Porocilo XXXII.Qxd

UDK 903.2(4-12)"633\634">003>291.37 Documenta Praehistorica XXXII (2005) Semiotic approach to the features of the ‘Danube Script’ Marco Merlini The Prehistory Knowledge Project (Roma, Italy), Institute of Archaeomythology (Sebastopol, USA) [email protected] ABSTRACT – The article presents a matrix of basic semiotic markers and rules for examining the internal structure of the sign system developed in the Neo-Eneolithic in the Danube basin. It is in- tended a) to test the hypothesis that these cultures had an early form of writing, the so-called Danube script; b) to infer the principles of this system of writing; c) to distinguish between bi- and multi-signs texts of the Danube script, without knowing what any of them meant, from compounds of signs associated with other communication codes, among them decoration, symbols, and divinity identi- fiers. The matrix is applied to some recent discoveries selected not from the core area of the Danube civilization in the Vin≠a region, but from peripheral regions, in order to document how widespread the Danube script was. IZVLE∞EK – ∞lanek predstavlja matrico osnovnih semioti≠nih ozna≠evalcev in pravil za preu≠evanje notranje strukture sistema znakov, ki se je razvil v neo-eneolitiku Donavskega bazena. Nameravam a) testirati hipotezo, da so te kulture poznale zgodnjo obliko pisave, tako imenovano ‘Donavsko’ pi- savo; b) povzeti principe tega sistema pisave; c) poiskati razliko med dvo- in ve≠-znakovnimi bese- dili donavske pisave, ne da bi poznal njihov pomen, iz sestave znakov povezane z drugimi kodami komunikacije, med katerimi so kra∏enje, simboli in dolo≠evalci bo∫anskega. Da bi ugotovili kako raz- ∏irjena je bila ‘Donavska’ pisava, je bila matrica uporabljena za preu≠evanje nedavnih odkritij, iz- branih iz obrobnih obmo≠jih in ne iz jedra donavske civilizacije na obmo≠ju Vin≠e. KEY WORDS – Danube script; Danube civilization; Neo-Eneolithic; Symbolism DID A FORM OF LITERACY DEVELOP IN THE NEO-ENEOLITHIC IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE? The existence of a script which developed in the signs of some sort of writing, and scholars sought Neolithic in the middle and lower Danube basin was links between south-eastern Europe and the more seriously believed by eminent archaeologists, histo- ‘civilized’ regions of Mesopotamia, the Levant and rians, linguists, and philologists at the end of the eastern Mediterranean1. nineteenth century and in the early decades of the twentieth. But the precocious specimens of Euro- From the middle of the twentieth century, the intro- pean writing could not be related to the Neo-Eneo- duction of well-established dating methods determi- lithic due to a lack of reliable dating methods. The ned that the inscribed Danube-Balkan objects dated shards found at Turdas, at Vin≠a, or in other Danube- to the Neo-Eneolithic, and as a result their signs sud- Balkan settlements were clearly inscribed with the denly became mute, being considered mere deco- 1 For the “Turdas script” see Zsófia von Torma, Heinrich Schliemann. Heinrich Karl Brugsch, Arthur Evans, H. Schmidt. For the “Vin≠a script” see Miloje Vasi≤. 233 Marco Merlini ration, ownership marks, or simply scratches. The in- vention in south-eastern Europe of an ars scribendi in Neo-Eneolithic times was held so unthinkable that the simple possibility of it has been ignored, and its evidence given very scant attention. It was the discovery in 1961 of three inscribed tablets at the settlement of Ta˘rta˘ria-Gura Luncii (Alba county, in Romania) that kindled a wave of contro- versy regarding the possibility that Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures might have had an early form of writing in south-eastern Europe (Fig. 1). Paradoxically, the Ta˘rta˘ria discovery cracked the scep- ticism of some scholars over the spectacular claim Fig. 1. The group of the three inscribed Ta˘rta˘ria tablets. that the Neo-Eneolithic Danube Civilization used an early form of writing, and at the same time reinfor- Rome. The results are: Rome – 1631 (human bones): ced that of others. In fact, since their discovery, the 6310±65 yr BP; 5370–5140 calBC (Merlini 2004b; Transylvanian tablets have occupied a unique and Merlini on line). Therefore, the earliest evidence of often contentious position in European prehistory a European script comes from Transylvania (Fig. 2). because of the dispute over two main points: their dating and the assertion that their symbols could be Sometimes events do not change the course of his- a form of writing2. tory by their direct and immediate effects, but by their collateral effects. Indeed, in the last few years Regarding their dating, the archaeological documen- the possibility that the Ta˘rta˘ria Tablets could be the tation from the discoverer (Nicolae Vlassa from Cluj Museum) is not completely reliable. Therefore they have been used by some scholars as evidence of a low chronology for the Danube Neolithic period (Hood 1967.99–102; 1968; Makkay 1969; 1971; 1984; 1990): the Ta˘rta˘ria tablets might have belon- ged to the Vin≠a C migrations, when such a ‘writing’ system was largely used not only in south-eastern Europe, but also in the area of proto-Sumerian civ- ilizations (Lazarovici 2003.87). At the same time, the Transylvanian tablets have been considered by others scholars as genuine, early Vin≠a artefacts of the fifth millennium BC (Gimbutas 1982. 