Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 22.

1 (2009) 3-27
ISSN (Print) 0952-7648
ISSN (Online) 1743-1700

Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls: Contextual Evidence on

the Function(s) of Neolithic Stamps from Ulucak, İzmir, Turkey

Çiler Çilingiroğlu
Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters, 72070 Schloss-Hohentübingen,
Germany
E-mail: cilingirogluciler@hotmail.com

Abstract
This study discusses the function(s) of Neolithic stamps and their designs by using two different lines of
evidence. The function of the artifact itself is considered by using contextual information from the Neo-
lithic site of Ulucak Höyük, located in the vicinity of İzmir in western Turkey. It will be argued that
the co-occurrence of stamps with objects related to textile manufacturing—e.g. bone needles, spindle
whorls and loom weights—at Ulucak allows us to interpret their function as stamps to make patterns,
among other cultural media, on woven fabrics. Secondly, the role of images on stamps is discussed in
terms of what they might have signified to the communities who reproduced them over a vast time and
area. The intention is to demonstrate that geometrical and floral images observed on Neolithic stamps
were not simply decorative but also symbolic, referring to central themes and stories of— and for—
early farming communities.
Keywords: Neolithic, Anatolia, Ulucak Höyük, textile production, stamps, symbols, self-decoration,
social identity

Introduction Neolithic stamps are small in size, and

made of clay or stone; they have one flat,
Stamps are found widely distributed in Neo-
circular or rectilinear surface (with widths
lithic assemblages from southwest Asia, Ana-
ranging from 2.5-15 cm) onto which—typi-
tolia, southeast Europe and Italy. The current
cally—linear, geometric or floral images were
archaeological literature refers to these objects
carved. Stamps depicting animals have been
as ‘stamp seals’ because of their morphological
unearthed recently at Çatalhöyük (Türkcan
similarities to seals from later periods. They
2007). A handle (occasionally pierced) is also
are also referred to in the literature as pin-
present to facilitate grasping. Most Neolithic
taderas because of their similarity to ethno-
stamps are made of baked clay, and have
graphically attested objects in South America
smoothed to burnished surfaces. As Skeates
used to stamp patterns on bare skin. Because
(2007: 186, 196) has emphasized, one of the
there is a general consensus among arche-
definitive characteristics of these objects is
ologists that these items served as stamping
their light, small and portable nature, weighing
instruments, in this study they are referred to
between 50-300 grams. The production of clay
as ‘stamps’ (following Skeates 2007).
stamps requires low time and skill investment;

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009 doi: 10.1558/jmea.v22i1.3
4 Çilingiroğlu
so does the procurement of the raw mate-
rial. Those made of stone, however, demand
developed motor skills and higher time-energy
investment for production. Several scholars
have evaluated stamp seals with respect to
their typological, chronological and functional
parameters within the framework of the ‘Neo-
lithization’ of the areas in which they occur. In
this respect, Makkay’s (1984) work still stands
as a main reference source, and successfully
demonstrates the vast spatio-temporal distri-
bution of these objects from southwest Asia to
southeast Europe, while providing an overview
of morphological and typological variations.
Two main issues related to these Neo-
lithic stamps continue to attract attention
in scholarly circles. The first relates to their
function and role in the daily life of early
farming communities. The possible functions
of these objects have been interpreted mainly
through ethnographic analogies and historical
data, to which archaeological evidence has
had little to add until recently. The second
issue is related to the ‘Neolithization debate’,
since the broad geographical distribution of
stamps from the late 8th millennium Cal bc
onwards reinforces a diffusionist perception
of this process, whereas regional stylistic and
morphological variations may imply autoch-
thonous cultural development or local input.
This paper first presents an overview of the
geographic distribution of Neolithic stamps
and their possible role in the Neolithization
process. This is followed by a survey of the
major suggestions made concerning the func-
tions of the stamps. The second part of the
paper deals with contextual data from the site
of Ulucak Höyük, İzmir and other sites where
stamp seals have been excavated, in order
to reflect on the potential of archaeological
research in determining the function(s) of
the stamps and to argue generally for a textile
decorating function. Finally, the symbolic
potential of the motifs within the life of early
farming societies is evaluated by invoking
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
several ethnographic parallels as well as by
examining current explanatory interpretations
made by archaeologists who have focussed on
this very issue.
The Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Neo-
lithic Stamps
The earliest known stamps, made of stone,
were found in pre-pottery Neolithic (PPN)
levels at Ras Shamra in Levant, dated to the
end of the 8th millennium Cal bc (Figures 1
and 2). Byblos, Bouqras, Çayönü, Halula and
Amuq A stamps are among the earliest known
examples of these objects, and are dated to the
late 8th–early 7th millennia Cal bc (Makkay
1984: 76; Lichter 2005: 69; Skeates 2007: 184).
Seal impressions on plaster have been attested
at late 7th millennium sites like Bouqras and
El-Kown (Duistermaat and Akkermans 1996:
18). The burnt village of Sabi Abyad in north-
ern Syria, dated to c. 6000 Cal bc, contained
in various buildings around 300 clay sealings
applied on small containers such as basketry,
pottery or stone; together these comprise
one of the oldest examples of economically
intended sealing practice (for details see Duis-
termaat and Akkermans 1996).
Pieces of obsidian with inscribed designs,
possible initial attempts to make stamping
devices, were found in the virtually aceramic
pre-XII levels at Çatalhöyük (Hodder 2006:
177). A stone object, similar to the Ras Shamra
example, with an incised face that showed
lines and dots also appeared in Çatalhöyük
IX (c. 6900–6800 Cal bc—Türkcan 2006:
183). Clay stamps that are more analogous to
the later Anatolian and southeast European
examples have been found at Çatalhöyük in
levels VII-II, covering a period roughly from
6700–6400 Cal bc (Türkcan 2006: 175).
As the above mentioned examples con-
stitute the earliest known stamps, there is
general agreement among scholars that the
origin of stamps has to be situated somewhere
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 5

Figure 1. Sites mentioned in the text.

Figure 2. A simplified comparative chart showing Ulucak’s chronological position with respect to the geographical
regions mentioned in the text. All dates are given as Cal bc. Light gray lines indicate the earliest appear-
ances of stamps in a region. The downward-pointing arrows point out the presence of earlier cultural
strata. Absolute dates and period names are based on Özdoğan and Başgelen (eds.) 2007; Cruells and
Nieuwenhuyse 2004: table 2; Papathanassopoulos 1996: fig. 3 and Skeates 2005: table 1.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009

