macedonia - If the Vinca script once really existed who could have written or read it?

If the Vinca script once really existed who could have written or read it?

By macedon. Wednesday, 16. January 2008, 23:09:34

Andrej Starovic
National Museum in Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
kontakt@narodnimuzej.org.yu

ABSTRACT – The paper considers about the possible meaning and social function of signs and symbols from Vinca, and used in Danube Neolithic society. Many scholars have tried to answer two main questions about the nature of the signs: first, does they form a system, and (if so), could such a system be interpreted as an original prehistoric script?
A new approach to the problem, focused on an archaeological reconstruction of the basic function of ceramic objects bearing the signs, offers strong evidence that the signs were used in the context of ordinary domestic life, much more than in ritual and/or ceremonial contexts. An important set of data suggests that practically every single Vin≠a household had inscribed objects and that many of the signs and sign groups are uniform, just as in organized writing. Consequently, such a complex notation system could have been a form of written communication throughout Vinca society.

KEY WORDS – Late Neolithic; Early Chalcolithic; Vinca culture; signs; symbols; writing; contextual Analysis

In May 2004 an important symposium was held in
Novi Sad, Serbia1 that offered a unique opportunity
to discuss problems concerning the signs and symbols
found at Vinca. Many scholars in archaeology,
palaeolinguistics, ethnography, and socio-cultural
anthropology have tried to answer crucial questions
about the nature, context, origin, and social role of
the Vinca signs.

Several generations of scholars have explored the
Vin≠a culture. Many different sites have been discovered
(around one thousand if we count all the published
and unpublished sites in Serbia, Montenegro,
Bosnia, Hungary, Romania, Macedonia, and Bulgaria).
Moreover, an enormous collection of artefacts
has been gathered. During the 1850s and 60s
Serbian archaeologists, Vasi≤ himself (1931; 1936),
then Miloj≠i≤ (1950), GaraΠanin (1951 et pass.), Jovanovi≤
(1961), Srejovi≤ (1990) and others, fairly established
a general framework of knowledge about
the distinctive aspects of Vin≠a culture – environmental,
socio-economic and cultural. Moreover, col-
leagues from elsewhere made important contributions
to the creation of more specific databases
about the culture. For instance, they conducted extensive
studies of its intensive agricultural subsistence
economy, processes of strengthening power
and expanding territory, as well as methods for obtaining
important goods and raw materials, such as
salt, flint, or obsidian. A significant contribution
made by Jovanovi≤ (1971 et pass.) in the 70s and
80s shed new light on the Vin≠a economy – the discovery
of a copper mine at Rudna Glava suggests
that the Vin≠a people, previously described as (only)
farmers, were actually also “involved” in metal-working.
The most recent archaeological discoveries at
the Plo≠nik and Belovode sites (πljivar and Kuzmanovi≤-
Cvetkovi≤ 1998; πljivar and Jacanovi≤ 2001)
confirmed the idea that (as least) the second period
of Vin≠a culture should be regarded as practically
Early Chalcolithic (Fig. 1).
The Vin≠a culture has been studied in archaeology
for more than a century. Archaeologists have witnessed
a silent “war” for almost thirty years: endless debates
between supporters of the “full literacy” of the
culture and categorical opponents of such an idea. In
fact, neither opponents nor supporters have provided
convincing scientific arguments for their general
opinion. This might cause a serious problem for a serious
reader.
What should be stressed above all when addressing
the question of the Vin≠a signs? The distribution of
the finds (Fig. 2) is, generally speaking, regular. Perhaps
it is important to emphasize that the highest
concentration is in large Serbian river valleys (such
as the Danube, Sava, Morava). But, contrary to prevailing
views of experts who have studied the topic,
the northern area (e.g. the Danube Valley itself)
is not the heartland of the signs, but the whole area
covered by Vin≠a culture.

