Chapter 5 part VII “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.b Using semiotic indicators to discern between symbols and Danube script signs Even if written and symbolic packages of information could sometimes superimpose conceptually as well as in shape within the Danube Communication System and there are objective difficulties to make a differentiation b...

Description

5.F.b

Using semiotic indicators to discern between symbols and Danube script signs

Even if written and symbolic packages of information could sometimes superimpose conceptually as well as in shape within the Danube Communication System and there are objective difficulties to make a differentiation between the two channels of communication, here are some indications in order to support the distinction in case of messages made of two or more signs.

5.F.b.1 Inventory of the Danube script signs vs. the repertoire of symbols If one sets apart for a moment the ambivalent signs that can be involved in writing messages as well as in symbolic ones, one can identify signs that are exclusively units of the script and marks that have been employed exclusively in the symbolic channel of communication. Therefore, one can build an inventory of pure signs of writing and a repertoire of pure symbols. The identification of a script in Southeastern Europe from the beginning of the sixth to the mid of the fourth millennia BCE and its distinction from the symbolic code can be extracted by applying a method of exclusive (negative) recognition, that is, underlining features of sign shape that do not fit symbolic patterns utilized by the cultural complex, culture, or cultural group under investigation. The main trouble is that a number of archaeologists, not aware of the possible existence of a system of writing, include the signs of the Danube script inside the corpus of the symbolic motifs. Other scholars consider the script signs as abnormal or inaccurately made symbols and avoid inserting them into the corpus of the symbols. Simply, they do not exist for them. Let us take an example with the multiple variations of the circle recognized on many pots of the PrecucuteniAriuşd-Cucuteni-Trypillia cultural complex. The signs and are units of the Danube writing system1 as well as symbols. On the other hand, solar marks, concentric circles with a dot in the centre, disks with different internal marks as follow only the symbolic code. The double ellipse (the double egg) which is exclusively a symbol (Merlini 2004c) constitutes another example. Typical marks that have only a symbolic nature are tattoo and scarifications on anthropomorphic figurines. On a Vinča A1-A2 vessel from Gornea - Căuniţa de Sus (Romania) (Lazarovici Gh. 1977: Pl. XLII, fig. 22), a mark takes place which is a distinctive symbol possibly deriving from an actual tool and which does not occur in any other communicative system. On the centre of the throat of the upward watching and pointed nose statuette A 104 from Parţa (Romania) (Germann Manuscript II 33d, Winn online 2004: fig 3), a schematic (dancing?) anthropomorphic symbol occurs which is not present in any other channel of the Danube Communicative System. At least three indicators reveal its emblematic nature: it is in prominent position, engraved over a high symbolic point as the gullet, and accurately and deeply made. A double is placed over the anthropomorph, which is also surrounded by ornaments with parallels and chevrons. A downward chevron depicts the mouth. The statuine belongs to the Banat II culture (Middle Neolithic).2 Core symbols reflecting a large coinage of primary thoughts or beliefs, such as the spiral, the meander, the V mark, the cross and others were widespread in the koine of Southeastern Europe extended as far as Hungary and Ukraine, whereas other symbols were spread only in certain regions. The presence of the same comet symbol on two bicolor thighs from different settlements, but in the same area, around Veles (F.Y.R.O.M.) evidences the presence of a local system of symbols. The emblematic mark recalls a circular nucleus with a diffuse tri-line tail that is falling on the Earth and has below a series of dots arranged along a diagonal line. The first fragmented figurine is from the settlement of Zuniver 3 in the Topolka river valley (Kartalica Izvor, Veles region) and belongs to the IV stage of the Middle Neolithic Anzabegovo-Vršnik group. This lower part of a statuette has pronounced steatopygia and has pillar-like legs, which are elongated and glued together, also flatly cut at the bottom (Sanev 2006: 177, fig. 9). It is also characterized by the outline of a river or mountains positioned below the comet symbol and the series of dots in oblique row.4 1

They are respectively DS 403 and DS 89 in Winn’s inventory 2004; OE 138 and OE 186 in Haarmann’s repertory (Haarmann on-line). The first is DS 145 variant in the Winn’s inventory 2004; the second is not listed (Winn on-line). 2 For the development of the script in the Banat II culture, see §9.B.c “The script in the Banat II culture and at Parţa”. 3 In the same article, Sanev employed the terms: Zuniver, Zunuver and Dzuniver (Sanev 2006: 175-177). 4 For the development of the script in the Anzabegovo-Vršnik IV, see § 9.B.e “Assessing the script in the other cultures of Developed and Middle Neolithic”. 298

The second pair of thighs is from Mramor Chashka and belongs to Anzabegovo III culture. (For the utilization of the script in the Anzabegovo-Vršnik IIII, see § 9.A.d “The limited contribution from the other Early Neolithic cultures”).

