Chapter 5 part VI “A Matrix of semiotic rules and markers for inspecting the sign system of the Danube civilization” from the book Neo-Eneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe PDF

Preview

Summary

5.F How to discern between signs of the Danube script and symbols 5.F.a A blend language to express the visible unreality of the sacred sphere In the Danube Communication System, symbolism was a complementary and possibly a more important means for storing and transmitting messages than literacy. Th...

Description

5.F How to discern between signs of the Danube script and symbols 5.F.a A blend language to express the visible unreality of the sacred sphere In the Danube Communication System, symbolism was a complementary and possibly a more important means for storing and transmitting messages than literacy. The term "symbol" has a precise meaning within the semiotic system of C.S. Peirce, who is considered one of the founders of semiotics. It is a mark based on an arbitrary or conventional link with its referent, i.e. a mark “which represents the object, independently alike of any resemblance or any real connection, because dispositions or factitious habits of their interpreters insure their being so understood" (Peirce 1909: 460-461; ibidem 1958). "Symbolic” or symbolism" are used in anthropology to designate behaviours that are determined by ideologies, values, and beliefs rather than by purely functional considerations (Robb 1998; Bouissac 2003). These two meanings do not exactly coincide, but from the point of view of the Danube Communication System it is crucial and meaningful the area where they overlap.1 One of the still numerous key points we have not yet comprehended is why the Danube communities preferred to transmit packages of information and even to express themselves in symbols through stylized, highly abstract, and representations that are difficult for us to understand and interpret. What did they want to communicate with spirals, meanders, linear symbols all over the surface of vessels? Why did they frequently employ all kinds of apotropaic motifs, as if asking constantly for protection against malevolent forces? The entire communicative landscape was imbued by the symbolic code. We are custom to associate emblematic and meaningful design to mobiliary art such as vessels or figurines or to rock art. However, symbolic motifs were even applied in architecture as well as designing and constructing furniture. In several dwellings of the Precucuteni-Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Trypillia cultural complex, the extremities of the poles sustaining the fronton were crisscrossing joined, thus forming a kind of consecration horns, with a protecting and fertility function symbolized by the virile force of the bull. Symbols such as nets, spirals or horns were painted or engraved in relief on the walls of dwellings, expecially sanctuaries and temples, as in the instance of Kormandin (Republic of Serbia), Parţa (Banat, Romania), or Ariušd (southeastern Transylvania).

Fig. 5.222 – Symbolic consecration horns formed by crisscrossing joined extremities of the sustaining poles of the fronton of a Trypillia dwelling miniaturized model. (Photo Merlini 2004. Courtesy of the Platar collection).

1

Fig. 5.223 – Symbolic consecration horns formed by crisscrossing joined extremities of the sustaining poles of the fronton of a Trypillia dwelling miniaturized model. (Photo Merlini 2004. Courtesy of the Platar collection).

Fig. 5.224 – Symbols painted on the walls of a model of a Trypillia temple. (Photo Merlini 2004. Courtesy of the Platar collection).

I do not utilize here the definition by C. Jung, who studied archetypes, termed as “symbol” an item that stands for something that is unknown and that cannot be made clear or precise (Jung 1921: 601). 280

Fig. 5.225 – Symbols painted on the walls of a model of a Trypillia temple. (Photo Merlini 2004. Courtesy of the Platar collection).

Fig. 5.226 – Symbols painted on the walls of a model of a Trypillia temple. (Photo Merlini 2004. Courtesy of the Platar collection).

Fig. 5.227 – Symbols on the walls of a model of a Trypillia temple. (Ph. Merlini 2004. Courtesy of the Platar collection).

Prominences resembling horns characterize also the backrest of chairs and thrones as documented by those recovered in miniaturize cultic scene. Typical are the horn-like prominences exhibited by ten small clay chairs-thrones and a large throne in the sanctuary structure with a porch from Sabatinovka (in the basin of the Southern Bug, Ukraine). The structure contained also a oven with numerous pots and 21 feminine statuettes.

Fig. 5.228 – Symbolic consecration horns at the upper edge of the backrest of a small clay Precucuteni chair-throne from Isaiia (Romania). (Graphic elaboration by Merlini on a photo by Appelbaum 2008).

Fig. 5.229 – A Precucuteni figurine from Isaiia (Iaši County, Romania) is sitting on a chair-throne characterized by symbolic consecration horns positioned at the upper edge. (Photo Merlini 2007).