Around the end of 19th century Torma excavated
the site of Turdas the in Romanian northern plain
(then called Hunyad). In her research diaries she
noted and drew over 200 of signs and symbols discovered
on the bases of ceramic bowls. While the
majority of signs were linear, the collection also included
stylised representations of animals, and even
humans. Roska published the collection for the first
time, more than five decades later (Roska 1941).
Vasi≤ made the most significant breakthrough, and
improved our knowledge of Vin≠a culture. As the
first trained Serbian archaeologist, he initiated systematic
excavations Belo brdo (‘White Hill’) site in
1906. In one of his first reports (Vassits 1910), Vasi≤
paid particular attention to “incised signs and
marks”, emphasising that these signs and symbols
were not a part of a system of vessel ornamentation,
i.e., they emerged independently of ornamentation.
His assumption was that these symbols referred to
the pottery workshops or to the owners of the vessels,
and were specific to certain clans or families.
Several important discoveries from the northeastern
region (for example, in Romania) reopened old
discussions about the basic concepts of Vin≠a society
– its ideological structure, cults and/or religion.
In 1961, during excavations at the site of Tartaria,
Vlassa discovered three plaque-like objects of badly
fired clay, at the bottom of a bizarre spot (a grave?
a sacrificial pit?). Two of these objects had a perfo-
ration (similar to those on amulets), while the third
was simply a flat plaque. The fact that each of these
objects had extraordinary signs and symbols incised
in fresh clay made them important and internationally
famous as the “Tartaria tablets”. Clear representations
of animals (goats?), humans, objects (a tripod?),
organized in metopically separated zones, were
combined with linear symbols in a manner which
was already known to us as the Vin≠a-type style.

This discovery raised a storm among European archaeologists
and palaeolinguists. Distinguished authors,
such as Falkenstein (1965), S. Hood (1967),
Makkay (1968) and others, started to write comprehensive
studies on the importance and meaning of
the Tartaria tablets. Apparently, the most confusing
fact was a striking similarity between these objects
(and their symbols) and the signs on cylindrical
seals from a preceding, early phase of development
of cuneiform, the so-called Uruk IV/Djemdet-Nasr
phase. However, it was very difficult to explain a
possible connection between the two, not only due
to the huge geographical distance, but also due to a
serious chronological mismatch. Djemdet-Nasr was
dated to around 2800 BC, while Tartaria, e.g. its findings,
must have been more than a thousand years
older (bearing in mind that it belonged to an early
phase of Vin≠a culture).
Interest in the phenomenon of incised signs and symbols
on the prehistoric pottery from the Danube region
and the Balkans increased upon the publishing
of specific finds from Bulgarian sites: the so-called
GradeΠnica dish, Karanovo seal, etc. All these discoveries
have created a controversy, and it has become
inevitable to consider the possibility that the
signs may represent a unique written communication
system that was once typical of the Neo/Eneolithic
in souteastern Europe. It should be remembered,
however, that such a phenomenon existed in
other parts of the world. A number of incised signs
were found at the bottom of ceramic vessels from
various cultures, such as the Greek Neolithic (especially
the Thessalian Dimini phase), the Badari culture
in Egypt, seals from the Mohenjo Daro in India,
and the Yangshao culture in China, among others.
All these discoveries suggest that it may be possible
to regard these finds as anthropological phenomena,
typical of something I call the first information revolution
in history, developing from the intensive life
of permanent Neolithic communities. In my opinion,
Vin≠a Culture went furthest in the process of developing
this kind of communication.

The work of GaraΠanin (cf. 1951) had a crucial role
in the process of defining the Vin≠a-type findings
and sites as integral parts of a uniform archaeological
culture. He established an internal chronology,
recognizing two basic phases (Turdas, and later,
Plo≠nik). Through proficient and profound analyses
of material and spiritual culture, GaraΠanin managed
to explain the logic of development, its basic
characteristics, and the richness of this extraordinary
Neolithic culture of SE Europe. However, in
this, as well as in his later work (GaraΠanin 1973;
1979), he claimed that the signs were merely property
marks. Although he strongly denied Vasi≤’s idea
(and provided strong arguments to support his own
conclusions) about the absolute age, as well as the
Vin≠a cultural milieu in the Pre-Classical Greek
world, he did not make an effort to reconsider the
concept of Vin≠a signs as the owner’s marks and/or
manufacturer’s “trademarks”.
In the 20th century, during the 50s and 60s, nearly
one hundred additional Vin≠a-type sites, mainly settlements,
were been discovered and explored in Serbia,
Montenegro, Bosnia, and Romania. Incised signs
on the pottery were mentioned occasionally. However,
in every single case the signs were assumed to
be “owner’s marks”. It is rather likely that GaraΠanin’s
great authority influenced others’ opinions, so
his interpretation of signs has been taken for granted,
and the phenomenon itself has been regarded
as ephemeral, not relevant enough to deserve a
thoughtful exploration.