6 Çilingiroğlu
between the Levant-northern Syria and cen-
tral Anatolia, whence they were dispersed
towards the west.
A good number of recently excavated Ana-
tolian Neolithic sites, beyond Çatalhöyük and
Hacılar, such as Tepecik-Çiftlik, Bademağacı,
Höyücek, Ulucak, Hoca Çeşme, Ege Gübre
and Yeşilova, also yielded stamps executed in
various forms and styles with circular to rec-
tangular faces and linear, floral or labyrinth-
like designs (Özdoğan-Başgelen 2007). The
wide typological range of Anatolian stamps
and the highly variable images on the carved
faces contradict Makkay’s (1984: 73) sugges-
tion that Anatolian stamps display a limited
range of motifs that differs fundamentally from
southeast European examples. From recent
archaeological work at Ulucak in İzmir, it
has become clear that maze-like images were
among the motifs applied on the Anatolian
stamp faces around 6200 Cal bc. The opposite
is also true. As Lichter (2005: fig. 4) demon-
strated, concentric circles and spirals consid-
ered typical for Anatolia are also encountered
at north Syrian sites like Halula or El-Kown
on the one hand, and at Sesklo on Thessalian
Plain, Nea Nikomedeia in northern Greece,
and Azmak in northern Bulgaria on the other.
Moreover, the same motifs appear on stamps
from Il Pescale near Modena in northern Italy
and Maliq in Albania (Calegari 2008: fig. 1;
Naumov 2008: pl. 12).
On mainland Greece, the earliest defined
Neolithic horizon is devoid of stamps. The
following Early–Middle Neolithic (EN-MN)
periods, however, contain a good number of
clay and steatite stamps. For instance, EN
phases at Sesklo (6500–5900 Cal bc) yielded
six examples while MN phases (5800–5300
Cal bc) contained 21 stamps, both clay and
steatite variants (Alram-Stern 1996: 325).
Likewise in Bulgaria, EN deposits (c. 6400–
5800 Cal bc) across the country reveal a broad
variety of stamps that include perforated and
unperforated as well as round, oval and rec-
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
tangular types. The motifs range from spirals
and concentric circles to zig-zags and other
linear compositions (Dzhanfezova 2003; Cho-
hadzhiev 2007: 123; fig. 103). Additionally,
analogous stamps are found ubiquitously in
Early Neolithic material cultures of southeast
Europe—Starčevo and Körös (Makkay 1984;
Naumov 2008).
Italian stamps with linear, labyrinthine and
dotted motifs are encountered towards the end
of the 6th millennium bc, and appear together
with impressed and painted pottery (Skeates
2007: 186). The morphological and decora-
tive similarities between Anatolian, southeast
European and Italian examples are more than
obvious, an observation that has substantial
implications with respect to the Neolithiza-
tion process (see below). But these examples
also serve to demonstrate that it is difficult to
establish geographical limits for certain motifs
obviously reproduced in a broad region for a
long time by many groups.
In terms of the Neolithization debate, I
have argued elsewhere (Çilingiroğlu 2005)
that stamps constitute one of the items that
formed the so-called southwest Asian ‘Neo-
lithic package’. Their wide distribution is
not a unique phenomenon but is actually
accompanied by many other objects (pottery,
stamps, bone spatulae, figurines, bone belt
hooks, ‘offering tables’, ear plugs, etc.) that
show a similar distribution pattern (for other
common elements see Perlès 2005: table 1).
Moreover, the earliest examples of these items
are found in the PPN era of southwest Asia
and Anatolia. The wide range of these items as
well as their ubiquity in the material cultures
of the Neolithic imply that stamps were well
integrated into the daily lives of early farm-
ing communities. Therefore it can be argued
that these objects are material expressions of
a certain lifeway formed during the long-term
process that we term Neolithization. In this
sense, the occurrence of identical objects in
far-distant areas is a phenomenon that cannot
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 7
be explained solely as an outcome of ‘cultural
contact’ or a ‘trade network’. Hence, it can
be asserted that stamps, in accordance with
the views of Özdoğan (1997; 2007: fig. 2) and
Perlès (2001: 52-63), together with domesti-
cated plants and animals and other common
material cultural elements, are manifestations
of a long-term, complicated dispersal process
of people mainly from southwest Asia through
Anatolia and/or the Mediterranean to south-
east Europe and Italy. It must be noted here
that demic diffusion as a dispersal model, as
described by Zvelebil (2001), is insufficient
to explain a historical process of such grand
scale. However, the available evidence points
to movements of people rather than the sole
movements of ideas. Skeates (2007: 184)
maintains that this dispersal, together with
communication networks and group mobility,
generated social and cultural entities through-
out this vast geographic region that both
resembled and differed from each other.
What Were Neolithic Stamps Used For?
Several scholars have recently made vari-
ous suggestions on different grounds about
the function(s) of stamps (e.g. Bailey 2000;
Umurtak 2000; Perlès 2001; Budja 2003;
Türkcan 2006; Hodder 2006; Skeates 2007;
Gheorghiu 2008). Their proposals include
the following:
1. items to stamp bread or baskets
2. personal objects owned by certain indi-
viduals
3. amulets to be worn and carried
4. tokens (together with so-called ‘ear
plugs’) to record and count commodi-
ties
5. potters’ marks
6. marking flock animals
7. decorating textiles, leather, skin and/or
other cultural items
8. a combination of the above practices.
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
All of these suggestions have been made on
archaeological and ethnographic grounds. In
what follows, I discuss these suggestions by
presenting the main arguments raised for and
against each of them.
The idea that stamps were used to mark bread
or baskets originates from negative evidence.
The absence of sealings in the archaeological
record has led archaeologists to conclude that
the marks would have been made on perish-
able materials such as bread or baskets. Thus it
is generally agreed that whatever these stamps
were used to mark and create patterns for,
they were organic materials that simply did
not survive. Moreover, the stamping of breads
is attested both historically and archaeologi-
cally. For instance, actual stamped breads have
been recovered at 1st-century ad Pompeii,
in a carbonized state (Galavaris 1970: 26).
There are both economic and ritual explana-
tions for bread marking. In economic terms,
it is assumed that the designs executed on the
faces of the stamps represent certain commodi-
ties owned by specific families or households
(Umurtak 2000: 7). Such a view assumes that
Neolithic communities had a system of cen-
tralized food production, and thus communal
areas where agricultural products of the entire
community were stored and redistributed. In
such a scenario, breads or baskets that hold
grains need to be marked so that each house-
hold that contributed to agricultural produc-
tion overall can recognize their own share.
Without even discussing problematic notions
of private property in prehistoric societies, one
needs to look at the archaeological data that
speak against this suggestion. The evidence
from 7–6th millennium Cal bc sites in west-
ern Turkey, Greece and southeast Europe, for
example, makes a strong case for production
and storage that occurred with no indication
of centralized authority. Communal storage
and food production areas that would imply
the existence of such an authority are sim-
ply unknown in this period. Archaeological
8 Çilingiroğlu
evidence from Ulucak V-IV, dated between
6500–5800 Cal bc, clearly demonstrates that
each house owned its own storage facilities
(daub silos, boxes or pottery vessels) and an
oven clearly suitable for baking purposes. In
my opinion, social organization of early farm-
ing communities—with a population of few
hundred who depended on a collaborative
lineage mode of production and kinship rela-
tions as the basis of social life (following Meil-
lassoux 1975; 1978)—would not necessitate
such an undertaking. The central control and
redistribution of agricultural products seem to
have appeared in northern Mesopotamia in
the socio-political context of centralization,
urbanization and the emergence of states.
Therefore, the marking of breads or baskets
to indicate certain households in a central-
ized system of storage and redistribution seems
implausible for communities in western Tur-
key and southern Europe.
On the other hand, the possibility of a
ritual exercise of bread marking during the
Neolithic period cannot be dismissed easily.
Breads can be marked for special occasions
such as feasts, weddings, funerals or religious
ceremonies. Alternatively, stamping of bread
might provide an apotropaic effect for the
product or consumer. There is no archaeologi-
cal evidence speaking against the ritual use of
Neolithic stamps on baked products; moreo-
ver, both Umurtak (2000: 7) and Gheorghiu
(2008: 89) carried out successful experiments
on marking bread with replicas of Neolithic
stamps. Historically, the ritual stamping of
breads is widely attested. For example, in early
Christian cultures (4–10th centuries ad), ‘X’
symbolized Christ, the tripartite division of
bread symbolized the Trinity and an image
of dove referred to the Christian church.
Such stamped breads were consumed only
by Christians who could decode such other-
wise obscure symbols. Later, stamped breads
believed to give health and life to those who
consumed them (the so-called ‘hygieia bread’)
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
became a crucial item in Christian ritual prac-
tice (Galavaris 1970: 29-32, 49-52). It should
also be noted that the bread stamps illustrated
in Galavaris’s book from this era—variously
made out of wood, bronze or clay—are mor-
phologically very similar to the Neolithic
stamps. As a result, in the light of histori-
cal, experimental and ethnographic data, and
even though archaeological evidence is lack-
ing, bread marking might well be a plausible
explanation for how stamps may have been
used during the Neolithic.
Stamps have also been interpreted as per-
sonal items. Hodder (2006: 231) argues that
two stamps found in burials at Çatalhöyük in
levels IV and VI indicate ownership. In other
words, these items carried individual designs
associated with certain individuals, a reflec-
tion of an increasingly material way of life
towards the end of the Neolithic sequence
in Turkey. This is a challenging view but
it should be noted that the most stamps
from Çatalhöyük were not found in contexts
related to mortuary practices, which makes
the deposition of stamps in burials an excep-
tion rather than the rule. Perlès (2001: 252-
53), moreover, has pointed out that stamps
display only a limited range of motifs, which
impedes their identification as items for single
individuals. It could be countered, however,
that identical stamps have not been found at
Çatalhöyük. In short, Hodder’s proposal, at
least for Çatalhöyük, is not implausible.
Stamps used as amulets is yet another pos-
sible function. Skeates (2007: 195), however,
makes the interesting point that if the stamps
were worn as amulets around the neck, their
decorated faces would have faced downwards,
thus not catching the attention of the viewer.
Besides, not every stamp has a perforated han-
dle and not every perforation automatically
implies an amulet function for stamps. Perfo-
rations might have served other purposes such
as hanging these items on a wooden post or
simply making them more mobile. Neverthe-
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 9
less, the facts that some stamps were perfo-
rated, and are light and small in size, endorses
the idea that they were suspended and thus
might have been worn as amulets.
Budja (2003: 119) has proposed that stamps
were used as counting devices (‘calculi’), and
has argued that the so-called ‘ear plugs’, ‘pins’
and stamps constituted standardized items
of a well-organized interregional trade net-
work that spanned the Aegean and southeast
Europe during the 7–6th millennia bc. He
thereby rejects all the other non-economic
functions. While intriguing, Budja’s theory
needs further supporting data similar to those
from Sabi Abyad mentioned above.
One suggestion that tends to be rejected
by all scholars is the function of stamp seals
as potters’ marks. The paucity of ceramic
evidence bearing such marks indicates stamp
seals were not used in this manner on a large
scale. Interestingly enough, a rim sherd with
red colored concentric circles found at Ulu-
cak might provide the first evidence of apply-
ing stamps on a pottery surface. The design
