Matrix of semiotic markers and rules.._01
Sunday, 3. February 2008, 23:00:04
A SEMIOTIC MATRIX TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DECORATIONS AND SIGNS OF WRITING EMPLOYED BY THE DANUBE CIVILIZATION
Marco Merlini,
marco.merlini@mclink.it
Summary
The present article presents a “Matrix of semiotic markers and rules” in order to
inspect the internal structuring of the sign system developed in Neo-Eneolithic-Copper ages
in the Danube basin. The matrix is intended:
a) To verify the possibility that these cultures might have expressed an early form of
writing; i.e. the so called “Danube script”;
b) To investigate the organizing principles of this system of writing;
c) To distinguish inscriptions of the Danube script composed of two or more signs,
without of course knowing what each of them stand for, from compounds of marks
associated with other communicational codes, among which decorations, symbols, divinity
identifiers, schematic but naturalistic representations of objects, structures or natural
events, constellations and motions of celestial bodies (sun, moon, and planets).
1. Framework and restrictive requirements
The choice to account only the inscriptions with two or more signs is due to the
fact that the elements of the system of writing share the same schematic geometric
root with the agents of the other communicational channels such as for example
decorations and symbols, therefore they could overlap their shape. Consequently
when a mark appears in isolation, it could be either a sign of writing (with linguistic
label or not), a symbol or an artistic motif depending on the context. Its nature is
unknown for sure even if it is very rare the contingent probability to find a one-sign
decoration, more probable is to come across a sign of writing and most probable is
to deal with a symbol.
Here I present some marks engraved isolated on artifacts of the Danube
civilization, which I do not submit to the “Matrix of semiotic markers and rules”
although they are possibly units of the Danube system of writing occurring in the
inventory of its signs. Even if the
is a sign of the Danube script, when it isincised isolated such as on the bottom of a Turdaş vessel from Orăştie-Broos
(Romania) (Luca, Pinter 2001, tab. 43/1) it could be either an element of the system
of writing or a symbol or an ornament. A comb-based mark occurs on bottoms of
Transylvanian vases e.g. from Turdaş and from Orăştie-Dealul Pemilor (Luca
2001a: 76; 1997). The shortcut interpretation of these marks on invisible part of
vessels or of objects is as personal and non-linguistic identifiers such as craftsman’s
or owners’ marks. According to some authors, this category explains any
occurrence of linear, abstract and not decorative signs in the Danube civilization.
Although the
is a recurrent sign in the Danube script, there is no possibilityof discerning to which communicative channel this kind of zigzag belongs to, when
it is incised alone. It is in the instance of a middle Vinča fragment of base from
Gomolava (Republic of Serbia) (Starović 2004: 71) and a late Vinča fragment of
base unearthed at Čučuge-Ilića brdo (Republic of Serbia) (Starović 2004: 65).
Paradigmatic of the difficulty to identify the nature of the
when it is incisedas single mark is a jug-shaped vessel from Battonya-Gödrösök (Hungary) belonging
to the Tisza Culture.1 An evidently symbolic “M” is applied to the cylindrical neck
just below the face. The comb-like mark positioned on the nape is another, and
more ancient, symbol occurring on the anthropomorphic vessel. In addition, the
parallel curved band depicted on the backside is indicative of a symbolic feature
that is frequent in Tisza Culture and derived with an essentially unchanged shape
from the corresponding types of artifacts of the Tiszadob-Bükk-Szilmeg-Esztár
pottery, as well as of the Szakálhát ceramics (Raczky 2000). A fourth powerful
symbol is the meander pattern chiseled indoors and a fifth symbol is the net incised
on different areas of the body. The pithos from Battonya-Gödrösök shows a
supernatural creature in a human (female) form and the general surface is brick red,
whereas the arms are painted in yellow and red, and the curved belt around the body
in white (Gimbutas 1989: 22). It was possibly a protagonist within the given social
context (Tilley 1989; Renfrew 1994: 5-11; Renfrew 2001: 129-131; Thomas 1997;
Hodder 1989: 190; Hodder et al. 1997: 201-212) belonging to a typology of vessels
that, according to the archaeological data, mediated a long chain of religious
activities. As a result, the five coded symbols, the combined sets of them and their
matching with iconic and decorative patterns must have embodied a complex
meaning on a sacral level associated with female features, which of course may
have had a secondary content as a formal expression of group identity (Raczky,
Anders 2003: 170). Therefore, they were agents of a symbolic communications
system that operated within a ritual context and a spiritual tradition (Biehl 1997:
169-171) and that I consider a significant component of the Danube Communication
System (the semiotic system of expression of the Danube civilization).
