Chapter 4 part II “Debugging the process of building a repertory of the Southeastern European signs” from the book Neo-Eneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe PDF

Preview

Summary

4.C.a.5 Winn’s pioneering contribution In the early 1970s, Shan Winn collected hundreds of signs from the Central Balkans, especially from the Vinča area and established the first systematic inventory of “pre-writing in South-eastern Europe” inclusive of reference numbers (Winn 1981). Winn has so fa...

Description

4.C.a.5 Winn’s pioneering contribution In the early 1970s, Shan Winn collected hundreds of signs from the Central Balkans, especially from the Vinča area and established the first systematic inventory of “pre-writing in South-eastern Europe” inclusive of reference numbers (Winn 1981). Winn has so far presented the most extensive analysis of the Vinča signs and inscriptions. Nevertheless, many prehistorians and archaeologists interested in the Vinča script are not familiar with his significant work because of the limited circulation of his PhD dissertation (a microfilm xerography published in 1973) and the derivate book (published in 1981). At that time, Winn had isolated around 50 Vinča sites with signs, some with only a single sign or two. He did not locate a number of sites on the map because he was uncertain of their precise location. In his catalogue of sites (Winn 1973: 304; ibidem 1981: 267), 41 are listed by name. The corresponding map shows only 35 sites (Winn 1973: 19; ibidem 1981: 15): six primary sites are labeled directly on the map; 29 are recorded in a list along side the map.1 Classifying hundreds of marks as “neither decorations nor scratches”,2 from objects which were, in many cases, not very well known, Winn organized geometric chaos into 210 types3 which originate from a normalization of a set of signs with recognizably similarities (Winn 1981: 59). The 210 type-signs identified by Winn are recognizable on figurines, tablets, vessels, spindle whorls, weight looms, and so on. They are an undifferentiated mix of signs of writing, symbols, ritual marking, etc. In fact, he never tried to distinguish between signs as symbols or ownership/manufacturer marks and signs as elements of a script. Following a geometric approach to the shape of the signs and its development by increasing the complexity of a range of elementary signs, Winn reduced the 210 types to five core signs that form the basis of the category system: a straight, unbent, unbroken vertical or horizontal line (I or -); two lines which intersect at the centre (+ or X); the angle, or two lines joined at one end (V or Λ), a dot or stipple (•), a curved line as the ( (Winn 1981: 60).4 Each core sign may appear: o without any alteration, either singly or repeating (X or XX) o with alterations; i.e. accessory marks placed either adjacent to the core sign ( X- ), abutting ( ) or o overlapping it ( ). Exploring the possible geometric combinations of the five basic signs, Winn identified 18 fundamental categories of signs based on generally shared features. Each category is composed of at least one type sign (Classification I and V) up to a maximum of 35 signs (Category XVII). Some categories are articulated in sub-categories. According to Winn’s organization of the inventory, the fundamental categories are: 1) Plain straight single line 2) Plain straight single line plus accessory sign (creating a modification) which with a few exceptions is a straight line; it is articulated in five sub-categories 3) Repeated lines 4) Repeated lines plus accessory sign (modifications) subdivided in three sub-categories 5) Single plain X 6) Single X plus accessory sign (modifications) articulated in three sub-categories

1

Marija Gimbutas wrongly states that the signs were collected from twenty-nine sites (Gimbutas 1991: 309), and others have repeated that mistake. 2 “The signs are not components of ornamental motifs, although a few examples are abstractions from decorative prototypes” (Winn 2002 on-line). 3 There are 200 basic sign types and 10 additional types of meander symbol/signs (Winn 1981: 59). 4 In a subsequent work, Winn challenged Gimbutas’ criticism that he assumed the derivation of the inventoried sign from five core elements and that this classification presents ... a hypothetical process of graphic development from simple to complex (Gimbutas 1991: 309), clarifying that he utilized the scheme solely for cataloguing the signs, never stating that the list of the signs was derived from five basic geometries (Winn 2008: 128). However, the employment of the five key geometries in the categorization of the inventory lead Winn to insert signs such as the not among the ideographs/pictographs depicting animals, but inside the category of the abstract signs based on the core sign “V”. At the same time, Winn did not consider the within the category of the ideographs/pictographs representing plants, but as the plain straight line plus accessory taking it in account as a “single line modified by several V signs” (Winn 1981: 61). And so on. 118

