Vinca alphabet

[Orakulli]

The Old European Script (also known as the Vinca alphabet, Vinca script or Vinca-Tordos script) is a name sometimes given to the markings on prehistoric artefacts found in south-eastern Europe. Some believe the markings to be a writing system of the Vinca culture, which inhabited the region around 6000-4000 BC. Others doubt that the markings represent writing at all, citing the brevity of the purported inscriptions and the dearth of repeated symbols in the purported script.


The discovery of the script
In 1875, archaeological excavations led by Zsofia Torma at Tordos (now Turdas) in Transylvania unearthed a cache of objects inscribed with previously unknown symbols. A similar cache was found during excavations conducted in 1908 in Vinca, a suburb of the Serbian city of Belgrade, some 120km from Tordos. Later, more such fragments were found in Banjica, another part of Belgrade. To date, more than a thousand fragments with inscriptions have been found on various archaeological sites throughout south-eastern Europe, notably in Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, eastern Hungary, Moldova, southern Ukraine and other locations in the former Yugoslavia.

Most of the inscriptions are on pottery, with the remainder appearing on whorls (flat cylindrical annuli), figurines, and a small collection of other objects. Over 85% of the inscriptions consist of a single symbol. The symbols themselves consist of a variety of abstract and representative pictograms, including zoomorphic (animal-like) representations, combs or brush patterns and abstract symbols such as swastikas, crosses and chevrons. Other objects include groups of symbols, of which some are arranged in no particularly obvious pattern, with the result that neither the order nor the direction of the signs in these groups is readily determinable. The usage of symbols varies significantly between objects: symbols that appear by themselves tend almost exclusively to appear on pots, while symbols that are grouped with other symbols tend to appear on whorls.

The importance of these findings lies in the fact that the oldest of them are dated around 4000 BC, around a thousand years before the proto-Sumerian pictographic script from Uruk (modern Iraq), which is usually considered as the oldest known script. Analyses of the symbols showed that they had little similarity with Near Eastern writing, leading to the view that they probably arose independently of the Sumerian civilization. There are some similarities between the symbols and other Neolithic symbologies found elsewhere, as far afield as Egypt, Crete and even China. However, Chinese scholars have suggested that such signs were produced by a convergent development of what might be called a precursor to writing which evolved independently in a number of societies.

Although a large number of symbols are known, most artefacts contain so few symbols that they are very unlikely to represent a complete text. Possibly the only exception is a stone found near Sitovo in Bulgaria, the dating of which is disputed; regardless, the stone has only around 50 symbols. It is unknown which language used the symbols, or indeed whether they stand for a language in the first place.



Clay amulet, one of the Tartaria tablets unearthed near Tartaria, Romania, and dated to ca. 4500 B.C. Meaning of the symbols
The nature and purpose of the symbols is still something of a mystery. It is not even clear whether or not they constitute a writing system. If they do, it is not known whether they represent an alphabet, syllabary, ideograms or some other form of writing. Although attempts have been made to decipher the symbols, there is no generally accepted translation or agreement as to what they mean.

At first it was though that the symbols were simply used as property marks, with no additional meaning then "this belongs to X"; a prominent holder of this view is archaeologist P. Biehl. This theory is now mostly abandoned as same symbols have been repeatedly found on the whole territory of Vinca culture, on locations hundreds of kilometers and years away of each other.

The prevailing theory is that is that the symbols were used for religious purposes in a traditional agricultural society. If so, the fact that the same symbols were used for centuries with little change suggests that the ritual meaning and culture represented by the symbols likewise remained constant for a very long time, with no need for further development. The use of the symbols appear to have been abandoned (along with the objects on which they appear) at the start of the Bronze Age, suggesting that the new technology brought with it significant changes in social organization and beliefs.

One argument in favour of the ritual explanation is that the objects on which the symbols appear do not appear to have had much long-term significance to their owners - they are commonly found in pits and other refuse areas. Certain objects, principally figurines, are most usually found buried under houses. This is consistent with the supposition that they were prepared for household religious ceremonies in which the signs incised on the objects represent expressions: a desire, request, vow or whatever. After the ceremony was completed, the object would either have no further significance (hence would be disposed of) or would be buried ritually (which some have interpreted as votive offerings).

