Conclusions. Four challenges surrounding the Danube script from the book Neo-Eneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe PDF

Preview

Summary

CONCLUSIONS. FOUR CHALLENGES SURROUNDING THE DANUBE SCRIPT The acknowledgement that Southeastern Europe developed its own system of writing (the Danube script) throughout the Neolithic and Copper Age time-frame and that it is the oldest known to date has important cultural repercussions that sweep a...

Description

CONCLUSIONS. FOUR CHALLENGES SURROUNDING THE DANUBE SCRIPT The acknowledgement that Southeastern Europe developed its own system of writing (the Danube script) throughout the Neolithic and Copper Age time-frame and that it is the oldest known to date has important cultural repercussions that sweep away many long-standing ideas. In particular, the revision is involving dates, paths and geography of the European prehistory, the genesis and concept of ancient civilization, and the history and even the conception of writing.

I. First challenge: a semiotic code that assesses it as an archaic script “While every script is composed of signs, not every sign (or every group of signs) is necessarily the manifestation of a script” (Olivier and Godart 1996). The present work documents that a complex and sophisticated sign system (the Danube communication system) was on play in Southeastern Europe throughout the Neolithic and Copper Age time-frame. It was made-up of magic-religious symbolism, emblematic and schematic ornaments, devices for memory support, ritualistic markings, notations relating to or expressing numbers and/or numerology, calendrical and chronographic annotations, sky and terrestrial maps, marks for household identity, lineage recognition or community affiliation, social status or political authority marks, signs representing bio-energetic points of the human body. If one inspects the internal structuring of this semiotic system, clear evidence of the presence of an archaic writing system becomes noticeable. Though the critical mass of information gathered by DatDas is not sufficient to attempt a decipherment of the script based on a computerized statistical analysis of the signs, it is definitely enough to exhibit that it was a system of writing even if with a marginal relationship with speech language. Evidence of this fact is provided through a statistical test that concerns the quota of singletons and very rare signs over the total number of known signs (n/N). In the case of the Danube script, as the number of known inscriptions grows, the percentage of singletons and very low-frequency signs diminishes. This is a statistical 'smoking gun' against those critics who argue that the Danube script is not a linguistic system of writing at all. According to them, the percentage of singletons and very infrequent signs should increase over time, something that is inconsistent with any known writing system (Farmer 2003a: 17; ibidem 2003b: 39 referring directly to the Indus script and indirectly to the Danube script). This script of literacy was one of the most archaic systems of writing, was eclipsed by the collapse of the Danube civilization when it was still in its formative stage, and there are many possibilities that it will remain undeciphered. Nonetheless, one could detect some historical features and aspects of its semiotic code metabolizing and summarizing information from the corpus of 971 inscribed artifacts inserted to the DatDas databank. I briefly explicate some of them. Figures on life cycle and historical role of the Danube script in the Danube civilization: i. The Danube script originally appeared in the central Balkan-Danube area and had an indigenous origin. The oldest inscribed pieces come from the almost contemporaneous horizons Starčevo-Criş (Körös) IB/IC (DCP 1 = 6100-6000 CAL. BCE) in Romania and Karanovo I (DCP 2-4 = 6000-5600 CAL. BCE) in Bulgaria ii. Writing technology emerged after a transition that evolved over a long period of time rather than few decades, but then it quickly developed and spread from the sixth millennia BC to the mid of the fourth upstream along the Danube River and tributaries and towards northern Greece. iii. The experiment with literacy sprang mainly from Starčevo-Criş (Körös) communities and subsequently from the early Vinča culture carriers. iv. The vigorous development of the Danube script is synchronous with the spread of the Neolithic style of life. In a matter of decades, the entire central Balkan region was inhabited by agro-pastoral communities in the south-west axis from Yannitsa (Chrysostomou 1993: 135-146, 2002) to Szarvas (Rackzky 1987); in the east-west axis from Struma valley (Todorova 1995; 2002; Čohadžiev S. 2001; 2004; 2006) to the Morava valley (Tasić 1997). v. Up to now, DatDas accounts for 219 settlements containing artifacts bearing inscriptions, substantiating the widespread of the Danube script.