Fig. 5.251 - A mark which is typically a symbol and does not occur in any other communicative code takes place on a Vinča A1-A2 vessel from Gornea-Căuniţa de Sus (Romania). (After Lazarovici Gh. 1977: Pl. XLII, fig. 22).

Fig. 5.252 - On the throat of a Middle Neolithic statuette from Parţa (Romania), an anthropomorphic mark occurs which is exclusive of the symbolic language of the Danube civilization. (After Germann Manuscript II 33d).

Fig. 5.253 – Evidence of a local system of symbols comes from two fragmented figurines discovered in Veles region (F.Y.R.O.M.): a) from Kartalica Izvor (photo Merlini M. 2006; b) from Mramor Chashka (photo Merlini M. 2006); c) drawing of the two thighs (courtesy Trajanka Jovcevska). 299

5.F.b.2 “Ambivalent marks” and signs of writing When “ambivalent marks” (those which can be either units of the Danube script or symbols) are associated with signs of writing, one is dealing with an inscription and not with a symbolic message. “Ambivalent marks” such as X and Λ are units of an inscription on a small clay cup from Ovcharovo tell (Bulgaria), which belongs to the Boian-Poljanica culture (Poljanica phase IV) (Bonev 1982, 2; Makkay 1990, 26/2), i.e. Early Copper Age according to my own databank DatDas (Databank for the Danube script), Middle Chalcolithic according to the timeline utilized by the Bulgarian archeaologists. Chronologically, it is positioned between two famous Bulgarian inscribed artifacts: the Gradešnica platter and the Karanovo seal. The miniaturize vessel has a height of 2.4 cm and the maximal diameter is 2.2 cm. It was discovered in 1972 during rescue excavations within a burned dwelling of the fifth building level, associated with pottery resembling the one from Boian-Spanţov culture. The cup is biconical with straight rim edge, cylindrical strip in the middle area and slightly bended within the walls in the lower half. It is manufactured from fine purified clay and has polished grayish-brown surface. The firing is uneven. Nine signs are incised on the middle strip. According to the archaeologist in charge (Bonev 1982: 33), they are: 1) Three oblique parallel strokes 2) Down opened V 3) Combination of one oblique and two vertical strokes 4) An acute angle 5) An acute angle with elongated right shoulder 6) Three vertical parallel strokes 7) Irregular down opened V, 8) X shaped sign 9) Acute angle with elongated shoulder

Fig. 5.254 – “Ambivalent marks” such as X and Λ are units of an inscription on a Early Copper Age vase from Ovcharovo (Bulgaria). (After Bulgarelli D. 2007 Prehistory Knowledge Project). 300

Bonev finds parallels with signs from Neolithic and Copper Age of Southeastern Europe, insisting that the nine signs from Ovcharovo represent an “inscription” and that Bulgaria is “one of the centers of the most ancient writing” (Bonev 1982: 33). Other semiotic indicators point toward the presence of a script on the Ovcharovo cup. Signs are intentional, identifiable, highly stylized, elementary in form, not ornamental, similar in size, standardized according to a model. The sign is a ligature between a and a . The trilines are marked by a dot. The nine signs are arranged in a horizontal sequence. A linear organization of signs is also found in other pre-classical systems of writing such as cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Linear A and B, Cypriot-Minoan and Cypriot Syllabic. Finally, the inscription from Ovcharovo is divided into three segments, which seem to express different concepts of phrases/words. For the script at the Boian-Poljanica Ovcharovo, see § 9.B.d.6 “Boian-Giuleşti and Boian-Poljanica input”. In conclusion, an inscription occurs clearly on the miniaturize vessel. Among the signs that comprise it, one has to include some “ambivalent signs”.