7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18)

Repeated X divided in two sub-categories Repeated X plus accessory sign (modifications) Filled crosses with three sub-categories Single plain V Plain V plus accessory sign (modifications) segmented in four sub-categories Repeated V’s Repeated V’s plus accessories partitioned in four sub-categories Stipples Curves included circles, adorned and unadorned Combinations or ligatures to form complex signs Pictograms Meanders

The reduction to five core geometric categories that form the basis of the system of identification has organizational reasons and the objective to facilitate the adding of new signs to the corpus or to rearrange the groupings where it might be deemed necessary. However, it is also an indicator of a purely geometric approach to the sign system. In fact, Winn arranged the sign list based on an increasing order of graphic complexity from the simple to the complex and with reference to changes in basic elements (Winn 1981: 18). His list starts with the basic sign I to end with pictographs and meanders. Winn’s inventory is organized in a well-articulated table. The sign type is listed in the first column. The second column records the major variant, if any, of the sign type. According to his point of view, within each type there is some variation, but not to the extent that the sign can be confused with a sign from another type. The third column designates whether or not a sign occurs as a single, isolated sign. The fourth column indicates the presence or absence in groups of the sign type. The fifth column includes a list of references indicating tables where one can find the entire body of collected signs belonging to the type under consideration. The schematic representation of sign occurrence in the inventory table provides an overview of the approximate relative significance and usage of each sign type (Winn 1981: 18). Therefore, Winn compiled not a simple list of signs, but also a sort of preliminary database for them.

Fig. 4.18.a – Winn’s inventory 1981. (After Winn 1981). 119

Fig. 4.18.b – Winn’s inventory 1981. (After Winn 1981).

Fig. 4.18.c – Winn’s inventory 1981. (After Winn 1981). 120

Fig. 4.18.d – Winn’s inventory 1981. (After Winn 1981). As mentioned above, Winn never tried to distinguish between signs as symbols or ownership/manufacturer marks and signs as elements of a script. He also never actually referred to the script as “writing”. The list of 210 signs was only a way to categorize signs that he found in the corpus of inscribed objects. It was not a statement about which kind of signs they were, according to their nature and/or usage. Winn followed this modus operandi for three reasons (Winn 2003 and 2004 personal communication). First, hoped that, if there were already type signs in place, other researchers would detect more signs and add new signs to the inventory. Second, he never tried to distinguish between symbolic and writing codes because, according to him, several important symbols were widely employed in the inscriptions; they appear to have been used and identified as a basic part of the script, and it is doubtful that a distinction between symbolism and script was made by the Neolithic cultures. Third, in response to Harald Haarmann’s concern that he did not consider or recognize the Vinča signs as belonging to a system of writing, Winn clarified that his assumption of “pre-writing” in Neolithic Southeastern Europe does not preclude it as being “some kind of writing”, although he mentioned in the book that it was not “true writing” (Winn 1981). What he meant is that it is not writing in the sense of what developed in Near East around 3000 BC, called “proto-writing”. He did not employ the same term for the Vinča signs, since they were much older. Therefore, he used the term “pre-writing” as a distinguishing way of the Vinča writing as an earlier stage and as a different form of expression than the Protoliterate/Sumerian script of the Near East, where most people believe writing originated. The absence of the distinction between symbolic code and writing code, the use of the terms “signs” and “sign system” instead of “script”, and the employment of the notion of “pre-writing” are three aspects of the same problem. Scholars who have proposed the existence of a European writing have met harsh criticism. Winn used the word "script" throughout his 1973 dissertation. However, the committee and American scholars pressed him to omit the term. Therefore, in the revised version of 1981 he replaced the term “script” with the term “signs” in a number of cases. For example, the thesis included in the Table of Contents "The Nature and Role of the Script", but the 1981 revised version presented "The Nature and Role of the Semiotic System”. In the former, Winn noted, "The actual use of script seems to have suddenly emerged at Turdaş" (Winn 1973: 298). However, but in the latter, he edits the phrase: 121

“The sudden introduction of signs at Turdaş”; and so on. Contextually by replacing, in the edited version, the term “script” with “signs”, in the modified edition Winn chose to be diplomatic.

