reveal, reinforce and reproduce
a range of culturally and personally significant con-
cepts: of classification, identity, status, genealogy,
production, ownership, order, authority, protection,
fertility, potency, quality, authenticity, morality and
value' (Skeates 2007.195), therefore defining rela-
tionships between individuals or whole distant com-
munities. Of course, this hypothesis needs further
Baciului, platform VI a (after Lazarovici1995.Fig.
Fig. 30: 5).
testing. If other indexes of networks between the
settlements as mentioned above are found, the pro-
posed model of stamp-seals having secondary func-
tions would gain weight too.
Symbolism
When writing of the symbolism24 of stamp-seals, we
join those authors (e.g. Thomas 1996; Knappett
2005; Pinney 2006) who do not separate the practi-
cal/functional and symbolic/communicative aspects
of an object. We prefer to say that functional as well
as symbolic and communicative characteristics can
be recognised in any object.25 While the functional
attributes of objects are conditioned by their mate-
riality and could be therefore recognized through
defining the physical and logical affordances and
24	Peirce defines symbol as "a sign which refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue of a law, usually an association of general
ideas, 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 and
numerals.
25	The following example conveys this with particular clarity: as late as in 1983, old people from Grgarske Ravne (Goriška) were
telling how pagans around the time of the First World War were brandishing sickles in the air in order to cut through the storm
clouds and lightning to chase away storms (Medvešček 2006.135).
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).
constraints of an object, its attributes as a sign de-
rive from networks of meaning in which objects and
people are incorporated. Defining different types of
relationships (i.e. similarity, contiguity, causality,
factorality, formal convention) between objects or
between objects and people, enables us to distin-
guish various semiotic levels - often unrecognized
by archaeologists - within artefacts more clearly.
A symbol is a sign having a relationship of a formal
convention or code with its object. Without knowing
the formal convention or code, the interpretation of
a sign remains problematic. Because access to cul-
tural knowledge (i.e. to shared knowledge, forming
codes) is severely limited, we shall define the ele-
ments of symbolism of stamp-seals
without interpreting them.
Since the primary role of stamp-seals
was to transfer motifs onto various
surfaces, we first need to analyze the
symbolism of imprints. The meaning
and communicative characteristics of
an imprint were constructed through
a combination of motif, the colours
used for printing and the type of
stamped material. However, the act
of stamping itself might also carry
symbolic meaning.
Considering various designs, we
would like to draw attention to a
group of stamp-seals with motifs that
are possibly equivalent to linguistic
or numeral units. This group consists
of stamp-seals from Emen Cave (Mak-
kay 1984.19), Karanovo (Makkay
1984.31), Asprovalta (Adam-Veleni
et al. 2002.181) and Nemcice na Ha-
nou (Makkay 1984.40-41) (Fig. 25).
Motifs on these stamp-seals could be
interpreted as lingustic or numerical
signs, since they meet the following
requirements: asymmetry of the mo-
tif, the use of the most basic abstract
elements (lines and dots), and the
use of vertical and horizontal divi-
ding lines between individual signs
(cf. Merlini 2005.239-241).
Now, let us ask ourselves how much
the meaning of the motifs presented
above differs from the meaning of
other stamp-seal motifs? To para-
phrase, how does one distinguish between the com-
municative value of numerical/linguistic signs on
the 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 they
have specific communicative value also? According
to the fact that only one type of motif is presented
within closed archaeological contexts, we can assume
each motif on a Neolithic stamp-seal became a bearer
of concrete information through formal convention.
The symbolic aspect of an imprint depended on the
use of various types of colours also. From finds at
Frumu§ica-Ceta|uia, Oltszem and Sitagroi (Makkay
1984, Renfrew 1987b) we know that colours (red-
Fig. 20. Stamp-seals with identical motifs of a complex linear laby-
rinth (after Makkay 1984.Fig. III: 1, 3, 4).
