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, malleability, and unsystematicity of ancient
scripts induce degrees of decipherment 18
1.E The Danube script within a holographic visual scenario 20

2 Early writing systems and civilizations 26

2.A Traditional view on the genesis of writing 26
2.A.a An ex nihilo act 26
2.A.b A single incubating region: Mesopotamia 26
2.A.c A diffusionist model of origin 26
2.A.d A defined stage of human development: The Bronze Age 27
2.A.e An established socio-institutional context: authoritarian city-states 27
2.A.f An exclusive need: Storing and organizing economic data 27
2.A.g A single task: To express the sounds of a language 28
2.A.h A path to maturation always starting from stylized drawings 28
2.A.i The invention of the alphabet as historical fulfillment 29
2.B A different vision through a comparative analysis of the history of writing 30
2.B.a An invention set in time: Accounting, symbolic code and linear decoration 30
2.B.b Tokens: Socioeconomic development and writing 31
2.B.b.1 An accounting system dating back 8000 BC 31
2.B.b.2 Did tokens actually contribute to the genesis of writing? 35
2.B.c The multi-localized birth of homo scribens 39
2.B.c.1 Egyptian proto-hieroglyphics 41
2.B.c.2 A potential script from Harappa, Pakistan 43
2.B.c.3 Evidence from Bactria Margiana 44
2.B.c.4 Neolithic clues of writing from China 45
2.B.c.5 “Proto-Iranian” from Halil River, Iran 49
2.B.c.6 The foundation of literacy in Mesoamerica 51
2.B.c.7 The Danube homo scribens 54
2.B.d The Prehistory of writing in Neolithic Fertile Crescent cultures 55
2.B.d.1 Systems of external symbolic storage 55
2.B.d.2 A Neolithic script in Southeastern Europe? 61
2.B.e Literacy: Component in network civilizations vs. instrument of centralized state 61
2.B.f Ars scribendi as representing also a magical/religious or celebrative matrix 62
2.B.f.1 Disputing the mercantile-administrative-economic model 63
2.B.f.2 Invention of the gods 66
2.B.f.3 The magical power of writing 67
2.B.f.4 Considering the ancient perception of writing as a divine gift in the Danube basin 67
2.B.g Visible concept vs. visible speech 67
2.B.h The qui pro quo of deriving writing necessarily from visual art 71
2.B.h.1 Mnemonic devices as first incubator of writing 72
2.B.h.2 Magic-religious symbols as second incubator of writing 72
2.B.h.3 Are pictography and abstract symbolism independent formative components
of writing? 72
2.B.i The beginnings of writing and alphabet do not coincide 73
2B.i.1 Two dawns divided by several millennia 73
2B.i.2 Triumph of the alphabet and evolutionist paradigm 74

I
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 77

3.A Early indications of script-like signs from Turdaş and Vinča, Troy and Knossos 77
3.B Tărtăria tablets, the icon on the possibility of a European Neolithic writing 79
3.C The Transylvanian tablets as a focal point on the controversy of the prehistory chronology 81
3.C.a In search for a “deus ex machina” to set up the European prehistoric time-frame 81
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 85
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 88
3.C.d Approach 3: Reconciling the tablets with C14 dating evidence maintaining that they
might have been intrusive from the upper strata 90
3.C.e Approach 4: Questioning the authenticity of the tablets 91
3.D Through Transylvanian serendipity 91
3.E From the Scilla of mute marks and pre-writing to the Cariddi of alphabetic claims and
Nationalistic exploitation 92

