Dialogues d'histoire ancienne

The tablets of Tǎrtǎria. An enigma ? A reconsideration and further

perspectives
Monsieur Sorin Paliga

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Paliga Sorin. The tablets of Tǎrtǎria. An enigma ? A reconsideration and further perspectives. In: Dialogues d'histoire ancienne,
vol. 19, n°1, 1993. pp. 9-43;

doi : 10.3406/dha.1993.2073

http://www.persee.fr/doc/dha_0755-7256_1993_num_19_1_2073

Document généré le 06/06/2016

Abstract
The discovery in 1961 (reported in 1963) of the three tablets of Tărtăria provoked a chain reaction of
polemic discussions still sharp. The paper briefly resumes various hypotheses then focuses on the
internal and comparative analysis of the signs. The only feasible conclusion is that 'Old European'
writing system is not a provincial reflection of Oriental influences but is locally developed from Upper
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic abstract signs and symbols. The three tablets of Tărtăria are reinterpreted.
The obvious correspondences between Vinča signs and Cretan or Cypriot syllabaries are pointed out
at the end.

Résumé
La découverte en 1961 (publiée en 1963), des trois tablettes de Tărtăria a provoqué une réaction en
chaîne avec des discussions polémiques encore aiguës. L'étude résume brièvement des hypothèses
diverses, puis tente une analyse interne et comparative des signes et des symboles. Une première
conclusion serait que le système d"'écriture" (ou "pré-écriture") néolithique européenne ne peut plus
être tenu pour une réflexion provinciale des influences orientales (en premier lieu sumériennes). Au
contraire, ce système d'"écriture" est - certainement - l'expression d'une évolution locale des signes et
des symboles abstraits. Quelques-uns de ces signes ont même une origine paléolithique. Les trois
tablettes de Tărtăria sont analysées ici dans le contexte des tablettes similaires découvertes dans le
Sud-Est européen, et - pour le moment au moins - ces trois tablettes sont les plus intéressantes. Deux
des trois tablettes sont analysées en détail ainsi qu'une autre représentation symbolique sur le fond
d'un récipient découvert à Cluj, appartenant aussi chronologiquement à la culture de Vinča-Turdas. La
troisième tablette de Tărtăria prouve - sans doute - une amorce d'écriture syllabique, avec des
correspondances - autrefois choquantes, aujourd'hui pas du tout étonnantes - avec les syllabaires de
Crète et de Chypre. Les signes et les symboles néolithiques sont le sujet de débats à la fois
archéologiques, linguistiques et sémiotiques.
 DHA 19,1 1993 9-43

THE TABLETS OF TARTÀRIA - AN ENIGMA ?

A reconsideration and further perspectives

Sorin PALIGA
Université de Bucarest

The archaic bright triad, now

giving light through the night of
ages, dawn of history. Ch. Musu

INTRODUCTION

During the 1961 excavations at the site of Târtària, Nicolae

Vlassa (then aged 27, dead prematurely in 1984) discovered three
clay tablets in an early Turda§ layer. The report (published in 1963)
offered less details concerning this discovery but a quite extensive
comparison regarding the would-be Sumerian influences in the
Vinca-Turdaç complex. Few archaeological discoveries have
provoked such a world-scale polemic discussions connected to both
the report and the important relations between the Orient and
southeast Europe or Transylvania in prehistory.
10 Sorin Paliga

The scholars who took part in this international dispute can

be grouped into two categories : supporting and non-supporting the
Sumerian (or generally Oriental) origin of the three clay tablets.
The history of these disputes could be interesting in itself, and even
a brief review of every study dedicated to this topic would require
many pages - this is not the purpose of this paper. Yet I shall resume
myself to quoting the main points of this dispute. As we shall see,
the world-famous tablets cannot be any longer considered a chapter
apart in the Vinča-Turda§ culture. Nevertheless they may very
well be a good opportunity to reconsidering the emergence of an early
writing system in Chalcolithic Europe. Though some obscure points
still persist after more than 25 years from the discovery at the site
of Tartaria, the topic can be approached with more certainty and
more promising perspectives.

OPINIONS, DISCUSSIONS, AND RADIOCARBONISTS

The discoverer of the Tartaria tablets was the first to suggest

the Sumerian origin of these inscribed artifacts - both in the report
and later, in written studies and in discussions with various
specialists from Romania or abroad. He was so deeply convinced
that we must face the problem of a major Sumerian influence in
southeast Europe that, in a subsequent paper, dated the tablets
"around (2700 ?) 2600-2400 B.C.", ironically naming the adepts of
radiocarbon dating as 'radiocarbonists" (Vlassa 1970 : 30 - the paper
is written in German where the arguably new term
'Radiokarbonisten' is used). Of course such a polemic tone cannot
(and could not) solve the problem, yet a similar polemic attitude
was adopted soon after Vlassa's paper was published by S. Hood
who, in order to suggest a Syrian origin of the tablets, chose for
analysis only one tablet (n° 1 in fig. 1, cf. also figs. 15 and 16), put
down Ci4 dates and concluded that the artifact was a clay
impression of an early Mesopotamian cylinder seal (Hood 1973).
An objective analysis of such an attempt can easily observe
that the problems raised by the Tartaria tablets cannot be solved by
arbitrarily choosing for comparison one of the three tablets, ignoring
the other two and ignoring the more than 300 inscribed pieces
discovered in the Vinča-Turda§ complex and even outside this
complex (in Karanovo sequence beginning with phase 3 as well as in
Tisza and even Cucuteni complexes). Unfortunately S. Hood's manner
of solving this topic is not isolated. In a very brief paper (of only two
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 11