and size of the concentric circles match those
known on Neolithic stamps. The concentric
circle design is ubiquitous in Anatolia and
does not seem to be executed by hand, which
leads us to propose that this pattern might
have been created by stamping. The unique
appearance of this sherd, however, does not
suffice to make a case for the widespread use
of stamps as potters’ marks.
Clay stamps are also suitable for heating,
and an experimental study showed that, when
heated, animal skin can be marked with them.
In this case, stamps would have functioned to
distinguish animals in a flock according to
their household (Gheorghiu 2008: 99).
One of the most common interpretations
of stamps is their use in decorating textiles,
and thus their relation to weaving and textile
production and decoration. For instance, Mel-
laart (1970: 164), who dismissed their func-
tion as seals due to the absence of clay sealings
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
from both Hacılar and Çatalhöyük, argued for
a textile-related function since, according to
him, some wall paintings display clothes or
tapestries that have designs similar to those
seen on stamps. He also argued in favor of veg-
etal dyes used by the Çatalhöyük community
in textile decoration, since wild plants used for
obtaining dyes existed in the vicinity of the
mound. Accordingly, Duru (2002: 560) also
interprets their function as pattern-stamping
devices on woven fabrics or skin. Perlès (2001:
252-53) emphasizes eth­no­graphic data from
Greece, Turkey and South America, where
the use of analogous objects to decorate tex-
tiles and skin is widely attested. She suggests
that stamps might have been used to deco-
rate narrow linen strips or ribbons as well as
borders of larger fabrics. Indeed, Gheorghiu’s
(2008: figs. 9-11) experimental work indicates
that clay stamps would be appropriate tools to
decorate textiles.
Those who oppose a textile-related func-
tion underline the fact that no traces of dyes
or paint are observed on the recovered exam-
ples, which should have survived if they were
used in activities related to textile decora-
tion. It is also true that the textile fragments
found at Çatalhöyük and elsewhere in Turkey
contained neither traces of paint nor patterns
on them similar to those observed on stamps.
Türkcan (2006: 182), however, states that
two Çatalhöyük stamps seem to have white-
and black-colored paint traces. One of these
stamps is included in an exhibition catalogue
Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien, Ältesten Mon-
umente der Menschheit (Karlsruhe: Badisches
Landesmuseum 2007, catalogue number 409).
The high-resolution color photo allows one
to see the white-colored residues inside the
grooved lines of the stamp face. As Türkcan
asserts, the material that fills these depres-
sions needs to be analyzed chemically in order
to ascertain whether these were remnants of a
pigment or dye. Interestingly enough, Skeates
(2007: 188) refers to the excavation report of
10 Çilingiroğlu
Caverna delle Arene Candide in Italy where
a ‘white plaster-like substance in the holes
and grooves’ of some stamps is mentioned.
Clear evidence of red, yellow and white paint
on stamps is indeed attested at two sites in
Romania, Olteni-Vármege and Frumuşica-
Cetǎtuia (Skeates 2007: 185). Childe (1929:
103) also mentions the existence of red
paint on some stamps from Erösd in southern
Romania. Although sporadic, the existence
of paint residues observed on stamps is crucial
evidence that needs to be taken into consid-
eration for the sake of any further analysis
and interpretation. The danger of losing sub-
stances preserved on the stamps is high where
such finds are subject to mechanical cleaning
or washing after their recovery.
Mellaart (1967: 262-63) explained the
absence of dyes on stamps and textiles by
refer­ence to post-depositional factors, because
vegetal dyes, unlike mineral dyes used for wall
paintings, tend to disappear. A few painted
female figurines would seem to support his sug-
gestion. In particular, a sitting female figurine
with red colored crosses all over her body from
level VI at Çatalhöyük (Mellaart 1967: fig. 79)
resembles motifs observed on stamps (Türkcan
2006: 182). It is also interesting to note that
this female figure indisputably represents a
naked woman. I am inclined to agree with
Mellaart in interpreting these motifs as similar
to motifs seen on stamps, but feel it would
be more suitable to interpret the patterns as
being applied to skin rather than on clothes.
Mellaart (1967: 262; 1970: 164) opposes this
suggestion in both the Çatalhöyük and Hacılar
publications, because he associates such a prac-
tice with ‘primitive people’.
Another point which casts doubt on the
use of the stamps as a tool made to decorate
textiles is their low numbers. One would
expect more examples from settlements if the
stamping of textiles and clothes was common
practice in Neolithic communities. Bailey
(2000: 110) points out that on average four
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
examples are found in every settlement. Some
sites have higher quantities; for example, 48
stamps are known from Çatalhöyük, appear-
ing between levels VII-II and thus covering
a period of roughly four centuries (Türkcan
2006; 2007). Nea Nikomedeia yielded 21
stamps (Onassoglou 1996: 163) while 27 are
known from early-middle Neolithic levels of
Sesklo (Alram-Stern 1996: 325). Interest-
ingly, early Neolithic Achilleion yielded only
two, one made out of alabaster and the other of
clay (Gimbutas et al. 1989). There are several
factors that might have caused such dispropor-
tionate quantities of stamps at different sites.
Both Mellaart (1970: 164) and Perlès (2001:
289) point out that such objects could have
been made of wood, or less frequently of clay.
Ethnographic examples known from Turkey,
Greece, Pakistan and India support the exten-
sive use of wood for textile stamps (Figure
3). Another significant factor that would
have affected the disproportionate number
of stamps found is the excavation strategy
adopted at any given site. Methodology, pace,
duration and awareness all affect how and
if small finds like stamp seals are recovered.
For these reasons, comparing the fluctuating
quantity of these objects in the framework of
functional discussions might be misleading.
Another factor that undermines a function
related to textiles is the lack of contextual
evidence (Budja 2003: 118). Information on
the contexts of stamps in the literature is sur-
prisingly rare. At Hacılar, three out of seven
stamps originate from disturbed deposits. The
others were found in levels IIb and I. Con-
textual information, however, is not included
in the report. Seals at Achilleion were found
in deposits belonging to phase IIIb, and it
is mentioned that an alabaster seal with
perforated handle was found in a ‘cult area’
(Gimbutas et al. 1989: 212). At Bademağacı
in Turkey, Duru (2001: 587) mentions a rec-
tilinear stamp seal uncovered in House 6 from
level early Neolithic 3. In level 5 at Tepecik-
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 11
Figure 3. A wooden textile stamp with a motif similar to Neolithic stamps sold at antiquities market in Çeşme,
İzmir (photo by author).
Çiftlik, dated roughly to 6000 Cal bc, a cir-
cular stamp with concentric circles and about
ten obsidian spearheads were found in the
same context (Bıçakçı et al. 2007: 248).
Two studies provide detailed contextual
information (Türkcan 2006; Skeates 2007)
that I summarize here. At Çatalhöyük (Türk-
can 2006; 2007), stamps have been found in
a variety of archaeological contexts, includ-
ing areas designated by Mellaart as ‘shrines’,
houses, midden areas and burials. A quantita-
tive comparison of the stamps found during
Mellaart’s excavations reveals that houses
together with ‘shrines’ constitute 17 of 24 find
locations, while an additional three exam-
ples were found in open areas. There are two
instances from levels VI and IV where burials
contained a stamp. The fact that stamps are
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
encountered among the cultural items that
occur in burial contexts, albeit infrequently,
leads me to reconsider Hodder’s suggestion
that these objects might have belonged to and
been carried by individuals as items or amulets
that symbolize social status and identity. Yet
the fact that the majority of the stamps have
appeared in houses and midden areas cannot
be ignored.
Skeates’ (2007) study of Italian examples
examines their contexts and their preserva-
tion to infer use-life. The Italian stamps stem
from a variety of contexts including pits, cave
deposits and burials. Although there is some
ambiguity surrounding the nature of the cave
deposits, one of the stamps from Grotta dei
Cervi was found in an undisputed residential
context that contained hearths, bones and
12 Çilingiroğlu
pottery dated to the 4th millennium Cal bc.
Four skeletons found in another cave deposit
were accompanied by pottery, lithics, a mini-
ature polished axe and a stamp. Skeates (2007:
193) maintains that the preservation condi-
tions of stamps might provide clues to their
‘biographies’ and depositional circumstances.
Some of the damaged stamps he analyzed,
which were either broken on one end perpen-
dicular to the long axis or in half, may have
resulted from too much pressure being applied
when stamping occurred. Some intact stamps
found in caves might have been deliberately
deposited.
The above examples indicate that stamps
have been found in a variety of depositional
contexts including houses, caves, courtyards,
refuse pits, ritually elaborate contexts and
burials. The presence of stamp seals in refuse
pits indicates that in some instances these
artefacts were accorded unexceptional treat-
ment. Moreover, the buildings identified as
‘shrines’ or ‘cult areas’ where stamps were
encountered may be re-evaluated in terms of
their function(s), but reassessing the nature
of these contexts is beyond the scope of this
paper. Their occurrence in burials is an issue
that needs to be underlined, as it allows us to
consider the possibility that personal items—
strongly connected to their owner—may have
led to their deposition in mortuary contexts.
Contextual information from the Ulucak
mound in western Turkey sheds further light
on the issue of the function of stamps. In what
follows, the archaeological contexts of Ulucak
stamps are presented in detail with the aim of
finding clues relevant to the function(s) of
Neolithic stamps in general.
Ulucak Stamps
Ulucak is a multi-layered mound located 25
km east of İzmir, which has been excavated
since 1995 by a team from Ege University
and the İzmir Archaeological Museum (Figure
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
1). The early occupational levels of inter-
est here are IV-V, dated to 6500–5800 Cal
bc with 26 radiocarbon dates available from
various building phases (Figure 2). Both levels
have sub-phases representing different build-
ing phases. Level IV has ten sub-phases, from
IVa-k while level V currently comprises seven
superimposed building phases termed Va-g.
Two recent AMS determinations securely
date phase Vg, represented by red-painted
lime floors, in the first half of the 7th millen-
nium Cal bc (Beta-250266: 7770±50 bp and
Beta-250265: 7910±50 bp). The virgin soil on
the mound has yet to be reached.
The location of Ulucak on a fertile collu-
vial-alluvial plain, its layout with clustered
houses, courtyards and open areas, daub-based
rectilinear architecture, as well as the mate-
rial culture uncovered from the site, find their
best parallels at contemporary sites known
from central and western Anatolia, Thrace,
and the Macedonian and Thessalian plains.
The community relied heavily on cultivation
of einkorn wheat and six-hulled barley as well
as animal herding, dominated by sheep and
goats. The importance of the site comes from
its geographical location in central-western
Anatolia where excavations of Neolithic sites
have only been undertaken recently.
The Neolithic levels IV and V are distin-
guished by differences in the building tech-
niques. Level IV (c. 6000–5800 Cal bc)
is characterized by substantial rectangular
mudbrick buildings clustered around open
areas. The structures from level V (c. 6500–
6000 Cal bc) are again rectilinear but are
built with a wattle-and-daub technique that
gives a flimsy appearance to the houses. Both
free-standing and attached houses have been
excavated from various building phases of
this level. Pottery from the site is dominated
by fine burnished wares. Painted pottery is
encountered only rarely in all occupational
levels. In level IV, red slipped and burnished
wares and impressed pottery constitute almost
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 13