Studying the human representations in the Central European Linear Pottery,
Höckmann drew similar observations regarding the compositional regularities and
the semiotic system of the "sacred symbols" (Höckmann 2000-2001: 87-88). Within
the more general framework of the Neo-Eneolithic-Copper age cultures across
Southeastern Europe, the "sacred symbols" of the “M” and the “comb” seem to have
carried the same meaning symbolizing the transcultural and "universal" concept of
the female principium (Ruttkay 1999: 9). However I think it is not yet demonstrated
that they could be interpreted as ideograms, as stated by Ruttkay and other scholars.
Nonetheless, what about the
incised on the lower area of the back side of thepithos from Battonya-Gödrösök? According to position and shape, it cannot be
considered a decoration. Its communicative value is evident as well as its sacral
meaning, but it could be a mono-inscription (an ideogram) as well as the depiction
of a constellation (Cassiopeia) or a heraldic mark. The semiotic tools are not
sufficient to make a reasonable distinction.
A further
placed apart is on a sherd from Parţa (Banat, Romania). It isevidently non-decorative (Winn 2004 on line fig. 5) and it is possibly a unit of an
inscription broken on the right side, but it is impossible to assert it for sure.
It is also difficult to image a decorative or emblematic nature of the X scratched
isolated and uncarefully on the inner part of the bottom of an unpublished Vinča B
sherd from Tărtăria (Transylvania, Romania).2
The “Matrix of semiotic markers and rules” has been recently tested on some
recent discoveries selected from the core area of the Danube civilization and from
the peripheral regions in order to document how widespread the Danube script was
and some features of its semiotic code (Merlini 2004h; 2005b; 2005c; 2006a).
2. Setting the Danube script inside the Danube communication system
The early system of writing of Southeastern Europe is lost and what remains of
it is unfathomable and tenaciously resists the efforts of scholars attempting to
decipher it. Nothing is known about the existence of such a reference language.
Moreover, it is too ancient for us to hope to find something like a multilingual
“Rosetta Stone” which would permit us to translate it into a known language.
Though it is now lost and it is unlikely it will ever be possible to decipher it, some
scholars are using semiotic approach tying to crack some elements of its code
(Haarmann 1995, 1998a, 1998b; Merlini 2002b, 2003b, 2004a, on line; Winn 1981,
1990, on line).
According to these semiotic researches, the Danube script is a very archaic
system of writing and possibly not capable of encoding extended speech or long
narratives because phonetic elements are not or are too limitedly rendered in
writing. It probably consists of a mix of logograms, ideograms and pictograms plus
some phonetic elements occasionally and marginally marked. The connection with
the conceptual sphere is much stronger than the connection with the phonetic
sphere. Other ancient writings of this type are the Elamite script, the Indus script,
the hieroglyphs of the Phaistos disc, the Chinese writing on oracular bones, and the
Olmecs glyphs.
