Chapter 7 “The inventory of Danube script signs” from the book Neo-Eneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe PDF

Preview

Summary

SECTION IV - INVENTORY AND LIFE CYCLE OF THE DANUBE SCRIPT SIGNS GROUNDED ON DATABANK DATDAS 440 7 THE INVENTORY OF DANUBE SCRIPT SIGNS 7.A Rationale and organization of the sign list The inventory of the signs employed by the Danube script is provided working on by DatDas statistics and lists 292 s...

Description

SECTION IV - INVENTORY AND LIFE CYCLE OF THE DANUBE SCRIPT SIGNS GROUNDED ON DATABANK DATDAS

440

7 THE INVENTORY OF DANUBE SCRIPT SIGNS 7.A Rationale and organization of the sign list The inventory of the signs employed by the Danube script is provided working on by DatDas statistics and lists 292 sign types. It emerges from a catalogue of 5,421 actual signs recorded from the corpus of 1178 inscriptions and 971 inscribed artifacts (some finds have more than one inscription). This means that each inventoried sign has an average frequency of more than 18.5 times. Due to the wide geographic area and long period under investigation, 1178 inscriptions and 971 inscribed artifacts are not enough to settle definitively the inventory of the signs. However, only a small number of new signs are expected to be found. In particular, the discovery of new inscriptions will allow the insertion into the databank of signs that now are kept out being singleton. In addition, future research has to cope with regional and cultural articulation. For example, DatDas records also the Precucuteni-Cucuteni-AriuşdTrypillia inscribed finds and inscriptions, whereas in that cultural complex a system of writing related the Danube script possibly occurred and not the Danube script itself. Up to now, two sub-databases operate: DatTur, established upon 148 objects and 156 inscriptions from the Turdaş culture; and DatVinc, established upon 151 objects and 164 inscriptions from the Vinča culture. In conclusion, future research will add new signs to the general inventory, but will subdivide it according to chronological, geographical and cultural criteria, identifying a number of related scripts. Even with the mentioned limitations, the critical mass of information gathered by DatDas is enough to determine that the ratio of singletons over the total number of known signs (n/N) is decreasing. As the number of known inscriptions grows, the percentage of singletons and very rare signs diminish. This statistical test is a 'smoking gun' against the critics according to which the Danube script is not a linguistic system of writing at all, claiming that the percentage of singletons and very low-frequency signs is going up, not down, over time – something that is inconsistent with any known writing system (Farmer 2003a: 17; 2003b: 39 referring directly to the Indus script and indirectly to the Danube script). The inventories of all ancient writing systems are composed of a high number of signs (from hundreds to thousands of signs), because the logographic principle of ars scribendi demands individual signs for rendering individual concepts or ideas. In a comparative view, the some more of 320-350 signs of the Danube script, once settled the inventory, are much less than the 760 individual signs of the Egyptian hieroglyphic in the second millennium BC, the 770 signs operated by the Ancient Sumerian pictography (of the Uruk III and IV periods) or the nearly 1000 signs belonging to the repertory of the Proto-Elamite script. The analogous number of signs listed by the Danube script and the ancient Indus (410) is not a coincidence, but roots in similar function according to a networking oecumene society. The amount of signs employed by the Danube script poses the question of the function and developing path of this system of writing. Was the relatively low number of signs due to the specialized nature of the script as sacral tool utilized in liturgies? Alternatively, are they in limited figures because the system of writing was “frozen” by the collapse of the Danube civilization when it was in transition from a chiefly logographic system, which neglected the sound sequences of spoken words in favor of the concepts to be transmitted, to a logographic one with more significant (or less insignificant) phonetic components? The main partition of the 292 inventoried signs is between 203 abstract signs, 52 pictograms/ideograms, and 37 numerical signs. The categories of signs operate in an integrated way. The boundaries of the tri-partition are in progress. Since the Palaeolithic assemblage, there is evidence of the human capacity to produce figurative images (depicting natural phenomena, living beings, structures and artifacts in representational style) as well as abstract signs and geometrical motifs such as rows of dots and grids. Concerning the Danube script, DatDas categorizes as abstract signs the basic geometric forms that lack any recognizable visual association with natural or artificial objects and phenomena (V, X, Y, lozenge, triangle...). DatDas identifies as pictograms/ideograms signs depicting occurrences resulting from natural forces, living creatures or objects that can be recognized in association with the figurative sense of that time and although the high degree of stylization (e.g., the depiction of a sledge or a flag). The author does not exclude that the refining of the analysis in light of the tendency of the Danube civilization toward the stylization of sign forms will lead to translate some signs from the abstract field to the pictographic/ideographic field, or reversely. Statistical evidence leads to identify some sign that functioned as numerals, although the detection is still quite putative. If the establishment of the border between abstractness and iconography in sign shape is in progress and partially presumptive, a firm point – comparing the Danube script with the other ancient scripts – is its high degree of abstractness, the proportions of abstract signs that serve to render information outnumber iconic signs. Abstractness and schematization of sign shape are among the prominent features of the Danube script, 441