the entire assemblage. In the earlier level V,
red slipped wares are accompanied increas-
ingly with cream slipped and burnished wares
and dark colored burnished wares, which
are likewise fine. With building phase Vb,
impressed pottery disappears completely,
and overall the quantity of pottery decreases
sharply with phase Vf. The lithic industry,
usually of chert and to a lesser extent obsidian,
is characterized by a blade production tech-
nology (Çilingiroğlu et al. 2004; Çilingiroğlu
and Çilingiroğlu 2007). Ulucak IV-V yielded
many objects considered typical for contem-
porary settlements, and can be defined as ele-
ments of the ‘Neolithic package’ (Çilingiroğlu
2005: table 1). These include human (both
female and male) figurines, animal figurines,
polished axes, bone spatulae, ‘offering tables’,
clay sling missiles, bone needles, bone polish-
ers, ‘ear plugs’ and stamps.
At Ulucak, between the years 1995–2008,
seven stamps have been recovered, some of
which have already been published but never
discussed in detail with respect to their find
contexts and functions (Derin et al. 2003:
fig. 8; Abay 2005: fig. 2; Çilingiroğlu and
Dedeoğlu 2007: figs. 9-11). Two of these
stamps were found in deposits designated as
level IV whereas the other five stem from ear-
lier level V (Figure 4). The earliest examples