4 Debugging the process of building a repertory of the Southeastern European signs 95

4.A The presence of an inventory as a key element for any system of writing 95
4.B Inventories of the “cracked” scripts: Analogies with the Danube script 96
4.B.a The syllabic list of Linear B signs 96
4.B.b The 56 signs of the Cypriote syllabary 102
4.C Essayistic inventories of the Neolithic and Copper Age script from Southeastern Europe 105
4.C.a General inventories 105
4.C.a.1 A range of 300 signs from Turdaş sorted out by Zsófia Torma 105
4.C.a.2 Lists of Vinča and Turdaş signs for comparison purposes 105
4.C.a.3 Makkay’s gathering and classification from Turdaş and beyond 108
4.C.a.4 Gimbutas’sacred stocktaking 114
4.C.a.5 Winn’s pioneering contribution 118
4.C.a.6 Haarmann’s repertory of the Old European (OE) script 125
4.C.a.7 Starović’s index of Vinča signs 131
4.C.a.8 Winn’s new inventory in 2004 132
4.C.a.9 Gh. Lazarovici’s catalogue of sacred signs 135
4.C.b Regional or local corpus of signs 158
4.C.b.1 Georgievskij’s set from the Vinča settlement 158
4.C.b.2 Todorović’s and Cermanović’s list from Banjica 158
4.C.b.3 Šarlota Joanovič and the Vršac directory 160
4.C.b.4 Trbuhovich’s and Vasiljevich’s input from Podrinje marks 160
4.C.b.5 A table of signs from Todorova and Vajsov without any script sign 161
4.C.b.6 Sampson’s “symbols-letters” 164
4.D Conclusions and trends 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 170
5.A Framework and methodological restrictions 172
5.B Settling the Danube script within the Danube communication system 177
5.C Ratio of the Matrix 181
5.D Ritual marks: empathic action-graffiti, psychograms, tools for reiterated outlining, and
writing-like imitations 181
5.D.a Empathic action-graffiti 182
5.D.a.1 The dynamic, emotional graphic result of cultic actions 182
5.D.a.2 A semiotic matrix to distinguish between signs of writing and empathic
II
 action-graffiti 188
5.D.b Psychograms 190
5.D.b.1 Archetypal marks to synthesize exclamations and trigger impulsive reactions
in the recipient 190
5.D.b.2 A semiotic Matrix to distinguish between signs of writing and psychograms 195
5.D.c Tools for reiterated outlining 196
5.D.c.1 Retracing with intense devotion the worship marks drawn by an adept 196
5.D.c.2 Transformative circular patterns to be followed with finger or mind 197
5.D.c.3 Inspirational linear marks to be repeatedly scratched (crosses or
“Maltese” crosses) 202
5.D.c.4 Devices to produce waves of sacred patterns in the air (spindle-whorls) 203
5.D.c.5 A semiotic Matrix to distinguish between script signs and
tools for reiterated outlining 206
5.D.d Writing-like copying 208
5.D.d.1 Inscriptions copied by illiterates confident in the magic potency of the script signs 208
5.D.d.2 Mammoths playing with signs on the Prut river 209
5.E Contrasting the Danube script signs with ornamental motifs 211
5.E.a Artistic adornments 211
5.E.b Messages embedded in decorations 214
5.E.b.1 Writing and ornament can both be utilized to transmit packages of information 214
5.E.b.2 A number of script signs and decorative motifs share the same geometrical roots 219
5.E.b.3 Decoration, just as writing, can follow rules of shape standardization 220
5.E.b.4 Some marks, depending on their context, may be either script signs or ornaments 222
5.E.b.5 Artistic patterns can be arranged in a way similar to the textual organization of signs 222
5.E.b.6 Script signs and decorations may be represented together on the same object 225
5.E.b.7 Signs can also fulfill an aesthetic satisfaction 227
5.E.b.8 Abrasions, corrosion and damage can create confusion between decorations
and signs of writing 230
5.E.c Semiotic indicators to discern between ornamental motifs and Danube script signs 232
5.E.c.1 Inventory of the Danube script vs. corpus of the artistic motifs 232
5.E.c.2 Linearity, abstraction and schematization of the outlines better represent the script 242
5.E.c.3 Diacritical marks: Evidence in the Danube script vs. an absence in ornament 243
5.E.c.4 Signs occur isolated and in groups; ornaments preferably co-occur as a whole 244
5.E.c.5 Preferential linear alignment and asymmetric coordination of the script vs.
symmetrical gravitation of the decorative patterns 246
5.E.c.6 Ligatures occur exclusively within the script 259
5.E.c.7 In the script, the design is functional; the main purpose of decorations is aesthetic 263
5.E.c.8 Dots, vertical lines and horizontal strokes in the reading process vs. in the
