Contents of the book Neo-Eneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe PDF

Preview

Summary

CONTENTS Introduction and Acknowledgments 1 Section I - CONCEPTUAL AND HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK 10 1 Conveying meaning in writing 11 1.A Assessing signs: Concepts and sounds 11 1.B Constitutive features of writing 12 1.C Might the Danube Script be a system of writing? An inquiry 17 1.D Complexity, malle...

Description

CONTENTS Introduction and Acknowledgments

1

Section I - CONCEPTUAL AND HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK

10

1 Conveying meaning in writing 1.A Assessing signs: Concepts and sounds 1.B Constitutive features of writing 1.C Might the Danube Script be a system of writing? An inquiry 1.D Complexity, malleability, and unsystematicity of ancient scripts induce degrees of decipherment 1.E The Danube script within a holographic visual scenario

11 11 12 17

2 Early writing systems and civilizations 2.A Traditional view on the genesis of writing 2.A.a An ex nihilo act 2.A.b A single incubating region: Mesopotamia 2.A.c A diffusionist model of origin 2.A.d A defined stage of human development: The Bronze Age 2.A.e An established socio-institutional context: authoritarian city-states 2.A.f An exclusive need: Storing and organizing economic data 2.A.g A single task: To express the sounds of a language 2.A.h A path to maturation always starting from stylized drawings 2.A.i The invention of the alphabet as historical fulfillment 2.B A different vision through a comparative analysis of the history of writing 2.B.a An invention set in time: Accounting, symbolic code and linear decoration 2.B.b Tokens: Socioeconomic development and writing 2.B.b.1 An accounting system dating back 8000 BC 2.B.b.2 Did tokens actually contribute to the genesis of writing? 2.B.c The multi-localized birth of homo scribens 2.B.c.1 Egyptian proto-hieroglyphics 2.B.c.2 A potential script from Harappa, Pakistan 2.B.c.3 Evidence from Bactria Margiana 2.B.c.4 Neolithic clues of writing from China 2.B.c.5 “Proto-Iranian” from Halil River, Iran 2.B.c.6 The foundation of literacy in Mesoamerica 2.B.c.7 The Danube homo scribens 2.B.d The Prehistory of writing in Neolithic Fertile Crescent cultures 2.B.d.1 Systems of external symbolic storage 2.B.d.2 A Neolithic script in Southeastern Europe? 2.B.e Literacy: Component in network civilizations vs. instrument of centralized state 2.B.f Ars scribendi as representing also a magical/religious or celebrative matrix 2.B.f.1 Disputing the mercantile-administrative-economic model 2.B.f.2 Invention of the gods 2.B.f.3 The magical power of writing 2.B.f.4 Considering the ancient perception of writing as a divine gift in the Danube basin 2.B.g Visible concept vs. visible speech 2.B.h The qui pro quo of deriving writing necessarily from visual art 2.B.h.1 Mnemonic devices as first incubator of writing 2.B.h.2 Magic-religious symbols as second incubator of writing 2.B.h.3 Are pictography and abstract symbolism independent formative components of writing? 2.B.i The beginnings of writing and alphabet do not coincide 2B.i.1 Two dawns divided by several millennia 2B.i.2 Triumph of the alphabet and evolutionist paradigm

26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 31 31 35 39 41 43 44 45 49 51 54 55 55 61 61 62 63 66 67 67 67 71 72 72

I

18 20

72 73 73 74

Section II - STATE OF THE ART OF THE RESEARCH ON THE NEOLITHIC AND COPPER AGE SCRIPT FROM SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE

76

3 Existence of an archaic script in Southeastern Europe: A long lasting querelle 3.A Early indications of script-like signs from Turdaş and Vinča, Troy and Knossos 3.B Tărtăria tablets, the icon on the possibility of a European Neolithic writing 3.C The Transylvanian tablets as a focal point on the controversy of the prehistory chronology 3.C.a In search for a “deus ex machina” to set up the European prehistoric time-frame 3.C.b Approach 1: Inscribing the tablets to the Vinča-Turdaş or Vinča period, but denying the C14 dating for the Neolithic in Southeastern Europe 3.C.c Approach 2: Acknowledging either the Vinča-Turdaş or Vinča assumption of the tablets and the C14 dating evidence on the Neolithic in Southeastern Europe 3.C.d Approach 3: Reconciling the tablets with C14 dating evidence maintaining that they might have been intrusive from the upper strata 3.C.e Approach 4: Questioning the authenticity of the tablets 3.D Through Transylvanian serendipity 3.E From the Scilla of mute marks and pre-writing to the Cariddi of alphabetic claims and Nationalistic exploitation