Fig. 21. Stamp-seals with identical motifs of a com-
plex concentric labyrinth (after Makkay 1984.Fig.
XIII: 1; Arachoviti 1996.Fig. 280).
dish yellow, red and white) were used for printing
at least on some occasions. It has been stated that
colours are communicative media, influencing the
meaning 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 able
to cause emotional reactions, synaesthesia, or convey
the specific social contexts of which they are part
(Young 2006.173-185). Hence, we can assume this
was also the case with colours used for stamping in
the Neolithic.
However, thought must be also given to a secondary
symbolic aspect of stamp-seals. According to factoral
relationships between Neolithic stamp-seals with
identical motifs, a hypothesis was advanced that
stamp-seals could be seen as indexes of social rela-
tionships between various settlements at a regional
level.
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 nowadays
uniting such various objects as official stamps, pinta-
deras for decorating the human body, stamps for
marking bread, and stamps for decorating textiles,
originates in the affordances and constraints of those
objects. Those namely condition listed objects as
tools, meant to transfer motifs onto various surfaces.
While those objects are unified by the principle of
stamping/sealing, they differ greatly from each other
according to the networks of meaning in which they
are incorporated.
The same holds for Neolithic stamp-seals. According
to the various contexts in which they were found in
Anatolia, SE Europe and Italy, we assume stamp-seals
Fig. 22. Stamp-seals with identically modelled zig-
zag base with zigzag incisions (after Makkay 1984.
Fig. V: 10, 12, 13).
J o\
Separeva Banja	Kovačevo	Kirdžali
Fig. 23. Stamp-seals with identically modelled base
with zigzag edge and central hollow (after Todoro-
va, Vajsov 1993.Fig. 167: 2, 4, 6).
from these three regions were included in various
networks of meaning (cf. Prijatelj 2007). Different
traces on the bases of the stamp-seals show even
these had different functions and meanings. Rather
than for stamping solid and flat surfaces, they were
employed for printing on soft materials (e.g. bread
or skin), as indicated by experiments.
The analysis of the available data has shown only
one stamp seal and one motif (in rare cases model-
led on several stamp-seals) was connected with clo-
sed archaeological contexts. Hence, we might assume
the motif on a stamp-seal was an index of a specific
Neolithic household. That said, the value of the mo-
tif could not be merely decorative; they probably
conveyed specific information.
We find the fact that stamp-seals probably evolved a
secondary mode of use of similar importance. The
Pilismaröt - Basaharc	Znojmo
Fig. 24. Stamp-seals with identical honeycomb mo-
tif with centrally impressed dots (after Makkay 1984.
Fig. XXVIII: 10, 11).
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).
spatial distribution of stamp-seals with identical mo-
tifs indicates the analyzed objects might have be-
come a symbol for various social interactions among
Neolithic settlements. Ultimately, the presented hy-
potheses require further testing. The qualitative leap
forward in the case of Neolithic stamp-seals of SE Eu-
rope will not be possible until archaeologists start
trying to answer following questions: is the pattern
of stamp-seal motif as an index for specific Neolithic
households confirmed or negated by larger test sam-
ples of closed archaeological
contexts? What kind of infor-
mation could be extracted
from the spatial distribution
of synchronic stamp-seals
within one site? Are there any
other correlates beside stamp-
seals with identical motifs
confirming the existence of
social networks between spe-
cific sites? We firmly believe
these tasks for future research
on stamp-seals, with the help of concepts of affordan-
ces, constraints, icons, indexes and symbols, should
not be difficult ones.
■ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS-
The paper is based on a graduate thesis defended at the
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Ljubljana
University in 2007.1 would like to thank Professor
Mihael Budja, who supervised and guided my thesis.
REFERENCES
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. Nicholas
P. 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, incorporation
and identity. Routledge. London, New York.
BARBER E. J. W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles. The Develop-
ment of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Princeton
University Press. Princeton (NJ).