Some of the "comb" or "brush" symbols, which collectively comprise as much as a sixth of all the symbols so far discovered, may represent numbers. Some scholars have pointed out that over a quarter of the inscriptions are located on the bottom of a pot, an ostensibly unlikely place for a religious inscription. The Vinca culture appears to have traded its wares quite widely with other cultures (as demonstrated by the widespread distribution of inscribed pots), so it is possible that the "numerical" symbols conveyed information about the value of the pots or their contents. Other cultures, such as the Minoans and Sumerians, used their scripts primarily as accounting tools; the Vinca symbols may have served a similar purpose.

Other symbols (principally those restricted to the base of pots) are wholly unique. Such signs may denote the contents, provenence/destination or manufacturer/owner of the pot.


Controversial issues
The Vinca markings have not attracted as much linguistic attention as recognized but undeciphered scripts such as Crete's Linear A and Easter Island's Rongo Rongo. However, the Vinca material has still managed to stir some controversies of its own.

The primary advocate of the idea that the markings represent writing, and the person who coined the name "Old European Script", was Marija Gimbutas (1921-1994), an important 20th century archaeologist and premier advocate of the notion that the Kurgan culture of Central Asia was an early Indo-European culture. Later in life she turned her attention to the reconstruction of a hypothetical pre-Indo-European Old European culture, which she thought spanned most of Europe. She observed that neolithic European iconography was predominately female — a trend also visible in the inscribed figurines of the Vinca culture — and concluded the existence of a matriarchal culture that worshipped a universal Mother Goddess. She also incorporated the Vinca markings into her model of Old Europe, claiming them to be the writing system for a hypothetical Old European language. Most archaeologists and linguists disagree with Gimbutas' interpretation of the Vinca signs as a script: it is all but universally accepted among scholars that the Sumerian cuneiform script is in fact the earliest form of writing.

An altogether odder controversy concerns the theories of Dr. Radivoje Pešić from Belgrade. In his book The Vinca Alphabet, he proposes that all of the symbols exist in the Etruscan alphabet, and conversely, that all Etruscan letters are found among Vinca signs. However, these claims are not taken seriously by scholars, who demonstrate that the Etruscan alphabet is derived from the West Greek Alphabet, which in turn is derived from the Phoenician writing system. This is however not completely incompatible with Pešić's views as he claims that Phoenician writing system descended from Vincan. Pešić's critics have claimed that his support for the continuity theory, which claims a Slavic presence in the Balkans far earlier than the usually accepted date, is motivated by an nationalistic desire; hence, for instance, his claim that the poet Homer must have spoken a Slavonic dialect (Pešić, 1989).

[Orakulli]

Writing, one of the most important human innovations, seems to have arisen independently only a few times (Robinson 1995). Probably the most well-known and studied is the Proto-Sumerian accounting script from Uruk (c. 3100 BC) (Robinson 1995; Nissen, Damerow & Englund 1993). This writing and its descendant scripts (along with writing from Egypt) eventually spread to other parts of Mesopotamia, the Levant, Anatolia, and may even have influenced the development of writing in China (Robinson 1995). One other independent development of writing came in Mesoamerica (Robinson 1995). Thus, it came as somewhat of a surprise when in 1875 excavations led by Z. Torma at Tordos in the gold and silver rich regions of Transylvania (Romania) yielded inscribed objects (Torma 1889). Excavations at Vinca, 120 km southwest of Tordos, yielded another cache of inscribed objects (Vasíc 1910). Initially it was thought that this Vinca-Tordos script had diffused from the Near East (Popovic 1965). However, in more recent work C-14 dating shows that the Transylvanian objects are more than a thousand years older than the Uruk tablets (c. 4000 BC) (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; and refs. therein). Also, examination of a more extensive corpus of approximately 940 inscribed objects from more than twenty cities over hundreds of square kilometers compiled in pioneering work by S.M.M. Winn (1981), including previously unpublished objects, shows that the Old European Script (OES) (Gimbutas 1991) has little similarity with Near Eastern writing. These findings have led to the view that the OES probably arose independently (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; Renfrew 1969). Eighty-two percent of the inscriptions are on pottery (including 260 inscriptions on the base of pots). The rest of the inscriptions are on whorls (flat cylindrical annuli), figurines, and a small collection of other objects. More than eighty-five percent of the inscriptions consist of only a single sign. The OES has not been deciphered. It is also not known for what the script was used, but the prevailing theory (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; Haarmann 1996) is that it was used for religious purposes. Here we show that nearly one-third of the inscribed pottery objects bear numerical inscriptions, and we suggest that the script may have been used for economic purposes. For the incised score marks on the bottom of pots in particular, we greatly doubt that any religious purpose was intended.