77 77 79 81 81

4 Debugging the process of building a repertory of the Southeastern European signs 4.A The presence of an inventory as a key element for any system of writing 4.B Inventories of the “cracked” scripts: Analogies with the Danube script 4.B.a The syllabic list of Linear B signs 4.B.b The 56 signs of the Cypriote syllabary 4.C Essayistic inventories of the Neolithic and Copper Age script from Southeastern Europe 4.C.a General inventories 4.C.a.1 A range of 300 signs from Turdaş sorted out by Zsófia Torma 4.C.a.2 Lists of Vinča and Turdaş signs for comparison purposes 4.C.a.3 Makkay’s gathering and classification from Turdaş and beyond 4.C.a.4 Gimbutas’sacred stocktaking 4.C.a.5 Winn’s pioneering contribution 4.C.a.6 Haarmann’s repertory of the Old European (OE) script 4.C.a.7 Starović’s index of Vinča signs 4.C.a.8 Winn’s new inventory in 2004 4.C.a.9 Gh. Lazarovici’s catalogue of sacred signs 4.C.b Regional or local corpus of signs 4.C.b.1 Georgievskij’s set from the Vinča settlement 4.C.b.2 Todorović’s and Cermanović’s list from Banjica 4.C.b.3 Šarlota Joanovič and the Vršac directory 4.C.b.4 Trbuhovich’s and Vasiljevich’s input from Podrinje marks 4.C.b.5 A table of signs from Todorova and Vajsov without any script sign 4.C.b.6 Sampson’s “symbols-letters” 4.D Conclusions and trends

95 95 96 96 102 105 105 105 105 108 114 118 125 131 132 135 158 158 158 160 160 161 164 164

Section III - METHODOLOGICAL TOOLKIT TO SET UP AN INVENTORY OF THE DANUBE SCRIPT SIGNS

169

5 A Matrix of semiotic rules and markers for inspecting the sign system of the Danube civilization 5.A Framework and methodological restrictions 5.B Settling the Danube script within the Danube communication system 5.C Ratio of the Matrix 5.D Ritual marks: empathic action-graffiti, psychograms, tools for reiterated outlining, and writing-like imitations 5.D.a Empathic action-graffiti 5.D.a.1 The dynamic, emotional graphic result of cultic actions 5.D.a.2 A semiotic matrix to distinguish between signs of writing and empathic II