BILBIJA M. 1985. Cerje. Neolitsko naselje. Arheološki pre-
gled 1985:35-36.
BLEGEN C. W. 1975. Neolithic Remains at Nemea. Hespe-
ria 44/3: 251-279.
BUDJA M. 1992. Pečatniki v slovenskih naselbinskih kon-
tekstih. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in
eneolita 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 Early
Neolithic: where in the puzzle. In M. Budja (ed.), 10th
Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXX:
115-130.
2004.	The transition to farming and the 'revolution' of
symbols in the Balkans. From ornament to entoptic
and external symbolic storage. In M. Budja (ed.), 11th
Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXXI:
59-81.
2005.	The process of Neolithisation in South-eastern
Europe: from ceramic female figurines and cereal
grains to entoptics and human nuclear DNA polymor-
phic markers. In M. Budja (ed.), 12th Neolithic Studies.
Documenta Praehistorica XXXII: 53-73.
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.
giLINGIROGLU g. 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. Paralipomena 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. Študentska založ-
ba. Ljubljana.
GIBSON J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual
Perception. Houghton Mifflin. Boston.
GIMBUTAS M. 1984. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Eu-
rope: 6500-3500 BC: Myths and Cult Images. Thames
and Hudson. London.
1989a. The Language of the Goddess. Thames and
Hudson. London.
1989b. Figurines and Cult Equipment: Their Role in
the 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 biography
of objects. World Archaeology 31/2:169-178.
HALSTEAD P. 1989. The economy has a normal surplus:
economic stability and social change among early farming
communities of Thessaly, Greece. In P. Halstead and J.
O'Shea (eds.), Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses
to Risk and Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge: 68-80.
1995. From Sharing to Hoarding. In R. Laffineur and
W. D. Niemeier (eds.), Politea: Society and State in the
Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th Interna-
tional Aegean Conference, Aegaeum, 12:11-21.
HODDER I. 1978. The Maintenance of Group Identities in
the Baringo Distirct, Western Kenya. In D. Green, C. Ha-
selgrove, M. Spriggs (eds.), Social Organization and Set-
tlement: Contributions from Anthropology, Archaeology
and Geography. BAR SS 47 (i): 47-74.
1979. Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture
Patterning. American Antiquity 44: 446-454.
1981. Society, Economy and Culture: An Ethnographic
Case Study amongst The Lozi. In I. Hodder, G. Isaac,
N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies in
Honour of David Clarke. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge: 67-95.
HOSKINS J. 1998. Biographical Objects: How Things tell
the Stories of People's Lives. Routledge, London.
2006. Agency, Biography and Objects. In C. Tilley, W
Keane, 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 in
Albanien. Philipp von Zabern. Mainz am Rhein.
KOTSAKIS K. 1981. Excavations at Sesklo 1978: a prelimi-
nary report. Anthropologica Volos 2: 87-108.
KUTZIÄN I. 1944 and 1947. The Körös Culture. Plates and
Text. Kiralyi Magyar Pazmany Peter Tudomanyegyetem
Erem- es Regisegtani Intezete. Budapest.
LAZAROVICI G. 1995. Din istoria Transilvaniei: (mileni-
ul VI i. Ch): Gura Baciului. Muzeul National de Istorie a
Trnasilvaniei. Cluj-Napoca.
LICHTER C. 2005. Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic
and 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. BYZAS
2:59-74.
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.
MAKKAY J. 1984. Early Stamp Seals in South-east Eu-
rope. Akademiai Kiado. 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. Poročilo o raziskova-
nju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXIII:
105-127.
2003. Cult Practices in the Early Neolithic Village of
Rakitovo. In L. Nikolova (ed.), Early Symbolic Systems
for Communications in South-East Europe. BAR IS
1139: 65-70.
MEDVEŠČEK P. 2006. Let v lunino senco. Pripovedi o sta-
rih verovanjih. Taura. Nova Gorica.