Thorough and responsible researchers also might
deserve certain criticism: evidently, only a few of
them have undertaken a systematic and holistic exploration
of the phenomenon. The latter remark particularly
applies to Serbian archaeologists and linguists,
who have had a full access to the major part
of the heritage – the objects with signs. GaraΠanin
(1951; 1973) and Srejovi≤ (1994) maintain that the
signs were “owner’s marks” or “potter’s marks”.
On the other hand, many non-scholars (and/or controversial,
questionable scholars) have been trying
to promote one doubtful idea throughout these
years. Yet in 1940, Georgievskij interpreted the entire
corpus of the Vin≠a signs as a genuine representative
of full prehistoric literacy, invented by the
Vin≠a people. Nowadays, we can also find “readings”
of the Vin≠a “texts” fully translated by the “interpreters”
of the Vin≠a language and script. Their “readings”
have usually been rather convincing to the public,
since they mention, almost as a rule, the glory
of some unnamed goddess (if the signs are on a statuette
of a female figure – Fig. 3). Similarly, these
authors manage to persuade laypersons, as they
have the “courage” to “describe” fantastic events, for
example, the “historical” and even “political” end of
the Vin≠a civilization in the expulsion of the Vin≠a
population from their homeland (cf. Chudinov
2003; PeΠi≤ 1995). According to these interpretations,
the content of those “texts” undoubtedly connects
Neolithic Vin≠a communities with Etrurians.
Furthermore, PeΠi≤, for example (op.cit.) without
any criticism, has “discovered” the origins of the
Vin≠a “literacy” – presumably, in the writing skills
of the Lepenski Vir culture (?!) There is no need to
waste paper on arguing with such ideas.
Probably the most important study of the Vin≠a signs
was conducted by the American archaeologist Winn
(dissertation thesis, Winn 1981). Through profound
analyses of a series collected from around 50 Serbian
Vin≠a-type sites, he took the most significant
step forward in methodological approaches to the
problem. Instead of dealing with single and/or “convenient”
examples (as most authors have done), and
comparing them with already known cases in order
to come to general conclusions, Winn first categorized
them, and, further, suggested a model of sign
classification, based on features (categories), which
he had determined as relevant. It appeared that the
latter was the only correct and productive way to
approach and possibly solve the problem.
Probably the most significant outcome of Winn’s
work was that he provided convincing evidence that
the Vin≠a signs constituted a system, rather than a
collection of arbitrary, random symbols. What was
apparently missing in his comprehensive study was
a clear analysis of the archaeological context in
which the signs were found. Although this type of
study could be extremely difficult to
carry out in practice (especially due
to problems related to systematisation),
it has the potential of providing
a clear archaeological answer to
a crucial question: did the Vin≠a
signs constitute a script in the full
meaning of the term?
Of course, it is necessary to emphasis
the work of Gimbutas, and the
circle around the Institute of Archaeomythology.
I would particulary like
to stress Haarmann’s papers and
books (cf. in this volume), and, nowadays,
Merlini’s excellent and ambitious attempt to
promote the possible crucial importance of the main
dilemma (script or not?) on his website “Prehistoric
Knowledge“.

Eight years ago, I started to study the problem of
the Vin≠a signs in order to solve my own dilemma
about their possible significance in the context of
Neolithic Vin≠a society. At first glance, it was obvious
that the signs did not fit into the ornamentation
pattern that once existed. While there were
some examples (especially on figurines and altars)
that the symbols were incorporated into the ornamental
pattern, many of the signs appeared on pots
and bowls with no additional ornamentation. Assuming,
just tentatively, that the signs on votive figurines
were integral parts of symbolic formulae, single
signs or groups of signs on the bottoms of domestic
pots more often than not implied a quite different
interpretation. However, other signs attracted
my attention – those on loom weights and spindle
whorls. Having in mind that both kinds of artefact
could be connected with basic economic activity, I
started to consider two main questions. The first
was – could the Vin≠a signs and symbols be a substantial
system representing messages? Another
question, even more difficult, was the following: was
the entire corpus of the Vin≠a signs coherent enough
to be regarded as a system of written communication
in its original context?
In order to provide the answers to these two questions,
I had to create an innovative analytical system.
The first task was to develop a strategy to “rediscover”
material, because it was virtually hidden.
Needless to say, most of the artefacts had not been
carefully studied, since they were considered unimportant
or trivial. I studied 17 different museum collections
throughout Serbia, and the collections from
over 40 different Vin≠a sites collecting data on than
1000 fired clay objects with over 1500 signs and
symbols.
Data gathered at sites can be divided into three
groups:
❶ general data about the site, conditions of the object’s
discovery (the technical as well as archaeological
context), museum documentation data,
as well as relative and absolute dating
❷ analytical data relating to each object (formal and
techno-morphological information, as well as dimensions
and other features)
❸ analytical data about each sign (formal characteristics,
number of lines, number of signs, intersections,
typology, and so on)