87) or the latter half of the sixth millennium BC (Haarmann 1990.76). Therefore, they have been considered as the earliest attestations of Old European script (Mas- son 1984; Haarmann 2002). But how old are the Ta˘rta˘ria tablets? For forty-two years no one considered they were accompanied by human remains, which are still preserved in Cluj in the basement of the National History Museum of Transylvania. Gheorghe Lazarovici and I, under the patronage of the Prehistory Knowledge Project, in October 2003 went in search of the bones, found Fig. 2. The Ta˘rta˘ria tablets were associated with them, and requested a 14C analysis at the laboratory human remains which are deposited in the Natio- of the Earth Sciences of La Sapienza University of nal History Museum of Transylvania in Cluj. 2 For a survey see Merlini (2004a.51–63). 234 Semiotic approach to the features of the ‘Danube Script’ “most ancient European library” has stimulated a re- inforcement of nationalistic “archaeo-political” ma- examination of the archaeological material found in noeuvring. the last century and a half in the Danube basin. And in a number of locations the checks still now in pro- gress have allowed a re-evaluation of hundreds of THE POSITION OF THE DANUBE SCRIPT WITHIN inscribed artefacts which predate the earliest Sume- THE DANUBE SYSTEM OF COMMUNICATION rian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics. The Danube script appeared in south-east Europe Therefore, in the last few years a very rapid accumu- around 5300 BC, some two thousand years earlier lation of archaeological evidence has occurred, sup- than any other known writing. It originally appea- porting the thesis that European literacy existed in red in the central Balkan area and developed locally. the Neo-Eneolithic, the Danube script3. The most It quickly spread to the Danube valley, southern Hun- exciting discoveries are happening in museum and gary, Macedonia, Transylvania, and northern Greece. university archaeological collections. Many signs and It flourished up to about 3500 BC, when a social up- their combinations unearthed during the last cen- heaval occurred: according to some, there was an in- tury’s excavations were not published by their disco- vasion of new populations, whilst others hypothesise verers because, not having a pattern of decoration the emergence of new elite (Fig. 3). or symbols, they did not dare speculate that they might be a system of writing. Other archaeologists The early European writing was later to be lost, and did not realize that their findings, catalogued and what remains of it is unfathomable, and tenaciously published even from decades before, might have in- resists the efforts of anyone attempting to decipher scriptions. They considered that the strange geome- it. Nothing is known about the existence of such a trical, abstract and linear signs only badly executed referential language. Moreover, it is too ancient for decoration scratched by confused artists. Thus in re- us to hope to find anything like the trilingual Roset- producing and publishing them, they amended and ta Stone which would permit us to translate it into adjusted them in a more fashionable way by regula- a known language. Although it is now lost and pro- rising their shapes, or imposing symmetry upon their original patterns. A third wave of scholars maintai- ned that the strange signs were magic-religious symbols or ownership/manufacturing marks. If both in- terpretations failed, the ultimate resource was to con- sider them simply as random scribbles made by bored and idle potters. Finally, some scholars simply did not realize that the objects they had discovered had signs on them. In the fifties Milutin Gara∏anin found an inscribed figu- rine at Supska (near ∞uprija, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro), but he did not notice the A, I, M, H, and Y-like motifs positioned on a large triangle incised on the chest. This inscription was re-discovered in 2002 by Andrej Starovi≤ (2004). On the other hand, a considerable number of books and articles have been devoted to a (quasi) scienti- Fig. 3. The region where the Danube Civilization fic fiction aimed at ‘reading’ the Vin≠a ‘documents’ and the Danube Script flourished in 5 millennia as alphabetic texts. The present interest in a ‘Neoli- BC. The Danube Script was used in the core area of thic alphabet’ in the Balkans is connected to the re- the Danube Civilization only.

Load more