Although the Danube script was in statu nascenti and had a very weak
association with phonetics, it should not be confused with other communicational
channels used by the Neo-Eneolithic-Copper ages populations of Southeastern
Europe such as religious symbols, geometric decorations, devices for memory
support, star and land charts, ritualistic markings, numeric notations, family
identifiers, community affiliation marks, signs stating the owner/manufacturer of an
artifact. The Danube System of Communication was composed of several elements
and the system of writing was only one of them. It is a very exciting means of
communication for our contemporary literate mind, but it was not possibly the most
important communicative device for the communities of the Danube area having
been developed it only at the primary stage.
Signs of writing and of extra-writing apart, in Neo-Eneolithic-Copper ages the
rich polysemous system for communication of South-eastern Europe included also
anthropomorphic figurines, language, mythology, rituals, folklore, etc. The
integration of semiotic and typological studies in the common problematic of the
enculturation and other symbolic prehistoric communicational means will be an
opportunity to approach the deep symbolic and the advanced social development of
the populations of the Danube civilization (Nikolova 2005). These notes that I
submit to the discussion move some steps in the direction of a future detailed
contextual analysis: documentation of the location of the findings, correlation with
the features in the houses/villages and especially their relations with the other
symbolic objects and means for communication.
The main problem is that the distinction between the Danube script and the
other communicational means is not so evident. First, when inspecting the internal
structuring of the Danube Communication System evidence of a writing system
becomes noticeable based on semiotic indicators, but as it is in a very archaic phase
the outline of its signs are not clearly distinguishable from the marks of the other
communicational channels. In particular, they share the same geometrical roots
(showing sometimes alike outlines) with decorations, symbols, divinity identifiers,
owner-manufacturer marks, chronographic representations, astral signs and so on.
Second, signs of writing could co-exist on the same object with marks of other
informative codes. In fact, sometimes more than one channel of communication was
in use at the same time on the same vase, figurine, miniature altar or spindle whorl.
In conclusion, in many instances the belonging of a group of signs to the system of
writing is more deducible by their organization in the space than from their shape.
3. Ratio of the semiotic matrix for checking possible clues of a script in the
Neo-Eneolithic-Copper ages in the Danube basin
Although the Danube script has a very weak association with phonetics and we
are not able to read it at all, it should not be confused with other communicational
channels used by the Danube populations during the Neo-Eneolithic-Copper ages.
But how to distinguish in the field, with a reasonable degree of probability, if a
grouping of signs belongs to the writing system or for example to a ritual graffiti,
the decorative sphere, the symbolic language, the divinity identifier, the
representation of celestial bodies or their motions, the owner-manufacturer marks,
the chronographic representations?
I elaborated a matrix of basic semiotic markers and rules in order to distinguish
texts of the Danube script composed of bi- or more-signs, without of course to know
what they stood for, from compounds of marks associated to other communicational
codes:
i. Ritual markings (empathic action-graffiti; psychograms; and iterated
attestations)
ii. Decorations
iii. Symbols
iv. Divinity identifiers
v. Schematic but naturalistic representations of objects, structures, natural
events
vi. Astral identifiers (star clusters in primis the constellations; celestial atlases;
reproductions of the sun or moon; and movements of the celestial bodies as
sun, moon, and planets)
vii. Calendrical marks.
It the present article I put under discussion the “Matrix of semiotic markers and
rules” regarding the challenge to distinguish between decorations and signs of
writing employed by the Danube Civilization. Of course, the suggested indicators
and guidelines are in progress because one will be able to distinguish without errors
the signs of the system of writing from the marks of different communicational
channels only if capable of reading the script. Nevertheless, on the other hand, one
will never be capable of reading the inscriptions if not able to isolate their signs
from the other marks. It is really a loop that one has to interrupt step by step and by
progressive approximations. Once established the procedure in order to distinguish
inscriptions of the Danube script from compounds marks associated with other
communicational codes, the next steps will be to institute a corpus of the inscribed
objects and then an inventory of the signs of the Danube script.
PLEASE NOTE: To view this website you will need at least
Flash Player 8 and to have to JavaScript enabled — thank you!
WIDGETIZE