Fig. 4.19 – The distribution of signs at widely separated sites. (After Winn 2002 online). The hypothesized European “pre-writing” made his ideas of Balkan-Danube script more plausible and avoided challenging traditional notions about the origin of writing in Near East. He meant to show that if scholars were unwilling to accept the Vinča signs as a script, then perhaps they would accept the idea that they were precursors to writing signs, or “pre-writing.” “I did my study on the signs in 1971-1972”, the archaeologist explained at the 2004 Symposium of Novi Sad where he presented his experience with the 122

script. “The scholars were not ready to concede that the Europeans in Neolithic and Chalcolithic times were culturally developed and independent from the Near East. I did not want them to shut down automatically in front of this new point of view”. Pre-writing was a key to open all the door having been interpreted both as signs that do not constitute writing and as signs that precede writing (Winn 2008: 127). Based on his inventory and preliminary database, Winn established the frame of a complex and standardized pattern of communication composed of several elements: 1) simple markings on pots, likely representing ritual or magic signs; 2) distinctive marks on or near the base of pottery vessels, possibly reflecting: a) economic aspects - indicating the number of pots produced - or b) a form of identification, such as the owner/producer, or c) the identity of “powers” called upon during a ritual; 3) several common motifs or symbols, some of which may be schematizations or abstractions from decorative motifs; 4) a limited number of pictographs, too few to establish a system based on natural representations; 5) signs that may represent concepts (i.e. ideograms), which frequently occur in sign groups. Winn, however, set up a communication system segmented in different dimension in an abstract way. He did not attempt to establish to which communicative channel belonged the different signs or grouping of signs he had selected from actual inscriptions, but superimposed the schema of the communication system on to the actual inscribed finds. According to Merlini’s system, which distinguishes among marks of the different communicative codes, only 2a), 4), and 5) of Winn’s system could be considered elements of a system of writing. On the basis of his inventory and elementary database, Winn also identified three subsets of signs in the system: 1) signs generally found in a group context, having significant association with tablets, spindle whorls and figurines; 2) common single signs located principally on pottery, with some types (e.g. pictographs) limited to certain areas on pottery; 3) basic signs - appearing both as single signs and in sign groups - on pottery, figurines and spindle whorls. In 1990, Winn published an article, “A Neolithic Sign System in South-eastern Europe” for a collective volume edited by Foster and Botscharow (Winn 1990) and in 2002 he published another article “The Old European Script. Further Evidence” for the Prehistory Knowledge Project (Winn 2002 on-line). The documentation for these studies was collected in Romania in 1981 when the author had the opportunity to study more than 100 additional examples of incised artifacts from the sites of Turdaş and Parţa. The essays introduced and evaluated new evidence for the sign system and appraised the consistency of the evidence based upon his earlier conclusions. In particular, the reader is given the opportunity to compare the “new” Parţa evidence and Turdaş material not included in previous analyses with what Winn previously published regarding the Vinča signs even if the accounted sites are reduced from 35 to 32. From Winn’s new information, one can select three items for the present analysis of the inventories of the Neolithic and Copper Age script in Southeastern Europe. First, since 1990 Winn does not mention the concept of the “pre-writing”. Second, regarding the extension of the geographical and functional scope of sign usage Winn notes: “The consistent use of a set of signs in a similar manner suggests purposeful distinctions in sign usage and implies that they represent cultural conventions shared by widely separated communities” (Winn 1990: 275). Third, with respect to the largely unchanged nature of the signs, Winn comments: “Enigmatic is the fact that (…) scarcely any evolution in signs or sign usage ever took place, although the signs are a principle feature of the Vinča culture. At later settlements (Vinča C-D period) a few new signs, especially ligatures, were introduced, but many of these are limited to specific regional sites. Otherwise, signs at Turdaş, (except for the later disappearance of swastikas and whorls) are consistent with those of the Vinča culture” (Winn 1990: 278). What accounts for the static nature of the signs? It “may reflect a persistent world view and belief system that endured for centuries. Lack of change or development in the system simply indicates that a pervasive ideology, adequately expressed by the signs and symbols, necessitated little or no further evolution” (Winn 2002 on-line). Winn’s contribution is a milestone for the establishment of an inventory of the Danube script. First, Winn set up the first systematic inventory of the signs in Neolithic and Copper Age in Southeastern Europe inclusive of a) normalization of a set of shapes that are recognizably similar; b) reference numbers; c) 123