85 88 90 91 91 92

170 172 177 181 181 182 182

action-graffiti 5.D.b Psychograms 5.D.b.1 Archetypal marks to synthesize exclamations and trigger impulsive reactions in the recipient 5.D.b.2 A semiotic Matrix to distinguish between signs of writing and psychograms 5.D.c Tools for reiterated outlining 5.D.c.1 Retracing with intense devotion the worship marks drawn by an adept 5.D.c.2 Transformative circular patterns to be followed with finger or mind 5.D.c.3 Inspirational linear marks to be repeatedly scratched (crosses or “Maltese” crosses) 5.D.c.4 Devices to produce waves of sacred patterns in the air (spindle-whorls) 5.D.c.5 A semiotic Matrix to distinguish between script signs and tools for reiterated outlining 5.D.d Writing-like copying 5.D.d.1 Inscriptions copied by illiterates confident in the magic potency of the script signs 5.D.d.2 Mammoths playing with signs on the Prut river 5.E Contrasting the Danube script signs with ornamental motifs 5.E.a Artistic adornments 5.E.b Messages embedded in decorations 5.E.b.1 Writing and ornament can both be utilized to transmit packages of information 5.E.b.2 A number of script signs and decorative motifs share the same geometrical roots 5.E.b.3 Decoration, just as writing, can follow rules of shape standardization 5.E.b.4 Some marks, depending on their context, may be either script signs or ornaments 5.E.b.5 Artistic patterns can be arranged in a way similar to the textual organization of signs 5.E.b.6 Script signs and decorations may be represented together on the same object 5.E.b.7 Signs can also fulfill an aesthetic satisfaction 5.E.b.8 Abrasions, corrosion and damage can create confusion between decorations and signs of writing 5.E.c Semiotic indicators to discern between ornamental motifs and Danube script signs 5.E.c.1 Inventory of the Danube script vs. corpus of the artistic motifs 5.E.c.2 Linearity, abstraction and schematization of the outlines better represent the script 5.E.c.3 Diacritical marks: Evidence in the Danube script vs. an absence in ornament 5.E.c.4 Signs occur isolated and in groups; ornaments preferably co-occur as a whole 5.E.c.5 Preferential linear alignment and asymmetric coordination of the script vs. symmetrical gravitation of the decorative patterns 5.E.c.6 Ligatures occur exclusively within the script 5.E.c.7 In the script, the design is functional; the main purpose of decorations is aesthetic 5.E.c.8 Dots, vertical lines and horizontal strokes in the reading process vs. in the decorative design 5.E.c.9 The Danube script can contextually employ abstract and naturalistic signs; this merge is uncommon within ornament 5.E.c.10 Inscriptions don’t suffer from horror vacui which is a peculiarity of decoration 5.E.d Identifying writing and decoration when they cohabit on the same artifact 5.E.e A semiotic Matrix to distinguish between signs of writing and decorations 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 5.F.a.1 Writing and symbolism can both store and transmit messages 5.F.a.2 Shape resemblance between many symbols and signs when both belong to the religious-mythical system 5.F.a.3 The same mark can be, depending on the context, a writing unit or a symbol 5.F.a.4 When symbols and script signs show identical outlines, having the same geometric matrix and deriving the latter from the former 5.F.a.5 Symbols and signs that present both a categorized, abstract and linear shape 5.F.a.6 Script and symbolic language can both organize their marks in similar way 5.F.a.7 Signs of the script and symbols can cohabit on the same object 5.F.b Using semiotic indicators to discern between symbols and Danube script signs 5.F.b.1 Inventory of the Danube script signs vs. the repertoire of symbols III

188 190 190 195 196 196 197 202 203 206 208 208 209 211 211 214 214 219 220 222 222 225 227 230 232 232 242 243 244 246 259 263 268 269 272 277 278 280 280 284 287 288 289 291 292 294 298 298