5.F.b.3 Symbols are generally accurately made, unlike signs of writing A symbol communicates messages utilizing a synthetic code and its effectiveness in transmitting a meaning is measurable by means of the capability to reduce it to its essentiality. Therefore, the symbolic channel has an innate tendency toward the overstatement, whereas the script is much more modest. A symbol should be visible and memorable. Then the figurine, the vessel or the mask bearing one or more symbols melts with them and their patterns. Artifact and mark, iconography and symbolism, interacting, achieve an emphasized status. In order to accomplish this aim, all the techniques for the visual emphasis are mobilized. In sequence, I will deal with four features that can help one to identify symbols of the Danube civilization vs. units of the Danube script: carefulness and deepness in execution; prominent position; location with a role associated to the inscribed/painted artifact or its parts; oversize shape. Of course, they neither are the only indicators for the recognition of symbols, nor should occur necessarily together over an artifact to pick out the presence of symbols. Starting from the first mentioned feature, one can note that signs of writing can be scratched roughly and superficially, whereas symbols are very rarely inaccurately incised, impressed, embossed, or painted.

Fig. 5.255 – The symbol of the “holy prostitution appears on a bottom of a vase from Turdaş (Romania). (After Roska1941: Pl. CXXXIV, 24).

Fig. 5.256 – Symbolic marks were deeply and carefully incised before firing on a Neolithic lid from Korbovo (Republic of Serbia). (Photo Merlini 2004). 301

From the bottom of a vase unearthed at Turdaş, Sofia Torma published a complex scalariform mark incised in deep with a very definite outline (Roska1941: Pl. CXXXIV, 24). In the Danube civilization it occurs exclusively as a symbol and, according to some scholars, identifies the “holy prostitution” (Germann Manuscript).5 Meandering and chevron-like marks, which are exclusively symbols, were deeply and carefully incised before firing on a Neolithic lid from Korbovo (Eastern Republic of Serbia) which has horns of consecration as handle. A small,6 truncated pyramidal seal from Turdaş gives one an appropriate illustration of the different rendering between symbols and signs of writing. Bearing marks on both faces, it is carved according to the former code (a scalariform symbol ending with an M) on one side and to the latter code (a cross and a triline) on the other (Vlassa 1975: 37; Winn 2004 online fig. 8.13). The symbol (on the left side of the image) has been engraved carefully, with emphasis, deeply and with a very clear-cut silhouette; the signs of the Danube script (on the right side of the image) are incised carelessly, with small size, less deeply and with imprecise outline although following a standard. It is significant to note that the same signs of writing occur also on the bottom of vessels from the same settlement.

Fig. 5.257 - Symbols (on the left side of the image) are engraved carefully, deeply and with a very clear-cut silhouette, whereas signs of the Danube script (on the right side) are incised carelessly, less deeply and with imprecise outline on a seal from Turdaş. (After Winn 2004 online, fig. 8.13). 5

Fig. 5.258- The same signs of writing occur on the bottom of vessels from the same settlement. (After Winn 1981: 286, fig. 313; photo Merlini 2004).

For the utilization of the Danube script in the Turdaş culture, see chapter 9.C.c “The inventory of the signs from the Turdaş culture”. 6 It is 3.3X1.8 cm. 7 Who found analogies for shape of artifact and scalariform symbol with a late Halaf seal from Arpatchiya. 302

5.F.b.4 Different predisposition concerning the location on objects Compound or single symbols are often positioned in prominent position over the object and with a distinct role, whereas in many cases signs of writing are not. If the mainly religious and sacred nature of the script pushes it to the centre of the graphic space to exploit the vis-à-vis placement, on the other hand it has to cope with the question of the placement of the subsequent signs. According to Harris, there is an obvious (biomechanical) advantage, to apply the optimum principle eliminating “as many as possible of the many alternatives and ambiguities which would otherwise arise in plotting a consecutive path" (Harris 1995: 130). One of the key ways practiced by the Danube script as well the other writing systems was to place the first graph in one of the corners and to imagine the entire graphic space as a (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal) grid. Only in some exceptions, aimed to emphasize the message comprised within text, the first graph was positioned in the center. The location of symbolic elements on highly visible portions of the vessel is well verified by the female figurines because the maker had to conform to a symbolic system with rules of creation. For example at the Bulgarian settlements of Pernik (Raduncheva 1991), Gradešnica (Nikolov 1974) and Durankulak (Todorova 2002), all the symbols show a definite placement on specific anatomies. By way of illustration, the arrow-motif and its variants are concentrated on the chest of the female figurines. Therefore, it is not possible to understand the arrow-motif by itself, but one has to interpret its symbolic meaning through the contextual link to its placement between the breasts of a female figurine (Biehl 1996: 158). This spatial feature of the symbolism contrasts not only with the organization of the signs in any system of writing, but also with the merely aesthetic ornaments, such as elements of clothing or jewelry, which could be placed without a systematic rule or with a naturalistic rendering on the figurines’ body.