Figure 4. Stamps found at Ulucak: 1-2 from level IVb; 3-4 from Vb; 5-7 from level Vc. Stamps are named accord-
ingly in the text (illustration: Canan Karataş).

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009

14 Çilingiroğlu
are from sub-phase Vc. Only one of them,
relatively large in size, has a quasi-square
shape with a symmetrical step-like motif. The
other stamps are either circular or oval, mostly
with concentric circles or ‘S’ spirals executed
in different styles; all these designs are well
attested in Neolithic Turkey as well as in
southern Europe. All Ulucak stamps are made
out of clay that contained small to medium-
sized mineral non-plastic inclusions.1 They
are moderately to highly fired, showing well-
smoothed or burnished surfaces. The patterns
must have been carved on a prepared surface
with a sharp, pointed instrument when the
clay was leather-hard. The surface colors range
from tones of brown to dark red indicating
oxidizing to non-oxidizing firing conditions.
In some cases a handle is preserved but none of
them is pierced. On most stamps from Ulucak
the patterns are carved deeply (c. 3.5-4 mm),
except for the most recent example from level
IVb, which has shallower incisions in compari-
son to earlier examples. The dimensions of the
stamps range from 2 × 2 cm (Stamp 5) to 5 ×
6 cm (Stamp 3).
Stamp 1
The latest example comes from level IVb,
dated around 5900–5800 Cal bc. It was found
in the northern part of Building 12, a mud-
brick structure with stone foundations and
plastered walls. An ‘L’-shaped wattle and daub
wall protruding from the northern wall of the
building divides the inner space into two sepa-
rate but connected sections with a floor that
has been plastered at least three times (Derin
et al. 2003: 242). The stamp unearthed in
the building was found in association with 11
donut-shaped loom weights2 deposited as a pile
on the floor (Figure 5). The fact that the loom
weights were found not in a row (which would
have indicated a set-up warp-weighted loom)
but as a stored set (probably in a vessel) implies
that the loom was not set up at the time of the
fire that destroyed building 12. Ethnographic
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
evidence provides cases of the dismantling of
looms and the storing of weights in containers
when not in use (Barber 1991: 102). A set of
11 weights in this building may be seen as the
result of the same phenomenon.
It is worth noting the wide variety of
objects from this area, including pottery ves-
sels, worked stones, lithic tools, polished axes,
a few pierced shells, bone needles, six pierced
beads, one cylindrical clay object, grinding
stones and pestles. In the same deposit, on
the eastern side of the collapsed inner wall, a
coarsely made miniature jar with four tubular
lugs (only 4.8 cm high) was found. The high
quantity and variety of finds from the same
area imply that this was an activity area where
weaving and textile decoration took place.
Apart from the loom weights, bone needles
and awls, pierced shells and beads might also
have formed part of the activities related to
textiles that could have been decorated with
these items. Finally, the presence of an intact
red-slipped and burnished stamp with five
concentric circles in this area might not be
mere coincidence but actually an indication of
its function. The fact that the stamp showed
residues of a red material in its grooves should
also be mentioned. The intactness of the find
indicates that it was actively used before the
building was burnt.
Thus it can be argued that the northern
part of Building 12 was an activity area where,
among other things, textile manufacture and/
or decoration took place, and that the stamp
found in association with other tools and
items had a function related to the these
activities.
Stamp 2
The second example was recovered from fill
deposits in level IVg. Preserved almost intact,
this stamp was rather coarsely made with
deep carvings. It is partly charred, perhaps as
a result of the firing process. The color of the
uncharred part is orange-brown. The face, 2.8
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 15
Figure 5. Find location of Stamp 1 in Building 12 in association with loom-weights, bone needles, shell beads, and
stone artifacts (photo: Archive of Ulucak Excavations).
× 3.2 cm, has concentric ‘U’ shapes on it. The
find spot does not provide us with good infor-
mation but its deposition does not suggest any
form of ritual practice. It was found in burnt
deposits and fill lacking a clear association
with any architectural features. Accompany-
ing finds were flint and obsidian pieces, bones,
shells and pottery sherds.
Stamp 3
One of the best-preserved stamps from Ulu-
cak was discovered in deposits belonging to
building level Vb, which is characterized by
relatively well-preserved rectilinear wattle-
and-daub structures with extensive evidence of
storage facilities and daily activities (Figure 6).
This stamp, rectangular with concentric step
motifs, was found in heavily burnt Building
33 which, although only partially excavated,
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
contained five circular daub silos and a highly
damaged oven (Çilingiroğlu and Dedeoğlu
2007: 138-39). Among the various objects and
finds found in the building, a concentration of
22 spindle whorls and this single stamp must
be noted, since they were found in association
with each other on the floor at the same eleva-
tion. Light brown in color, this stamp has an
intact face of 5 × 6 cm, but a broken handle
that may have resulted from post-depositional
events. Additionally, in the same area of the
floor deposit adjacent to the southern grid
wall, we recovered a stylized human figurine
with a textile piece on its shoulder (Figure 7).
Preservation of a piece of textile at Ulucak
is as surprising as its find location with spindle
whorls and Stamp 3. The woven piece of cloth
certainly suggests that textiles were produced
at Neolithic Ulucak, which was already indi-
16 Çilingiroğlu
Figure 6. Plan of buildings 30, 31 and 33 of building phase Vb with find locations of Stamps 3 and 4.
cated by bone needles, spindle whorls and
loom weights. This textile piece was executed
as a plain weave made with one warp and one
weft. It is impossible to tell whether the figure
was clothed or simply kept wrapped in a cloth.
Both possibilities have been attested ethno-
graphically (Talalay 1993). What is of most
interest for the present discussion is the inter-
relationship of this find with the other objects
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
and features surrounding it. Thus we need
to consider the function of Neolithic stamps
in terms of a context combining 22 spindle
whorls, the clothed figurine and Stamp 3.
It is difficult, however, to argue for a textile
manufacturing area in this building because
of the lack of space and the presence of silos
and an oven, which indicate that storage and
cooking took place here instead of spinning
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 17
Figure 7. Idol with textile fragment found in Building 33 and its microscopic detail (photo: Archive of Ulucak
Excavations).
and weaving. Nonetheless it important to
note that the southern part of the building
remains in an unexcavated grid, and hence
one cannot rule out the possibility that activi-
ties other than cooking and storage might
have taken place there. In any case, after the
contextual association of loom weights with
Stamp 1, this instance attests for the second
time the co-occurrence of textile manufactur-
ing tools with stamps, and in this case also a
clothed figurine. The fact that spindle whorls
were encountered as a set may suggest they
were stored here to be used at a later time.
Another interesting feature of this par-
ticular stamp is that careful examination of
its motif reveals a deeply carved, open, very
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
carefully executed symmetrical design. When
one half of this stepped motif is placed next
to the other half they complete each other by
forming two concentric stepped crosses, and
in their centre two concentric squares. Such a
technique is well-known from wooden textile
stamps used in pre-modern times to create
repetitive patterns on the surface of a cloth
(Gillow and Barnard 1991: 39). If this motif
was indeed applied to any material, the inten-
tion seems to have been to create repetitive
crosses on a surface. Based on both archaeo-
logical and ethnographical data, then, it is
possible to argue for the textile-related func-
tion of these objects, at least for this specific
example and perhaps for Stamp 1 as well.
18 Çilingiroğlu
Stamp 4
Another stamp found in level Vb is both mor-
phologically and contextually different from
the previous example. Stamp 4 was discov-
ered in an open area right outside of Buildings
33 and 31, the latter identified as a workshop
(Figure 6). This area is characterized by its
intensity of finds, including potsherds, lith-
ics, bone fragments, sling shots and few loom
weights. The clay of the stamp is fine, having
small mineral non-plastic inclusions; the sur-
face is reddish brown and lightly burnished.
It has a circular shape and is almost intact,
except for small breaks on the edges. The
unusual motif distinguishes this stamp from
others (Figure 4).
The findspot does not help in understanding
the function of this object. It is not possible to
establish connections with Building 33, also
identified as a workshop and containing sub-
stantial amounts of stone flakes, debitage and
implements as well as large numbers of clay
objects, such as sling shots and loom weights,
in one corner. The function of the workshop
could have been to house activities related to
the production of these clay objects. It would
be far fetched to argue, however, that Stamp
4 had any relation to the activities that took
place in Building 33. It can be suggested ten-
tatively that an activity area existed outside
the buildings, where community members
conducted a variety of activities including
decorating clothes.
Stamps 5, 6 and 7
All three of these stamps were found in the
same deposit at different elevations (214.97,
214.91 and 214.77 m asl) in grid L13b, assigned
to level Vc (Figure 4). Two of the stamps
found in this area are fragmentary, while the
third is only missing its outer circular edge.
The deposit in which they were found was
probably a refuse area since they were in every
case accompanied by many bones, potsherds,
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
bone tools, lithics, sling shots, polished stones
and loom weights. It may be argued that these
were discarded here after they were broken
or damaged during their use life. A case for
ritual deposition and fragmentation cannot be
maintained in the face of archaeological evi-
dence. In this respect, Chapman (2001: 225)
has argued that stamps and especially their
designed faces might have been kept intact as
opposed to many other clay and bone objects
that were deliberately fragmented during the
Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in south-
east Europe.
To summarize: archaeological evidence from
Ulucak demonstrates the contextual relation
of stamps with loom weights and spindle
whorls which in turn enables us to argue—on
archaeological grounds—that stamps were
indeed used in activities related to textile
manufacture. What cannot be demonstrated
at Ulucak is secure evidence for textile manu-
facturing areas with evidence of set-up looms
or any macro-remains of pigments and paint
on the stamp faces (although Stamp 1 shows
traces of red-colored residues in its grooves).
Since the Ulucak stamps were not analyzed
microscopically or chemically, one cannot
rule out the possibility that micro-residues sur-
vive on their faces. Stamps 1 and 3 allow us to
maintain that these objects were stamped on
textiles and clothes due to their contextual
associations. It should also be noted that both
Stamp 1 and Stamp 3 were found in burnt
buildings that preserved substantial evidence
of daily life; there is no evidence of distur-
bance by later occupations. Stamp 3, notably,
was designed deliberately in a way that would
result in repetitive stepped crosses on woven
fabrics. Archaeological contexts of other Ulu-
cak stamps are not expedient in terms of their
function but do serve to demonstrate ordinary
deposition. Fragmentary stamps in refuse pits
indicate that stamps were discarded the same
way as other clay objects without any ritual
significance. The presence of a single pottery
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 19
rim sherd with concentric circles may be con-
sidered as an example of stamps being applied
to cultural media other than textiles. None-
theless I would question their function as pot-
ters’ marks. Finally, in the absence of human
burials at Ulucak IV-V, one cannot argue that
these were items of personal significance or
that they provide explicit evidence of ritual
deposition. Hence, the Ulucak data require us
to interpret the function of the actual objects
as stamps used on various cultural media,
mainly textiles. Their use for other purposes,
e.g. personal decoration on human skin or for
ritual bread stamping, cannot be excluded.
Designs: Decorative, Symbolic or Both?
The function or role of the stamped designs,
independent from the question of the cultural
medium on which they were applied, is also
a significant issue that warrants discussion.
The stamped designs can be construed sim-
ply as decorative without any specific deeper
meaning attached to their shapes. Since most
images are abstract, simple geometrical and
floral motifs, it is possible to suggest that these
were arbitrary shapes of a decorative nature
in the sense of making people or objects
more beautiful and nothing else (Halle 1998).
Alternatively, as Bloch (1995) reminds us,
these designs might have been embedded
almost unconsciously in the daily routine
of Neolithic communities, and striving to
ascertain the concrete meanings behind these
designs may be naive. Nevertheless, it is cru-
cial to acknowledge that symbols exist and
play a vital role in any given society. Here
we are reminded of the provocative question
uttered by Eco (1977: 14) in his short story
about a character called Sigma: ‘we have to
ask ourselves whether the symbols allow Sigma
to live in a society, or whether the society in
which Sigma lives and perceives himself as a
human being is nothing but a complex system
of symbols’ (translation by the author).
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
Unmasking the deeper structural meanings
encapsulated in material culture, however,
has long been central to interpretive archae-
ology (e.g. Hodder 1982; 1989) and Neolithic
stamps with their intriguing geometrical and
floral shapes are not to be excluded from such
discussions. In this section, I present a survey
of how images on stamps and their embed-
dedness in a Neolithic way of life have been
construed in several recent studies.
The archaeological study of symbols has gen-
erated diverse and contradicting viewpoints
with respect to their role and meaning in pre-
historic societies. Robb (1998) maintains that
there is no single methodology to decode sym-
bols and that one needs to be aware of the right
questions to ask. He emphasizes (Robb 1998:
341) that it is crucial to realize that studying
symbolic meanings should engage with vari-
ous aspects like context, medium, intention,
genre, register, style and attitude. For our
purposes, the contribution of post-structuralist
studies to the archaeological interpretation of
symbols is worth mentioning. In this view, the
assumed dichotomy between the material and
ideal worlds has to be discarded because mean-
ing appears only when both spheres come into
interaction. Thomas (1998: 151), for exam-
ple, argues as follows: ‘Thinking is not some-
thing which takes place in a separate space
called the mind: it is a means of engagement
in the world, and it would not be possible if
we did not already exist in a material world,
alongside other beings’. To describe the post-
structuralist viewpoint on symbols, Robb uses
‘tesserae’ or ‘lego’ metaphors which imply that
meanings or symbols are created when small
mosaic pieces, by themselves devoid of coher-
ent meanings, are brought together to form
a meaningful whole that can be maintained
only temporarily. For instance, in our case,
images on stamps may have superficial direct
representational meanings and simultaneously
entail deeper structural connotations in rela-
tion to the socio-cultural context in which
20 Çilingiroğlu
they are implemented. Alternatively these
images, displayed and viewed, do create simple
appeal to the visual senses (Skeates 2007: 194;
see also Skeates 2005: 1-15) but they can also
be related exclusively to people with prede-
fined gender, social status or age. As a result,
the meanings related to these images cannot
be single, stable and permanent; they must
be multi-layered, dynamic and temporary.
Aldhouse-Green (2004: 2) terms this ‘flex-
ible intention’, which allows an approach for
interpreting artifacts and images as ‘indicative
of polyvalent activity and purpose, of multifo-
cal meanings’.
Skeates’ (2007) work, in this respect,
achieves a dynamic, multi-layered and open-
ended interpretation as it aims to reconstruct
artifact biographies and the cultural embed-
dedness of the images; this would provide
a key to unlocking some of the ambiguities
related to these intriguing items. He argues
that the production of stamps, characterized
by their portable nature, is basically uncom-
plicated. In contrast, the images carefully
carved on them are not only culturally and
technically restricted but also memorable,
visually striking and captivating. This is why
Skeates considers these abstract shapes as
potentially ‘powerful graphic images’ that
might have entailed ancestral symbols per-
petually reproduced through space and time,
be it in profane or ritual social contexts. It
is this long-term reproduction of culturally
limited images transmitted across vast spaces
and through millennia that makes their pres-
ence in archaeological assemblages important.
Skeates regards various suggestions on their
functions as plausible: e.g. marking breads,
decorating textiles and serving as amulets.
The variation in their depositional patterns,
ranging from refuse pits to ritually elaborate
or mortuary contexts, is another indicator
that they were treated diversely by differ-
ent societies or individuals. Skeates (2007:
194-96) concludes that it is not the artifacts
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
themselves but the visually striking images
that mattered to Neolithic communities. His
conclusion would seem to be confirmed by the
presence of similar images on other cultural
media such as painted pottery, house walls and
figurines (Skeates 2005: 99; Nikolova 2003).
Along similar lines, Bailey (2000: 110) sug-
gests that stamps could have helped to con-
struct or maintain social as well as common
cultural contacts between communities. Com-
mon images like spirals, concentric circles
and maze-like shapes are found over a broad
geographic region, and might have generated
a sense of togetherness. Indeed anyone who is
aware of the central position of signs in any
society, prehistoric or modern, would doubt
that these motifs were simply decorative. The
importance is what they might have signified
to the community that constantly made use of
them.
The worldwide ethnographic record provides
cases to support symbolic meanings of designs,
whether used on artifacts or as self-decoration
(e.g. Greenhalgh and Megaw 1978; Sillitoe
1988; David et al. 1988). Here one can think
of the well-known example of designs seen on
Turkish kilims, woven by various Turkic tribes
(Figure 8). Both Mellaart (1967) and Yakar
(2005) have noted the striking similarity in
execution and perhaps in meaning between the
kilims and motifs on stamps. Designs seen on
kilims are often associated with myths, stories
told by the elders, wishes, fears or reflections
on daily life. Durul (1987) has suggested that
these themes may have been embedded in the
shamanistic worldview of formerly nomadic
tribes. Specifically, Türkmen and Yörük tex-
tiles are designed and woven predominantly,
but not exclusively, by women who learn this
craft early in life and who specialize in it. This
may be why the motifs mostly seem related
to themes central to the social life of women.
Most of the images symbolize themes such as
the desire to marry, men, harvest, jealousy,
gossip, and pregnancy, the wish for an easy
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 21