pages) published soon after Vlassa's report, J. Harmatta simply

translated, without any further discussions, the three tablets as if
they had been written in Sumerian. No wonder that such an attempt
was termed "déchiffrement fantaisiste" (Masson 1984 : 114, n. 61).
This was anyway an extreme example, never repeted or followed by
the partisans of the Oriental influence in Chalcolithic
Transylvania. However other more refined arguments were used, e.g.
that the centre of early writing was Mesopotamia not Egypt
(M.S.E. Hood 1967) or that the Tartaria tablets are not an isolated
phenomenon but a manifestation of an influx of Near Eastern
elements into the Aegean around 3000 B.C. (Charvát 1975). To my
knowledge the best argument invoked by the partisans of the
Sumerian origin of the three tablets was used by the well known
archaeologist Jánoš Makkay who, defending Vlassa against some
accusations, observed the place of the tablets in the Vinča-Turdas
complex. He also added that the problems raised by these tablets
cannot be solved by C14 dating but by analyzing the system of
writing. Further, the hypothesis of an independent invention of
writing in southeast Europe is termed an absurdity "on the basis of
the general laws of social, economic and cultural development",
namely because writing may only develop and function in societies
characterized by a series of complex phenomena : developed
agriculture, full metallurgy, cities with large public buildings and
monumental art (Makkay 1975).
All these ways of understanding and interpreting the various
civilizational phenomena in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Europe,
mainly as influences from the Orient (seen either as ethnic
movements in toto or as trade or know-how impulses) are
counterbalanced by the more and more numerous group of scholars
who base their work on radiocarbon dates, comparative analysis of
cultures developed in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Europe (e.g. Benac
1971, and many others) and, eventually (yet not at all unimportant
in author's thinking) on the possible linguistic correspondences
between these cultural blocs.
Indeed radiocarbon method cannot be now doubted any longer -
it offers a sound and clear chronology of cultural sequences. Despite
the (still) large upper and lower limits of dating, it is unimaginable
that prehistoric cultures can be now understood without the precious
chronological succession offered by radiocarbon investigation. Of
course, when the three tablets of Tartaria were discovered, neither
Vlassa nor many other archaeologists could foresee the
12 Sorin Paliga

extraordinary revolution to be produced by radiocarbon. It is

regrettable that not even later Vlassa (and others) could abandon
such a rigid position regarding C44 method. (In this sense, it is
altogether remarkable that VI. Dumitrescu, for a long time an adept
of short-chronology, in the wake of radiocarbon dates changed his
previous views, then criticized Vlassa for his rigid position
regarding dating - Dimitrescu 1972). (Fig. 2 shows the radical
change of the chronological perspective produced by C44 dates - the
very well stratified site of Karanovo in Bulgaria has been chosen as
a good example. Fig. 3 shows the approximative chronological
position of the Vinca culture). Unfortunately there are no
radiocarbon dates for the Turdaj fades of the Vinca complex. During
the discussions I had in Cluj with Dr. Gh. Lazarovici, author of a
reference book regarding the Neolithic cultures in Banat (1979), I
was drawn attention on the fact that the Turda^ fades cannot be
entirely identified with Vinca. The main differences are : (1) to
date only phases Vinca 2 and 3 have been identified in
Transylvania ; (2) the Cris (Kôrôs) influences as substratum elements
are more visible in Transylvania than in southern areas ; (3) the
earliest Turdag phases are somewhat later than the earliest Vinca
phases. (Connected to this latter point, we can once more regret the
absence of C14 dates for the Turdas, aspect; they would easily
clarify what "somewhat later" means as well as the very beginnings
of the Turdas, culture). The immediate conclusion is that the
stratigraphical context in which the three tablets were found
suggests a later position, therefore not с 5300-5000 B.C. (by
comparison with other radiocarbon dated Vinca layers) as some
archaeologists believe (e.g. Gimbutas 1973 and personal
communication), but a date around 4800 B.C., eventually later if we
must really admit a mixed stratigraphy at Târtâria. In the absence
of C14 dates it is pointless to speculate on this detail. It should be
anyway remembered that the site of Târtâria is not yet fully
excavated ; N. Vlassa never resumed the excavations - initially
made in 1942 and 1943 by Kurt Horedt - and to date no other
archaeologist has assumed this task.

GRAPHEMES, SINGS, AND SYMBOLS

In present author's view, a real progress in the analysis of the

Vinča-Turdas graphemes is to be expected not from endless polemic
discussions concerning the stratigraphy of Târtâria (and the
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 13

chronological implications of this), but from internal and

comparative analysis of the signs. It is understandable now that the
three tablets have been paid perhaps too much attention. Given the
circumstances, an accurate chronological position is so far
impossible 1 ; yet this is not the only and most important aspect.
Radiocarbon dates have indisputably shown that the earliest
writing system identified so far was developed by the Vinčians, of
course if we do not refer to Upper Palaeolithic abstract signs which
are,in fact, the earliest known attempts towards a written message
(cf. Forbes and Crowder 1979 ; Leroi-Gourhan 1979). We now have a
comprehensive analysis of the Vinča-Turdag signs (Winn 1981)
which, despite the inevitable imperfections (mainly incorrect
drawings of some artifacts, making this work not always reliable)
offers a solid base for further investigations (Fig. 5).
J. Makkay - quoting Gelb - correctly observed that a writing
system can emerge only in a certain social context. Now we do know
that the Vinca-Turdas complex - as a 'chapter1 of the Old European
Civilization as devined by M. Gimbutas (1973 ; 1982 ; 1989 ; MS 2) -
is exactly the required context : tendency towards concentrated
settlements - the beginnings of urban networks, refined art,
sophisticated religious organization and ritual. A similar social
context can be reconstructed for the Turdas^ faciès of the Vinca
complex (cf. Comga 1982, 1987. Indeed all these facts show that the
Vinca writing system did not emerge and develop anachronically but
as a logical manifestation of the social context in which it was used.
It can be little doubt that the Vinča-Turdaj> graphemes had
religious function - I should stress : exclusively religious-magic
function, and it is only in such a context that they can (and must) be
interpreted and understood.