Fig. 5.259 – Upper part of a Copper Age female figurine from Gradešnica (Bulgaria) with the symbol of the arrow incised between the breasts. (Graphic elaboration by Merlini after Nikolov B. 1974: fig. 95).

Fig. 5.260 – Schematic Copper Age female figurine found at level C at Gradešnica (Bulgaria) bearing the arrow-symbol between the breasts, a lozenge-symbol on the stomach, rotating meanders on the prominent abdomen and a geometric design as garment. (Graphic elaboration by Merlini after Nikolov B. 1974: fig. 93). 303

An anthropomorphic amulet – a mark that is only a symbol - is outstandingly incised on the chest of a standing female figurine from Gabarevo (Bulgaria). The sex triangle is engraved even deeper. The statuette is in orante position with close legs and is 4.5 cm high. It has a schematic face with short strokes suggested eyes, protruding nose, holes at the ears, under the nose, and on the arms (Mikov 1934: 191 fig. 125; Varna 1988). On occasion the same symbol or two conceptually associated symbols are located at two opposite poles of an artifact. The same meander is positioned both on the vulva and on the top of the head of a female figurine found in 1912 at Vinča by Vasić (Vasić Handscrift 1912: 08 23str71-3).

Fig. 5.261 – An anthropomorphic amulet – a mark that is only a symbol - is outstandingly incised on the chest of a standing female figurine from Gabarevo (Bulgaria). The sex triangle is engraved even deeper. (Photo Merlini 2005).

Fig. 5.262 – A meander is positioned both on the vulva and on the top of the head of a figurine found in 1912 at Vinča by Vasić (After Vasić Handscrift 1912: 08 23str71-3).

5.F.b.5 Organizing rules relating to the use of space are different Inscriptions that develop according to a free format are the exception, not the rule. The Danube script employs a wide range of techniques in order to help the process of writing and reading: e.g. the presence of a specific space and seat for any sign composing an inscription, a preferential linear order of the signs (even if it is not an absolute prerequisite), the possibility to separate concepts or phrases through special marks (dots, horizontal lines, vertical lines, curved lines, giant Xs, or large crosses), the option to allocate the inscriptions inside bands, registers or metopes, etc. 304

Quite different is the systematization of the space in case of symbolic marks. If the location of a single symbol is significant (being preeminently and/or on a distinct object as well as a specific portion of it), in case of a compound symbol the disposition of its single units occurs according to spatial rules that are mainly different from the spatial rules of the script. In some instances, the composite symbol is internally arranged in an irregular way and may simply represent the need or desire to mark and sacralize a pot or a figurine even if a more complex use of symbols is suggested by the unorderly, but perhaps ritualistic, use of them on miniature vessels. Sometimes it is possible that jumbled symbols were a method of keeping away enemies, rivals, spirits, etc. from knowing their deep meaning, but it would not matter because they can be positioned at particular points of a vessel or a statuette and be understood and placed in context by a knowledgeable person. In conclusion, there were ideas, concepts and even narration behind the symbols. However, an organized arrangement was not always necessary to express them. The relative position and the distance of the graphs with respect to each other were not key features as for the script. The Danube script applied the principle of the "graphic space" (the area where a text is positioned and organizes its different units) and accordingly, read. Order and spatial organization of V-based symbols on the below potsherd from Vinča (Vasić Handscrift 1911: 09 10 str147-4) are not important, since concepts or mnemonic aids could be inferred or interpreted by someone who is familiar with them. Therefore, the potter did not care about the huge interspaces between the symbols, which have also dissimilar size and are positioned at different horizontal levels. Different areas of a four handle and ovoidal shaped clay jar from "La Marmotta" (Early Neolithic settlement actually under the water of the Bracciano Lake, Rome) are decorated with cardial impressions to represent two figurines in adoration, ears of corn and the sun that connects the other spread elements to suggest a prayer, in a meta-language, to a divine power asking assistance in growing crops and protection on them (Fugazzola Delpino, Pessina, Tinè V. 2002; ibidem 2004). The shape of the narrative elements is symbolized, too. If the depictions of sun and ear of corn are obvious, the rendering of the orantes is suggested through the interpretation of the two “zigzag” motifs as open arms, with wide spread fingers (the fringes located at the extremities) as if in a pleading posture. Because of the nature of some items found in the structure where the jar was recovered, it was probably a cult dwelling or an abode provided with a cult room. The large vessel is dated 6800-6100 BP.

Fig. 5.263 – Order and spatial organization of symbols on the below potsherd from Vinča are not important to express meanings. (After Vasić Handscrift 1911: 09 10 str147-4).
<...