The region where the Danube Civilization and the Danube script flourished. The Danube script (framed inorange)  was utilized  in  the  core   area  of  the  Danube  Civilization  (framed in red).

 

1 INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1. The present work is an archaeo-semiotic investigation designed to question and document the existence of an original and mainly not linguistically based system of writing from Southeastern Europe. The Danube script is examined through data pre-sented from the Neolithic and Copper Age. During this expanse of time, the Danube civilization played a central role in Southeastern Europe, contributing many innova-tions and practices.Sign analysis has been utilized as a filter for archaeological data.

In turn,archaeological context,observed in conjunction with other related information, provided new insights for examining this sign system. The need for an applicable in-terplay between two disciplines, Semiotic and Archaeology, has emerged from adefi-ciency within existing expertise. It is generally embedded within inflexible canonic models regarding the origin of ancient scripts and the historical development of ars scribendi that are challenged by the Danube evidence.Analysis of the widely recove- red, sign bearing, prehistoric artifacts requires both insights regardingthe principles and organization of sign systems, and an archaeological understanding of ancient societies andcultures,specifically their rationale for inventing or adopting writing tech-nology. Harald Haarmann and Joan Marler have recently recalled that studies on the history of writing have remained, to this day, an arena where experts from different fields (mainly linguists and archaeologists) and amateurs alike demonstrate their ex-pertise (or speculations)by making pronouncements about the emergence of ancient scripts and their historical  development  (Haarmann,  Marler  2008).

Linguists who are familiar with languages of antiquity, and who study the scripts in which they are written, have an understanding of the organization of sign systems and, in cases of phonetic scripts, they can see how such signs may be related to sounds. However, their grasp of the historical mechanisms behind the origins of this invention, and of how writing skills have unfolded, is limited by the widespread relegation of ars scribendi to a vicarial role as a more or less truthful reflection of the spoken language. Further, there is a lack of comprehension concerning archaeologi-cal insights about the cultural embedding of ancient societies andtheir motivations to introduce writing. Archaeologists make authoritative declarations about writing systems without even discussing basic definitional approaches to writing technology. They are not engaged in thestudy of sign systems (language and non-language related) within a network of communication, because that semiotic scientific terrain extends beyond the archaeological sphere. Therefore, they often observe patterns of consensus and adhere to conventional truisms.

The state of art is even more problematic concerning studies associated with the possibility that that Neolithicand Copper Age cultures of the Danube valley and its hinterland might have developed an early and originalform of writing that predated Egypt and the Near East regions by 1000 - 2000 years. Linguists / Semioticians and archaeologists very rarely join and metabolize forces, each generally using the en-trenched old-fashioned truisms of the other discipline that the proper specialists are in process of discarding as outdated.

Semioticians and linguists discuss “why",“how", and above all,“if” ars scribendi came out in the villages of the Danube civilization. Yet, they do this without becoming involved in archaeological studies, examining assemblages of inscribed objects at museums and excavation sites, coping with the material and culturalfabric of the Da-nube civilization,or dealing with the trajectories of the socio-cultural evolution of com- munities, cultural groups, and complexes as they emerge from the archaeological record. In many cases, their archaeological and historical background is anchored to outdated visions. They become limited, considering the potential occurrence of a Eu-ropean archaic script to be so unthinkable that the simple possibility of it is ignored and its evidence given very scanty attention.In rare occasions when the data is not  blindly rejected, they often come to postulate an ex oriente lux drift for this technology.

Archaeologists make pronouncements about how writing technology emerged in ancient societies, and itsnature and role as an institution of early civilization, without proper semiotic methodological tools, intimate knowledge of the infrastructure of sign systems and considering how various principles of writing apply todifferent linguistic structures. Often they make assessments without even discussing basic definitional approaches to writing technology. The archaeological record of inscribed artifacts from the Neolithic andCopper Age of Southeastern Europe is persistently cheapened by many archaeologists as bearing “pre-writing” signs, “potter’s/owner’s marks”, “magic-religious symbols”, or generic “signs,” despite the presenceof features that clearly argue against such suppositions. In its comprehensive meaning,the term “Da- nubescript” indicates the original successful experiment with writing technology of the populations making up the Danube civilization and not a ”precursor” to writing, or “pre-writing,” as in some have described it (Winn1981; Masson 1984; Hooker 1992).

Therefore, the author had to explore a relatively unknown horizon, some pioneering and untied research apart(including Torma, Schmidt, Childe, Petkov, Georgievskij, Todorović, Cermanović, Vlassa, B. Nikolov, G.I. Georgiev, V.I. Georgiev, Gimbutas, Makkay, Winn, Joanović, Trbuhovich, Vasiljevich Haarmann, Todorova Gh. Lazaro-vici, Luca, Paul and Starović). Consequently, a strong effort was expended in debug-ging anddeveloping the appropriate theoretical framework and methodology.  Addi-tionally, a great deal of energy wentinto inspecting the inscribed objects, building a databank on the inscriptions, establishing an in-progressinventory of the signs em-ployed by the Danube script, and synchronizing chronological and cultural develop-ment (DCP - Danube Civilization Phases) with the life cycle of the Danube script. To make this task more difficult, still nowadays the history of writing has yet to be estab-lished as an independent domain of thesocial sciences, unlike Historical Linguistics.

