Status in a Nutshell. A Praxeological/Phenomenological Approach to Seals as Power Accessories

1 Introductory Remarks

Adorning the human body is a practice as ancient as civilization itself and plays a significant role in social interactions over millennia. In early cultures, various forms of dress, accessories, insignia, hairstyles, makeup, and tattoos were creatively used to construct social identities, leaving behind a fascinating array of evidence. Among these artifacts, some, including seals, hold special importance not solely for their decorative function but also for their multifaceted roles. They engage in a complex relationship with the human body, presenting a dynamic interplay of functions that span multiple spheres of social interaction. Seals, similar to clothing or jewelry, were in direct contact with the body and could be often perceived as extensions of it, akin to a form of ‘prosthetic’ embodiment.^[1] However, their roles extended beyond mere adornment. As amulets, valuable objects, symbols of authority, and instruments for sealing, they assumed a broader and more nuanced significance, stemming from their active involvement in various social arenas and reflected in their exceptional craftsmanship and design (Collon 1987; Krzyszkowska 2005). The present paper focuses on seals as ‘core objects’ (Boesch 1991: 333)^[2] which played a vital role in the production of cultural meaning in the Bronze Age Aegean due to their manifold social roles and entanglements as well as their persistence. Striving to address some of the key issues of the “Dress for Success” workshop, it explores characteristic ways in which seals as of the Minoan and Mycenaean societies expressed status in its most condensed manifestation.

2 Historical Setting and Methodological Approach

The history of the powerful interactions between the two regional cultures of ‘Minoan’ Crete and ‘Mycenaean’ Greece which cohabited the Aegean in the early stage of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1650-1400 BCE) is written by archaeologists not by reading texts but rather by interpreting artifacts. In the absence of deciphered written evidence, any effort to grasp the meaning of ancient realities has been totally reliant on the study of material culture. Within this demanding scientific setting, seals have acquired a significance that cannot be matched by any other class of Aegean objects (for an overview see Krzyszkowska 2005). Through their affective impact on practices relating to embodiment, religion, ideology, economy, and administration, they tied together crucial domains of social life, thus providing archaeologists with the unique opportunity to explore the interaction between their various constituents ‘in a nutshell’. In this micro-scale of archaeological analysis, both in terms of things (seals) and space (local context), entanglements between human and nonhuman entities are disclosed to us in an astonishing ‘condensing’ of cultural data. Previous research invested enormous efforts in exploring with intense scrutiny the long-established analytical categories of technique (Evely 1993: 146–72; Onassoglou 1985: 171–89; Stamatatou 2004: 38–44; Younger 1981b), style (Younger 1991: 77–79; Weingarten 1985), imagery (Blakolmer 2010; Crowley 2013, 2024]; Hallager 1985; Tsangaraki 2005), chronology (Niemeier 1981), function (Hallager 1996; Karnava 2018), and provenance (Becker 2018: 287–98; Niemeier 1990: 165–70; Pini 1983: 39–49) but at the same time failed to elucidate the dialectic relationship of these components to each other. Characteristic of the rigid approaches of this traditional line of thought was the fact that several typologies of seals and nodules,^[3] did not reflect any actual difference in function or social significance. They consequently adhered more to a purely conventional scheme of classification that has become an end in itself, rather than a reflection of an ancient practice (see Hallager 1996; criticized by Müller 2000: 699–700). Confronted with these inconsistencies, a step change in Aegean seal studies is now a pressing need. There are several hermeneutical possibilities to take up this challenge by introducing a new way of looking at seals. Two promising approaches for expanding previous scholarly encounters with these minute artifacts are related with their praxeological and phenomenological aspects. Both go beyond the traditional treatment of seals as art objects with a pronounced focus on issues of manufacture, typology, style, and dating. A praxeological approach refers to the systematic exploration of the seals’ entanglement with human agents beyond the stage of manufacture and can focus on two main dimensions of their uselife: a) the bearing/displaying of seals as embodied practice and b) the use of seals in administrative procedures. The first is related with the different ways in which seals were worn by their owners (either as pendants around the neck or as modern wristwatches on the wrist, see Younger 1977: 153–58). The latter refers to the bureaucratic use of seals, focusing exclusively on nodules. Interwoven with the aspect of function is the phenomenological approach that explores the ways in which these artifacts were perceived by the Bronze Age Aegean communities. One of the most striking aspect of the seals’ thingness – and at the same time one of the most underexplored issues in previous research – is their minute size which makes some of the seal motifs virtually invisible. Both approaches help us to refrain from the conventional bird’s eye view of previous research. Instead of tracing distribution patterns, visible only to the archaeologist’s eye, it seems more sensible to focus on the local context, trying to adopt an emic perspective for exploring object biographies.^[4]