671

vi. The diffusional trajectories of the script indicate that the Danube civilization worked as a hierarchical and pervasive (to be not confused with decentralized) network of nodes linked by three key features: common cultural roots, exchange relationships for mutual political advantage, and shared socio-economic interests. The communication of abstract packages of information by means of writing and the practical skills involved in the knowledge of literacy required shared linguistic grounding or linguistic mediation and not merely an exchange of artifacts and repeated contacts. vii. The maps elaborated from the databank demonstrate that the primary nodes of the script network were (in order of importance) Vinča and Turdaş, which were also pivotal in connecting trade routes and technological development along the Danube and its tributaries. Settlements of regional relevance were (in order of signs production) Gradešnica (Bulgaria), Jela (Benska Bara) (Republic of Serbia), Parţa (Romania), Nova Zagora - Hlebozavoda (Chlebozavoda) (Bulgaria), Sitagroi (Greece), Slatino (Bulgaria), Vršac-At (Republic of Serbia), Borovan and Kurilo (Bulgaria), and Donja Branjevina (Republic of Serbia). viii. The Danube script is eminently a Neolithic affair, with a gradual start-up in the Early Neolithic, a dynamic increasing stage in the Developed/Middle Neolithic, a peak in the Late Neolithic and a consistent tail in the Early Copper age. Then there was an eclipse of literacy articulated into two stages. ix. The tradition of literacy flourished up to about 3500-3400 CAL. BCE when an ecological crisis and a social upheaval took place. According to some, there was an invasion of new populations, whilst others have hypothesized the emergence of a new elite. At that time, a major interruption in the cultural development took place and the Danube script mainly vanished. x. Based on the chronological distribution of the corpus of the signs, one can classify the circle of life of the Danube script in six stages. Disregarding data from the periods of the Neolithic and Copper Age where cultural complex, culture or cultural group is non-distinctly specified, the Formative stage (ca. Early Neolithic) records 11.3% of the total occurrences. This finding challenges previous academic arguments, which have contended that pottery signs were unknown in early ceramics (Makkay 1969: 12). The Accumulative stage of the script (ca. Developed/Middle Neolithic) registers about 18%. The Blooming stage (ca. Late Neolithic) reaches the climax of the system of writing concentrating 47.8%. The Stamina stage (ca. Early Copper Age) records 19.8%. The Fall stage (ca. Middle Copper Age) records 2.8%, and the Eclipse stage (ca. Late Copper Age) 2.5%. The collapse was quantitative, not in the development of the sign system as documented by the wide utilization of sophisticated techniques such as the ligature during this period and the occurrence of longer inscriptions than in general. xi. With reference to geographic distribution, the signs of the Danube script are primarily found in the region bounded by Romania, Republic of Serbia, and Bulgaria concentrating together 80.56% of the total occurrences. Greece and Hungary follow. Due to the small territory, the contribution from the Republic of Macedonia (F.Y.R.O.M.) has been significant, although limited. The same, at a lesser scale, is for the Kosovo. Even if decentralized from the core area of the script, Ukraine accounts for 1.2% of the script use, concentrated in the last phases. Findings from Czech Republic, and Albania are less numerous. Residual data come from Germany, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Moldova, and Croatia. The input from Montenegro and Austria is quite insignificant. xii. The most frequently inscribed objects are human representations and potshards. The contribution from such artifacts vastly outnumbered that one of all others. The number of mignon altars - offering tables was also significant, although less than half of the foremost objects. A third range of inscribed artifacts was constituted by unusual artifacts (particularly lids, but also objects of unknown function), vessels, and spindle-whorls. The input was limited from a forth assortment of finds, having a rate between 4% and 2.5%. Such artifacts included plates-tablets, seals, and miniaturize vessels. Residual contributions have come from animal figurines, amulets, and altars. The input from weights, dwelling models, and tools has been irrelevant. Main features of the signs composing the Danube script: i. The signs are intentional, well identifiable in their individuality, conventional and standardized (with outlines not haphazardly selected and developed) to compose a definite and systematic inventory. ii. Signs are highly stylized in form, are based on elementary geometries, and are in general linear in features and rectilinear in shape. iii. It is rare for signs to be used only once without reappearing. They are consistent with a script that is unambiguous although signs were designed for multiple uses. 672