5.F.b.2 “Ambivalent marks” and signs of writing 5.F.b.3 Symbols are generally accurately made, unlike signs of writing 5.F.b.4 Different predisposition concerning the location on objects 5.F.b.5 Organizing rules relating to the use of space are different 5.F.b.6 When Danube script and Danube symbolism are arranged in linear sequence, they are represented by dissimilar ratios 5.F.b.7 The peculiar symbiotic association between some symbols and related artifacts 5.F.b.8 A sacred mark can replace a key organ on a figurine; an inscription never does 5.F.b.9 The symbolic channel tends to outsize; the script is modest 5.F.b.10 Only the script signs vary in their basic outlines 5.F.b.11 Ligatures are restricted to the script 5.F.b.12 The Danube script has more abstract-oriented shapes than the symbolic language 5.F.b.13 The use of dots, horizontal lines, and vertical strokes is different 5.F.b.14 Symbols are engraved prior to firing, for the script this is frequent but not indispensable 5.G. A semiotic Matrix to discern between signs of writing and symbols 5.H Symbolic, written and decorative codes simultaneously on play 5.I Guidelines to recognize the Danube script signs and the divinity marks 5.I.a The divinity identifiers as a non-textual marking system 5.I.b Semiotic indicators used to discern between divinity insignia and script signs 5.I.b.1 A divinity recognizer is usually a mono-mark, an inscription can be multi-sign 5.I.b.2 A divinity identifier is a local mark, the script signs are diffusely employed 5.I.b.3 Divinity marks are strictly connected with distinct categories of artifacts 5.I.b.4 A divinity emblem is positioned prominently or strategically; for a text this is not mandatory 5.I.b.5 Divinity identifiers are accurate, definite, and carefully made; writing can be inaccurate, unclearly-cut, and carelessly made 5.I.b.6 A divinity identifier can have a complex outline; the Danube script signs are mainly highly stylized, un-complex, linear and rectilinear 5.I.b.7 A divinity insignia has often a pictographic root; pictograms are few in the script 5.I.b.8 A divinity mark is frequently inserted inside a frame to isolate and emphasize it 5.I.b.9 A divinity recognizer is generally made before firing and is very deeply incised; for the Danube script signs this is not required 5.I.b.10 Divinity emblems are preserved from superimposed scratches; script signs are not 5.I.b.11 A list of divinity marks and an inventory of exclusively script units may be sorted out 5.I.c A semiotic Matrix to distinguish between signs of writing and divinity identifiers 5.H Testing the matrix: the Gradešnica script debugged 5.H.a One inscribed object, many published variations in its signs 5.H.b A pregnant anthropomorph 5.H.c The flourishing rhombus as vital symbol of the dancing pregnant four-sided Moon 5.H.d An oranting and dancing Moon surrounded by the constellations of an archaic sky 5.H.e A vertical inscription 5.H.f The signs on the inside of the Gradešnica shallow vessel 5.H.g The signs on the lips 5.H.h Conclusions 6 DatDas: The databank of Danube signs, inscriptions, and inscribed artifacts 6.A The direct examination of the inscribed artifacts as a key requisite 6.B Including and excluding criteria 6.B.a DatDas records only inscriptions with two or more signs 6.B.b Restricted conditions to accept inscribed objects in the databank 6.B.b.1 Excluded typology A: Too poorly incised/painted or damaged marks to be unambiguously identified 6.B.b.2 Excluded typology B: Not clearly discernable marks from the published drawings or photos 6.B.b.3 Excluded typology C: Signs fragmented along the outline making IV

300 301 303 304 306 307 308 309 310 310 310 316 316 317 318 319 319 320 321 321 322 323 324 325 327 327 329 330 331 332 333 333 335 352 358 362 368 371 374 376 376 387 387 392 392 393

their identification impossible 6.B.b.4 Excluded typology D: Marks so interlaced that it is hard to detect distinctly each of them 6.B.b.5 Excluding typology E: Marks from artifacts with uncertain origin and/or chronology 6.C The structure of DatDas 6.C.a The main field on the inscribed artifacts 6.C.b The main field related to the inscription/inscriptions 6.C.b.1 Multi-inscribed artifacts 6.C.b.2 The variables connected to an inscription 6.C.b.3 Semiotic variables to investigate if an early literacy existed in Southeastern Europe 6.C.c The main field related to a single sign of the inventory

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

395 399 399 404 405 421 421 432 435 438

440

7 The inventory of Danube script signs 7.A Rationale and organization of the sign list 7.B The constituents of the script consist of a core set of abstract signs that functioned as root-signs 7.C Recognition of the signs subjected to the “diacritical technique” 7.D Pictograms and ideograms 7.E Possible numerical notations 7.F Sign inventory of the Danube script 7.F.a The list of the abstract signs 7.F.b The list of the pictograms/ideograms 7.F.c The list of the possible numeric signs

441 441

8 Historical, geographical, and typological framework of the Danube Script 8.A Putting in sync chronological and cultural development: DCP (Danube Civilization Phases) and complexes, cultures, and groups 8.B Life cycle of the script 8.C Geographical spread of the Danube script 8.D 219 settlements involved in the network of literacy 8.D.a The Danube script developed along a five-range hierarchical and decentralized communication web 8.D.b The key cultural centers throughout the Neolithic 8.D.c The nodes of ars scribendi in the Early Copper Age 8.E Object type distribution of the signs 8.E.a Centrality of human representations and potshards 8.E.b Writing on human skin made of clay