Given the additional burning of the tablets in an electric oven, made

by N. Vlassa in order to consolidate their fragile structure,
thermoluminiscence analysis is also impossible. The chemical
analysis of the clay paste has shown that the three Târtâria tablets
were not made of local clay (at least from what we know so far) yet
similar clay paste has been identified in other Vinča-Turda§ sites, e.g.
Balta Sa rata (district of Cara^, Romanian Banat). Equally similar
seems to be the paste used for the seals found at Photolivos I at
Sitagroi. It is hardly believable that the tablets found at Târtâria were
imported from such southern areas like Greece, but not even such a
possibility can change the problem in its essentials (Gh. Lazarovici,
personal communication).
14 Sorin Paliga

Perhaps for many scholars such an early writing system

seemed impossible as a local development because these graphemes
had no local Upper Palaeolithic ancestors. But in the 1970's the
discovery of the Upper Palaeolithic cave of Cuciulat, north of Cluj
(Sâlaj district) changed the situation radically. Some other
examples of cave art have been found in Romania during the last two
decades, though to date none - except Cuciulat - can be surely
ascribed to Upper Palaeolithic. The complex problem of the cave art
in Romania and the corresponding European context has been
recently updated in the wake of several breathtaking discoveries in
the 70's and 80's (Cârciumaru 1987). Future finds of Upper
Palaeolithic art in Romania and southeast Europe are very probable
because it is implausible that the cave of Cuciulat is an isolated
case. From the perspective discussed in this paper, it is interesting to
note the cave graphemes found at Lepenicë, district of Vlorë in
Albania (fig. 6, discussed in Korkuti 1984 who places the find in
Middle Neolithic).
What may there be the phylatic tree of southeast European
Chalcolithic writing system ? Surely some signs had Upper
Paleolithic origin as lately revealed (Forbes and Crowder 1979 ;
Gimbutas MS 1). We still do not know whether these signs preserved
their ancestral meaning - in certain instances certainly yes (at least
partially), yet we must be sure that a similar grapheme also had
similar (or identical) meaning. We must have no illusion that to
understand and interpret the meaning of Neolithic graphemes is an
easy task. Maybe we will never be able to interpret all these signs
and reconstruct their original meaning. An international conference
on this subject would be the ideal occasion for exchanging ideas and
hypotheses.
The data available so far indicate that Vinca symbolism and
graphemes are not a token system as recently analyzed in the case of
some Oriental artifacts (Schmandt-Besserat 1979 ; 1986). A series of
inscribed graphemes and /or symbols on Vinča-Turdas^ pottery and
spindlewhorls clearly show that there was an evolution from
simple to more and more complicated signs, some of them genuine
samples of Chalcolithic writing (fig. 7-9). The earliest inscribed
artifact found so far is the ovoidal object discovered at Lepenski Vir
in a very early (Mesolithic) context (fig. 10) 2. It is possible in this

2. This is in total contrast with Sumerian texts which, on the one hand, are
never religious-magic,
'ready-to-use' (cf. Nissen
on1986
the :other
323, 326).
hand are from the very beginning
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 15

case that the archaeological layers were affected by the location of

the site in the Iron Gates region of the Danube. Given the
circumstances no exact chronological position can be advanced ; the
Mesolithic context really seems too early yet not at all impossible.
As we can see not only the Târtâria tablets pose problems of
chronological position. Anyway the signs inscribed on the stone
object have obvious similitudes with Vinča-Turdas graphemes.
Based only on typological comparison the object should be included
in the Vinca horizon at the latest though an earlier origin is also
feasible (Winn 1981 : 258 ff.).
Another artifact, obviously similar to those found at
Târtâria, was discovered in Bulgaria (fig. 11). The clay seal found
at Karanovo (phase VI) also proves affinities with Vinca-Turda§
artifacts (fig. 12). However it is improbable that this seal shows
signs drawn at mere hazard as E. Masson believes (1984 : 107). I am
inclined to think that the reason of these somewhat clumsy marks
excapes our understanding. They might have been intentionally
undearly incised as a measure of protection against non-initiated
'readers'.
The situation, brief as it has been presented in this paper,
indicates that the Tàrtâria tablets are not an isolated find. The
striking similarities with other objects do not allow any
oversimplification of the problem and any tendency (probably still
irresistible among many scholars) to choose convenient aspects ad
usum Delphini in order to suggest the Oriental origin of such
inscribed objects. Obviously enough today, neither the Târtâria
tablets nor any other inscribed artifact belonging mainly to Vinča-
Turdas^ complex (yet paralleled in other culture groups as well)
reflect an Oriental influence, be it imagined as an immigration in
toto, trade influence or simply know-how 3. In order to have a better
perspective of the Old European writing system, which was
precisely a religious system of symbols and graphemes, at a later
stage even a syllabary, it is useful to make a brief analysis of the

It is admissible that the three tablets of Târtâria are false, a possibility

about which little is written yet some more is discussed. Even so the
problem of the early European Chalcolithic writing does not change at
all. Nevertheless it is little probable that the tablets are false (see
further arguments against such a possiblity in Masson 1984). In
author's view, the advanced hypothesis that the tablets might be false
is a simplist way of solving such an important topic like the emergence
of writing in Europe.
16 Sorin Paliga

possible connotations of these graphemes in the given social context.