Figure 8. Major images observed on Turkish kilims. 1. Comb-hand motif: apotropaic, wish for an easy birth, fertil-
ity. 2. Eye: protection against evil eye. 3. Floral motif pıtrak (Arctium Lappa L.): apotropaic, abundance,
fertility. 4. Hand-on-waist: motherhood, fertility, womanhood. 5. Ram’s horn: masculinity, men, power,
heroism, expression of happiness. (images—modified after Durul 1987).

birth and a healthy baby. It has even been sug-
gested that images woven on kilims are meant
to be a non-verbal expression of opposition
to a patriarchal world (Rosetti 1992: 212).
Apotropaic symbols are mainly represented
by eye, cross, hand or comb motifs. Floral
designs include the pomegranate, which with
its many seeds and wheat-ear symbolizes the
wish for a good harvest and represents fertility
and wealth. Comparable motifs with protec-
tive powers are also found on wheat bags, silos
and on other storage facilities (Durul 1987:
94). These images, abstract as they are, mean
nothing to someone who does not know how
to ‘read’ them. They are elements of a non-
verbal language that can be decoded only
by people who produce and consume them.
Moreover, the meanings of identical images
may be fluid, changing from one tribe to the
other, from one region to the other and, inevi-
tably, evolving and being replaced through
the centuries (Hofmacher 1998: 150).
Once motifs on stamps are acknowledged
as part of a potentially powerful and dynamic
non-verbal language, we may note Hodder’s
(2006: 177) observation on the gradual trans-
fer of symbolic imagery from non-portable
(wall paintings) to portable media (pottery and
stamps). Similarly Budja (2005: 65) refers to a
‘transmission of old symbols to a new media’
within farming societies. Hodder (2006: 177)
construes this transformation as reflecting
a shift from a house-oriented and inward-
looking existence to an outward-looking and