The shift to the praxeological/phenomenological dimension of Aegean seals is facilitated by the advantageous nature of the pertinent archaeological sources. Unlike the Near Eastern evidence, the majority of Minoan and Mycenaean seals and nodules have been retrieved through systematic excavations, providing us with secure and often very precise contextual information. For many of these seals, not only do we know the site of discovery, but also the exact location within a building or room. These detailed contextual data serve as a solid foundation for understanding ancient practices and perhaps even ways of perception.

3 The Second Palace Period

During the early phase of the Late Bronze Age (mid-17th to mid-15th century BCE), seals were crucial in expressing status in both Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece, albeit in distinctly different ways, as observed from both praxeological and phenomenological perspectives. In Crete, this era corresponds with the New Palaces period (or Second Palace Period), a time when Minoan society had already developed a seal tradition spanning almost one and a half millennia. Over this long cultural trajectory, Minoan seals came to embody status through their use of precious materials, meticulous craftsmanship, and highly symbolic imagery (Krzyszkowska 2005: 119–53). The absence of elite tombs from this period is an obstacle, since it leaves us often with only the impressions of seals on clay nodules. This, however, is not a drawback but rather an advantage for the systematic study of their historical significance. The use of seals, evidenced by these impressions, provides more valuable insights than mere possession, as it reveals their application within specific bureaucratic contexts in Minoan society.

A major obstacle in extracting cultural significance from seals, especially their imagery, is the inherent difficulty in associating these artifacts with specific individuals or, more precisely, with eponymous persons. Unlike the Near Eastern evidence, Aegean seals typically lack inscriptions. Even in rare cases where seals were associated with specific burials, the social identity of the deceased often remains unknown or, at best, obscure. Given this fact, a more feasible goal in understanding the role of seals as social markers in the Aegean context is to connect them not to individual identities but to collective ones, exploring how material, motifs, and craftsmanship might signify the status of particular social groups or classes. Despite this less-than-ideal archaeological context, it is evident that within a closed and strictly hierarchical administrative system, the materiality of a seal – its material, theme, style, and quality – was largely dictated by the administrative or social status of its owner. The use of a specific seal and/or image as an indicator of personal or administrative identity was likely determined by a ‘sphragistic canon’, where the quality of the seal and the symbolic content of its imagery reflected status hierarchy (Panagiotopoulos 2012: 69–70).^[5] Even if we accept that “beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder,” it is highly probable that the ways in which prestige is manifested do not fundamentally differ between modern and ancient societies.^[6] Consequently, there is no basis to doubt that the most prestigious seals – those defined by superior material, craftsmanship, and imagery – represented the highest levels of administrative hierarchy.^[7] Supporting this perspective are several indicators, such as the group of so-called Knossian replica rings (Figure 1). These nodules, found across various sites in Minoan Crete and even Akrotiri on Thera, were impressed by high-quality gold signet rings with strongly symbolic images (Adams 2017: 172–78; Krzyszkowska 2005: 189–92; Karnava 2018: 81–153, 192–213, 215–17, 224–38; Panagiotopoulos 2014: 48–51; Weingarten 2010). This distribution pattern is unprecedented in the Bronze Age Aegean and Near East, where typically, nodules with identical seal impressions are discovered at the same site, supporting thus the hypothesis that the signet rings were owned by high-ranking officials from Knossos who were involved in the administrative networks of other regional centers (Panagiotopoulos 2022: 161–62).

Figure 1:

Impressions from the four gold signet rings that sealed nodules from several Cretan sites and Akrotiri on Thera. Images courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg.