decorative design 268
5.E.c.9 The Danube script can contextually employ abstract and naturalistic signs;
this merge is uncommon within ornament 269
5.E.c.10 Inscriptions don’t suffer from horror vacui which is a peculiarity of decoration 272
5.E.d Identifying writing and decoration when they cohabit on the same artifact 277
5.E.e A semiotic Matrix to distinguish between signs of writing and decorations 278
5.F How to discern between signs of the Danube script and symbols 280
5.F.a A blend language to express the visible unreality of the sacred sphere 280
5.F.a.1 Writing and symbolism can both store and transmit messages 284
5.F.a.2 Shape resemblance between many symbols and signs when both belong to
the religious-mythical system 287
5.F.a.3 The same mark can be, depending on the context, a writing unit or a symbol 288
5.F.a.4 When symbols and script signs show identical outlines, having the same
geometric matrix and deriving the latter from the former 289
5.F.a.5 Symbols and signs that present both a categorized, abstract and linear shape 291
5.F.a.6 Script and symbolic language can both organize their marks in similar way 292
5.F.a.7 Signs of the script and symbols can cohabit on the same object 294
5.F.b Using semiotic indicators to discern between symbols and Danube script signs 298
5.F.b.1 Inventory of the Danube script signs vs. the repertoire of symbols 298
III
 5.F.b.2 “Ambivalent marks” and signs of writing 300
5.F.b.3 Symbols are generally accurately made, unlike signs of writing 301
5.F.b.4 Different predisposition concerning the location on objects 303
5.F.b.5 Organizing rules relating to the use of space are different 304
5.F.b.6 When Danube script and Danube symbolism are arranged in linear sequence,
they are represented by dissimilar ratios 306
5.F.b.7 The peculiar symbiotic association between some symbols and related artifacts 307
5.F.b.8 A sacred mark can replace a key organ on a figurine; an inscription never does 308
5.F.b.9 The symbolic channel tends to outsize; the script is modest 309
5.F.b.10 Only the script signs vary in their basic outlines 310
5.F.b.11 Ligatures are restricted to the script 310
5.F.b.12 The Danube script has more abstract-oriented shapes than the symbolic language 310
5.F.b.13 The use of dots, horizontal lines, and vertical strokes is different 316
5.F.b.14 Symbols are engraved prior to firing, for the script this is frequent
but not indispensable 316
5.G. A semiotic Matrix to discern between signs of writing and symbols 317
5.H Symbolic, written and decorative codes simultaneously on play 318
5.I Guidelines to recognize the Danube script signs and the divinity marks 319
5.I.a The divinity identifiers as a non-textual marking system 319
5.I.b Semiotic indicators used to discern between divinity insignia and script signs 320
5.I.b.1 A divinity recognizer is usually a mono-mark, an inscription can be multi-sign 321
5.I.b.2 A divinity identifier is a local mark, the script signs are diffusely employed 321
5.I.b.3 Divinity marks are strictly connected with distinct categories of artifacts 322
5.I.b.4 A divinity emblem is positioned prominently or strategically; for a text this
is not mandatory 323
5.I.b.5 Divinity identifiers are accurate, definite, and carefully made; writing can be
inaccurate, unclearly-cut, and carelessly made 324
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 325
5.I.b.7 A divinity insignia has often a pictographic root; pictograms are few in the script 327
5.I.b.8 A divinity mark is frequently inserted inside a frame to isolate and emphasize it 327
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 329
5.I.b.10 Divinity emblems are preserved from superimposed scratches; script signs are not 330
5.I.b.11 A list of divinity marks and an inventory of exclusively script units may be
sorted out 331
5.I.c A semiotic Matrix to distinguish between signs of writing and divinity identifiers 332
5.H Testing the matrix: the Gradešnica script debugged 333
5.H.a One inscribed object, many published variations in its signs 333
5.H.b A pregnant anthropomorph 335
5.H.c The flourishing rhombus as vital symbol of the dancing pregnant four-sided Moon 352
5.H.d An oranting and dancing Moon surrounded by the constellations of an archaic sky 358
5.H.e A vertical inscription 362
5.H.f The signs on the inside of the Gradešnica shallow vessel 368
5.H.g The signs on the lips 371
5.H.h Conclusions 374