The prevalence of score marks in the OES and their potential for helping to understand the OES has not been appreciated, though early work (Winn 1981, pp. 158, 164) actually suggested that tally marks could represent numbers. We first consider the inscriptions on pottery, which are thought to employ sets of signs in a somewhat different manner than those on other objects (Winn 1981). As noted in Table, inscriptions with one to nine score marks are extremely common—134 inscriptions or fourteen percent of all inscriptions. Also common is the “comb” motif (Table 1) with three to eight teeth—33 inscriptions. As the comb motif is used with so many different numbers of teeth and as the comb inscriptions seem to be used in a similar manner, and are found in similar places on pottery as the score mark inscriptions, we think these signs also denote numbers. We translate a comb with n (3 ≤ n ≤ 8) teeth as 10+n. Other possibilities are the numbers n or n+1 (n teeth plus the horizontal stroke), but these seem unlikely as there are already signs for n and n+1 (n or n+1 score marks). Another possibility is n times B (nB), but then we might expect to find inscriptions with a n-tooth comb and some number of score marks to indicate numbers between factors of ten, but these are not found. We might translate an n-tooth comb as B+n with B≠10. Given the relative dearth of 9’s and 19’s in the OES it is possible that B is 9, however, using an odd base such as this would contrast with other number systems (Ifrah 2000), and seems physiologically inelegant. Values for B less than 9 or greater than 10 are unlikely given putative commonly used comb or composite (see below) symbols for these numbers. While using ten as a unit seems a natural, simple, and “logical” choice, it is by no means inevitable. Indeed, the Mayan number systems used five as a unit (Ifrah 2000), and usually in modern times tallies are made in groups of five strokes. Consistent with our suggestion of ten as the unit for the OES is that there are only two inscriptions with more than nine strokes in a single row or column (Table 1). It cannot be ruled out that variations on the comb motif represented different contents of a pot, for example different kinds of grain. This can potentially be tested to see if there is a correlation between foodstuff residue in a pot and an incised sign on the bottom of a pot.



Other numbers are probably indicated by “irregular” collection of score marks (Table 1) that can be organized into three groups. Some of the signs have a “telephone pole” motif in which a long stroke is crossed roughly perpendicularly by n score marks. We translate these numbers as equal to 10 (the long stroke) + n, or perhaps just n. For example, a sign with nine score marks on one side, and six score marks on the other side of a line which we translate as 25 (or 15). A third set of signs are those containing m long score marks juxtaposed with n short marks. We translate these signs as 10m+n. An example is shown of a sign for 32. It might be wondered why the same number is written in more than one way. For a number of reasons we think this is not surprising and is probably even expected. First, as the script was in use for hundreds of years over hundreds of square kilometers we would expect some variation. Second, it must be remembered that standardization is a concept of modernity. Indeed, even a few hundred years ago individuals would often write their own names with different spellings. Finally, even today there are many ways to write numbers. For example, 7 can also be written “seven,” VII, vii, and seven, or a group of five plus two score marks. Conspicuous in their absence are the putative signs for “10” and “20.” We suggest that these might be the common OES signs “V” and “X” or “+” (Table 1). Consistent with this is the finding that “V,” and “X” are sometimes found in multiples, or juxtaposed or ligatured to score marks to perhaps indicate higher numbers. Thirty-two percent of the inscriptions on pottery are simple number signs.



For what was the OES used? The script seems too widespread and stereotyped to be mere “graffiti” or meaningless “doodling” (Winn 1981). The idea that the signs represent craftsmen’s or owners’ marks is possible, but identifiers seems to be ruled out by the relative lack of care used in making many of the inscriptions, and the fact that there simply are not enough common signs for a script in use at tens of sites for hundreds of years (Winn 1981). It is possible that the inscriptions denote the volume of the container. However, even though all pottery has not been available to inspect (Winn 1981), there seems to be no obvious correlation between the size of a pot and the number of score marks on it. For example, there are pots with more score marks with larger bases then those with less score marks. As well, the gradations of sizes of pots would then seem overly fine.