on tune with marked propensity to abstraction and stylization in symbolism and decoration. The culturally specific sense of abstractness poses questions concerning nature and function of the Danube script. Messages transmitted by a system of writing with plenty of pictograms and ideograms can be in a relevant part understood also by illiterate people. Even in the Aegean Linear A and Linear B, it was enough the familiarity with the decimal system and the meaning of the ideograms depicting objects, products, animals and human beings to catch most of their information. The high number of abstract and arbitrary signs belonging to the Danube script identifies literacy for elite or a shared elevated educational level. This figure is apparently incongruent with the widespread distribution of the script. However, it developed according to a model of civilization far from the traditional state-bureaucratic political centered prototype. It was based on a network of nodes composed of settlements and micro-regions that exchanged relationships for economical and political mutual advantage and shared the same cultural milieu, but with different level of authority keeping the social systems stable.

7.B The constituents of the script consist of a core set of abstract signs that functioned as root-signs The abstract signs are organized in 32 root-signs (or font-signs), which are subjected to the technique to vary the basic forms for creating 167 derivative signs. The root signs express most of the fundamental geometric outlines that are subjected to formal variations (V, Λ, , X, y, П, Y, +, Δ...), but not to the extent that one sign becomes confused with another. Only four abstract signs are invariable. The abstract root-signs are organized according to three ways they can be modified to enlarge their repertory (see the approach in Winn 1981: 60 ff.; Gimbutas 1991: 309; Haarmann 1995: 38 ff.; ibidem 2008a: 31; Merlini 2001 online; ibidem 2002b; ibidem 2003c): i. The technique of modifying a root-sign rotating it (Rotated variant), reversing it (Reverse variant), turning it round as in a mirror (Specular variant), or turning it round and upside down at the same time (Reverse and specular variant). According to this technique to vary a root-sign, a can be turned round in a or a , reversed in a , mirrored in a , and reversed and mirrored in a . The positional variants of the root-signs are 61. Variants of a root sign have been included in the inventory when it occurs rotating at 90°, 180°, and 270°. The variants of a root-sign established by its rotation at 45°, 135°, 225°, and 315° have been imputed to a lower structural level of the database. This option is connected to the need to be equipped to document regional variants, chronological evolution, and employment of ligatures to link signs when the databank will reach a critical mass of data enough to support a split in consistent sub-databases. Most of the root-signs do not explore the entire range of the possible positional variations. ii. The technique of modifying a root-sign duplicating or multiplying it. According to this procedure to vary a root-sign, a ( can generate a (( or a ((. Signs derivate from this operation are 18. iii. The technique to vary a root-sign applying to it diacritical markers such as small strokes, crosses, dots and arches.1 Signs as , , , , , , , are examples of diacritical variations of the V. In total, the diacritically varied signs are 88. They are much more numerous than the root-signs (32). Among the abstract signs, the angle-like sign (the V upright or inverted, rotated, simple or multiplied) deserves special attention for the scholarship, which agrees to underline its unique features such as the frequent occurrence and distinctive position on figurines and cultic vases, the stem deep in time from Upper Paleolithic and the historical importance with religious signification generally with a feminine reference. In fact, the angle-shape is an extremely simple and effective geometry, is one of the oldest signs dating to the geometrical revolution occurring during the Upper Paleolithic and subsequently dominated - from 5500 to 3500 BC - the graphic of the liturgical objects (Vasilescu 1992; Merlini 2004a).