2. In Southeastern Europe, the experiment with literacy started around 5900 - 5800 BCE with the Starčevo-Criş (Körös) IB/IC and Karanovo I horizon, some two thou-sand years earlier than any other known writing. It iscalled the Danube script be-cause it originally appeared in the central Balkan area and had an indigenous deve-lopment. Ars scribendiquickly spread along the Danube River and tributaries north-ward to theHungarian Great plain, westward to the Adriatic coast, southward down to Macedonia and Thessaly, and east  ward to Ukraine. The Danube script flourished up to about 3500 - 3300 BCE, when an economic-socialupheaval connected to an ecological crisis took place: according to some, there was an intrusion of new popu-lations, whilst others have hypothesized the emergence of new elites. At that time, the Danube script was eclipsed and was later to be lost.

The over-arching terminology of “Danube script” includes what has been called the “Vinča signs” and the“Vinča script” (Winn 1973; ibidem 1981; ibidem 2008: 126; and Merlini 2004a: 54). The connection of theinscribed signs with the Vinča culture that flourished in the Developed / Middle Neolithic within the core area of the great Da-nube basin has a reasonably long history. However, it categorizes only a specific pe-riod of the Neolithic and Copper Age timeframe, has provincial boundaries, and does not evoke a clear geographical region. The experiment with literacy has to be exten-ded in time (from Early Neolithic to Late Copper Age)and in space (embracing the whole Southeastern Europe). Other scholars use “Danube script” as synonymous with the “Old European script",coined by Gimbutas (Gimbutas 1991;Haarmann 2002: 17 ff.; ibidem 2008a:12;and Haarmann and Marler 2008:1). However,this designation is based on the vague concept of “Old Europe” conceived by the same author (Gim-butas 1974; ibidem 1991), as below explained, and elicits a distinct connection with Southeastern Europe. The most suitable term would be Balkan-Danube script, being the preponderant use of signs found in the territory that is identified by two renowned geographical markers:the Balkan region and the Danube River (Winn 2008:127).The author’s use of “Danube script” merely reflects the necessity to shorten “Balkan-Da-nube” in favor of a flow of water that is the backbone of theEuropean matrix (Merlini 2002c).

“Danube script” is an operational term and is not intended to designate to some extent a unity of literacy thatlacks documentary evidence. When the databank of the Danube script inscription that the author is developing (DatDas – Databank of the Danube script ) will reach the required critical mass of information, further investiga-tion is needed in going over the unitary frame called “Danube script”. Statistical ana-lysis will support the identification and sorting out the distinct paths drawn by the cul-tural institution of writing in theregional Neolithic and Copper Age traditions of South-eastern Europe.For example,both Hooker and Owensrefer to the occurrence of “Bal-kan scripts (Hooker 1992; Owens 1999: 116). Comparing the signs from the Gradeš-nitsa culture with those from the coeval cultures of Thrace and Northwestern former Yugoslavia, B. Nikolov expressed the conviction that just a few of them were alike. He concluded that every separate ethnoculture had produced its own sign system based on its respective tradition (Nikolov B 1984: 7). Nevertheless, the appearance of several scripts in the Balkan-Danube area throughout the Neolithic and Copper Age has to be demonstrated based on the understanding of the interconnections of sign use in the different culturalregions. Up to now, regional and cultural sub-division was successfully, although prototypically, tested by the author by creating some sub-databases of DatDas. DatVinc registers data on writing in the Vinča culture, which had the pivotal role in sign production. DatTur is established from the signs utilized by the Turdaş culture, documenting  that  the  “Turdaş  script” deve-loped as a light regional variant under the framework of the Danube script (Merlini 2008c; ibidem forthcoming).DatPCAT records inscribed finds and inscriptions from the Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Ariuşd-Trypillia cultural complex, evidencing the presence of a late script related tothe Danube script (Merlini 2004b; ibidem 2007c; ibidem 2008d).

Criticalities have not solely arrived from the side of the cultural and territorial articu-lation of the script. Concept and trajectory of the Danube civilization have to be sub-stantiated from the archaeological record in amore solid way. It is vital to respond to scholars who dispute the presence of a civilization in the Neolithic and Copper Age of Southeastern Europe.Negation of existence for the Danube script and the Danube civilization are strictly connected. If a writing system can emerge only in a socio-eco-nomic, cultural andinstitutional context characterized by developed agriculture, full metallurgy, cities with large public buildingsand monumental art (Makkay 1995), ac-cording to these scholars the Neolithic and Copper Age communities of Southeas-tern Europe did not reach such a degree of development. It is important to challenge the viewpointthat considers an independent and original invention of writing in the Danube basin to be an absurdity basedon the general laws of social, economic and cultural development.This requires,at first, a substantialelaboration, in archaeological or anthropological terms, of the definition of ‘civilization’.

Second, appropriate criteria and benchmarking indicators, capable of testing this label of ‘civilization,’ must be chosen with regardto the network of the agro-pastoral farming communities in European prehistory.