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009

22 Çilingiroğlu
interaction-oriented way of living that is
materially more entangled. In this light, there
may have been a need amongst Neolithic com-
munities to transform the spatiality of ritually
important images to more easily transportable
cultural items. Repeatedly occurring designs of
limited repertoire on stamps and elsewhere in
geographically distant regions might indicate
that these images emerged from the collective
memory of various interrelated groups, per-
haps even signifying remote ancestral bonds.
By combining these suggestions, one can infer
that the abstract and simple designs seen on
stamps might relate to factors beyond decorat-
ing textiles, skin or marking breads, animals
and baskets. They embody familiar images of
certain spatio-temporal associations that can
only be decoded by groups who share a com-
mon memory and a common way of life. In
other words, reproduction of the same images
achieves familiarity, a feeling of security, just
like the early Christian stamped breads. In
this regard, the limited repertoire of images
encountered on stamps make more sense if
we assume they refer to related groups with a
shared memory of an ancient past who feel the
urge to stay attached through reproduction of
familiar images. Such an interpretation inevi-
tably entails implications related to the long-
term dispersal of the Neolithic way of life as a
complete entity.
It seems questionable, however, whether
the people of these communities consciously
intended to display such cultural associations.
Bourdieu’s (2006 [1977]: 79) remark on the
unintentional meanings of human actions
reminds us that this might not have been the
case. He asserts that ‘subjects do not, strictly
speaking, know what they are doing that
what they do has more meaning than they
know’. In other words, individuals are not
necessarily aware of the fact that the way in
which they act and communicate is actually
culturally constructed, as a result of long-term
historical process, and that such predefined
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
(or patterned) ways of acting and communi-
cating serve to maintain society’s underlying
structures, whose existence might never occur
to single individuals. Thus, even if we assume
that these motifs found a place in the collec-
tive graphic memory of early Anatolian and
southeast European farmers, we still cannot
infer that the primary intention behind this
activity was to assure that diverse groups with
a shared past remained attached. Thus the
question of intentionality remains open.
Concluding Remarks
Amongst several lines of conclusion engen-
dered by study are those related to the possible
function(s) of stamps as artifacts, archaeol-
ogy’s potential for determining their life his-
tories, the role of stamps in the Neolithization
debate, and the symbolic character of the
images carved on their faces.
The archaeological evidence from Ulucak
and other sites mentioned in the text provides
significant clues about the functions of Neo-
lithic stamps. The occurrence of stamps with
instruments used in textile manufacture and
decoration, the existence of paints on some
excavated examples, and their predominant
occurrence in houses and refuse areas have all
been discussed and evaluated in order to make
a case for a function related predominantly
to textile manufacturing. Notably, the con-
textual association of stamps with bone nee-
dles, pierced shells, loom weights and spindle
whorls at Ulucak reinforces an interpretation
associated with textile decoration. Yet images
stamped on other material—human/animal
skins, leather or bread—cannot be excluded.
The morphological similarities between early
Christian bread stamps and Neolithic stamps
have been noted. Nonetheless I would argue
in the light of archaeological evidence that
bread- or basket-marking represents a ritual
practice amongst the societies of Neolithic
western Anatolia and southern European,
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 23
not an economic one as some have suggested.
The existence of pierced handles on some
stamps, indicating that they were somehow
suspended, has been linked to an amulet-like
function, even if the imaged surfaces might
not be apparent to observers (Skeates 2007:
195). Moreover, there are several cases in
which stamps occur in mortuary contexts;
according to Hodder (2006) this may have sig-
nified personal ownership and the increasing
material entanglement of Neolithic societies.
The large variety of depositional contexts in
which stamps have been recovered indicate
that there is no definitive pattern associated
with their final depositions: both deliberate
and mundane depositions have been recorded.
These observations confirm nothing beyond
the multi-functionality of the stamps.
It is also important to emphasize the impor-
tance and relevance of Skeates’s (2007) con-
textual and biographical approach. The case
study of Ulucak demonstrates that well-pre-
served sites and contextual documentation
have the potential to provide answers to such
topics. Furthermore, archaeometric, experi-
mental and use-wear studies should be inte-
grated into research involving the stamps as
some fundamental questions can be examined
in light of these analyses.
As a group of artifacts, stamps alone are
inadequate to test models of the Neolithiza-
tion process. Nonetheless, when considered
alongside other material culture elements,
their spatio-temporal distribution provides
clues about the ways in which a Neolithic
way of life may have dispersed. Archaeological
evidence is clear about the origins of stamps,
which can be found in the later stages of the
pre-pottery Neolithic in the Levant, northern
Syria and southeastern Anatolia. The ubiq-
uity of clay stamps is witnessed only in the
advanced Neolithic in Turkey. Evidence from
Ulucak is crucial in this respect as it presents
a crucial link between central Anatolia and
southern Europe. Similar to the west Ana-
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
tolian examples, early Greek and Bulgarian
stamps are likewise found in the developed
phases of the early Neolithic while Italian
stamps show a much later reflection. The cur-
rent archaeological evidence points towards
demic diffusion as a possible explanation.
Standing alone, however, demic diffusion fails
to explain a major historical process such as
Neolithization.
I am also of the opinion that Neolithic stamps
did not simply decorate various cultural media;
I believe that their designs symbolized themes
central to a Neolithic way of life. I have tried
to demonstrate this point by presenting the
various meanings of abstract images on kilims.
Such designs may look simply decorative and
aesthetic to our eyes but they would also have
made clear symbolic reference to the myths,
wishes, fears and stories told of, by and for
the people of these early farming communi-
ties. Additionally, the limited repertoire of
designs may have stemmed from a shared
remote memory of a common past of people
who remained in cultural and social contact
by reproducing the same designs. Eco’s quo-
tation suggests that, ultimately, everything
social is symbolic; and the marked breads of
the early Christian era provide a historical
case of the way symbols act as tools to create
social-cultural bonding for individuals who do
not know each other. Thus we are probably
confronted with multiple meanings at multi-
ple levels—intentional and unintentional—
attached to these images, given the varied
social and cultural contexts in which they
were implemented. Stamps constitute but one
of the media that encompassed the complex
non-verbal language of Neolithic communi-
ties as part of their daily life, their collective
memory and their past.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express thanks to Fulya Dede­
oğlu for providing first-hand information on
24 Çilingiroğlu
the findspots of the stamps and Canan Karataş,
who made the ink-drawings of the Ulucak
stamps. I am grateful to JMA’s editors and
three anonymous reviewers whose comments
and suggestions substantially improved the
focus of this article. Robin Skeates kindly
made available a copy of his and Gheorghiu’s
new book on stamps. Finally, I thank Kevin
Cooney for proof-reading my English.
About the Author
Çiler Çilingiroğlu is currently writing her
PhD thesis at Tübingen University, the title
of which is ‘Central-Western Anatolia at
the End of 7th and Beginning of 6th millen-
nium bce in the Light of Pottery from Ulucak
Höyük, Izmir’. Her research interests include
Old World Neolithic, Neolithization as a
long-term process, ceramic technology and
social organization of early farming communi-
ties. She recently published ‘The concept of
the Neolithic Package: considering its mean-
ing and applicability’, Documenta Praehistorica
32 (2005): 1-13; and ‘Ulucak’, in M. Özdoğan
and N. Başgelen (eds.), Türkiye’de Neolitik
Dönem (2007), 361-72.
Endnotes
1. There is one additional possible stamp
made out of a spiny murex (Bolinus
brandaris) shell from Ulucak IV. The
shell is cut in a way that its face displays
a spiral shape reminiscent of clay stamps.
An identical piece is known from Ege
Gübre, a contemporary site in northern
İzmir (Sağlamtimur 2007: 375). Desig-
nation of these items as stamps should
remain tentative for the time being.
2. The identification of centrally pierced
weights as loom weights is supported by
their heavily mineral-tempered, low or
unfired clays which exclude their use
as fishing-net weights. As discussed in
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
detail by Barber (1991), warp-weighted
looms are well attested from Anato-
lian and southeast European Neolithic
sites. Donut-shaped weights were also
discovered at Ulucak, since both level
IV-V settlements ended with fierce fires,
which hardened and preserved low-fired
clay objects of the same nature, including
hundreds of sling shots. In the absence of
such fires these objects would most likely
not have survived. Evidence of weaving
at Neolithic Ulucak is proved addition-
ally by a piece of cloth that survived
on a human-shaped idol from level Vb.
Pyramidal loom weights are absent from
the settlement.
References
Abay, E.
2005 Neolithic settlement at Ulucak Höyük and
its cultural relations with neighbour regions
in Western Anatolia. In C. Lichter (ed.),
How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-
European Relations from the Second Half of the
7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium
Cal bc, 75-84. İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Aldhouse- Green, M.
2004 An Archaeology of Images, Iconology and Cos-
mology in Iron Age and Roman Europe. Lon-
don: Routledge.