In this sense, it should be noted that "images emerge - presumably
continuously in history - when man imposes semantic values upon
vaguely suggestive shapes pre-existing in nature" (Davis 1986 : 199).
The main features and position of the Vinča-Turdag writing
system may be correctly understood starting from two basic
observations ; (1) it was a writing system used in a complex social,
economic and religious context which had certain links with the
previous Starčevo-Cris substratum as well as with Upper
Palaeolithic cultures, when abstract signs - the connotations of
which are still obscure - had begun to be used in cave art ; (2) "Old
Europe" in general, and the Vinča-Turda§ culture in particular,
developed much earlier than the Sumerian civilization. The
scholars who were accustomed to see any cultural manifestation in
pre-historic Europe as simple borrowings from the East should
abandon such a view. Like often in history preconceived ideas have
had their role and the problem connected with the emergence of an
'Old European' writing system is a good example of how
preconceived ideas work.
If we refer to the often invoked Oriental influences and
influxes into Europe, we must now admit that food production (the
impulse of the 'Neolithic revolution') did come from the Orient
around 7,000 B.C. This led to settled life in Greece before 6500 B.C.
From this date on Neolithic Europe developed in its own way
though links with the Orient indisputably continued down to
historical times. The Vinca writing system cannot be now imagined
as an Oriental influx from the simple reason that writing emerged
and developed there much later 4. If we must estimate the role of
the Orient in prehistory we could think, for example, at the
Oriental origin of the Christian faith which soon became typically
European. Arab influence on the European Medieval thought did not
lead to the Arabization of Europe, on the contrary. And such
examples may continue. In prehistory things probably happened
similarly : the Oriental influence was constant but did not impede
the emergence of a European way of life. Obviously enough, the
Vinča-Turda§ writing system was not a provincial reflection of
Oriental achievements. To continue on this way is to ignore evidence

4. A totally unacceptable hypothesis was advanced by Zanotti (1983) who

assumes that the tablets are a result of the kurgan waves into Europe. I
am sure that Marija Gimbutas would disagree with such an abusive
use of her theory.
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 17

due not ultimately to radiocarbon dates. Without them we would

have had a very deformed chronological perspective and would
have placed Vinca after Sumer.
These general observations may raise legitimate questions,
namely : (1) What can there be the link between the Vinca writing
system and other seemingly similar European writing systems like
Cretan writing or Cypriot syllabary ? (2) Is there possible a
decipherment (even partial or approximative) of this Chalcolithic
writing ? (3) Why did the Vinča-Turdas writing disappear ? In the
final part of this paper I shall refer to the main points leading to
possible answers provided that a minimum co-operation of several
scholars is achieved.

THE DECIPHERMENT

In interpreting the symbolic or even syllabic values of the

Vinca graphemes we must face major problems. In a way we must
begin from nothing - not only that we do not know the exact (often not
even approximative) values of the graphemes, but we still know
very few things about the social context in which these graphemes
were used. A magic graphic system - where a sign is intended to
suggest rather than to explain, like the cross in Christianity - may
achieve full meaning only in a medium of connoisseurs. The great
amount of Vinča-Turda^ inscribed pottery shows that the Vinčians
had a rich and complex spiritual life yet tells us very little about
the very meanings of certain signs. But is the situation really
desperate ?
I shall choose for exemplification the image inscribed on a
vase bottom (fig. 13) interpreted by N. Vlassa as the drawing of a
sophisticated ship, "the best proof that the Turdas writing system
is of Sumerian influence" (Vlassa 1970). The presence of inscribed
ships on pottery are not unknown in Neolithic Europe yet they can in
no way prove the Sumerian origin of these cultures, but simply show
that sea trade was practiced (compare fig. 14). Nevertheless, in
author's view the inscribed vase bottom is not at all a ship but a
series of typical Turda§ signs which should be read from the lower
side upwards, i.e. :
(1) Sign/f(n° 69 in Winn's classification) (cf. fig. 5), with
several variants, e.g. У (this one with other variants too) or д. А
similar sign re-appears in Linear A where the syllabic value is ye
(cf. fig. 17). The meaning of the symbol (probably not yet with
18 Sorin Paliga

syllabic value) in the Vinča-Turdas system of signs is unknown. I

hypothesize it was associated with fertility and seeds as the rest of
the image suggests.
(2) Lower right sign : comb pattern, a symbol of fertility (M.
Gimbutas's interpretation in MS 1), very frequent on Vinča-Turda§
pottery (nos 15, 16, 17 and 188 in Winn's classification).
(3) Central part : seeds in an open pod.
(4) Upper part : a tree (or a plant) the trunk (or stalk) of
which divides vertically the round bottom into two (left-right)
parts. The roots of the tree (or plant) seem to be the sign analyzed
above.
If we attempt a general 'translation' of this image then we
must see here a dedication viewed as a succession of important
stages : symbol of fertility, seeds, plant. All should be 'read' from
the lower side upwards. The artist tried to suggest a prayer or a
fertility ritual. All these signs are at the same time simple and
profound in their artistic or cult symbolism. I do not see any need to
invoke the Orient in order to explain such a 'simple' image.
One of the Târtâria tablets should be explained in the same
way
n° 1, (n°
fig.1 1).
in The
figs. interpretation
15 and 16 ; see recently
also the given
drawing
by in
E. Vlassa's
Masson report,
seems

correct : two animals turned right, the right side animal being better
drawn (or with better preserved contours). The animals are
separated by an "élément végétal en forme d'épi" (Masson 1984 :
117-8). One of the animals (in the right side) is a goat, also
frequently inscribed on Vinča-Turdas, pottery (n° 193 in Winn's
classification). The goat also frequently appears in many modern
creeds of southeast Europe as a symbol of fertility and annual
renewal.
The second tablet is an intermediate stage between simple
graphemes and writing proper. We may discern here a division into
three parts by vertical lines. It is feasible to suppose that this
succession of signs - probably from left to right - means that the
people who produced such objects discovered that a certain message
could be transmitted in written form by successive drawing of signs,
precursor of syllabic notation of words which also implies a certain
succession of graphemes which are to be decoded by reader following
the order in which they had been drawn or written. This
decodification implies the existence of generally accepted rules (by
the people at large or by those who were called to 'read' these
messages, probably priests or priestesses who interpreted them for
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 19