iv. The Danube script utilizes abstract signs, pictograms/ideograms, and numerical signs. v. The proportions of abstract signs that render information outnumber iconic signs. C. 71.8% of the inventoried signs are abstract. 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, etc.). vi. The constituents of the script consist of a core set of abstract signs that appear to have functioned as rootsigns (or font-signs), i.e. they are subjected to techniques that modify their outlines. Three techniques enlarge the repertory of signs based on firmly established graphic fonts, making up derived signs (see Winn 1981: 60 ff.; Gimbutas 1991: 309; Haarmann 1995: 38 ff.; Merlini 2001; 2002b; 2003c; 2004a; 2008c). 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. The inventoried abstract root-signs are 32. Subjected to techniques to vary their shape, they create 167 derivative signs. Only four abstract signs are invariable. The first way to enlarge the repertory of the root-signs consists in the technique of rotating them (Rotated variant), reversing them (Reverse variant), turning them round as in a mirror (Specular variant), or turning them round and upside down at the same time (Reverse and specular variant). According to this variational rule, a root-sign such as a can be turned round to become a or a , reversed as a , mirrored as a , and reversed and mirrored as a . The second technique concerns the possibility to double or multiply abstract basic forms in order to vary a root-sign. The inventory records also derivations of the root-signs applying to them diacritical markers, i.e. small auxiliary markers such as small strokes, crosses, dots, and arches that are added to a basic sign but almost never appear as independent signs. The simple varied signs (applying a single diacritical marker to a root-sign) are 53. The multiple varied signs (applying two or more diacritical markers to a root-sign) are 31. Third, the root-signs can be varied by the application of graphic marks. Based on the last technique (multiple variations), a V can be transformed, for example, into a V+, a V/ or into a \I/. The variations can be simple (when applying only one diacritical mark to the root-sign) or complex (when applying simultaneously two or more diacritical marks to it). The sophisticated technique of systematic variations of basic signs using diacritical markers characterized other archaic systems of writing such as the Indus script, but it was used for the first time in the Danube script (Haarmann 1998b). vii. The number of the abstract derived signs is quite high in comparison to the root-signs due to the productiveness of the root-signs in the number of variants. viii. The root-signs have a definite shape which cannot be separated into elementary geometrical constituents: e.g. a is definitely a and not a V motif plus a \ motif, etc. ix. Pictograms and ideograms are few (c. 19.0% on the corpus of the inventory) and their role is not central. 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 in spite of the high degree of stylization (e.g., the depiction of a sledge or a flag). Pictograms and ideograms are not subjected to the technique of the multiple variations, but sometimes can be rotated, reversed, or mirror-positioned. x. Abstract-arbitrary signs and pictorial-motivated signs operated in an integrated way. The boundaries of the bi-partition are in progress. Since the Palaeolithic assemblage, there is evidence of the human capacity to produce figurative images (depicting natural phenomena, living beings and objects in representational style) as well as abstract signs and geometrical motifs such as rows of dots and grids. Abstractness and schematization of sign shape are among the prominent features of the Danube script, in tune with the marked propensity toward abstraction and stylization in symbolism and decoration. The author does not exclude the possibility that the refining of the analysis in light of the tendency of the Danube civilization toward the stylization of sign forms will lead to a reevaluation of some Danube script signs from the abstract field to the pictographic/ideographic field, or reversely. xi. Statistical evidence leads to identify 37 signs that functioned as numerals, although the recognizion is still rather putative. The inventory of the signs that may be assumed to function as numerals is sub-divided in five categories: vertical lines, diagonal lines, horizontal lines, strokes, and dots. Future semiotic research has to test if also other signs with shape not intuitive as numeral express arithmetical values (as for example O = 1 hundred in the Linear B). Under investigation is also the question if the above-presented signs are units of a number system or if they have only a numerological value. Having the inventory listed up to seven vertical lines and up to nine horizontal lines, one can hypothesize that there was a simple 673