Also the 13 small clay chairs - found in the area of the fireplace of a Precucuteni sanctuary at Isaiia (Iaši County, Romania) together with 21 feminine statuettes, 21 phallic representations formed by the assemblage 281

of vertically perforated small cones with 21 partly perforated small spheres, and 42 small clay beads probably forming a necklace – show small horns in the upper part of the backrest. Special attention was given to the representation of horns on pots rendered as protomes, because it was a stylized symbol of virility placed on a recipient representing the feminine emblem. Some hearths (the most important place of a dwelling) with ritual role had a symbolic shape, such as the cruciform hearth from Popudnja (Ukraine). It was noticed that in most Cucuteni-Trypillia dwellings the fireplaces was situated on top of pits, which were sometimes containing cult items out of use or intentionally deposited as votive offering. Therefore the filling of such a pit, on top of which the dwelling fireplace was built, was often a foundation cultic offering such as in the instence of the dwelling no. 8 of the Precucuteni III settlement of Târgu Frumos (Iaši County, Romania) (Ursulescu 2008). This cult practice gives evidence to the double role of the fireplace. On one side, it produced fire and light – attributes of solar divinities. On the other side, it was key place of offering for the underground divinities of germination and fertility. It means that a fireplace could be built only in both a hierophanic and cratophanic place (M. Eliade). The fireplace - preserving flames and illumination (of divine, celestial origin), but being built on top of a pit which penetrated into the sacred soil - directly linked the two life generating powers: the Heavens and the Earth. The union in the fireplace of the forces that assured the permanent regeneration of nature expressed the "divine couple", a type of hierogamy. Bordering the fireplace, warious cult items with high symbolic shapes have been found, such as star-like clay plates or miniature columns, indicating distinctive ways to express the religious feeling and a wide range of liturgies. Such is the miniature clay column with a mushroom-shaped top erected on the clay border delimiting the fireplace of dwelling n. 6 from Isaiia (Ursulescu 2008). Such columns (or simple wooden posts) were discovered in more or less contemporary cultures such as the Gumelniţa culture (at Căscioarele), the Precucuteni-Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Trypillia cultural complex, the Banat culture (at Parţa). They are in general interpreted as “heavens columns”, having the role of assuring the connection between Earth and Sky (Lazarovici Gh., Draşovean, Maxim 2001).

Fig. 5.230 - “Yang-Yin” pattern on a Cucuteni A4 – Trypillia BI “temple” model from Cherkas’ka region (Ukraine). (Photo Merlini 2004. Courtesy of the Platar collection).

Fig. 5.231 – Altar located within a model of a Trypillia temple and characterized by two parallel lines on each side. (Ph. Merlini 2004. Courtesy of the Platar collection).

If quite all decorations of the Danube civilization are symbolic (at least in their emblematic geometrical root), not all the symbols are decorative. In the instance of a single mark, the recognition of the hierarchical level of its position on a vessel, a figurine, a spindle-whorl, a cultic mignon table, or a loom-weight is in general sufficient to detect its symbolic or decorative nature. It seems much more reasonable to regard a solo mark as a symbol (a “storage unit” that represents “something else”) and not as an ornament when it stands in prominent position (Makkay 1969: 11) or when it is placed at the bottom of vessels, although in the latter 282

case the symbolic identification has a minor probability to be factual and it is a less frequent case than in Makkay’s statement (1969: 11). Concerning the occurrence of more than one mark on an artifact, a Sitagroi II painted human head from the eponymous settlement can illustrate the distinction between decorative and symbolic sphere. It is naturalistic, massive, roughly oval-shaped and thick-lipped with high protruding cheekbones and “coffee-bean eyes”. According to the discoverers, it does not reflect a Mediterranean type (Gimbutas 1986: 239), but realistic oriental-type features (Gimbutas 1986: 298). It possibly wears a mask, which was red-slipped whereas the marks were painted in black (Renfrew, Gimbutas, Elster 1986: plate LI, fig. 1; Gimbutas 1986: 238, fig. 9.27, 298; see also Gimbutas 1991: 99, fig. 3.59.4). As regards to the design of the marks, Gimbutas distinguished “purely decorative (italics is mine)... triangles around the eyes” and “three and two lines and an oval or egg across the checks” which they took into account as “symbolic (italics is mine) with good parallels in the Vinča culture” as well as “two lines down the chin, and multiple parallel lines over the forehead” (Gimbutas 1986: 239).