extensive internal analysis; and d) drawings. Second, the drawings of the inscribed artifacts provide insight regarding how Winn detected the signs for the inventory. Third, the inventory is the result of a very basic database of the corpus of the inscribed objects and correlated signs giving to the reader the chance of matching signs, associated inscriptions, inscribed objects, and the related inscribed part. Fourth, Winn settled the principle of the core signs and their variation based on to repetition or variation by means of diacritical markers. Thanks to Winn, the sorting out criteria of an inventory became transparent. In order to facilitate the followers to add new signs to the set and to rearrange the groupings where necessary, any type sign of the inventory is linked to two information: a) references on tables with the body of collected signs belonging to the type under consideration, and b) the actual, although schematic, representation of sign occurrence. Winn’s pioneering effort has some limitations when applied to an inventory of the Danube script. Winn presented and classified the signs through a hypothetical process of graphic development from simple to complex and from changes in basic signs without distinguishing their function inside the general communicative process, i.e. without making a distinction between signs as symbols or divinity/ownership/manufacturer marks and signs as elements of a script. “It was not Winn’s objective to distinguish between symbols and script signs. His classification presents, instead, a hypothetical process of graphic development from simple to complex” (Gimbutas 1991: 309). However, the risk of an abstract exploration of the possible combinations of elementary geometries was mitigated by Winn distinguishing the signs according to other shared features such as the presence or absence in groups, the association with distinct typologies of artifact and/or specific parts of them. When Winn referred to the script, he called it “pre-writing” which was a diplomatic way to avoid challenging the traditional view of ars scribendi in Mesopotamia, but the concept of “pre-writing” has not firm theoretical or historical basis. Consequently, Winn abandoned this approach through an article published in 1990. Paradoxically, at the same time it became a mainstream viewpoint among the East European archaeologists exactly because of its ambiguity: a hypothesized European ‘pre-writing’ became a key to open all the door, having been interpreted both as a system of signs that does not constitute writing and as a system of signs that precedes writing, made the idea of a Balkan-Danube script more plausible, and avoided challenging traditional notions about the origin of writing in Near East. Organizing signs into an inventory by means of their reduction to elementary geometries that form the basis of the category system is a problematic modus operandi. Indeed, the purely graphic approach that organizes the set of signs from simple to complex shapes and according to variation in outlines, led Winn to an artificial and a-historical procedure of reducing the types to five elementary shapes. This approach also led him to include wrongly some inscriptions within his inventory that should regard only signs. He named them “combinations or ligatures”. Nonetheless, according to Merlini’s system they are actually inscriptions formed from the merger of two or more signs. One of the main limitations of Winn’s inventory is that it deals exclusively with the core Vinča culture and records mainly sites from former Yugoslavia and in part from Romania. That is, it considers Karanovo, Gumelniţa, Gradešnica, Tisza-Herpály-Csöszhalom, etc. as neighboring cultures and, therefore, not inside the horizon of the study.5 This exclusion causes two problems: the first regards the geographic and cultural limits to be considered when establishing the inventory of the script; and, the second, the significance of the contribution to the inventory from the neighboring cultures in terms of quantity and quality. Should Gradešnica, Karanovo etc. be regarded as completely distinct and separate from Vinča culture, or as part of it, or as different but connected cultures that had some influence from/on the Vinča area? If one gives them the “status” of neighboring cultures, should their signs be included in the database and the inventory? Three examples could be useful. Winn was not certain if Gradešnica belonged to the Vinča culture, therefore he published the signs from the Gradešnica plaque in his 1973 dissertation and in his 1981 book as well (Winn 1981: 210-211), but he did not use them for the inventory. Gimbutas, on the other hand, considered Gradešnica and its plaque as part of the Vinča culture in northwest Bulgaria (Gimbutas 1991: 313, caption fig. 8-12). Winn published the signs from the Karanovo seal from V. Georgiev’s published drawing (Georgiev 1969: 33) and used some of them as comparison to strengthen the employment of certain sign groups in the Vinča culture (Win...