the people at large and in communion with the gods of their

Pantheon). The 'decodification' of such a message is not at all easy.
We can observe, 'reading' from left to right, a vegetal motif above
which three signs were drawn. It is highly probable that the
presence of three signs is not a result of hazard as long as 'three' and
its symbolism occurs frequently on Vinca-Turda^ artifacts (cf. figs. 7,
8, 9). In connection with this, it is probable that the number of three
tablets also had its function the more so as every tablet is of
different type and shape ; they probably had different ritual
function. The first division of the tablet contains a sign similar to Y
and another one similar to 8 (? a recipient). This latter form is
repeated in the third compartment. (The symbolism of 'three' has
been recently reviewed in Gimbutas 1989 : 89-97).
The second compartment shows another vegetal motif and the
head of an animal separated by a vertical line. The third
compartment contains the same 8-like sign. E. Masson interprets this
last division as containing a head of animal and the 8-like sign
(Masson 1984 : 118). The interpretation is, of course, possible.
Nevertheless I am inclined to see here two recipients in a ritual act
libation : the upper recipient pours a liquid into the lower one. If
this interpretation is correct (unfortunately, in interpreting Vinča-
Turdas symbolism 'if occurs very often), then the second tablet
presents a ritual scene culminating with the act of libation. It is
normal therefore to suppose that the scene should be 'read' from left
to right.
The third tablet is of totally different type, showing a
typical syllabic system of writing. The division into four
compartments also indicates a ritual meaning. How could we
decipher this syllabic system ? The question is radical and the
answer inevitably difficult. Obviously enough, Sumerian cannot be
invoked from the simple reason that these tablets are not written in
Sumerian (despite the vivacious attempts trying to impose such a
view). To understand and decipher the beginnings of a syllabic
writing system in Europe - which occurred in the Vinca-Turdag
complex - would imply the comparative analysis of European
syllabic systems historically attested, i.e. Linear A and B. The
linguistic analysis of pre-Indo-European relics is another step,
indispensable for the purpose assumed. Despite the positive results
already available (e.g. Trombetti 1925 ; Rostaing 1950 ; Musy 1981 ;
Paliga 1986, 1987, 1989, a.c.) we still lack a coherent view of the
pre-Indo-European heritage in Europe. In present author's opinion,
20 Sorin Paliga

hopes for a possible decipherment of Vinca ideographic and syllabic

writing could be summarized in the following points :
(1) The analysis of possibly (or probably) genetically related
signs, i.e. Vinca sings, on the one hand, and Cretan or Cypriot
syllabaries. How much is this relation possible ? The idea that
Cretan hieroglyphic and Linear A noted a pre-IE idiom (or pre-IE
idioms) is now feasible ; furthermore, it is very probable that this
idiom (or these idioms) is (are) genetically related to the idioms
spoken in Neolithic and Chalcolithic Europe. Though Vinča-Turdas
signs and Cretan writing are divided by about three millenia we
may assume that certain signs preserved their function or, referring
to their phonetic values, that certain signs preserved the same
phonetic value (cf. fig. 17). On the other hand, many signs changed
their values and we must carefully consider similar or identic signs
in the two cultures. Therefore, if we try to apply the phonetic values
of Cretan or Cypriot syllabaries to the signs inscribed on the third
tablet of Tàrtària (see figs. 1, 15, 16) then the result is (Cypriot
values in brackets) :

ya ?po te-te
(га) (ke-ke)

ra
(po) (lu)

xe sa(so) ro a
pa (?ne) ti /to

The result may be regarded, in turn, as discouraging or, on the

contrary, promising enough. Anyway, it is really discouraging that
we do not know which phonetic values are correct and which are not.
We must never have the illusion that Vinča-Turda^ graphemes can
be simply transcribed via Cretan linears or Cypriot syllabary (the
scholars do know that similar signs have different phonetic values
in Cretan and Cypriot syllabaries). A first conclusion is therefore
that circumspection should accompany the attempts to deciphering
Vinča-Turda^ graphemes. Reverting to the kind tablet of Tàrtària,
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 21

all what can be now said is that it is not yet decipherable, even if
we admit that the transcription is correct.
(2) What can there be the relations between the Vinča-Turdag
writing system and Sumer ? Did the Sumerians learn writing from
southeast Europeans ? Such a question would have seemed absurd to
Gordon-Childe, but I am sure he would now reconsider it carefully
without preconceived ideas. An answer to such a radical question
should consider not only the writing systems implied, but also the
possible origin of the Sumerian language and civilization. Was
Sumerian related to the pre-IE languages spoken in Neolithic and
Chalcolithic Europe ? To my knowledge no definite answer has been
advanced in this sense and it is too early to offer a clear conclusion in
either sense. In fact we know very few things about the pre-IE
idioms spoken in Europe, Asia Minor, and the Orient. Were all these
idioms (or some of them) related just like the IE languages ? Or must
we imagine that, after neolithization, Southeast Europe was the
centre of a civilizational process spreading not only towards north
and west but towards east as well ? These questions are too
important and complex to be put down or disconsidered on the ground
that they might be uncomfortable. A real and serious discussion
concerning the emergence of writing should carefully consider these
aspects as well as others more or less tangent to the topic : the origin
of the Indus valley civilization (cf. Kumar 1973) 5, the origin of the
Basques, Georgians and Etruscans, the situation of the pre-IE relics
spread over a large area in Europe. These relics can and must be
gathered together in a coherent system allowing us to draw more
definite contours of the fascinating beginnings of European
civilization. I expect reactions to this paper and eventually a
careful preparation of an international debate which surely would
not be sterile. (Further discussions in Paliga 1989 ; here I used for the
first time the term 'Urbian' as referring to the Pre-Indo-European
complex).