The regulated appropriation of images within the framework of a palatial sealing system makes apparent that examining Aegean seal images in isolation is unproductive. Instead, our primary focus must be to contextualize these images within specific social frameworks, if we want to truly understand their significance. A compelling example of this is a Neopalatial nodule from Khania (CMS V Suppl. 1A, no. 137) which features a seal impression depicting two pairs of shepherds milking their sheep in a mirror-inverted style (Figure 2). This image is notable not only because scenes from daily life are exceedingly rare in Minoan art but also because traditionally, individuals at the lower end of the social spectrum, such as shepherds, seldom had opportunities for self-representation. This fact has been sharply highlighted by Tom Palaima’s succinct observation: “Iconography offers little evidence about the cultural attitudes of rural shepherds.” (Palaima 1999: 370). Before we hastily conclude that this statement is incorrect, it is worthwhile to attempt to place the seal motif within its original social context. There is no indication that the bucolic image represented a person or a group from the pastoral communities of the Cretan mountains. Instead, the impression was created using a gold signet ring with an exquisite engraving. The symmetrical repetition in the depiction lends the entire composition a distinctly emblematic quality. The individual who chose to represent himself with this pastoral scene was clearly not a shepherd but rather a high-ranking official from the palatial center of Khania. Although the specific reasons for choosing this motif as the administrative signature of a prominent figure may be difficult to pinpoint, there is no doubt that in this instance, status was conveyed through the use of precious materials, flawless craftsmanship, and refined style, which endowed a simple pastoral scene with profound symbolic value.

Figure 2:

Seal impression from Khania (CMS V Suppl. 1A, no. 137). Courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg.

Shifting our focus to the Greek Mainland, Minoan seals (along with other Minoan artifacts) played a crucial role in the development of the early Mycenaean centers in southern Greece during the Late Helladic I-II periods (late 17th–15th century BCE). They spearheaded the transplantation of Minoan cultural values to the mainland and became the most coveted prestige objects among the indigenous elites. Despite their popularity and the evident desire of the Mycenaean upper class to acquire them, these seals were not used in their traditional sealing function but rather as symbols of status or power (Krzyszkowska 2005: 232–73). This marks a clear distinction between the use of seals in Crete and on Mainland Greece during this era, as evidenced by the total absence of any nodules with seal impressions from the mainland before the 13th century BCE. Setting aside the methodological challenge of defining objects as seals even when they were never used for sealing, it is important to consider how these artifacts signified the elevated social status of their owners. It was certainly not coincidental that early Mycenaean seals show a tendency towards an increased or even enormous size compared to contemporaneous seals from Minoan Crete (Krzyszkowska 2005: 239–40) or a preference in specific precious materials (Krzyszkowska 2005: 236–37). These particularities may have resulted from their non-sphragistic use. Yet, size or visibility was definitely not the only way to express status, as the Combat Agate from the Griffin Warrior Grave at Pylos clearly demonstrates (Stocker and Davis 2017). The question of whether this artifact is Minoan or Mycenaean is complex and remains unresolved. However, its significance as an item of prestige is undeniable: It was crafted from a precious material with exceptional skill, featuring one of the most powerful images in Aegean iconography. Its superb artistic quality has astonished experts, revealing incredible finesse under magnification that highlights the skill of the seal-engraver. Was its owner really able to enjoy the intricate details of this superb engraving? Due to their minute size, this and many other seals and their imprints on nodules were barely visible to the naked eye (Krzyszkowska 2005: 4; Panagiotopoulos 2012: 71), presenting a challenge to visual perception that has not been thoroughly explored in previous research. Additionally, the majority of these seals were carved from semi-precious stones like jasper, agate, carnelian, blue chalcedony, rock crystal, and amethyst, which, while aesthetically appealing due to their veining, often made the engraved motifs difficult to discern (Panagiotopoulos 2012: 71, fig. 9). This phenomenological paradox, where Aegean seal motifs frequently blend into the patterns of the stone itself (Figure 3), stands in stark contrast to Roman cameos, which used the stone’s differently colored veins to accentuate the iconography. This evidence leads us to consider that, in some cases, prestige may have been both a phenomenological and ontological matter. In other words, perception was not the only mediator of prestige, since the artistic excellence of a seal could have fulfilled its purpose, even if the intricate details of the engraving were not perfectly visible to the owners or their social group.