1

Diacritical marks are auxiliary marks added to a basic sign. The word derives from the Greek διακρητικός (distinguishing). The diacritical mark can be added over the letter (ō, ŏ, ő), below it (ę, ç), through it (Ø, ø), inside it (Θ), before it (Ί, Ό) or after it (ŀ, ư). The diacritical mark can be added also before or after the consonant that belongs to (in the case, for example, of the vowels in the Bengali alphabet). Some diacritical marks are considered integral part of the letter they modify, e.g. the stroke over "è". The main function of a diacritical mark is to change the phonetic meaning of the related letter. However, the term is also used in the more general sense of modifying the meaning of a letter or even a whole word or concept. 442

In the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Southeastern Europe, the angle-sign was employed not only as ornamental motif, but also as symbol conveying messages. The linear, discrete, and complex arrangement of the V and the Λ with Y, W and N signs along two clearly intentional registers characterizes the Mousterian bone from Bacho Kiro, in Bulgaria, dated 44000-42000 BP (Marshack 1976; Guadelli A. 2004a: 5). A “summa” of the geometric forms based on the angle occurs on an amulet from Mitoc-Malu Galben (Northeastern Romania), which is dated 26400 +- 10400 BP (Chirica 1982; 1983; 1984; 1989; 2001; Otte, Chirica, Beldiman 1995; Mantu online 2000; Merlini 2002a). The geometric and numerological patterns engraved on a fragment of bone recovered at Ţibrinu (Romania), 18000 BCE, are based on combinations of angles. Angles occur, among other linear geometries, on an Upper Palaeolithic rib of a polar reindeer unhearted at Cosăuţi (Republic of Moldavia) (Borziac online 2002; Merlini 2002f). From the same site, a V associated with a \ appears on the back of a zomorphic figurine (Borziac 1990; Chirica 1996: 126, fig. 6\5). Precise sequences of V, , >< (as well as X, and meanders) compose messages on long-necked humanoidsbirds discovered at Mezin and Mezhirich (Ukraine). They belong to c. 17000-15000 BCE. V and Λ are positioned in opposition on a Mesolithic bone found at the shelter Lviv VII (Matskeviy 2004: 10, fig. 6.3). Within the framework of the Danube script, the angle-sign is structured in 4 root-signs (V, Λ, ) and 52 derived signs from the three above-mentioned rules: 22 from the V; 20 from the Λ; 6 from the . The four versions of the angle-sign score the highest recurrence in the databank: 27.8% of the abstract signs and 19.9% of the totality of the signs. In addition, they are the most frequent sign in combination with others. They appear often in evidence, preeminence or with expanded dimension on ritual vases, figurines, votive altars, seals, miniature vessels. Finally, in many instances they are closely associated with female divinities iconography on whose body is incised single or in combination with other distinctive marks of the deity and its attributes. Gimbutas associates this sign with the Bird Goddess. In the Danube civilization, the down pointed angle (the V, DS 001.0)2 was part of the set of key marks appearing in the whole range of channels for communication messages to be conveyed. As investigated in the chapter “Matrix of semiotic rules and markers...”, it is a frequent element of decorations on human and animal statuettes, pots and mignon altars. On figurines, the V, simple or replied into a chevron, is often prominently draped as sex or, around the neck, as symbolic necklace or V-necked attire.3 In other instances, this sign represents the eye of the statuette. In the Danube script, the V is the most important root-sign scoring the main number of occurrences and variants. It can appear both single or as element of bi-more sign inscriptions. The V is a permanent sign of the Danube script, being present throughout the whole sequence of it from the Formative phase up to the Eclipse phase. However, it is concentrated in the Neolithic. The high frequency in the Formative phase of the script confirms its seniority and early utilization in the SerbianRomanian area of the Starčevo-Criş (Körös) cultural complex. 4 The Vinča was the culture that employed the V at most during the Middle/Developed and Late Neolithic. In the Copper Age, the hub of the V moved towards south being mainly present, in Early Copper Age, in the Gradešnica-Brenica culture and GradešnicaSlatino I-III and Slatino IV assemblage; in the Middle Copper Age, it moved in the Karanovo VI Gumelniţa B - Kodžadermen assemblage. The most frequent inscribed objects bearing Vs are potshards and human figurines. Remarkable is also the presence on mignon altars-offering tables and vessels. The typology of the artifacts and the distinctive position of the V on them evidence the historical importance with religious signification of this sign. In the Formative phase of the system of writing, nearly half of the Vs are concentrated on mignon altars-offering tables confirming the sacral origin and utilization of the Danube script. Due to the productiveness of the V in the number of variants, it will be utilized in order to illustrate the three above-mentioned ways (and related criticalities) according to which root-signs can be modified to enlarge their repertory. A number of problems are connected with the recognition of the signs subjected to the “diacritical technique” which produces complex sign forms from basic sign shapes. Even if the presence of the organizing principle to vary a core set of signs is inferable with evidence scrolling the inscriptions, showing and explaining them it is opportune to bring to light the presence of guess elements in the process of identifying the building blocks of the Danube script, i.e. the root-signs. Concerning the second problem, the distinction between a root-sign and its derivative versions, if the occurrence of diacritical marks is evident also to a superficial analysis of the inscriptions, the action of distinguishing between a font-sign and its variants follows 2