Fig. 5.232 – Symbols and decorations cohabit on a Sitagroi II masked and painted head from the eponymous settlement. (After Gimbutas 1991: 99, fig. 3.59.4).

Fig. 5.233 - A compound symbol is incised deeply and accurately opposing to a sequence of decorative standardized chevrons on a Vinča B vessel from Beran Krs (Northern Montenegro). (After Marković 1985).

It is confident the distinction between symbol and decoration on the above fragment of a pot from Beran Krs (Northern Montenegro), along the Lim river. Indeed a compound symbol made of a triangle-like geometry inscribed inside a sickle-like or a meandering river form is deeply and accurately incised opposing to a sequence of decorative standardized chevrons aligned below. The vessel belongs to the Vinča B culture; it was unearthed at stratum 1, horizon 1 D (Marković 1985). A strong indicator which supports in many instances the distinguishing process between the Danube symbols and decorations is that the former are generally positioned in outstanding position on objects (e.g. on the vulva or between the breasts of a female figurine), whereas aesthetic motifs (e.g. elements of clothing or jewellery) could be placed without a systematic regulation or could be positioned exactly where one expects to find them from a naturalistic viewpoint (e.g. a V necklace hanging on the neck of a statuette or fringes leaning at the end of a special dress for cult ceremonies. See Lazarovici C.-M. 2004; Marchevici 1981: 117118; Monah 1997: fig. 236/5 and 255/3; Tchaciuk 2000: fig. 5/5). In Precucuteni and Cucuteni cultures the fringes of the dresses have been interpreted as a rain symbol or as a pictograph (Lazarovici C.-M. 2004; Masson et alii 1982: 117; Gimbutas 1984: 81; Monah 1997: 197; the pot from Grebeni with 2 feminine silhouettes, Tsvek 2001: fig. 4/1).

283

Some marks such as V or chevron can be either ornamentation or symbol. On a Neolithic figurine unearthed in 1924 at the tell of Vinča by Miloje Vasić, it is easily perceptible the distinction of the chevron as symbol and the chevron as decoration due to position and pattern (Vasić Handscrift 1924: 08 11 str27-2). To contrast the above-evidenced ornamental or symbolic utilization of the chevron with its employment as sign of the Danube script, I present a circular inscription that is characterized by the repeated occurrence of the sign (DS 004.2) among the other script signs. It is incised on the side near the base of a Late Neolithic vessel from Chişoda Veche (Romania) (Germann’s manuscript). In the same inscription, there are also two s.

Fig. 5.234 - The distinction of the chevron as symbol and the chevron as ornamentation is evident on a Vinča figurine from the eponymous settlement. (Vasić Handscrift 1924: 08 11 str27-2).

Fig. 5.235 - The is the key unit of a circular inscription from Chişoda Veche (Romania). (Graphic elaboration by Merlini after Germann’s manuscript).

The distinction between the Danube script and the Danube symbolism is also very subtle because they could superimpose, conceptually as well as in the shape of the outlines, inside the Danube Communication System. When dealing with two or more marks incised or painted on an artifact, the main reasons for the overlap between the two communication channels are the following: I. Writing and symbolism can both be finalized for transmitting messages II. There is a natural and close association between the outlines of many symbols and signs of writing being both elements of the religious-mythical system III. Some marks can be, depending on the context, a writing unit, and a symbol as well IV. A number of signs of the script and symbols show identical outlines having the same geometrical matrix and deriving the latter from the former V. In many instances signs of writing and symbols present both an extremely simplified formulaic and linear outline VI. System of writing and symbolic language can both organize their proper marks in similar way VII. Signs of the script and symbols can cohabit on the same object

5.F.a.1 Writing and symbolism can both store and transmit messages Throughout the history of communicational systems, written texts and symbolic language can both be finalized for transmitting packages of information according to the modalities examined in chapter 1. Haarmann exemplified this property analyzing two versions of a contract that was concluded, in 1682, between William Penn and the Delaware Indians about the purchase of a land that is nowadays Pennsylvania. 284