Figure 3:

The illegibility of seal images: engraved designs on seals made of colored or veined stones (CMS V Suppl. 1A, no. 197 [above], CMS V Suppl. 1A, no. 198 [below]). Courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg.

There are several local ‘stories’ which we could narrate about Mycenaean individuals who showed a keen interest in acquiring Minoan or Minoan-style seals, even though they did not utilize them for sealing purposes. Particularly fascinating are the cases involving individuals who not only possessed a single seal but accumulated a remarkable collection of them. For instance, the aforementioned Combat Agate from Pylos was just one of c. 50 seals discovered around the skeleton (Davis and Stocker 2016: 637–52, figs. 8–12; Stocker and Davis 2017). Similarly, in the Vapheio tholos tomb, an equally impressive set of more than 40 seals was unearthed (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1987; Panagiotopoulos 2014: 129–30; further Younger 1973). Could the rich imagery of these collections have held any semantic significance related to the social identity of the deceased? One compelling aspect of both burial contexts is the apparent connection between individual seal images and certain physical objects included in the grave goods. At Vapheio, an amygdaloid seal depicting a man holding a semicircular fenestrated axe (Figure 4) correlates with an actual axe of possibly Levantine origin found among the grave offerings (CMS I, no. 225; Maran 2015; Yasur-Landau 2014). In the Griffin Warrior Grave at Pylos, the relationship between the artifacts placed with the deceased and the imagery on the seals is even more striking (Davis and Stocker 2016: 650–52). Items such as a mirror (Davis and Stocker 2016: 650–51), a necklace (Davis and Stocker 2018), a bull’s head finial for a staff (Curry 2019: 28; Davis and Stocker 2016: 651–52), a bronze sword with a gold-embroidered pommel (Curry 2019: 30–31; Davis and Stocker 2016: 634, figs. 7 and 13), and a bronze disc decorated with a 16-pointed sun (Curry 2019: 30) correspond with similar objects and motifs (mirror, necklace, staff, sword, and a 16-pointed sun) depicted on the seals discovered in the same grave.^[8] These associations strongly suggest that despite their Minoan origins, the iconography of some of these seals and signet rings held clear symbolic value for the deceased, as they owned or were presented with corresponding objects or symbols during the burial ritual. Be that as it may, it seems highly improbable that the aggregation of dozens of seals in one collection reflected any Mycenaean systematic thinking or ‘pattern’, nor did it likely represent the various administrative roles the deceased may have held in life – be they political, military, economic, or ritual. This fact was recognized long ago by Emily Vermeule, who pointed out regarding the Vapheio tomb: “The Vapheio prince was a collector and a connoisseur, like many nobles who were astonished and delighted at what the Cretans could do with their hands. No mere passion for the privacy which gems offer could have required him to own 38 different types” (Vermeule 1964: 130). Here, Vermeule’s use of the term ‘privacy’ refers to the once-assumed individual character of seal images as markers of personal identity, social or administrative status, or affiliation with a specific group. Thus, trying to extract meaning from the assortment of these images into a cohesive set would be an exercise in futility.

Figure 4:

Amygdaloid seal from Vapheio (CMS I, no. 225). Courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg.

Reflecting on the distinct roles these ‘core artefacts’ played in both Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece, we observe not only a difference in their utilization but also in their impact on mediating prestige. In the Minoan context, the variety of seal motifs was closely linked to their function within a hierarchical administrative system. Here, the selection and use of specific images were clearly dictated by social status and/or group affiliations. In contrast, Mycenaean Greece lacked such an administrative framework and the corresponding regulatory canon that dictated a symbolic hierarchy of images, allowing seal owners the freedom to choose any motif they desired and to accumulate extensive collections if they wished. This suggests that seals served as potential incubators of communality in Crete and individuality in Mainland Greece. The tension between these two different traditions of seal iconography – one ‘codified’ and ‘confined’ (Minoan) and one ‘unconfined’ (Mycenaean) – provides a new analytical perspective for examining the spread and significance of these images across the Aegean, as well as for investigating the formation of individual and collective identities.