MERLINI M. 2005. Semiotic approach to the features of
the 'Danube Script'. In M. Budja (ed.), 12th Neolithic Stu-
dies. Documenta Praehistorica XXXII: 233-251.
MILOJČIC V. 1964. Zur Frage der Herkunft des Mäanders
und 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 of
the 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. MIT
Press. 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. Goulandris
foundation, Museum of Cycladic Art. Athens: 332.
ORTMAN S. 2000. Conceptual metaphor in the archaeolo-
gical record: methods and an example from the American
southwest. 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 sanat
Yayinlari. Istanbul: 203-223.
PEIRCE C. S. 2004. Izbrani spisi o teoriji znaka inpome-
na. Krtina. Ljubljana.
PERLES C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. The first
farming communities in Europe. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge.
2003. An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of Neoli-
thisation in Greece. In M. Budja (ed.), 10th Neolithic
Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXX: 99-113.
2005. From the Near East to Greece: Let's reverse the
focus. 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 Linguistic
Sign. 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, Sage
Publications. 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 pečatniki-žigi JV Ev-
rope. Graduate thesis available in the Library at the De-
partment of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of
Ljubljana. Ljubljana.
PYKE G. 1996. Structures and architecture. In G. Pyke and
P. Yiouni (eds.), The Excavation and the Ceramic Assem-
blage. Nea Nikomedeia I. The Excavation of an Early
Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964 direc-
ted by R. J. Rodden. Athens, The British School at Athens:
39-54.
RADUNČEVA A., MATSANOVA V., GATSOV I., KOVACHEV
G., 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. Los
Angeles: 175-224.
1987a. Archaeology and language: the puzzle of
Indo-European origins. Jonathan Cape. London.
1987b. Old Europe or Ancient East? The Clay Cylinders
of Sitagroi. Proto-Indo-European, the Archaeology of
a 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 and
C. Renfrew (eds.), Prehistoric Sitagroi. Excavations
in 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 Prehistoric
Macedonia. An interim report. Balkan Studies 5:109-124.
1965. An Early Neolithic Village in Greece. Scientific
American 212(4): 82-88.
RUTTKAY E. 1993/1994. Neue Tonstempel der Kanziani-
berg-Lasinja Gruppe. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen
Gesellschaft 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 Figurines
from 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 Bank
of 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 Material
Culture. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. London,
New Delhi: 60-73.
TODOROVA H., VAJSOV I. 1993. Novo kamenata epoha
v Bulgarija. Sofija, Izdatelstvo nauka i iskustvo. Sofija.
TÜRKCAN A. 1997. Stamp seals. In gatalhöyük Archive re-
ports. gatalhöyük 1997 Archive Report. Online: http://
www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/1997/ar97_18.html
2003.	Stamp seals and clay figures. In gatalhöyük Ar-
chive reports. gatalhöyük 2003 Archive Report. on-
line http://www.catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/
2003/ar03_16.html
2004.	Stamp seals. In gatalhöyük Archive reports. ga-
talhöyük 2004 Archive Report. on-line http://www.
catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2004/ar04_26.html
2005.	Clay Stamp seals. In gatalhöyük Archive reports.
gatalhöyük 2005 Archive Report. on-line http://www.
catalhoyuk.com/archive_reports/2005/ar05_30.html
2007. Is it goddess or bear? The role of gatalhöyük
animal seal in Neolithic symbolism. In M. Budja (ed.),
14th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 34.
YATES T. 1990. Jacques Derrida: 'There is nothing outside
of 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/~jyoun
ger/articles/
1995. A Balkan-Aegean-Anatolian Glyptic Koine in the
Neolithic 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.), Worlds
Apart: 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 Sequence
of 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-
Vrsnik Cultural Group. In N. Tasic and C. Grozdanov
(eds.), Homage to Milutin Garasanin. Cicero, Beograd:
99-110.