numeral system. Is it decimal as the Linear B? If the Danube script possesses a numbering system, the distinction between the numerical system and the system of measurement will be necessary as well as the explication how the system of measurement worked. xii. Three hypothetical functions of the diacritical marks are: a) expressing and recognizing the conceptual meaning of the correspondent root-sign; b) differentiating some phonetic units of the spoken language; c) indicating some grammatical aspects. xiii. The signs of the writing system sometimes share their geometric and stylized shape with decorations and symbols, in particular with the sacred, geometric, and abstract ones. It is synchronic to the fact that the script was mainly employed in magic-religious affairs and its cycle of life ended when it was still in a very archaic phase. xiv. Signs of the script, symbols and decorations sometimes cohabited and were matched on the same artifact. Principles characterizing the organization of the inscriptions that attest their communicative function: i. Normally the distribution of the signs within an inscription is not random. Each sign of a text has its specific space and position. ii. The order of the signs has mainly a linear, sequential character. About 55.4% of them composes inscriptions aligned along horizontal rows. C. 12.7% arranges inscriptions into circles, 10.7% into columns, and 2.9% into diagonal bands. The block format is also not very common. (9.1%). A free format is rare (7.8%). Sometimes the text has a vertical or diagonal format, but has to be read horizontally after turning the statuette or the vessel 90 or 45 grades. The mainly linear order of the signs is a strong indicator of the presence of a system of writing. iii. The Danube script is characterized by an asymmetrical reiteration of signs within a single inscription. This feature rules out its function as purely decoration. iv. Concepts or words/phrases are sometimes divided by special graphemes, such as long horizontal lines (48 instances), long vertical lines (46), dots (31), giant Xs (13), or large crosses (12) in order to delimit and emphasize the writing/reading space. v. Multiple registers for writing and reading are developed. vi. The script has the possibility to employ the metope layout in order to frame texts as in other archaic writing systems. The database accounts 28 metopes. Inscriptions can be allocated also inside bands. vii. The average lengthiness of the inscriptions attests the presence of a system of writing: 4.6 signs for each inscription. It is more extended than in other archaic writing systems. Despite the high occurrence of mono-sign inscriptions, longer texts comprised of two-more signs prevail and most of them align several signs (in one instance 45 signs). Although the occurrence of inscriptions composed of only two signs, the length of the inscriptions composed of two or more signs is quite high. viii. The inscriptions are built following three rules: duplicating or multiplying a sign, combining (mainly aligning) a sign with others, or weaving the signs into ligatures. A ligature is a simple, efficient, and highly aesthetic solution for composing a text and is particular to a script. The databank documents a huge number of ligatures in the Danube script (243) in parallel to other ancient writing systems. If DatDas does not verify the statement of some authors that there was an evolution from simple to more and more complicated sign shapes (Paliga 1993), a progression characterized the use of compound signs based on ligatures. The weight of signs jointed by ligatures over the total production of signs was 7.0% throughout the Formative stage of the script; 7.4% throughout the Accumulative stage; 11.1% throughout the Blossoming stage and 8.2% throughout the Stamina stage. During the last two stages, the decline of the script was quantitative, but not qualitative. Conversely, the utilization of sophisticated techniques such as the ligature increased: 22.7% over the total production of signs throughout the Fall stage; 16.0% throughout the Eclipse stage. The semiotic code of the Danube script: i. The Danube script consists of a mix of logograms, ideograms, pictograms and some phonetic elements marked occasionally; the connection with the conceptual sphere is stronger than the connection with the phonetic sphere. This point is vital, because scholarship is starting using the requirements from my “Matrix of semiotic rules and markers” to detect graphic marks that “could be interpreted as linguistic or numerical signs” (Prijatelj 2007: 251). However, if I assume that this writing has a numerical/numerological component, I have never stated that the Danube script signs are equivalent to 674

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

linguistic units. The Danube script employed an inventory of mainly abstract logographic signs, i.e., it fixed necessary thoughts and optionally sounds, whereas the canonic interpretation reduces ars scribendi to a sequence of signs aimed to faithfully reproduce the sounds of a spoken language. Although mainly non-linguistic in nature, the Danube script should not be confused with other communication channels composing the above-mentioned Danube system of communication. Neolithic and Copper Age communities of Southeastern Europe utilized a wide range of communication codes. Writing was only o...