The most common theory is that the OES served a religious purpose (Gimbutas 1973; Winn 1981; Gimbutas 1991; Haarmann 1996). For a number of reasons we do not ascribe to this belief: (1) The inscriptions do not show the careful workmanship one might expect on religious objects. Indeed, the inscriptions are not even as well-done as even the objects on which they are inscribed. (2) As twenty-eight percent of the inscriptions are on the bottom of a pot, intuitively this seems to us a most unlikely and inglorious locus to honor a deity! To test this theory we examined the bottoms of ten modern pots from each of five modern locations—one home, one office/work location, one store, two houses of worship. We did not find any pots or containers with religious inscriptions on their bottom. (Some containers had more than one inscription on their bottoms.) The most common markings on the base of a pot was the price, usually in the form of a barcode (fifteen container bottoms). Thirteen bottoms indicated the place of manufacture of the container. Thirteen had nothing on their base. Seven had printed numbers of unknown significance. Three had decorative designs; two had the recycling symbol. Three had names of craftsmen or owners. Two had the volume of the container. One had “made by hand.”



The OES may have been used for economic purposes, and the numbers indicate the value or price of what is in the pot. An economic use for the OES is consistent with the wide distribution of inscribed objects and the fact that the Old European culture was material rich and seemed to be a mercantile one (Winn 1981; Chapman 1981). Also, while the Old European culture is thought to have had a rich mythology and religious nature, the OES need not necessarily reflect this. Indeed, the Proto-Sumerian, Proto-Elamite, Minoan and Mycenean Greek cultures were rich in mythology and religiosity, but their scripts—Proto-Sumerian (Nisson, Damerow & Englund 1993), Proto-Elamite (Damerow & Englund 1989), Linear A (Chadwick 1987), and Linear B (Chadwick 1987)—are completely, or almost completely languages of accounting. Interestingly, the Old European culture is contemporaneous with societies in the Near East that used tokens and inscribed bullae for accounting purposes (Schmandt-Besserat 1992). The large size of the Vinca agglomerations would have called for and required professional specialization, and thus exchange and redistribution (Chapman 1981; Winn 1981). However, the use of number signs in the OES in objects thus far uncovered is not systematic as in the other scripts mentioned above. Further study and finds may support or refute the notion the use of the OES for economic purposes. For example, study of residues in pots might show that pots with large number of score marks on their bottoms contained high value materials. The large and ever expanding set of techniques to study ceramics and contained biological (McGovern et al. 1999) material could be used to study this hypothesis.



Many other OES signs and inscriptions seem to be collections or ligatures of numerical signs. Some might represent higher numbers. Others are broken or there are only a few examples so it is hard to discern their meaning. Some signs might represent the contents of the container. There are number signs on whorls—usually collections of score marks. It has been suggested that these marks on whorls might represent the number of times a mechanical operation was performed, or the quantity of material used (Winn 1981), but it is also suggested that these may represent mythologically inspired marks to incorporate good luck into household chores (Winn 1981). The numbers on whorls also might represent numbers for accounts or receipts. Some whorls contain more complex inscriptions. These might have more extensive meanings, but it can sometimes be difficult to parse inscriptions in a linear script from decorative inscriptions, especially when the number of signs in the script is a free variable. Inscriptions on figurines less often use simple number signs. Most of the inscriptions on figurines appear decorative to us, but religious or cultural significance of certain signs cannot be completely ruled out.



In conclusion we find (1) that many signs in the OES seem to represent a number system (2) with 10 apparently an important base or unit. (3) Scratched score marks on the bottom of a pot, in particular, and other OES signs convey no religious meaning, and (4) possibly could have had some economic purpose. (5) The delineation of the number signs of the Old European Script should facilitate further understanding of the rest of the script and of the Old European culture, especially as new archaeologic findings emerge. (6) The beauty and power of numbers wrought by our ancestors’ hand so long ago speaks to us today with great clarity.