THE DUSK OF 'OLD EUROPEAN' WRITING SYSTEM

The writing system developed by the 'Old European1 (or

'Urbians', in my terms) was only an aspect of this civilization so

5. Expectedly enough (following present author's view) some Vinca signs

have identical (or very similar) correspondences in the Indus valley
graphemes. Compare Winn's classification with Indus signs (e.g. in
Parpola 1986 : 405, fig. 2).
22 Sorin Paliga

convincingly reconstructed by Marija Gimbutas (1973 ; 1982 ; 1986).

This magic writing system lost its raison d'être when the very
essence of this civilization ceased to exist - this was due to the Indo-
European expansion into Europe which caused a radical change of
the life patterns, religious beliefs, a.o. The formidable military
structure of the Kurgan people, associated with horsed four-wheel
vehicles, hard weapons and a fearful behaviour (i.e. the total
opposite of the 'Old European' society) could not offer the necessary
background on which such a typically non-IE society can develop.
The désintégration of the Vinca civilization and of its writing
system can be traced back around 4,000 B.C., i.e. in the wake of the
first Kurgan (IE) wave into Europe (Gimbutas 1973 ; 1979).
Nevertheless kurganization did not mean a total destruction of 'Old
European'
ideology which continued as an underground (substratum)
element down to protohistoric times, predominantly in the Aegean
islands which offered somewhat better conditions given their
relative isolation. Cretan civilization was a last expression of what
we can term 'Old Europe' (Gimbutas 1986). In no way should we
understand kurganization as a total destruction of previous cultural
achievements. If we must identify the phyletic tree of Cretan or
Cypriot writing then the most probable source is the sign system of
the Vinčians in particular or 'Old Europeans' in general. Saying this
we must not ignore the essential difference between Vinca and
Cretan or Cypriot writings : the sacred v. non-sacred character
respectively. Old Europe survived by sacrificing its very essence :
sacredness and non-violence.

FINAL REMARKS AND CONCLUSIONS

Thirty years ago the hypothesis that Neolithic European

civilization can be uniquely explained as an Oriental influence was
the only feasible. In the wake of radiocarbon dates this view
underwent a radical turn by 180° or almost. If food production and
animal domestication did come from Anatolia into Europe around
7,000 B.C., later the Oriental influences into Europe must be
understood otherwise : as an exchange of ideas or know-how. We
must now envisage that Europe achieved her own personality and
that cultural and civilizational innovations found here good
conditions to develop, among these writing too. It is now obvious
that in order to explain Vinča-Turdag signs and graphemes it is
incorrect to invoke Oriental influences. Furthermore, some 20 or 30
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 23

years ago the hypothesis that Europe could influence the Orient in
prehistory would have seemed absurd. Now we can wonder seriously
whether Neolithic and Chalcolithic Europeans did have their role
in spreading local innovations - among these writing - towards east.
The ironical question "haben die Sumerer in Rumànien schreiben
gelernt ?" must be deprived of any irony. Maybe a more correct
question would be : was Sumerian writing (and Sumerian language
perhaps) of European origin ? An answer to such a radical question
should consider archaeological and linguistic data concurrently. It is
not the purpose of this paper to answer such a complex question but
only to suggest that a positive answer cannot be considered absurd
any more. On the other hand, we can be now sure that the origin of
Cretan or Cypriot syllabaries can be traced back to 'Old European'
graphemes (Paliga 1989).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Marija Gimbutas for her

constant support of any kind. Warmful thanks are due to
Dr. Al. Marshack for the illustrations of the Lepenski Vir stone
artifact (fig. 10) and Urania Verlag for making available to me the
pictures of the inscribed artifacts found in Bulgaria (fig. 12). Last but
not least, precious information about the position of the Turdaj
aspect of the Vinca complex was given to me by Dr. Gheorghe
Lazarovici (Muzeul de istorie al Transilvaniei in Cluj). Dr. Nicolae
Cordos, director of the same museum, kindly allowed me to make
pictures of some relevant Turdas and Tàrtâria artifacts.

Sorin PALIGA
24 Sorin Paliga

Fig. 1 - The tablets of Târtâria as drawn by N. Vlassa in his report (1963).

This not very accurate drawing was subsequently used by numerous
scholars who approached the problem of the Vinča-Turdas writing system
(cf. figs 15-16).
Dimensions : (1) 5.2 by 3.5 cms ; (2) 6.2 by 3 cms ; (3) 6.1 by 6cms.
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 25

Years Short Ghron, Gonv.C 14 Ghron. Calib.G 14 Ghron,

B.C.

MBA. MBA. ?
MBA
EBA Nova Zagora
, 2ooo
EBA. Nova Zagora
Trans. Per.
4 Kar. VI

Kar. V Trans. Per. EBà

- Зооо
Kar. IV
Kar. III Karanovo VI

Kar. I/i: Trans. Per.

Karanovo V
4ooo Karanovo VI
Ksranovo IV
Karanovo III
4ík>o —
Karanovo V
Karanovo I/II
5ooo Karanovo IV

Karanovo III

Karanovo II

Karanovo I
ÊOOO Slatina

Fig. 2 - The revolution caused by radiocarbon dating as evidenced in the

case of the stratified Karanovo site in Bulgaria. It is obvious that Vlassa's
initial assumption that the Târtâria tablets should be dated around 2,600-
2,400 B.C. is too late even in the 'short chronology' system (after Quitta
1986).
26 Sorin Paliga
0)
o
•S
"8
1
§|
us
•s
8Su
§8
II
о 3
si
u "ои
log
1
С0 и
о|ч
X
и
с*)
ьо
UJ
co Cc
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 27

Fig. 4 - Map of the most important Vinča-Turdas sites.

 28 Sorin Paliga
A i
л X
Л/~ч D ex
~&
к
i
£>eu Os
oo
2 с
О
<I
к i> 8 -g
!Ш=
X ш
'S S
X H-
П Ш пж
ITl
t g:
m II! -■»
/I Л
X ни rr
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 29
а
° a
Сч.
со
о
« -
о*
>
U
1
30 Sorin Paliga

Fig. 7-8-9 - Graphemes inscribed on Turdas pottery and spindlewhorls.