464

9 Synchronizing the life cycle of the Danube script with Neolithic and Copper Age cultural complexes, cultures and cultural groups 9.A The Formative stage: Contribution from the Early Neolithic cultures 9.A.a The development of writing technology started immediately afterwards the 8.2 ka event 9.A.b The origin of the script from the Starčevo-Criş (Körös) cultural complex 9.A.c Karanovo I altars, seals and figurines 9.A.d The limited role of the other Early Neolithic cultures 9.A.e Focusing on the script start-up 9.B The Accumulative stage: Contribution from the Developed/Middle Neolithic cultures 9.B.a Geographical dilatation and more equilibrate utilization of the sign system 9.B.b The pivotal role of the Vinča culture 9.B.b.1 Early literacy from the Vinča A carriers V

442 445 447 450 453 454 460 463

464 468 472 474 474 486 488 492 492 494

497 497 497 502 514 517 520 522 522 526 529

9.B.b.2 Tărtăria: Sacred signs on tablets deposited in a burial aimed to consecrate a novel ancestor 9.B.b.3 An esoteric astral knowledge from Tărtăria? 9.B.b.4 Vinča B: the crucial culture of the Accumulative stage of the script 9.B.c Textual material from the Banat II culture and Parţa 9.B.d Inscribed figurines from the Alföld Linear Pottery culture 9.B.e Assessing the script in the other Developed and Middle Neolithic cultures 9.C The Blooming stage: Contribution from the Late Neolithic cultures 9.C.a Geographical concentration and increase of literate settlements 9.C.b The Vinča C as the culture of the greatest sign production 9.C.c Literacy in the Turdaş culture 9.C.c.1 Script-like signs from the earliest excavations 9.C.c.2 Evidence of the “Turdaş script” from the (DatTur) database 9.C.c.3 Object type distribution of the Turdaş signs 9.C.c.4 Parallels between the inscriptions on the Turdaş medallion and Bulgarian stamp seals and disks 9.C.c.5 The inventory of the “Turdaş script” signs according to the databank 9.C.c.6 Relating “Turdaş script” dates with the Danube script 9.C.d Messages from the Bulgarian Late Neolithic B plus Karanovo IV - Kalojanovec culture 9.C.e The employment of ambivalent marks in the Tisza-Herpály-Csöszhalom cultural complex 9.C.f Multiple inscriptions at Sitagroi III 9.C.g The religious propensity of writing in the Banat III culture 9.C.h Script signs on tablets-plates from the Vădastra communities 9.C.i Graphic information processing within heavily socialized environments such as Classical Dimini and Paradimi III 9.C.j The Zau III assemblage 9.C.k Some glimpses from the other Late Neolithic cultures 9.D The Stamina stage: Contribution from the Early Copper Age cultures 9.D.a Literacy and counting tokens for a new leadership 9.D.b The Gradešnica – Brenica as the foremost culture 9.D.c Consistent ars scribendi examples from the Gradešnica-Slatino I-III and Slatino IV assemblage 9.D.d Possible indications of literacy in the Precucuteni-Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Trypillia cultural complex 9.D.d.1 Divine hierarchical pantheon and Rain divinity in the Precucuteni - Trypillia A phase 9.D.d.2 Figures of the “Precucuteni-Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Trypillia script” 9.D.d.3 Framework of the script in the Precucuteni - Trypillia A 9.D.e The Vinča D culture in Serbia 9.D.f The Gumelniţa A literate tells 9.D.g Boian-Giuleşti and Boian-Poljanica evidence 9.D.h Inscribed miniaturize pots from the Petreşti culture 9.D.i Transdanubian facts from Lengyel I and Lengyel II communities 9.D.j The Sălcuţa – Krivodol - Bubanj Hum complex 9.D.k The Hamangia sequence and the script in funerary context 9.D.l Script signs among salt, copper, and gold in the Cucuteni A1-A2 9.D.m Marginal input from the other Early Copper Age cultures 9.E The Fall stage: Contribution from the Middle Copper Age cultures 9.E.a Twilight for the system of writing 9.E.b Beyond the inscribed stamp seals of the Karanovo VI - Gumelniţa B - Kodžadermen cultural aggregate 9.E.c The Cucuteni A3-A4 - Trypillia B phase between inscribed figurines and tokens 9.F The Eclipse stage: Contribution from the Late Copper Age cultures 9.F.a A quantitative collapse, but not in the development of the sign syst...