Furthermore, I took photographs of each object and
the signs. Similarly, I made drawings of the object
(in many cases, where possible, this had to be virtually
reconstructed), and of the sign itself. In this
manner, I established a principal sign database.
It is obvious that there is a wide range of objects
that once had signs and symbols on them (Fig. 4).
But, a serious question as to their provenance and
function within the structure of Vin≠a society is still
unresolved. On the one hand, some scientists, e.g.
Gimbutas (1973; 1974 and later) thought they were
religious. Her efforts and insights had some merit.
According to my exploration, the most significant
signs and their combinations (logograms, ideograms,
groups of signs) were primarily on objects that could
be religious: votive figurines, amulets, face-like lids,
tablets, etc. On the other hand, the most frequent
occurring signs/groups of signs were found on ordinary,
utilitarian objects: containers for processing
and consuming food, loom weights, etc.
Assuming that the second case predominated, the
Vin≠a signs could be interpreted as evolving into a
full writing system, since this is already known for
the historical development of ancient writing systems
(Mesopotamia, Crete, China). Certainly, the latter
conclusion could be supported if the signs on the
vessels referred to practical information, such as
number of breeding stock, volume of jars, meat and
hide weight, and so on.
A problem mentioned above has evoked the most
intriguing question: is it possible that the entire set
of Vin≠a signs did not constitute a single uniform,
mono-sign system?
Is it possible to prove or reject the idea that the Vin-
≠a signs were a fully comprehensive system of written
communication, even if we do not know its (possible)
meaning? There are three main points that I
wish to emphasise here:
❶ Formal grouping and/or classification should help
to establish general the framework of the signs’ sequence;
however, since many authors have only
tried to combine and compare graphic representations
of the signs with each other, the results were
unsatisfactory. More extreme attempts led to supposed
analogies with symbols from recognised early
writing systems, such the archaic phase in the development
of cuneiform. If it even produced problems
with chronological correspondence, such authors
(cf. Makkay 1969) were ready to change drastically
the chronology itself.
❷ Another possible approach is to concentrate on
the objects with the signs. It is now quite clear that
practically every single category of object of fired
clay had been inscribed: pots, lids, loom weights and
spindle whorls, as well as figurines, mask-like lids,
small altars, peculiar artefacts resembling dolls, and
even plaques or tablets. The latter (such as the famous
Tartaria Tablets) were especially interesting to
many scholars, because they offered evidence for reconsidering
the existence of written communication.
The main reason is than the exclusive purpose of
making such objects was to carry
signs. But if we overturn the point
of view, it could be assumed that the
Vin≠a people needed to inscribe various
utilitarian and non-utilitarian
accessories; if so, why?
❸ Perhaps the most promising approach
is a comprehensive analysis
of the original context of the object
(and the signs’, too), when possible.
In the evaluation of previous attempts
to solve the problem of the
Vin≠a signs and symbols, their importance
and original significance, I
noticed that none of the authors paid enough attention
to this point except in general terms. The signs
were found in house interiors, in the context of
households, in different kinds of workshop activities
(such as weaving, or pottery production), and even
in graves. But, all of it – in what proportions? Having
been analysed the question, I would like to present
some interesting evidence.
Of course, it should be stressed that none of those
three starting points for the study of the Vin≠a signs
is exclusive or matchless: a fully comprehensive analysis
has to interrelate all of those three levels of
data.