Alram-Stern, E.
1996 Die Ägäische Frühzeit: Das Neolithikum in Grie-
chenland. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe (ed.)
2007 Vor 12.000 Jahren in Anatolien, die ältesten
Monumente der Menschheit. Stuttgart: Kon-
rad Theiss Verlag.
Bailey, D.W.
2000 Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation and
Identity. London: Routledge.
Barber, E.J.W.
1991 Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth
in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special
Reference to the Aegean. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 25
Bıçakçı, E., Ç. Altınbilek-Algül, S. Balcı and M. Godon
2007 Tepecik-Çiftlik. In M. Özdoğln and N.
Başgelen (eds.), Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem:
Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular, 237-55. İstanbul:
Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
Bloch, M.
1995 Questions not to ask of Malagasy carvings.
In I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V.
Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last and G. Lucas (eds.),
InterpretingArchaeology: Finding Meaning in the
Past, 212-15. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P.
2006[1977] Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans.
R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Budja, M.
2003 Seals, contracts and tokens in the Balkan
Early Neolithic: where in the puzzle. Docu-
menta Praehistorica 30: 115-30.
2005 The process of neolithization in south-eastern
Europe: from ceramic female figurines and
cereal grains to entoptics and human nuclear
DNA polymorphic markers. Documenta Prae-
historica 32: 53-72.
Calegari, G.
2008 Le pintaderas preistoriche e l’’archeologia
della belezza’. In D. Gheorghiu and R. Skeates
(eds.), Prehistoric Stamps, Theory and Experi-
ments, 23-42. Bucureşti: Editura Universităt, ii
din Bucureşti.
Chapman, J.
2000 Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places
and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South-
Eastern Europe. London: Routledge.
Childe, V. G.
1929 The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Chohadzhiev, S.
2007 Neolithic and Chalcolithic Cultures in the Struma
River Basin. Veliko Tarnovo: Alexander Cho-
hadzhiev.
Çilingiroğlu, Ç.
2005 The concept of ‘Neolithic package’: consider-
ing its meaning and applicability. Documenta
Praehistorica 32: 1-13.
Çilingiroğlu, A., and Ç. Çilingiroğlu
2007 Ulucak. In M. Özdoğan and N. Başgelen
(eds.), Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni kazılar,
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
Yeni bulgular, 361-72. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve
Sanat Yayınları.
Çilingiroğlu, A., Z. Derin, E. Abay, H. Sağlamtimur
and İ. Kayan
2004 Ulucak Höyük: Excavations Conducted between
1995–2002. Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Supplement 15. Louvain: Peeters.
Çilingiroğlu, A., and F. Dedeoğlu
2007 Ulucak Höyük kazıları, 2005 yılı çalışmaları.
28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı: 137-46.
Cruells W., and O. Nieuwenhuyse
2004 The proto-Halaf period in Syria, new sites,
new data. Paléorient 30 (1): 47-68.
Davis, N., J. Sterner and K. Gavua
1988 Why pots are decorated. Current Anthropology
29: 365-79.
Derin, Z., A. Çilingiroğlu and M. Taşlıalan
2004 Ulucak Höyük kazısı, 2002. 25. Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı: 239-50.
Duistermaat, K., and P.M.M.G. Akkermans
1996 Of storage and nomads, the sealings from Late
Neolithic Sabi Abyad, Syria. Paléorient 22:
17-44.
Duru, R.
2001 Bademağacı kazıları 1999 yılı çalışma raporu.
Belleten 64: 583-98.
Durul, Y.
1987 Türk Kilim Motifleri. Türk Kültürünü
Araştırma Enstitüsü Yayınları 62. Ankara:
Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
Dzhanfezova, T.
2003 Neolithic pintaderas in Bulgaria (typology
and comments on their ornamentation). In
L. Nikolova (ed.), Early Symbolic Systems
for Communication in Southeast Europe. BAR
International Series 1139: 97-108. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Eco, U.
1977 Zeichen: Einführung in einen Begriff und seine
Geschichte. Trans. G. Memmert. Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp.
Galavaris, G.
1970 Bread and the Liturgy: The Symbolism of Early
Christian and Byzantine Bread Stamps. Madi-
son: University of Wisconsin Press.
Gheorghiu, D.
2008 Materiality, experiment, experientiality.
In D. Gheorghiu and R. Skeates (eds.),
26 Çilingiroğlu
Prehistoric Stamps, Theory and Experiments,
85-103. Bucureşti: Editura Universităt, ii din
Bucureşti.
Gillow, J., and N. Barnard
1991 Traditionelle indische Textilien. Bern: Paul
Haupt.
Gimbutas, M., S.H. Winn and D. Shimabuku (eds.)
1989 Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly,
Greece, 6400–5600 bc. Monumenta Archae-
ologica 14. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of
Archaeology.
Greenhalgh, M., and V. Megaw (eds.)
1978 Art in Society. London: Duckworth.
Halle, D.
1998 Material artifacts, symbolism, sociologists and
archaeologists. In C. Renfrew and C. Scarre
(eds.), Cognition and Material Culture: The
Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, 51-60. Cam-
bridge: McDonald Institute.
Hodder, I. (ed.)
1982 Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
1989 The Meanings of Things: Material Culture and
Symbolic Expression. One World Archaeology
6. London: Harper Collins Academic.
Hodder, I.
2006 The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of
Çatalhöyük. London: Thames and Hudson.
Hodder, I., M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Car-
man, J. Last and G. Lucas (eds.)
1995 Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in
the Past. London: Routledge.
Hofmacher, J.
1998 Teppiche und Kelims: die textile Sprache der
Turkvölker. Untersuchungen zum kulturhi-
storischen Hintergrund türkischer Textilien.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, Geschichts-
wissenschaft, Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Uni-
versität zu Frankfurt am Main.
Lichter, C.
2005 Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic
and Early Chalcolithic: the actual state of
research. In C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farm-
ing Reach Europe? Anatolian- European Rela-
tions from the Second Half of the 7th through the
First Half of the 6th Millennium Cal bc, 59-74.
İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Makkay, J.
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
1984 Early Stamp Seals in South-East Europe. Buda-
pest: Akademiai Kiado.
Meillassoux, C.
1978 The economy in agricultural self-sustaining
societies: a preliminary analysis. In J. Sed-
don (ed.), Relations of Production: Marxist
Approaches to Economic Anthropology, 127-58.
London: Frank Cass.
1981 Maidens, Meal, and Money: Capitalism and
the Domestic Society. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mellaart, J.
1967 Çatalhöyük: Stadt aus der Steinzeit. Bergisch
Gladbach: Gustav Lübbe Verlag.
1970 Excavations at Hacılar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Naumov, G.
2008 Neolithic stamps from the southern part of
the Balkan Peninsula. In D. Gheorghiu and
R. Skeates (eds.), Prehistoric Stamps, Theory
and Experiments, 43-86. Bucureşti: Editura
Universităt, ii din Bucureşti.
Nikolova, L. (ed.)
2003 Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in
Southeast Europe. BAR International Series
1139. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Onassoglou, A.
1996 Seals. In G.A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.),
Neolithic Culture in Greece, 163-64. Athens:
Nicholas Goulandris Foundation Museum of
Cycladic Art.
Özdoğan, M.
1997 The beginning of Neolithic economies in
southeastern Europe: an Anatolian perspec-
tive. Journal of European Archaeology 5(2):
1-33.
2007 Bazı genellemeler, öngörüler. In M. Özdoğan
and N. Başgelen (eds.), Türkiye’de Neolitik
Dönem: Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular, 441-58.
İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
Özdoğan, M., and N. Başgelen (eds.)
2007 Türkiye’de Neolitik Dönem: Yeni Kazılar,
Yeni Bulgular. İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayınları.
Papathanassopoulos, G.A. (ed.)
1996 Neolithic Culture in Greece. Athens: Nicholas
Goulandris Foundation Museum of Cycladic
Art.
 Of Stamps, Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls 27
Perlès, C.
2001 Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
2005 From the Near East to Greece: let’s reverse
the focus, cultural elements that didn’t trans-
fer. In C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming
Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations
from the Second Half of the 7th through the First
Half of the 6th Millennium Cal bc, 275-90.
İstanbul: Ege Yayınları.
Robb, J.E.
1998 The archaeology of symbols. Annual Review of
Anthropology 27: 329-46.
Rosetti, B.
1992 Die Turkmenen und ihre Teppiche: eine ethnolo-
gische Studie. Berlin: Reimer.
Sağlamtimur, H.
2007 Ege Gübre Neolitik yerleşimi. In M. Özdoğan
and N. Başgelen (eds.), Türkiye’de Neolitik
Dönem: Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular, 373-76.
İstanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları.
Sillitoe, P.
1988 From head-dresses to head-messages: the art
of self-decoration in the highlands of Papua
New Guinea. Man (n.s.) 23: 298-318.
Skeates, R.
2005 Visual Culture and Archaeology: Art and Social
Life in Prehistoric South-East Italy. London:
Duckworth.
2007 Neolithic stamps: cultural patterns, processes
and potencies. Cambridge Archaeological Jour-
nal 17: 183-98.
© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2009
Talalay, L.E.
1993 Deities, Dolls, and Devices: Neolithic Figurines
from Franchthi Cave, Greece. Bloomington
and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Thomas, J.
1998 Some problems with the notion of external
symbolic storage, and the case of Neolithic
material culture in Britain. In C. Renfrew
and C. Scarre (eds.), Cognition and Material
Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage,
149-56. Cambridge: McDonald Institute.
Türkcan, A.U.
2006 Some remarks on Çatalhöyük stamp seals.
In I. Hodder (ed.), Changing Materialities at
Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 Seasons,
175-85. Cambridge: McDonald Institute.
2007 Is it goddess or bear? The role of animal seals
in Neolithic symbolism. Documenta Praehis-
torica 34: 257-66.
Umurtak, G.
2000 Neolitik ve Erken Kalkolitik çağlarda Burdur-
Antalya Bölgesi mühürcülüğü üzerine bazı
gözlemler. Adalya 4: 1-20.
Yakar, J.
2005 The language of symbols in prehistoric Ana-
tolia. Documenta Praehistorica 32: 111-21.
Zvelebil, M.
2001 The agricultural transition and the origins
of Neolithic society in Europe. Documenta
Praehistorica 28: 1-26.