6 DatDas: The databank of Danube signs, inscriptions, and inscribed artifacts 376
6.A The direct examination of the inscribed artifacts as a key requisite 376
6.B Including and excluding criteria 387
6.B.a DatDas records only inscriptions with two or more signs 387
6.B.b Restricted conditions to accept inscribed objects in the databank 392
6.B.b.1 Excluded typology A: Too poorly incised/painted or damaged marks to be
unambiguously identified 392
6.B.b.2 Excluded typology B: Not clearly discernable marks from the published
drawings or photos 393
6.B.b.3 Excluded typology C: Signs fragmented along the outline making
IV
 their identification impossible 395
6.B.b.4 Excluded typology D: Marks so interlaced that it is hard to detect distinctly
each of them 399
6.B.b.5 Excluding typology E: Marks from artifacts with uncertain origin and/or chronology 399
6.C The structure of DatDas 404
6.C.a The main field on the inscribed artifacts 405
6.C.b The main field related to the inscription/inscriptions 421
6.C.b.1 Multi-inscribed artifacts 421
6.C.b.2 The variables connected to an inscription 432
6.C.b.3 Semiotic variables to investigate if an early literacy existed in Southeastern Europe 435
6.C.c The main field related to a single sign of the inventory 438

SECTION IV – INVENTORY AND LIFE CYCLE OF THE DANUBE SCRIPT SIGNS

GROUNDED ON DATABANK DATDAS 440

7 The inventory of Danube script signs 441

7.A Rationale and organization of the sign list 441
7.B The constituents of the script consist of a core set of abstract signs that functioned
as root-signs 442
7.C Recognition of the signs subjected to the “diacritical technique” 445
7.D Pictograms and ideograms 447
7.E Possible numerical notations 450
7.F Sign inventory of the Danube script 453
7.F.a The list of the abstract signs 454
7.F.b The list of the pictograms/ideograms 460
7.F.c The list of the possible numeric signs 463

8 Historical, geographical, and typological framework of the Danube Script 464

8.A Putting in sync chronological and cultural development: DCP (Danube Civilization Phases)
and complexes, cultures, and groups 464
8.B Life cycle of the script 468
8.C Geographical spread of the Danube script 472
8.D 219 settlements involved in the network of literacy 474
8.D.a The Danube script developed along a five-range hierarchical and decentralized
communication web 474
8.D.b The key cultural centers throughout the Neolithic 486
8.D.c The nodes of ars scribendi in the Early Copper Age 488
8.E Object type distribution of the signs 492
8.E.a Centrality of human representations and potshards 492
8.E.b Writing on human skin made of clay 494

9 Synchronizing the life cycle of the Danube script with Neolithic and
Copper Age cultural complexes, cultures and cultural groups 497
9.A The Formative stage: Contribution from the Early Neolithic cultures 497
9.A.a The development of writing technology started immediately 497
afterwards the 8.2 ka event
9.A.b The origin of the script from the Starčevo-Criş (Körös) cultural complex 502
9.A.c Karanovo I altars, seals and figurines 514
9.A.d The limited role of the other Early Neolithic cultures 517
9.A.e Focusing on the script start-up 520
9.B The Accumulative stage: Contribution from the Developed/Middle
Neolithic cultures 522
9.B.a Geographical dilatation and more equilibrate utilization of the sign system 522
9.B.b The pivotal role of the Vinča culture 526
9.B.b.1 Early literacy from the Vinča A carriers 529