Turdaj,, ca. 5,000-4,500 B.C.
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 31

■**.

Fig. 10 - Three views of the Lepenski Vir stone object found in a Mesolithic
context (courtesy Alexander Marshack, Peabody Museum).
32 Sorin Paliga

Fig. 11 - Clay artificact from Gradešnica, district Vraca, Bulgaria. Early

Chalcolithic. Dimensions : 12.5 by 10.5 by 2 cms (courtesy Sofia National
Museum).
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 33

Fig. 12 - Clay seal discovered in layer VI of Karanovo, district Sliven,

Bulgaria. Late Chalcolithic (courtesy Sofia National Museum).
34 Sorin Paliga

Fig. 13 - Incised bottom of a vase discovered at Cluj, Romania. One of the

northernest expressions of the Turdas fades (after Vlassa 1970).

2 cm

Fig. 14 - A sailboat incised on a vase - a symbol of maritime

communication throughout the existence of 'Old Europe'. Grabak Cave,
Lésina island of the Dalmatian coast. Fifth millenium B.C. (courtesy M.
Gimbutas).
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 35

Fig. 15 - The three tablets of Tártária (cf. fig. 1).

36 Sorin Paliga

Fig. 16 - Emilia Masson's drawing of the tablets (1984). Cf. fig. 1 and 15.
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 37

"Old European" signs Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A Cypriot Syllabary

УУА Y Y sa

te

hi ta

кГТП
■7
I/ //■/ se

ye

87 С mo
Ф0 Ka

АЛ ti t ti

123 I P
X xa

If га

Fig. 17 a - Tentative comparison of Vinča-Turdas, Cretan and Cypriot

graphemes. Numbers refer to Winn's classification of Vinca sings.
38 Sorin Paliga

Tártária Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A Cypriot Syllabary

Ы ya

Upperkí
Palaeolithic"!J po/pu О

te

«D

O lu

€- xe

sa Vaa 50
Y

pa pa

Х] ro

10 (

i: to

Fig. 17 b - Tentative comparison of Vinča-Turdas, Cretan and Cypriot

graphemes. Numbers refer to Winn's classification of Vinca sings.
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 39

Summary : The discovery in 1961 (reported in 1963) of the three

tablets of Târtâria provoked a chain reaction of polemic discussions still
sharp. The paper briefly resumes various hypotheses then focuses on the
internal and comparative analysis of the signs. The only feasible conclusion
is that 'Old European' writing system is not a provincial reflection of
Oriental influences but is locally developed from Upper Palaeolithic and
Mesolithic abstract signs and symbols. The three tablets of Târtâria are
reinterpreted. The obvious correspondences between Vinca signs and
Cretan or Cypriot syllabaries are pointed out at the end.

Résumé : La découverte en 1961 (publiée en 1963), des trois tablettes

de Târtâria a provoqué une réaction en chaîne avec des discussions
polémiques encore aiguës. L'étude résume brièvement des hypothèses
diverses, puis tente une analyse interne et comparative des signes et des
symboles. Une première conclusion serait que le système d"'écriture" (ou
"pré-écriture") néolithique européenne ne peut plus être tenu pour une
réflexion provinciale des influences orientales (en premier lieu
sumériennes). Au contraire, ce système d'"écriture" est - certainement -
l'expression d'une évolution locale des signes et des symboles abstraits.
Quelques-uns de ces signes ont même une origine paléolithique. Les trois
tablettes de Târtâria sont analysées ici dans le contexte des tablettes
similaires découvertes dans le Sud-Est européen, et - pour le moment au
moins - ces trois tablettes sont les plus intéressantes. Deux des trois
tablettes sont analysées en détail ainsi qu'une autre représentation
symbolique sur le fond d'un récipient découvert à Cluj, appartenant aussi
chronologiquement à la culture de Vinča-Turdas. La troisième tablette de
Târtâria prouve - sans doute - une amorce d'écriture syllabique, avec des
correspondances - autrefois choquantes, aujourd'hui pas du tout
étonnantes - avec les syllabaires de Crète et de Chypre. Les signes et les
symboles néolithiques sont le sujet de débats à la fois archéologiques,
linguistiques et sémio tiques.
40 Sorin Paliga

RÉFÉRENCES

BENAC, A. 1971 : Le néolithique ancien dans les Balkans du nord-

ouest et ses relations avec les régions voisines, Actes du
Ville congrès international des sciences préhistoriques et
protohistoriques Beograd 9-15 septembre 1971, vol. I-III,
éd. by G. Novak, M. Garašanin, A. Benac and N. Tasiš Vol.
1 : 97-108.

CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1987 : MUrturii aie artei rupestre preistorice în

Romania, Bucuresti : Sport-Turism.

CHARVÁT, P. 1975 : Tartarijské tabulky jako komunikační problém.

Archeologické rozhledy 27, 2 : 182-187.

COMSA, E. 1982 : Neoliticul din Romania, Bucuresti : Editura

Stiintifica si Enciclopedica.

COMSA, E. 1987 : Neoliticul pe teritoriul României. Consideratii,

Bucuresti : Editura Academiei.

DAVIS, W. 1986 : The origins of image making, Current

Anthropology 27, 3 : 193-215.

DUMITRESCU, VI. 1972 : Turdas-Mesopotamia. Insemnari pe

marginea unui articol, Studii si cercetari de istorie veche
23, 1 : 93-109 (French abstract : 108-109).

FALKENSTEIN, A. 1965 : Zu den Tontafeln aus Târtària, Germania

43 : 269-273.

FORBES, A. and T.R. CROWDER 1979 : The problem of Franco-

Cantabrian abstract signs : agenda for a new approach,
World Archaeology 10, 3 : 350-366.