Firstly, when we look at the studied corpus, it is obvious
that the quality of basic contextual data is quite
high (Fig. 5). More than 80 % of all finds were discovered
through systematic and/or test excavations.
Basic information about the cultural sequence, stratigraphy,
and relative date potentially exists.
But, if we consider more closely not only the stratigraphic
or technical, but also the structural context
of the signs, the situation is even
more informative: almost 95 % of
well-defined artefacts were found
inside houses or backyards (e.g. the
household area), including storage/
garbage pits. In my opinion, this is
very significant, because it clearly
implies that the predominant use of
the signs was connected to domestic
activities (Fig. 6).
Moreover, another result of the study
seems to be most significant. During
the basic contextual analysis of 38
different sites, I found 79 different
houses had been excavated from every sequential
phase, and, beyond my expectations, signs were
found in all of them (Fig. 7)!

This is probably a very important result, but, what
does such evidence tell us? Before we jump to conclusions,
I would like to provide only one example.
When we try to calculate the minimum number of
pots (MNP) in a well-defined context, the results
might be surprising. When I did such a calculation
(Starovi≤ 1993) through an analysis of the Late Vin-
≠a set that belonged to only one house in its lifespan,
probably one generation only, I reached a total
of 3552. I must also emphasise that the technomorphological
quality of this pottery collection was
high. Further, the size of the house was quite common.
If we take a closer look, it can be assumed that
such a large number of pottery products could also
mean a high degree of intensive economic activity,
such as food production resulting in a surplus, so it
is possible to consider the idea of a food trade.
Furthermore, scholars who have studied the problem
of Late Neolithic socio-cultural transformations
in SE Europe (especially in the Balkans) have admitted
that the most sensitive (archaeologically speaking)
“filter” for testing and understanding basic
ideology of the Vin≠a culture has probably been absent:
representative evidence of funerary practices.
Without a doubt, the substantial lack of graves (in
comparison to the number of settlements) became
the “trademark” in archaeological explanations of
Vin≠a social activities. If we exclude almost sporadic
discoveries of single graves within the settlements
(like those at Vin≠a itself, then, possibly Tartaria
and some other sites), only two ‘proper’ cemeteries
have been found: BotoΠ near Zrenjanin, and
Gomolava near Ruma. Both were outside the settlements:
the cemetery in Ωivani≤eva Dolja (BotoΠ) was
in the vicinity of two settlements, Stari Vinogradi
and Aradac, while the necropolis in Gomolava was
in a temporarily uninhabited sector of the tell.
Finally, I would turn to the anthropological, and
even palaeo-sociological point of the main question
(script or not?): perhaps this is surprising, but it becomes
irrelevant. In other words, if one wants to
elaborate on the further significance of the phenomenon,
then the fact that a regular system of written
communication existed is satisfying.
While understanding that many obstacles
seriously hinder attempts to
decipher the signs, we should remember
that the Vin≠a symbols were
once messages, notes, information.
Then who could have written them,
and why? After much consideration,
I have concluded that the origin and
invention of the signs and symbols
were religious and ceremonial. The
most common signs, the repetition
of formulaic sign groups, votive and
religious objects incised before firing
(just as in a kind of initiation) all support this idea.

But archaeological evidence strongly supports something
else. In time, starting from the Vin≠a B2 phase,
the signs incised (or rather scratched in) after firing
become the most common. It seems that in later
phases pots became very convenient media for the
transfer of practical information in everyday life.
Many numbers, different sign groups, and even ligatures
(just as in the modern system of stenography),
and regional types of sign design, should mean that
the Vin≠a people had started to write more precise
messages, and to understand them. So, who could
write and read it? The dynamics of the social and
economic transformation of a relatively simple tribal
community into a more complex society are also evident.
Extra goods such as flint, salt, copper, and, particularly,
their increasing number, imply the possibility
of commercial trade. Perhaps travelling craftsmen
and traders were the authors of the majority of
the signs and symbols?
As a final conclusion, I suggest we begin to re-consider
common attitudes to the nature and complexity
of Vinca society.

REFERENCES.txt

Documenta Praehistorica XXXII (2005)
UDK 903.2(497.11) "633\634">003>291.37
1 Thanks to Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Branch in Novi Sad and Institute of Archaeomythology, USA, International symposium
on the Neolithic symbol system of SE Europe gathered more than 20 scientists from Europe and the USA in May 25–29, 2004.

© 2005 Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta - Univerza v Ljubljani, SI