In short, by “civilization” the author is referring to a complex society with overarching ideologies that possesses a strong cultural core (Yoffe et al.2005: 253). Traditionally, literacy is the most basic characteristicof civilization. The term “Danube Civilization” is here addressed for the Neolithic and Copper Age societiesof Southeastern Europe that flourished from c. 6400 to c. 3500-3300 BCE (see Childe 1929; ibidem 1929; Haarmann 2002: 17ff.; and Merlini 2003h). This terminology is coherent with the ac-knowledgment that the Danube River and its tributaries favored the advent of an in-stitutional, economic, and social network of developed cultures that can be addres-sed as “civilization” in congruence with those that emerged in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, Indus valley, and Iran. The Danube Civilization was characterized by there quired context for literacy. It illustrated an extended subsistence farming economy and lifestyle through theimprovement of agrarian land and technology, a tendency toward sedentary life in permanent settlements, proto-urbanism with concentrated agglomerates organized by planned layout, solidly built dwellings, and atendency to distinguish profane (abodes, workshops and tribal / communal dwellings) and sacral (sanctifiedspaces and temples) architecture. It was characterized by advanced tech-nologies (particularly in weaving,pottery, building and metallurgy),long distance trade and expansive exchange that even involved statussymbols and luxury goods. The Danube Civilization exhibited the development of many household activitiesand skills such as spinning, weaving, leather processing, clothes manufacturing, shoe fabrica-ting, and themanipulation of wood,clay, and stone. It speaks of a specialization of la-bor and social complexity,even if within the context of a semi-egalitarian social struc- ture. The socio-economic system was associated with acomplex ideological system connected to the agricultural creed of fertility and fecundity, elegant and culture dart, refined patterns of magic-religious imagery, an intense spiritual life, sophisticated re-ligious organizationand ritual.The complexity reached in the economic,social, instiu- tional and cultural frames required an IT innovation to record, manipulate and trans- mit increasing packages of information. An effective system of communication was established (the Danube Communication System) by the means of tallies, marks, emblems, symbols and signs, of which writing technology was a crucial component. Writing technology did not emerge and develop anachronically, but as congruous consequence and manifestation of the framework in which it was utilized.

Until now, several components of the Danube Communication System have been identified.The author introduces a number of them in this work,giving semiotic guide- lines to distinguish them from the scriptmodule. The Danube Communication System was comprised of magic-religious symbolism, divinity insigna, emblematic and sche-matic ornaments, devices for memory support, ritualistic markings, and notations re-lating to expressing numbers and/or numerology. There were calendric and chrono-graphic annotations, terrestrial maps, sky atlases with constellations and motions of celestial bodies (sun, moon, and planets); marks for personal and family identity or ownership,marks of lineage recognition or community affiliation, social status or poli- tical authority marks, and signs representing bio-energetic points of the human body.

Within the Danube Communication System, indications of a system of writing are apparent, too. This IT innovation enabled Neolithic and Copper Age communities to create archives collecting, metabolizing, accumulating,and spreading the knowledge they had acquired.It reinforced group solidarity and communal identity, supported humans to build dwellings,cult places and proto-cities, conveyed inspirational mea-nings, and helped them to understand and interpret natural environment, human milieu, and divine commitment.

The cultural horizon of the Danube Civilization, the Danube Communication System, and the Danube script demonstrates that the status of "early civilization" can no lon-ger be limited to the regions that have long attracted scholarly attention (i.e. Egypt-Nile, Mesopotamia-Tigris and Euphrates, and the ancient Indusvalley). It should be expanded to embrace the Neolithic and Copper Age civilization of the Danube basin and beyond. It is not synonymous with the term “Old Europe,” as coined by Marija Gimbutas, because she identified under this blanket-expression an extended area examined as a quite undifferentiated unit, the common home of an ensemble of pre-Indo-European cultures (Gimbutas, 1974; ibidem 1989; ibidem 1991; ibidem 1999). Sometimes, the “Old Europe” broadened from the Aegean and Adriatic, including the islands,as far north as Czechoslovakia,Southern Poland,and Western Ukraine (Gim- butas 1974: 17). Other times itenlarged “from the Atlantic to the Dnieper” (Gimbutas 1989: XIII). However, Gimbutas broadly documented the richness of these cultural traditions, which included writing technology as one of the major resources.

3. At the end of the nineteenth century, and during the early decades of the last cen-tury, the presence of anancient script in the middle and lower Danube basin was se-riously maintained by distinguishedarchaeologists, historians, linguists, epigraphists, and philologists who spent much energy on this issue. However, in recent decades it was held so unthinkable that the simple possibility of it was ignored and itsevidence given very scanty attention. Nowadays the issue is again up for debate. However, it is under a schizophrenic splitting. The scholarly work is just taking its first steps and needs to start from the basics (searching out the inscribed artifacts in museum col-lections and storerooms, controlling the published drawings, and building a semiotic framework for thisscript, etc.). On the other hand, the anticipated invention of a European ars  . scribendi   has triggering pernicious attention among amateurs and dilettantes who offer exotic and appealing mass media "readings" based onsemiotic shortcuts and hazardous associations with subsequent systems of writing.

The reader in search of a magic key to “crack” the Danube script will be disappoin-ted by the present study.Most of the efforts have been spent in creating the pre-con-ditions for understanding the semiotic code of asystem of writing that may never be deciphered. The aspiration of the present work is not to bring the debateto an end through exhaustive research. It attempts to relaunch it, re-examining widely held as-sumptions, questioning the existing understandings,feeding the collective rumination with new documentation andthoughts, and widening the agenda for the direction in which future research can productively proceed.

5

In attempt to move beyond the theoretical models for accepting or refuting the script hypothesis in Southeastern Europe throughout the Neolithic and Copper Age, the author utilized a bottom-up approach. Itconsists of building up increasingly complex patterns from limited, but precise and directly checked, information on inscribed arti-facts, inscriptions, and signs of the Danube script within their semiotic and archaeo-logical context as well as. configuring and reconfiguring the data within-middle-range interpretations. The job began in collecting and examining the published and unpub-lished documentation from excavationsand literature, dealing with its dispersed oc-currence and multi-lingual presentation (from Romanian to Greek, from Hungarian to Bulgarian, from Serbian to Ukrainian, from Macedonian to Croatian, from German to Czech, etc.).