The version of the Europeans is a text in alphabetic writing and English language. The version of the Indians is comprised of three so-called wampum belts. The human figures in the first belt depict the parties that concluded the contract: the white man (with a hat) and the Indian in a friendly gesture (holding each other’s hand). In the second belt, the geometrical motifs signify mountains and, in the third, rivers are depicted representing the land that is being sold (Haarmann 2008:17). Also in the Danube Communication System, writing texts and symbolic language can both be finalized for conveying messages. Therefore, they can conceptually overlap as in the Delaware contract, even if the preeminence of the symbolism is often out of discussion. As mentioned above, the entire communicative landscape was informed by the symbolic code. If the Danube civilization employed both symbolism and writing technology, the two modalities of treating information did not possess equal salience and value. Even if our modern literate mind is excited from the discovery of such an ancient European writing, this communicative channel was less important and less frequently used than the symbolism to the point that, in the occurrence of a single mark, it is more probable that it has to be framed within “the figured language of the symbols” rather than within the Danube script. Indeed, the system of writing was very archaic, had limited expressive potentiality because it bore only some limited phonetic elements consisting mainly of a mix of logograms, ideograms, pictograms, and finally it was a system of writing fixed at first stage because it disappeared before the achievement of a complete development. Having a stricter relationship with the sphere of the concepts than with the sphere of the sounds, the Danube script is very connected to the symbolic language and its way and procedure of expression. In fact one can account the Danube script as a peculiar symbolism bearing four constitutive features: to possess the potentiality to fix and transmit concepts and/or sounds; to utilize signs each of them fixing a single idea whereas an idea is fixed by a single sign; to be a closed system of signs; to employ an inventory of signs which is defined and limited. On the contrary, the symbols of the Danube civilization I am dealing with are “storage units” with the property of “condensation”, i.e. they are condensed forms with emotional quality (Turner 1957, 1967, 1968)2 whose shapes painted or incised on artifacts evoked, expressed and reassumed essential and immediately intelligible concepts (Kruta 1992).3 The Danube symbolism stored and transmitted meanings along a wide range of dimensions of the Neolithic and Copper Age imaginary. The most important aspect was the expression of spiritual ideas, the evocation of the divine and the connection to the sacred sphere. The second was the revelation of the organization and the motions of the Earth and of the cosmos or their sections. The third was the fixation of principles and measures of time flowing (cyclical or linear chronotypes). The fourth was the storage and broadcast of mythical or heroic narrations (mythograms). The fifth was the expression of the elements that constituted the social organization. When one is confronting with marks on an artifact, it seems at a first glance quite irresolvable the riddle to recognize on a semiotic point of view if one is dealing with symbols or with units of the system of writing. Indeed the Danube symbolism was so important and widespread whereas the Danube script had the abovementioned limits of development, the latter was strictly connected with the former and its mechanisms of expression, and finally we know quite nothing about what the signs of the Danube script stand for. The objective difficulties to point out a difference between written and symbolic messages are so hard to render the first one invisible to many scholars. If in Neolithic and Copper Age social systems writing was only at the primary stage and in a number of instances symbolism was a much stronger device for communication, the second one founded and set up its strength on: a) deep social nature; b) cross-cultural generality of significance (Hallpike 1979); c) property of mixing between a fundamental essentiality and potentials for ambiguity in the possible changing of the meaning; and d) employment of a synthetic code by which the symbol represents high entities (not necessarily transcendent) and drives the emersion of secrets meanings. Symbols are not mere allegories or metaphors, but synthetic representations of a mystery that join, by the force of its last meaning, an otherwise crushed world (as it is suggested by the etymology: syn-ballein). Therefore, the effectiveness of a symbol is measured only from its essentials. Indeed, one can apply to the Danube civilization an adage from René Char: "Gods inhabit the symbol". In that communicative situation both symbols and language were equal or 2

Accepting Turner’s distinction, I oppose the “condensation symbols” to the “referential symbols” e.g. ordinary speech and writing, flags, signals. 3 The intelligibility of the symbols does not contrast, but is made more complex, by their multivocality/polysemicity (many meanings in a single form). 285

complementary systems for transmitting messages (Nikolova on-line) and both symbolism and writing could have been mainly utilized to express spiritual ideas, to evoke the divine presence and to convey the mind of the believer from the mundane to the supernatural, from the phenomenon to the mystery, from the visible to the invisible, in one word from the describable to the inexpressible. Moreover, symbolism and writing represent both manifestation and demonstration of power, reveal the organization of the different worlds or their sections, articulate and transmit mythical or heroic narrations, fix the principles of the time flowing (cyclical or linear), express the basic elements of the social order. Following the above perspective, the crisscross of the stylistic examination of the symbols with the...