It is listed 95 in Winn’s inventory 1981; DS 1 in Winn’s inventory 2004; OE 76 in Haarmann’s repertory 1995; and 1a=a in Gh. Lazarovici’s catalogue 2006. 3 “As the V-neck often occurs without any representation of clothing, I am led to believe that this depiction is symbolic and not merely a simple device to schematize clothing” (Winn 1981: 48). 4 Starčevo in Serbian literature; Starčevo-Criş in Romanian literature. 443

parameters not always easy to be established without a high level of subjectivity. The researchers who are coping with the topic, the present author included, incline to define “root-signs” those showing two features: they express the main elementary geometric shapes and occur into the subsequent systems of writing. It is difficult to recognize how much this propensity is based on the actual derivation of the Danube script from a geometric and numerological know-how rooted in Mesolithic - Late Upper Palaeolithic time-frame and still persistent in the classical Greece, or if it comes from a subjective distortion that identifies the signs of the Danube Civilization through the lenses of those from the succeeding ages. The possibility to detect the corpus of the root-signs by comparison with coeval ancient scripts is stopped by the fact that the Danube script predated them by one-two millennia and no bilingual devices, as the Rosetta stone, are expected to be recovered. In favor of the first hypothesis, the derivation of the root-signs silhouettes of the Danube Script from a stock of Mesolithic and Late Upper Palaeolithic marks, play the innumerable geometric and abstract symbols belonging to that remote period which have been recovered on the walls of caves and artifacts. The Neolithic and Copper Age writing of Southeastern Europe was therefore preceded by a cognitive and symbolic revolution: the invention of complex geometric patterns developed combining simple graphic elements arranged through a logical organization. It is what I call the “geometric palaeo-revolution” (Merlini 2004a; ibidem 2008d). With reference to the second hypothesis, which detects the font-signs belonging to the Danube script by similar signs from the succeeding systems of writing, one has to face up the logical and historical loop according to which formal likeness between the Neolithic and Copper Age signs and those of the Linear A, Linear B, the Cypro-Minoan or the Etruscan is assumed as ‘proof’ of the status of “true” writing assigned to the Danube script. It is a “test of resemblance” sounding successful merely because these authors have previously selected from the large store of the Neolithic and Copper Age signs only those recalling those occurring in the subsequent systems of writing. Radivoje Peshich, for example, claimed the “complete identity” between the Etruscan alphabet and the “Vinča alphabet” via merging, overlapping, and confusing three different, separate perspectives: a presumptive resemblance in shape between the “letters” from the two corpuses of signs, a conjectural likeness of their phonetic values, and a speculative common native land.

Fig. 7.1 – Tentative comparative table from Etruscan (Rasen) and Vinča signs with variations and the Latin transcription, according to Pesich. (After Peshich 2001: Tabs. XIV-XV). 444

Peshich proceeded along the following reasoning chain. The Etruscans came from the middle Danube basin and specifically from the region where the Vinča culture flourished in Neolithic times. Due to this origin, the Etruscan alphabet is completely incorporated in the depth of the Vinča graphemes and, in particular, all the variants of the Etruscan letters have roots inside the Vinča script. The Etruscans found all the phonetic values they needed into the repository of graphemes of the Vinča script because of the profound accordance between their language and the Vinča script. The Etruscans might have taken the morphology of both their script and accounting system not from the Greeks but from the Veneti, which were their adjacent neighbors in Italy as well as close ancient neighbors in the common Balkan homeland from which both emigrated. Although a gap of millennia between Vinčas and Etruscans, it is possible to reconstruct the Vinča alphabet applying to it the already known phonetic values of the graphemes taken from the Etruscan elementa (Peshich 2001).
...