4 The Third Palace Period

Following this period of intense interaction between an established political system (Minoan Crete) and an emerging one (Mycenaean centers in Central and Southern Greece), the power dynamics in the Aegean shifted dramatically within a few generations. Most Minoan palaces were destroyed, and the Mycenaeans began to dominate the region, even establishing a strong presence on Crete itself. The 14th and 13th centuries BCE (Third Palace Period) represent the peak of the Mycenaean centers, characterized by the construction of palaces and abundant evidence of the extensive use of seals for sealing, particularly – if not exclusively – within palatial settings (Krzyszkowska 2005: 274–310; Panagiotopoulos 2014). During this era of splendor and demise of the Mycenaean palaces, we encounter a scenario reminiscent of the New Palatial period in Crete, characterized by a general scarcity of original high-quality seals. This shortage is not only due to the widespread looting of elite tombs but also to the extensive use of heirlooms in the Mycenaean sealing practices (Younger 1981a: 270–71; Pini 1988: 45; Dickers 2001: 109; Krzyszkowska 2005: 258 and 265; for a more critical view see Panagiotopoulos 2014: 156–58). Numerous high-quality seals were passed down through generations, suggesting that administrative roles were often inherited, continuing the legacy of leadership based on hereditary principles.

In contrast to the previously discussed, extremely vague situation regarding seal assemblages from the early Late Bronze Age in the Greek Mainland, the administration of a Mycenaean palace offers a clear systemic context where specific rules likely existed. Similar to Minoan administration, it is very likely that seal images were adopted and utilized within a rigidly organized system. Also in this case we can then assume that the appropriation and use of a specific image within a strictly hierarchical, palatial administration was regulated by a ‘sphragistic canon’ or Mycenaean decorum according to which the theme, style, and quality of a seal image were to a great extent determined by the administrative or social status of the seal owner. Support for this hypothesis comes from a find at Thebes, where a group of 60 nodules bearing brief Linear B inscriptions included names, products, and terms linked to the administrative processes of goods circulation within the palace system (Olivier et al. 1990; Panagiotopoulos 2014: 70, 213–25). Among these, the owner of a single signet ring among 14 different seals,^[9] with an exceptionally elaborate design was identified through inscriptions as a important Theban authority, possibly a high-ranking Mycenaean official or ‘collector’. This example underscores the likelihood of a controlled use of imagery, tailored to reflect and reinforce status within the palatial sealing system.

The distinct expression of status through seal possession and use is similarly evident in the nodules from the Mycenaean palace at Pylos. From the available evidence, we can observe what might cautiously be termed as a ‘tension’ in the visual representation between two distinct groups of seal-users (Panagiotopoulos 2014: 189–210, esp. 208–10; also Flouda 2010: 64–82). The first group includes about 20 nodules featuring high-quality, representative motifs typically from metal signet rings (Flouda 2010: 64–73; Pini 1997: 1–26, nos. 1–2, 7–10, 12, 15–16, 19–21, 24, 31–32, and 37–40; Panagiotopoulos 2014, 208–209). The seal motifs can be considered as ‘palatial’ not only because they generally relate to palatial iconography (Figure 5), but also because some display a notable similarity to scenes from the wall or floor decorations at the palace of Pylos (Lang 1969: 60 n. 44, 112 n. 68, 130 n. 79; Tamvaki 1985: 292; Bennet 2001: 34–35; Krzyszkowska 2005: 267 with n. 120; Flouda 2010: 70–73; Panagiotopoulos 2014: 142–43 and 209). These nodules, characterized by their high execution standards, tend tο be combined with inscriptions and are mostly preserved intact. Conversely, the second group consists of at least 25 nodules with impressions from seals of lower or average quality (mostly lentoids) bearing ordinary ‘bucolic’ iconography of quadrupeds (Figure 6) devoid of any clear symbolic significance (Pini 1997: 29–47 nos. 43–44, 46, 53, 78–94; Flouda 2010: 74–78; Panagiotopoulos 2014: 209). These nodules generally lack inscriptions and are almost always found in a fragmentary state. Intriguingly, this condition results not from the circumstances of their discovery, but from deliberate destruction in Mycenaean times, as evidenced by fracture lines running along the string-holes, suggesting routine procedural breakage (Müller 1997: 60; Panagiotopoulos 2014: 118, 209).