V
 9.B.b.2 Tărtăria: Sacred signs on tablets deposited in a burial
aimed to consecrate a novel ancestor 532
9.B.b.3 An esoteric astral knowledge from Tărtăria? 540
9.B.b.4 Vinča B: the crucial culture of the Accumulative stage of the script 543
9.B.c Textual material from the Banat II culture and Parţa 545
9.B.d Inscribed figurines from the Alföld Linear Pottery culture 547
9.B.e Assessing the script in the other Developed and Middle Neolithic cultures 548
9.C The Blooming stage: Contribution from the Late Neolithic cultures 554
9.C.a Geographical concentration and increase of literate settlements 554
9.C.b The Vinča C as the culture of the greatest sign production 558
9.C.c Literacy in the Turdaş culture 565
9.C.c.1 Script-like signs from the earliest excavations 565
9.C.c.2 Evidence of the “Turdaş script” from the (DatTur) database 567
9.C.c.3 Object type distribution of the Turdaş signs 574
9.C.c.4 Parallels between the inscriptions on the Turdaş medallion
and Bulgarian stamp seals and disks 575
9.C.c.5 The inventory of the “Turdaş script” signs according to the databank 578
9.C.c.6 Relating “Turdaş script” dates with the Danube script 590
9.C.d Messages from the Bulgarian Late Neolithic B plus
Karanovo IV - Kalojanovec culture 592
9.C.e The employment of ambivalent marks in the Tisza-Herpály-Csöszhalom
cultural complex 595
9.C.f Multiple inscriptions at Sitagroi III 598
9.C.g The religious propensity of writing in the Banat III culture 599
9.C.h Script signs on tablets-plates from the Vădastra communities 601
9.C.i Graphic information processing within heavily socialized
environments such as Classical Dimini and Paradimi III 601
9.C.j The Zau III assemblage 605
9.C.k Some glimpses from the other Late Neolithic cultures 611
9.D The Stamina stage: Contribution from the Early Copper Age cultures 612
9.D.a Literacy and counting tokens for a new leadership 612
9.D.b The Gradešnica – Brenica as the foremost culture 618
9.D.c Consistent ars scribendi examples from the Gradešnica-Slatino I-III
and Slatino IV assemblage 620
9.D.d Possible indications of literacy in the
Precucuteni-Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Trypillia cultural complex 623
9.D.d.1 Divine hierarchical pantheon and Rain divinity in the
Precucuteni - Trypillia A phase 624
9.D.d.2 Figures of the “Precucuteni-Ariuşd-Cucuteni-Trypillia script” 634
9.D.d.3 Framework of the script in the Precucuteni - Trypillia A 639
9.D.e The Vinča D culture in Serbia 642
9.D.f The Gumelniţa A literate tells 643
9.D.g Boian-Giuleşti and Boian-Poljanica evidence 644
9.D.h Inscribed miniaturize pots from the Petreşti culture 645
9.D.i Transdanubian facts from Lengyel I and Lengyel II communities 648
9.D.j The Sălcuţa – Krivodol - Bubanj Hum complex 648
9.D.k The Hamangia sequence and the script in funerary context 650
9.D.l Script signs among salt, copper, and gold in the Cucuteni A1-A2 651
9.D.m Marginal input from the other Early Copper Age cultures 652
9.E The Fall stage: Contribution from the Middle Copper Age cultures 653
9.E.a Twilight for the system of writing 653
9.E.b Beyond the inscribed stamp seals of the
Karanovo VI - Gumelniţa B - Kodžadermen cultural aggregate 656
9.E.c The Cucuteni A3-A4 - Trypillia B phase between inscribed
figurines and tokens 658
9.F The Eclipse stage: Contribution from the Late Copper Age cultures 661
9.F.a A quantitative collapse, but not in the development of the sign system 661
VI
 9.F.b Illustrative Cucuteni A-B – B - C - Trypillia C cases 664
9.F.c The Coţofeni announcement of the Bronze Age 669
9.F.d Textual information in the Kostolać communities from Serbia 670
9.F.e Clues of funerary script at Varna II-III horizon 670

Conclusions. Four challenges surrounding the Danube script 671

I. First challenge: a semiotic code that assesses it as an archaic script 671
II. Second challenge: dates, paths and geography of the European prehistory 677
III. Third challenge: the idea of civilization and its formative processes 678
IV. Fourth challenge: history and concept of writing 680

Bibliography 681

Index of sites and settlements with signs 751

VII