A second task was to establish the reliability of the corpus of the published inscribed artifacts. It needed the direct examination of the objects bearing signs, as much as it was possible, in order to avoid detecting scriptsigns on the bases of the often badly-made photos and incorrect drawings available in the literature. In many renowned studies, these limits induced faults in completing and interpreting, not only the fragmentary and poorly incised marks visible on potshards kept in small village museums, but also the deeply and clearly engraved inscriptions on famous artifacts stored in major museums such as the Tărtăria tablets or the Gradešnica shallow receptacle.

Producing accurate copies of inscriptions is not such an obvious task. Main mistakes stem from the fact thatthe identification of marks with semiotic value is a process af-fected by a high level of subjectivity: one is unconsciously  ready  to notice what one expects  to  see. The  present  work  analyzes  some artifacts bearing signsthat have been otherwise detected by linguists and archaeologists according to the different mood and culturalfashion of the succeeding times. While rummaging in museum storerooms and basements, I realized that twoopposite cognitive attitudes affect the reliability of the published drawings of inscribed artifacts from theDanube civilization. At one pole, there are decoration-addicted scholars. Incapable of perceiving the pre-senceof any sign of writing, when copying marks that they considered to be “weird” and “badly-made” ornamentscreated by “unskilled and idle craftsmen”, they attemp-ted to regularize their shapes and add symmetry to their original patterns in order to achieve an aesthetic fulfillment. Consequently, my reexamination led to the insertion of a number of marks into the script framework that had been previously presented as unusual or  bizarre ornaments. At the opposite pole, there are script-addicted scholars. They evidenced semiotic featurestypical of a system of writing (such as alignment in linear sequence of signs with rectilinear and standardizedshape) even when decorative patterns or symbolic code were actually in occurrence. In this case, the present work had to expunge from the script framework a number of non-script marks published as “signs”. Producing accurate copies of inscriptions is an unglamo- rous work, involving painstaking fieldwork andcollaboration with the often-scattered institutions that held the inscribed artifacts, but without all this hardwork inventory of the signs and semiotic analysis are seriously handicapped.

4. The next task was to fashion a “Matrix of semiotic rules and markers” concerning the features of the Danube marks, symbols, and signs as well as their spatial organi-zation/association. This methodological instrument was designed to check for clues of a system of writing and to distinguish it from the other communicational channels utilized by the Danube civilization.Investigating the ancient ars scribendi,I recognized that the high communicative skills of the Neolithic and Copper Age communities of Southeastern Europe were attested by the presence of a complex and a sophistica-ted semiotic system,the already mentioned Danube Communication System. Writing technology appeared and flourished within a cultural milieu characterized by a high propensity to communicate among human beings and with divinities. There was an increasing presence of large information packages that had to be recorded and transmitted, and a burgeoning network of communicative channels that were able to support complex messages.

The difficulty in distinguishing the Danube script from the other codes utilized several millennia ago to store, elaborate and transmit stocks of information within a still lar-gely unknown communication system is due to amultiplicity of causes. Many of these generally correspond with the fact that the original production of thisscript was an ex-perimental process associated with the intricate transition from an oral culture to one with writing and that it was “frozen” by the collapse of the Danube civilization when it was in transitional phase.

a. The Danube script pre-dated the other ancient scripts by up to one-two millennia, but early in its stages of development it was “frozen” by the collapse of the Danube civilization. As a result of its ending when it was still at the primordial stage, some script signs have the same shape as decorations, symbols, divinityidentifiers, or astral marks depending on a context that is mainly obscure to us.

b. The outlines of some Danube script signs and extra-script marks as well as some features of their spatial arrangement were a legacy of Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic abstract communicational geometries, which were built upon different communicative meanings and conceptions of the World. A number of Danube script signs and extra-script marks of the Danube Communication System shared the same schematic geometric roots that were embedded through the “geometric palaeo-revolution” that occurred as an IT  innovation during the Late Upper Palaeo-lithic and Mesolithic in Southeastern Europe. Complex combinations of elementary geometric units were intended to express salient meanings such as abstract thought, sensations, feelings, myths, or even the perception of transcendence.

c.The Danube civilization used clay tokens (counters of a computational system), the same as in Mesopotamia,though to a much lesser extent.It is still under investigation if they represent the starting point of cuneiform writing within the Neolithic Near East framework (from 8000 BCE).

d. The features of the Danube script are indebt with earlier linear decorations. Re-markable examples fromGura Baciului, Bucova III, Ostrovu Golu, Trestiana, Cenad, and Gornea (Romania) illustrate how linear decorative incisions on Starčevo-Criş (Körös) ceramics were storehouses of information and transmitters of messages that may have evolved over a short time into a linear writing.

e. Our Western-acculturated inclination to associate writing with signs that follow a linear sequential organization is tripped-up by the discovery that while the Danube script has a essentially linear nature,it canalso arrange signs haphazardly.To compli- cate things further, decorations and symbols may be aligned insuccession: divinity / ancestry identifiers can be positioned along a line according to their hierarchical position, or bioenergetic marks may appear in sequence to render the progressively stimulating energy and life, etc.

f. Another trouble arises in discerning between script sign and extra-script signs: writing can cohabit on thesame object with emblematic decorations and symbols.

g. One has finally to consider that the script was not fixed on rectangular, white, smooth, “odorless and tasteless” leafs of paper, but on highly symbolic objects made of clay and bone (human statuettes, seals, anthropomorphic pots, etc.) and their em-blematic parts (vulvas, chests, and  buttocks, etc). The “mail-artifact”, and the posi-tion of the signs on it, were integral components of the messages to be sent and re-ceived. The “Matrix of semiotic rules and markers” was tested according to a number of facets (geographical patterns;cultural complexes and groups;typology of inscribed objects;and category of signs) in order to improve its reliability.It was applied to signs from the core area of the Danube civilization (Merlini 2004i; ibidem 2005c; ibidem 2007b), as well as to the life cycle of the sign systems (Merlini 2008d). It was further tested on signs of the Precucuteni-Cucuteni-Ariuşd-Trypillia cultural complex (Merlini 2004h; ibidem 2007c; ibidem 2008g), the Turdaş culture (Merlini forthcoming), the inscribed anthropomorphic figurines (Merlini 2008f), some icons of the Danube script such as the Gradešnica shallow receptacle (Merlini 2005b; ibidem 2006a) and the Tărtăria tablets (Merlini 2004a; ibidem 2004b; ibidem 2006d). The results achieved aided in choosing the specific criteria used to settle the Danube script within the Danube communication system. Of course, guidelines and indicators of the “Matrix” are in progress and under continuous tests by progressive approximations.

The “Matrix of semiotic rules and markers” was set up according to a conceptual and historical revision of thedefinition of “writing” and the current narrative concerning the origins of art scribendi. The task was accomplished through a comparison with other scripts of the ancient world.Within this framework,the traditional modus operandi that reduces writing to a sequence of signs designed to represent sounds of aspoken language has been challenged. The approach of the author is based on the conten-tion that a written representation mandatorily fixes thought, but represents sounds only optionally.

5. The “Matrix of semiotic rules and markers” has also the role to establish the syste-maticity of the organization of the collected data on inscribed artifacts and inscrip-tions. However,demonstrating that the systematicity of the Danube script in the orga- nization and combination of signs within the boundaries of a given inventory is ho-mologous to the systematicity observed in other ancient scripts is a step that has not to be confused with trying to devise strategies for breaking its virtual code as sug-gested by this systematicity (Bouissac 1997: 55). The necessary take off point of the present work arrived through reenacting and revisingthe long lasting quarrel concer-ning the possible existence of an archaic script in Southeastern Europe. Background research was hinged on lists and repertories of signs gathered from pioneering works by Zsófia Torma,Hubert Schmidt,Gordon Childe, Nicolae Vlassa, J. Todorović, Jànos Makkay, Marija Gimbutas, ShanWinn, Harald Haarmann, and Gheorghe Lazarovici.

6. The next step was to build a databank hinged on an identity card recording signs, inscribed artifacts, and inscriptions (DatDas). Enough items and variables were nee-ded to guarantee a statistical interrogation. Having the Danube script a weak asso-ciation with phonetics and being so remote the possibility to find andreconstruct, al-beit tentatively, the related proto-language, the most powerful tool to decode its se-miotic codeis not to establish the compatibility of its systematicity with known linguis-tic systematicities and decipher it by relating it to a virtual (archaic) language.A more productive way to understand something of the writingcode of the Danube script is based on statistical analysis grounded on a critical mass of data. In 1940s, Alice Ko-ber recognized that with enough material available, there was no absolute need for a bilingual text in order  to decipher the Aegean Linear B.

7

An intelligent search for regularities and patterns in the still unknown Linear B cha-racters would be capable to determine the nature of the 'Minoan' script and its lan-guage, andhence, if the language was in fact related to a known language, to deci-pher Linear B. DatDas organizes a catalogue of 5,421 actual signs. These are recor-ded from a corpus of 1,178 inscriptionscomposed of two or more signs and 971 in-scribed artifacts (some finds have two or more inscriptions) directly checked,  when possible, in their original. The databank records c.194,000 significant statistical data.

It is the largest collection of inscribed artifacts belonging to the Danube Civilization and the most numerouscorpus of inscriptions of the Danube script thus far assemb-led. The system consists of a database structurerelated to an interface software that makes it possible to view and query archaeological and semioticinformation in an in-tegrated fashion, including photographs and drawings. The ultimate goal is the crea-tionof a sophisticated Internet-based research environment for specialists in textual and archaeological studiesinterested in investigating the Danube script.

7.In the absence of statistical confirmation about the repertory of signs and the orga- nizational model on which it is based, scholarship can become mired in subjective opinions. Therefore, subsequent task was finding enough / consistent textual mate-rial to feed DatDas. The text corpus should be large enough for theanalysis to yield usable results. It means at first recovering complete (not fragmentary) and long (not just mono or bi-signs) inscription in order to include texts of sufficient length rather than just emblematic inscriptions. A second sub-task was finding enough inscriptions for a statistical interrogation. The database should not be limited to some texts or even to a single inscription,as in the case of the unique and yet undeciphered Phais- tos Disk. There is not a sufficient mass of text available for any undeciphered script; andsome of what is available is repetitious. The largest corpus belongs to Etruscan, with some 13,000 inscriptions, but many of them fragmentary and mainly of funerary nature. The smallest is that of the Phaistos Disk, with a mere 242 characters of text consisting of 45 different signs. Since the signs of this artifact write alanguage we do not know, there is no hope of deciphering it until much more of this script turns up in-excavations. For the same reason,it is impossible to decipher the second millennium BCE 'pseudo-hieroglyph' found at Byblos on the coast of modern Lebanon, which consists of 1038 characters classifiable into 114 signs. Linear B was decipherable only when, following Arthur Evans's death, the inscriptions from Knossos were finally published in 1952 and were supplemented by a second major 'injection' of tablets frommainland Greece.

Chadwick applied the concept of critical mass to decipherments. “By this I mean the quantity of text which will ensure that a few correct guesses will produce a chain reaction leading to more solutions. There is no formula known to me for determining the critical mass; it depends of course on the complexity of the script, and I should guess that it contains n squared where n is the number of different signs in the script” (cit. from Robinson 2002: 36). It is unlikely that Chadwick's decipherment ‘n-squared' formula would be applicable toall scripts. It worked for a syllabic script such Linear B. A direct application to a complex logographic or logosyllabic script such as the Danube script is implausible. The author gathered a quite large corpus of actual inscriptions (1178) and signs (5,421) of the Danube script. If this amount does not reach the critical massnecessary for statistical elaboration aimed to start the deci-phering process, it is enough to regard the Danubescript as writing and to decode significant feature of its semiotic code.

8. DatDas grounds the inventory of the signs belonging to the Danube script, which lists 292 sign types organized according to a reference number. The main partition of the 292 inventoried sign types is between 203 abstract signs, 52 pictograms / ideo-grams, and 37 numerical signs.The abstract signs are subdivided in 32 root-signs (or font-signs), which are subjected to three techniques to vary their shape for creating 167 derivative signs. Only four abstract signs are invariable.

9. The explanation of a script should fit, not contradict, the existing body of archaeo-logical knowledge about ancient civilizations in general and the civilization under study in particular. In the 1950s, at least three reasons made reasonable to suppose that the undeciphered Linear B tablets would contain abbreviated bureaucratic records and not offers to the gods or epic poetry like Homer's epic.

First, the tablets obviously contained many numerals and pictograms of mundane objects (vessels, animals, chariots, etc.).

Second, they were scratched on a cheap and relatively impermanent medium made of clay, without much care for aesthetics, unlike the fine-looking contemporary Minoan seals carved on gemstones.

Lastly, they werediscovered in apparently palace archives, like the much larger palace archives of clay tablets found in Mesopotamia containing thousands of bureaucratic records written in cuneiform.

On the bases of the structured set of data held in DatDas, an overview of the Danube script was carried out by establishing its historical, geographical and typological framework. Further, its cycle of life was recognized inrelation with Neolithic and Copper Age cultural complexes, cultures, and cultural groups.

8

The area associated with the Danube script extended in Southeastern Europe from the Carpathian Basin south to the Thessalian Plain and from the Austrian and Slo-vakian Alps and the Adriatic See east to the Ukrainian steppe. Thismacro-region for-med a relatively bounded and cohesive unit. The geographic layout, consisting of se-veralsmall and discrete micro-regions that exploited a distinct set of local resources, encouraged regional differentiation and high dynamic among the early farming so-cieties. The present study explored them interrelating semiotic information gathered by DatDas and archaeological record.

9. Between 2001 and 2009,the author had the opportunity to visit and examine many Neolithic and Copper Age collections of the Danube Civilization. I am very grateful to the directors, curators and archaeologists incharge of them. In Romania, I wish to acknowledge the valuable and generous aid of the Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a Ro-mâniei of Bucureşti, National Muzeul Brukenthal of Sibiu, Muzeul Naţional de Istorie a Transilvaniei Cluj-Napoca,Muzeul Banatului of Timişoara, Muzeul Naţional al Unirii of Alba Iulia, Universitatea "Al.I.Cuza" Facultatea de Istorie, Muzeul de Istorie şi Artă al Municipiului Bucureşti, and the Seminar de Istorie Veche şi Archeologie of Iaşi. Additional thanks are expressesed to the Rezervaţiaarheologică Cucuteni, Muzeul Judeţean of Botoşani, Expoziţia Arheologică Tibiscum of Caransebeş, Muzeul de Is-torie al Moldovei of Iaşi,Complexul Muzeal Judeţean Neamţ of Piatra Neamţ, Muzeul Judeţean deIstorie şi Arheologie Prahova of Ploieşti, Pre- and Protohistorical Re-search Centre of Alba Julia University “1 Decembrie 1918,” Muzeul Regiunii "Porţilor de Fier" of  Drobeta Turnu – Severin, and the Muzeul de Istorieof Deva.

In Austria, my gratitude is given to the Naturhistorisches Museum-Prähistorische Ab-teilung of Wien. I express my deepest thank-you to the institutions and academic re-sources of the Republic of Serbia: the National Museum of Belgrade,Arheologie pre- istorică, Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet of Belgrado, Vinča "Belo Brdo" Archaeological Site, Museum of Novi Sad, Museum of Kladovo, Museum of Vršac, Museum of Le-penski Vir, and the exhibition Signs of Civilization in Novi Sad. In Bulgaria, I owe a genuine debt to the National Museum of History, National Archeaological Museum, Regional History Museum of Stara Zagora, Regional History Museum of Nova Zago-ra, Regional History Museum of Vratza, Regional History Museum of Kyustendil, Regional History Museum of Veliko Tarnovo,and the Regional History Museum of Rousse.

In Greece, I am appreciative of the help of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Archaeological Museum of Volos, Archaeological Museum of Rodhes, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum of Ioannina, Archaeological Museum of Florina, and the Archaeological Museum of Drama.

In F.Y.R.O.M., I owe much to the Archaeological Museum in Skopje, Gradski muzej of Skopje, Historical Museum of Veles, and the Rock art centre of Kratovo.

In Hungary, I wish to express especial thanks to the Budapest History Museum.

In Germany, my thankfulness is given to the Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte of Berlin, and the Archäologische (Vormals Prähistorische) Staatssammlung-Museum Für Vor-Und Frühgeschichte of Munich.

In Ukraine,I wish to express my gratefulness to the Platar collection, National History Museum, and the Natural history Museum. In Slovenia,I have incurred debts of grati- tude from the National Museum of Slovenia at Ljubljana. In Croatia, my profound gratitude is given to the Archaeological Museum in Zadar.

In Malta, I extend my profound thanks to the National Museum of Archaeology.

In Italy,my last gratitude is extended to the Museo Nazionale Preistorico ed Etnogra- fico L. Pigorini of Rome, Palazzo la Cancelleria (“Cucuteni-Trypillya. Una grande ci-viltà dell'antica Europa”), Museo F. Rittatore Vonwiller of Farnese, and the Museo di Preistoria e Protostoria Valle del Fiora of Manciano.

I had opportunities to present and discuss in-progress sections of this work to the World IFRAO Congress, Skopje (2002), the IV-lea Congres International de Dacolo-gie "Tărtăria - 2003", Bucharest (2003), the Signs of civilization: international sympo-sium on the Neolithic symbol system of southeast Europe, organized by theInstitute of Archaeomythology and the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Novi Sad (2004), the World Congress of the Trypilhan Civilization, Kyiv (2004), the 11th Neoli-thic seminar, organized by the Departmentof Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, (2004), the Incontro di studi preistorici, Pitigliano (2004), the MU.S.EU.M. final event, Rome (2005). Other early draft were presented to the 71st  Annual SAA Meeting, San Juan, Puerto Rico (2006), the Karlovo Conference (2006), the conference Cucuteni Tesori di una civiltà preistorica dei Carpazi, organized by the Accademia di Romania in Rome, Rome (2007)the EAA's Thirteenth Annual Mee-ting in Zadar,Croatia (2007),the International symposium on The DanubeScript: Neo-Eneolithic ‘writing’ in Southeastern Europe, organized by the Institute of Archaeomy-thology andthe Brukenthal National Museum, Sibiu (2008), the EAA's Fourteenth An-nual Meeting in Malta (2008), the international    Symposium 85th Birth Anniversary of the Romanian archaeologist Eugen Comşa, organized bythe Archaeological Institute, Bucarest (2008). I have particularly to thank the organizers to have kindly hostedmy tough and hot issue.

9

Reweaving the dispersed threads of the Danube Script  would have been impossible without the input from dozen of scholars,enthusiasts and, above all, enthusiast scho-lars. Many of them were willing to take troubleto help me to obtain published and unpublished work, show their finds, explain their ideas, and commend onchapters in draft. I want to express my sincerest thanks to the pioneer of the Vinča signs Shan Winn, the linguist Harald Haarmann, and to my good friend and teacher Gheorghe Lazarovici (University of Sibiu, University of Reşiţa, and University of Caransebeş) with generous encouragement and invaluable open-minded contributions included numerous suggestions and new ideas. My earnest gratitude is expressed to Sabin Adrian Luca (Dean of the Faculty of Letters, History, and Journalism at Sibiu Univer-sity and Director of the National Muzeul Brukenthal of Sibiu) who has trusted and supported my work from the earliest phases.Over the years, their ideas have profoundly shaped my own.

In Romania, I am indebted for intellectual clarity to friend and colleagues – these are not mutually exclusive categories - Magda Lazarovici (Institutul de Arheologie of Iaşi), Nicolae Ursulescu (Universitatea "Al. I. Cuza" Facultatea de Istorie, Seminar de Istorie Veche şi Archeologie of Iaşi), Paul Iuliu (director of the Pre-and Protohis-torical Research Centre of Alba Julia University “1 Decembrie 1918”), Cosmin Suciu (Faculty of Letters, History and Journalism of Sibiu University), Vasile Boroneanţ (Muzeul de Istorie si Arta al Mun. of  Bucuresti), and Adrian Poruciuc (University of Iaşi). I has been my good fortune to exchange ideas with DanLeopold Ciobotaru (director of the Muzeul Banatului of Timişoara), Flavin Draşovean (Muzeul Banatului of Timişoara), Radian Andreescu and Eugen S. Teodor (Muzeul National de istorie a Romanici), Attila Lazlo (Universitatea "Al. I.Cuza" Facultatea de Istorie of Iaşi), Maria Diaconescu (Muzeul Judeţean of Botoşani),Alexandra Comşa (Archaeological Insti-tute in Bucharest), and Marius Ciuta (Faculty of Letters, History, andJournalism of Sibiu University).

In the Republic of Serbia, I am grateful to Andrej Starović (National Museum of Bel-grade), † Bogdan Brukner (Academy of Science in Novi Sad), Nenad Tasić (Univer-sity of Belgrade), Dušan Šljivar (National Museum of Belgrade),Mile Sladić (Filozofs- ki fakultet, Univerzitet of Belgrade), Dubravka Nicolić (Filozofski fakultet,  Univerzitet of Belgrade), and Zoran Stefanović (director of the Rastko Project).

In Greece, many scholars have given invaluable help and professional support to my research: AdamantiosSampson (Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities Department of Egean University), Alexandra Christopoulou(National Archaelogical Museum), Evan-ghelia Skafida (Museum of Volos), and Panikos Chrysostomou(Museum of Pella).

In Bulgaria, Vasil Nikolov (Deputy Director, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Institute of Archaeology and Museum), Krum Băčvarov (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Ins-titute of Archaeology and Museum), and Alexander Čohadžiev (Museum of Veliko Turnovo) deserve special thanks for their cooperation.In F.Y.R.O.M.,a word of thanks to Dushko Aleksovski (director of the Rock Art Centre in Skopje), Stevce Donev (president of the Rock Art Centre in Kratovo), and Vasil Ilyov.

In the Republic of Moldova, Andrei Vartic’s (director of Institutului Civilizatiei Dacie in Chisinau) and IlieBorziac’s (Universitatea Liber Internationala of Chisinau) ideas have influenced the sections of the presentwork concerning the origin of the Danube script.

In Ukraine, it was a real pleasure working with Mikhail Videiko (National Academy of Science of Kiev), andTaras Tkachuk.

In USA,it has been a privilege to work with Joan Marler (Executive Director of the In- stitute of Archaeomythology), Susan Moulton (Sonoma State University), and Miriam Robbins Dexter (University of California, Los Angeles). Lolita Nikolova (Utah Univer-sity) has pointed out inconsistencies and suggestedmany further directions in which the work could be taken.My expressed appreciations to Steve Farmer,  Richard  Fla- vin,  and   Napoleon Săvescu (President of the Dacia Revival International Society).

In Italy, I cannot forget the help and support given to me by Paola Uccelli Gnesutta (University of Pisa), Mirella Lattanzi and Aviana Bulgarelli. In Saudi Arabia, I extend my gratitude to Majeed Khan (Ministry of Antiquities and Museums in Saudi Arabia).

Above all, I was most fortunate to have the unflagging assistance of Andrea Castag-none (Italian Ministry of Culture), who structured the databank DatDas. Gianluca Sabatini, organized the cartographic sections. Joan Marler, Susan Moulton, Adam Giacinto and Marilisa Merlini spent time and patience with my “nasty boy”,editing the English of some chapters. Irene Salerno offered selfless collaboration in binding the editing. A word of thank to the staff of the Prehistory Knowledge Project  at EURO INNOVANET, the MU.S.EU.M. project and the F-MU.S.EU.M. project. They have been a constant source of ideas and support.

The artist and anthropologist Daniela Bulgarelli is the author of the original paintings in this study. I want to express a special gratitude to her.

 

***

https://pdf.defence.pk/threads/is-the-danube-valley-civilization-script-the-oldest-writing-in-the-world.411604/

The Danube Valley civilization is one of the oldest civilizations known in Europe. It existed from between 5,500 and 3,500 BC in the Balkans and covered a vast area, in what is now Northern Greece to Slovakia (South to North), and Croatia to Romania (West to East).

During the height of the Danube Valley civilization, it played an important role in south-eastern Europe through the development of copper tools,a writing system, ad- vanced architecture, including two storey houses, and the construction of furniture, such as chairs and tables, all of which occurred while most of Europe was in the middle of the Stone Age. They developed skills such as spinning, weaving, leather processing, clothes manufacturing, and manipulated wood, clay and stone and they invented the wheel. They had an economic, religious and social structure.

One of the more intriguing and hotly debated aspects of the Danube Valley civiliza-tion is their supposed written language. While some archaeologists have maintained that the ‘writing’ is actually just a series of geometric figures and symbols, others have maintained that it has the features of a true writing system. If this theory is cor-rect, it would make the script the oldest written language ever found, predating the Sumerian writings in Mesopotamia, and possibly even the Dispillo Tablet , which has been dated 5260 BC.

Danube Valley Civilization Artifacts (image source)

Harald Haarmann, a German linguistic and cultural scientist, currently vice-president of theInstitute of Archaeomythology, and leading specialist in ancient scripts and an-cient languages, firmly supports the view that the Danube script is the oldest writing in the world. The tablets that were found are dated to 5,500 BC, and the glyphs on the tablets,according to Haarmann,are a form of language yet to be deciphered. The symbols, which are also called Vinca symbols, have been found in multiple archaeo-logical sites throughout the Danube Valley areas, inscribed on pottery, figurines, spindles and other clay artifacts.

The implications are huge.It could mean that the Danube Valley Civilization predates all other known civilizations today. Evidence also comes from thousands of artifacts that have been found, such as the odd-looking figure displayed on the left. However, the majority of Mesopotamian scholars reject Haarmann’s proposal, suggesting that the symbols on the tablets are just decoration. This is despite the fact that there are approximately 700 different characters, around the same number of symbols used in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Other scholars even suggested that the Danube Civilization must have copied signs and symbols from the Mesopotamian civilizations, despite the fact that some of the Danube tablets have been found to be older that the Mesopotamian ones.

It appears that this is another case of a theory based on solid research being out-right rejected without appropriate consideration. Could this be because it conflicts with the accepted view of which nation holds claim to the ‘first civilization’? At the ve-ry least, Haarmann’s proposal deserves further research and serious analysis in or-der to confirm whether this is indeed the oldest known written language in the world.