GIMBUTAS, M. 1973 : Old Europe с 7,000-3,500 B.C. : the earliest

European civilization before the infiltration of the Indo-
European peoples, The Journal of Indo-European Studies 1,
1-2 : 1-20.
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 41

GIMBUTAS, M. 1979 : The three waves of the Kurgan people into

Old Europe, 4500-2500 B.C., Archives suisses
d'anthropologie générale 43, 2 : 113-137.

GIMBUTAS, M. 1982 : Goddesses and gods of Old Europe. Myths and

cult images, London : Thames and Hudson.

GIMBUTAS, M. 1986 : The religion of Old Europe and its legacy in

the Bronze Age, 4th International Thracian Conference,
Boston 7-10 June 1984, Milan : Dragan Foundation : 249-285.

GIMBUTAS, M. 1989 : The Language of the Goddess, San Francisco :

Harper & Row.

GIMBUTAS, M. Ms I : Spirituality of Old Europe (forthcoming in

Romanian translation).

GIMBUTAS, M. Ms II : Old European Civilization (forthcoming in

Romanian translation).

HARMATTA, J. 1966 : Neolitkori irásbeliség kozep-Európában ?,

Antik tanulmányok 13, 2 : 235-236.

HIGOUNET, Ch. 1964 : L'écriture, Paris : PUF.

HOOD, M.S.F. 1967 : The Tartária Tablets, Antiquity 41 : 99-113.

HOOD, M.S.F. 1968 : The Târtària Tablets, Scientific American-

May : 30-37.

HOOD, S. 1973 : An early oriental cylinder seal impression from

Romania ? World Archaeology 5, 2 : 187-197.

KORKUTI, M. 1984 : Piktura shkëmbore e Lepenicës (with an

abstract in French : La peinture ru pestré de Lepenicë,
Vlorë), Iliria 14 : 5-14.

KUMAR, G.D. 1973 : The ethnie components of the builders of the

Indus Valley civilization and the advent of the Aryans,
The Journal of Indo-European Studies 1, 1-2 : 66-80.

LAZAROVICI, Gh. 1979 : Neoliticul Banatului, Cluj-Napoca :

Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis IV.
42 Sorin Paliga

LEROI-GOURHAN, A. 1979 : Les animaux et les signes, in : Ariette

Leroi-Gourhan and J. Allain (eds.) Lascaux inconnu, Paris :
éd. du CNRS : 343-366.

MAKKAY, J. 1975 : Some stratigraphical and chronological

problems of the Tàrtària tablets, Mitteilungen des
archMologischen Instituts Budapest 5 : 13-31.

MASSON, E. 1984 : L"'écriture" dans les civilisations danubiennes

néolithiques, Kadmos 23 : 89-123.

MILOJCIC, VI. 1965 : Die Tontafeln von Tártária (Siebenbiirgen) und

die absolute Chronologie des mitteleuropàischen
Neolithikums, Germania 43 : 261-268.

MUSU, Gh. 1981 : Lumini din depurturi. Civilizatii pre-hellenice si

microasiatice, Bucuresti : Editura stiintifica si
enciclopedicá.

NEÚSTUPNÝ, E. 1968-1969 : Absolute chronology of the Neolithic

and Aeneolithic periods in Central and South-east Europe,
I : Slovenská archeológia 16 : 19-60 ; II : Archeologické
rozhledy 21 : 783-810.

NISSEN, H. 1986 : The archaic texts from Uruk, World Archaeology

17, 3 : 317-334.

OLIVIER, J.-P. 1986 : Cretan writing in the second millenium B.C.,

World Archaeology 17, 3 : 377-389.

PALIGA, S. 1986 : Ardeal, Transilvania, Tribuna (Cluj), nr. 8 (Feb.

20) : 1 and 6.

PALIGA, S. 1987 : Thracian terms for 'township' and 'fortress', and

related place-names, World Archaeology 19,1 : 23-29.

PALIGA, S. 1989 : Old European, Pre-Indo-European, Proto-Indo-

European. Archaeological Evidence and Linguistic
Investigation, The Journal of Indo-European Studies 17, 3-
4 : 309-334.

PARPOLA, A. 1986 : The Indus script : a challenging puzzle, World

Archaeology 17, 3 : 399-419.
DIALOGUES D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNE 43

QUITTA, H. 1986 : Radiokarbon und die Chronologie der

Jungsteinzeit in Bulgarien, Das Altertum 32, 2 : 113-117.

RENFREW, С. 1979 : Problems in European prehistory, Edinburgh :

University Press.

ROSTAING, Ch. 1950 : Essai sur la toponymie de la Provence, Paris :

éd. d'Artrey.

SCHMANDT-BESSERAT, D. 1979 : An archaic recording system in

the Uruk-Jemdet Nasr period, American Journal of
Archaeology 83, 1 : 19-48.

SCHMANDT-BESSERAT, D. 1986 : An ancient token system : the

precursor to numerals and writing, Archaeology 39, 6 : 32-
39.

TROMBETTI, A. 1925 : Saggio di antica onomastica mediterranea,

Arkiv za arhanašku starinu, jezik i etnologiju 3 : 1-116
(reprinted in Studi Etruschi 13/1939 : 263-310).

VLASSA, N. 1963 : Chronology of the Neolithic in Transylvania in

the light of the Tartarian settlement's stratigraphy,
Dacia N.S. 7 : 485-494.

VLASSA, N. 1970 : Kulturelle Beziehungen des Neolithikums

Siebenbiirgens zum vorderen Orient, Ada Musei Napocensis
7 : 3-39.

WINN, S.M.M. 1981 : Pre-writing in southeastern Europe : the signs

system of the Vinca culture, ca. 4000 B.C., Calgary :
Western Publishers.

ZANOTTI, D.G. 1983 : The position of the Tartarian tablets within

the southeast European copper-age, American Journal of
Archaeology 87, 2 : 209-213.