Figure 5:

Seal impressions from Pylos with palatial iconography: (CMS I, no. 312 [left], CMS I, no. 329 [right]). Courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg.

Figure 6:

Seal impressions from Pylos with ‘bucolic’ iconography: (CMS I, no. 353 [left], CMS I, no. 366 [right]). Courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg.

The stark contrast in seal motifs, inscriptions, and state of preservation raises questions about potential differences in administrative roles. It seems highly likely that the stylistic differences between the two groups reflect hierarchical distinctions among the seal owners. The dramatic disparity between them supports the idea that the value of the seals – and consequently the rank of their users – differed significantly. Building on the premise that the quality of a seal correlates with the owner’s status, the regular pairing of high-quality ‘palatial’ motifs with inscriptions leads us to the almost certain conclusion that these seal owners were likely resident bureaucrats, sealing nodules that marked goods stored within the palace rather than shipments. Regarding the intentionally broken nodules, the conventional interpretation seems most plausible: they represent a centripetal movement of goods from the periphery to the palace, suggesting transactions initiated by members of a ‘provincial’ bureaucratic network.^[10] This scenario hints at a level of tension or social competition between two groups of seal users, each representing different collective identities.

5 Concluding Remarks

Shifting archaeological interest from traditional issues like provenance, typology, style, imagery, and technique to the practical and experiential aspects of seals provides a richer analytic perspective on their multifaceted significance as prestige items in Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece. These seals conveyed social distinction through their material, often crafted from precious/semiprecious metals and stones, their exceptional craftsmanship, and highly symbolic motifs – yet the exact expression of prestige varied depending on their specific use contexts. In terms of social practice, these tiny artifacts embodied prestige both within and beyond palatial administration. In an administrative context, the quality and symbolism of a seal’s image likely followed a strict hierarchical canon, reflecting a system of collective identities. However, outside palace centers or before their political consolidation, individuals had greater freedom to acquire pieces of high material and/or symbolic value, using them as potent symbols of personal identity. In terms of perception, seals were visible as body adornments, worn around the neck or wrist. Nonetheless, material and size were the primary conveyors of prestige, given that most intricately carved images were barely discernible to the naked eye. This suggests that the prestige associated with these seals did not rely on their visibility alone but on the immense investment of time and skill required to produce such meticulously engraved designs.

Concluding this brief overview of Aegean evidence, it is crucial to stress that prestige is not an absolute value but rather a relative one, always influenced by the social context in which it is expressed. This point is illustrated by a Mycenaean stone seal from a private collection (now lost) that offers an intriguing narrative (CMS V, no. 517). Away from the Mycenaean palatial centers, a member of the landed gentry either commissioned or acquired a seal depicting a highly emblematic image with clear palatial connotations (bull-leaping). The engraving, however, presents a dramatic contrast to the symbolic importance of the image, as the extremely poor craftsmanship suggests the work of a less skilled artisan (Figure 7). The image – possibly the clumsiest depiction of a bull-leaper from the Bronze Age – would have likely been impactful only within its provincial setting, as it would have probably been met with laughter in a Mycenaean palace. Interestingly, the story of this artifact as a symbol of prestige did not end in the Bronze Age. In the 19th or 20th century, it was purchased by a modern collector who chose to set it in a heavy metal ring, thus perpetuating kitsch across millennia. This example, along with the theme of our workshop ‘Dress for Success’, vividly demonstrates that our ongoing efforts to comprehend past societies not only hold epistemological value but also reveal that the gap in perception, cognition, and social practices between modern and ancient people might not be as wide as one would think.

Figure 7:

Mycenaean stone seal from a private collection, now lost (CMS V, no. 517). Courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg.