# The Vinča signs > Thousands of incised marks on pottery, spindle whorls, figurines and a few clay tablets from the Neolithic Vinča culture of the central Balkans (c. 5400… Source: https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs Publisher: Mysteries Department Licence: CC BY 4.0 (credit Mysteries Department and link the page) Updated: 2026-10-31T15:37:40+00:00 --- **MYS** 0DEDRZRYTMFS·Mystery · script # The Vinča signs **0** [Follow][Ask a question](https://mysteriesdept.com/questions/key-questions?mystery=vinca-signs) The Vinča signs ![The Gradešnica plaque, a Neolithic clay tray incised with signs, displayed in the Vratsa museum](https://mysteriesdept.com/media/folio/vinca-signs-lead) Regional History Museum Vratsa via Europeana · CC BY 3.0 Where Central Balkans and middle Danube: Serbia, western Romania, south-east Hungary, north-west Bulgaria; related finds in northern Greece⁠[[21]] When Vinča culture c. 5400 to 4500 BC; the type-site c. 5200 to 4550 cal BC⁠[[1]] Corpus Over 1,000 inscribed clay objects with over 1,500 signs (Starović); 5,421 signs on 971 artifacts in Merlini's DatDas⁠[[10]] Standard edition None. Winn 1981 is the standard sign list; DatDas is unpublished⁠[[9]] Sign inventory 210 signs, about 30 core shapes with variants (Winn); 59 per cent classed as pottery marks (Mäder)⁠[[14]] Text length Over 80 per cent single signs; mean 1.4 signs in the open Winn-based corpus⁠[[13]] Longest objects Gradešnica plaque (over 40 signs reported), Tărtăria tablets, Dispilio tablet⁠[[18]] Language Unknown; whether any language is encoded is disputed⁠[[14]] Holders National Museum of Serbia (Vinča); Cluj-Napoca (Tărtăria); Vratsa (Gradešnica)⁠[[8]] Status Unexplained Questions 0 of 8 answered Places [All 8](https://mysteriesdept.com/places?mystery=vinca-signs) [**Tărtăria** Neolithic settlement on the Mureș in Alba County, Transylvania, where Nicolae Vlassa found the three inscribed tablets in 1961.](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/PLC0DEDP7VJXX76/tartaria-gura-luncii)[**Dispilio** Neolithic lakeside settlement on Lake Orestiada near Kastoria, Greek Macedonia, excavated by George Hourmouziadis from 1992; the inscribed wooden tablet was found there in 1993.](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/PLC0DEDP91KKBFW/dispilio)[**Turdaș** Neolithic settlement on the Mureș in Hunedoara County, Romania, where Zsófia Torma collected the first incised signs from 1875; name-site of the Vinča-Turdaș group.](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/PLC0DEDP8EPHHFC/turdas-tordos)[**Vinča-Belo Brdo** The type-site of the Vinča culture, a tell on the Danube 14 km downstream of Belgrade, excavated by Miloje Vasić from 1908; occupied c. 5200 to 4550 BC.](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/PLC0DEDP83Q6R4X/vinca-belo-brdo) Concepts [All](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts) [Entropy](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DECVZZSAC8F/entropy)[Null model](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DECW06JED24/null-model)[Proto-writing](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DEDY0RSVT00/proto-writing)[Stratigraphy](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DECW01M0SC0/stratigraphy) Catalog key**MYS** 0DEDRZRYTMFS The Vinča culture occupied the middle Danube and its tributaries in what is now Serbia, western Romania, south-east Hungary and north-west Bulgaria between about 5400 and 4500 BC. Its type-site, the tell of [Vinča-Belo Brdo](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/PLC0DEDP83Q6R4X/vinca-belo-brdo) outside Belgrade, was occupied from the 52nd century to the second half of the 46th century cal BC according to Bayesian radiocarbon models⁠[[1]]⁠[[2]]. From the first excavations, by [Zsófia Torma](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/FIG0DEDQ2FB7X54/zsofia-torma) at [Turdaș](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/PLC0DEDP8EPHHFC/turdas-tordos) from 1875 and [Miloje Vasić](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/FIG0DEDQ2Y4KXNT/miloje-vasic) at Vinča from 1908, pottery and figurines turned up with short incised marks: crosses, chevrons, combs, V shapes, swastikas and more complex compounds⁠[[3]]⁠[[4]]. Vasić thought Vinča a colony of the Aegean Bronze Age and read the marks accordingly; calibrated radiocarbon later moved the whole culture back by two or three millennia⁠[[5]]. The claim that these marks are writing rests on three things. The first is the [Tărtăria](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/PLC0DEDP7VJXX76/tartaria-gura-luncii) tablets, three small clay tablets with grouped signs found by [Nicolae Vlassa](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/FIG0DEDQ3SB0RYY/nicolae-vlassa) in 1961 in a pit with figurines and the bones of a woman⁠[[6]]. Vlassa and then Sinclair Hood compared the signs with Mesopotamian tablets of about 3000 BC; the bones were radiocarbon dated in 2005 to 5370 to 5140 cal BC, which, if the tablets belong with them, makes them two thousand years older than any Mesopotamian writing⁠[[7]]⁠[[8]]. The second is the size and regularity of the sign repertoire: [Winn](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/FIG0DEDQ64A7D7S/shan-m-m-winn) catalogued 210 signs reducible to about 30 core shapes, and [Merlini](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/FIG0DEDQ7CH0BF2/marco-merlini)'s DatDas databank records 5,421 signs on 1,178 inscriptions of two or more signs⁠[[9]]⁠[[10]]. The third is the argument, made by Marija Gimbutas and [Harald Haarmann](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/FIG0DEDQ6S2QXVJ/harald-haarmann), that a sign system this widespread and this conventional must be a script, which they called the Old European or Danube script⁠[[11]]⁠[[12]]. The case against is also threefold. More than four fifths of inscriptions consist of a single sign, so there is almost nothing in which to look for the sequential structure of language; in the open corpus built from Winn's catalogue, 495 of 591 documents carry one sign and the mean length is 1.4⁠[[13]]. Michael Mäder's 2019 analysis of the sign sequences found that 59 per cent have the properties of pottery marks, 11.5 per cent are asymmetric spindle-whorl ornament, and at most 29.5 per cent could be a non-phonetic notation; he concluded the Danube script is neither writing nor [proto-writing](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DEDY0RSVT00/proto-writing)⁠[[14]]. And the Vinča culture shows no sign of the administrative institutions that produced writing in Mesopotamia, where the earliest tablets are accounts with numerals and totals that can be checked⁠[[15]]⁠[[16]]. Aleksandar Palavestra has traced how the script idea was kept alive in Serbia by nationalist readings of the signs as proto-Cyrillic⁠[[17]]. What remains open is narrower than the headlines. Nobody disputes that the signs were made deliberately and that some shapes recur across hundreds of kilometres. The questions are whether any subset forms a system with conventional meanings, whether the Tărtăria tablets are what and when they appear to be, and whether the handful of longer objects (the [Gradešnica](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/PLC0DEDP8SBZ5PW/gradesnica) plaque, the [Dispilio](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/PLC0DEDP91KKBFW/dispilio) wooden tablet, the Karanovo seal) belong to the same tradition⁠[[18]]⁠[[19]]⁠[[20]]. No reading of any Vinča inscription has been proposed in a form that could be tested. Of the 8 questions on this site, 0 are answered. ### Key questionsset by the editors [**Do the Dispilio tablet, the Gradešnica plaque and the Karanovo seal belong to the same sign tradition as the Vinča pottery marks?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW3GWGE7R/do-the-dispilio-tablet-the-gradesnica-plaque-and-the)No answer ahead yet [**Do the Vinča signs record language, a conventional notation, or neither?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW2Y5RPT1/do-the-vinca-signs-record-language-a-conventional-notation)No answer ahead yet [**How many distinct Vinča signs are there, and how stable is the inventory across sites and phases?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW37PF87Q/how-many-distinct-vinca-signs-are-there-and-how-stable-is)No answer ahead yet [**What were the signs for: ownership, potters' marks, counting, ritual, or something else?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW3BWBZWN/what-were-the-signs-for-ownership-potters-marks-counting)No answer ahead yet [**When were the Tărtăria tablets made, and are they genuine Neolithic objects from the pit Vlassa described?** ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW337CVM0/when-were-the-tartaria-tablets-made-and-are-they-genuine)No answer ahead yet [All 8 questions ](https://mysteriesdept.com/questions/key-questions?mystery=vinca-signs) ## The object There is no single object. The material is several thousand incised marks on fired clay from more than 40 settlements of the Vinča culture, with the densest finds at Vinča-Belo Brdo, Turdaș, Banjica and Divostin⁠[[21]]⁠[[9]]. Andrej Starović's survey of 17 museum collections counted over 1,000 inscribed objects carrying over 1,500 signs; about 95 per cent of the well-recorded finds come from houses and their pits, and inscribed objects occurred in all 79 houses he examined⁠[[21]]. The carriers are mostly pots, with signs on the base, near the base or on the body; then spindle whorls, figurines, loom weights and a few lids, altars and tablets⁠[[9]]⁠[[14]]. Most signs were scratched into the clay before firing; from the Vinča B2 phase signs scratched after firing become common⁠[[21]]. There is no corpus edition. Winn's 1981 book is the standard sign list, built from Vinča, Turdaș, Banjica and Divostin and reducing 210 signs to about 30 core shapes with variants⁠[[9]]. Merlini's DatDas databank is far larger, 5,421 signs on 971 artifacts, but it has been published only as summaries and inventories in his 2009 monograph and on the prehistory.it site, not as data⁠[[10]]. The one open machine-readable corpus is Vinca.xml, encoded from Winn's catalogue by Wu, Solman, Linehan and [Sproat](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/FIG0CQHADM20XBV/richard-sproat) in 2012 and released under the Apache 2.0 licence: 591 documents, 804 sign tokens and 185 sign types⁠[[13]]⁠[[22]]. A few objects carry more. The three Tărtăria tablets (two rectangular, one round and 6 cm across, two of them pierced) are in the [National Museum of Transylvanian History](https://mysteriesdept.com/records/PLC0DEDPGD365N2/national-museum-of-transylvanian-history-cluj-napoca) in Cluj-Napoca⁠[[23]]. The Gradešnica plaque, a shallow clay tray 12.5 by 10.5 cm with signs in four registers inside and a figure with nine signs outside, is in the Vratsa museum⁠[[18]]. The Dispilio tablet is a wooden board from a Greek lake settlement, dated to 5260 ± 40 BC, still in conservation and never fully published⁠[[19]]. ### Timeline **Timeline** Squeezed where little happened. Each mark is a published claim, by how it stands:AcceptedMost likelyStill possibleDisputedRuled out ## What is known The dating is now secure for the culture, if not for every inscribed object. Bayesian models of radiocarbon dates from Vinča-Belo Brdo put the start of Vinča occupation in the 52nd century cal BC and the end in the second half of the 46th century, when two successive horizons of houses burned within about 25 years of each other⁠[[1]]⁠[[2]]. The culture as a whole runs from about 5400 to 4500 BC; Haarmann's "Danube script" extends the span to 3500 BC by including later Chalcolithic cultures⁠[[12]]. These dates make the Vinča signs older than proto-cuneiform, whose earliest tablets at Uruk date to about 3300 BC⁠[[16]]. The sign shapes are known and mostly simple. Winn's list runs from single strokes, crosses and chevrons through combs and meanders to compound signs; Haarmann counts 700 to 1,000 components if every variant is kept apart⁠[[9]]⁠[[12]]. Many recur across sites hundreds of kilometres apart. Comb and brush motifs, which make up about a sixth of all signs, are plausibly tallies⁠[[3]]. The statistics are known and they are unlike those of any script. In the open corpus 84 per cent of documents are a single sign, 9 per cent are two signs, and only four documents exceed eight signs; the most frequent sign (Winn 66) accounts for 6 per cent of tokens, and 72 of 185 types occur once⁠[[13]]. Mäder, working on the longer sequences, found 59 per cent of signs behaving as pottery marks (one sign, on the base, repeated within a site but not combined), 11.5 per cent as whorl ornament, and 29.5 per cent as candidates for a non-phonetic notation⁠[[14]]. Nothing is known of any sound values, any direction of writing or any numeral system beyond the tallies, because there is no text long enough or repeated enough to show them. ## What has been tested Three kinds of test have been applied. The first is comparison with known scripts. Vlassa and Hood matched Tărtăria signs with Uruk III and Jemdet Nasr signs of about 3000 BC⁠[[6]]⁠[[7]]. Calibrated radiocarbon then made the Vinča context too old for Mesopotamian influence, so either the match was coincidence or the tablets were intrusive; Neustupný set out the dilemma in 1968 and Renfrew made it the showcase of the radiocarbon revolution⁠[[24]]⁠[[5]]. Haarmann's matching of Vinča shapes with Linear A signs across a gap of two thousand years has not persuaded Aegean epigraphers; Owens, reviewing the Balkan material in Kadmos, found no link to the Aegean scripts and no text long enough to meet the usual criteria for writing⁠[[25]]⁠[[20]]. The second is the archaeological test of context. Lazarovici and Merlini re-examined the 1961 find and obtained radiocarbon dates of 6310 ± 65 BP for the human bones and 6210 ± 65 BP for animal bone from the adjacent pit house; they argued the tablets' fragility came from acid cleaning, not from firing in the museum, and that the find is a genuine early Vinča complex⁠[[8]]⁠[[23]]. The weakness is that Vlassa never published the [stratigraphy](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DECW01M0SC0/stratigraphy), so the tablets are dated by association with bones he said were found with them⁠[[26]]. Erika Qasim went further and argued the tablets are modern copies of Sumerian signs from books available in Romania; the re-investigators reject this and it has no wider following⁠[[27]]. The third is statistical. Wu and colleagues encoded Winn's corpus precisely so that Vinča could serve as a known non-linguistic comparison for the Indus and Pictish [entropy](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DECVZZSAC8F/entropy) debates⁠[[13]]⁠[[28]]. Mäder's 2019 study is the only one to test the Vinča sequences themselves, by repetition, position on the object and comparison with pottery-mark systems; it is also the only study to find that Winn's list arbitrarily rotated and merged signs⁠[[14]]. Nobody has run the test the other way: a sign-sequence corpus checked against a [null model](https://mysteriesdept.com/concepts/CPT0DECW06JED24/null-model) of potters' marks of comparable size. ## The readings Five positions are live, and they are positions about what kind of thing the signs are, not readings of them. The first is that the signs are a writing system, the Old European or Danube script, able to record language or at least fixed meanings, developed independently in the Balkans before Mesopotamia⁠[[11]]⁠[[12]]⁠[[10]]⁠[[21]]. Its proponents point to the size of the inventory, the recurrence of shapes across sites, deliberate placement on objects and the domestic ubiquity Starović documented. No proponent has offered a reading, and the position's criteria (not decoration, not potters' marks, conventional, systematic) are negative ones that a mark system could also meet⁠[[12]]⁠[[17]]. The second is proto-writing: a conventional notation that conveyed meanings such as ownership, quantity or ritual category without encoding speech. This is Winn's own conclusion, built into his title, and it fits the tallies and the few repeated compounds⁠[[9]]. Peter Damerow's account of proto-cuneiform as a knowledge-recording system with little phonetic content shows what such a system looks like when it is large and administrative; the Vinča material has no equivalent of its numerals and totals⁠[[29]]. The third is that the marks are potters' and owners' marks, decoration and occasional tallies, made in a household economy that had no use for records; this is Chapman's and the Serbian excavators' view and Palavestra's⁠[[15]]⁠[[17]]. The fourth, Mäder's, is mixed: most signs are marks and ornament, but about a third of the longer sequences may be a notation of some kind, which is not writing⁠[[14]]. The fifth is that the Tărtăria tablets at least are something else, either intrusive objects of about 3000 BC showing Mesopotamian contact⁠[[7]] or modern⁠[[27]]. Pešić's 1987 reading of the signs as an alphabet ancestral to Etruscan and Cyrillic is not a scholarly position; it rests on shape resemblance alone⁠[[17]]. ### Published claims **Published claims and their status** | Year | Who | Claimed | Status | Reason | |---|---|---|---|---| | 1879 | Zsófia Torma⁠[3] | The incised signs on Turdaș pottery are related to the writing of Troy and the Near East. | Ruled out | Calibrated radiocarbon makes the Vinča-Turdaș material two to three millennia older than Troy⁠[5]. | | 1932 | Miloje Vasić⁠[4] | Vinča was an Aegean colony of the Bronze and Iron Ages and its marks are Greek-influenced. | Ruled out | The tell was occupied from the 52nd to the 46th century cal BC⁠[1]. | | 1963 | Nicolae Vlassa⁠[6] | The Tărtăria tablets are pictographic writing comparable with Mesopotamian tablets of the Jemdet Nasr period. | Disputed | The tablets' own context was never published and the Mesopotamian match conflicts with the radiocarbon date of the find⁠[24]. | | 1967 | Sinclair Hood⁠[7] | The Tărtăria signs derive from Uruk III and Jemdet Nasr writing of about 3000 BC, so the tablets reflect Mesopotamian contact and are later than their supposed context. | Disputed | Nothing in the pit is later than 5100 cal BC, so Hood's date requires the tablets to be intrusive, which has not been shown⁠[8]. | | 1973 | Colin Renfrew⁠[5] | If the Tărtăria context is genuine the tablets predate Mesopotamian writing and cannot derive from it, but they are unlikely to be writing with meaning independent of speech. | Most likely | The 2005 radiocarbon dates support the early context, and no reading has shown the signs encode speech⁠[8]. | | 1981 | Shan Winn⁠[9] | The Vinča signs form a system of 210 signs with about 30 core shapes, a pre-writing that conveyed meaning without recording language. | Disputed | Mäder found that Winn's list rotated and merged signs arbitrarily and that most of them behave as pottery marks⁠[14]. | | 1981 | John Chapman⁠[15] | The marks are potters' and owners' marks within a household economy that had no administrative need for writing. | Most likely | The 2019 quantitative study classed 59 per cent of signs as pottery marks and found no administrative structure⁠[14]. | | 1991 | Marija Gimbutas⁠[11] | The signs are a sacred script of Old Europe, used on figurines and cult objects from about 5300 BC. | Disputed | Starović found 95 per cent of inscribed objects in domestic contexts, and no reading has been proposed⁠[21]. | | 1995 | Harald Haarmann⁠[25] | The Old European script is the earliest writing and about half of the Linear A signs descend from it. | Disputed | The comparison is of simple geometric shapes across a gap of two thousand years with no intermediate corpus, and Aegean epigraphers find no link⁠[20]. | | 1999 | Gareth Owens⁠[20] | The Balkan Neolithic material lacks the long texts and repeated sequences needed to qualify as a script, and shows no connection to the Aegean scripts. | Most likely | No text of more than about 50 signs has been found, and the open corpus has a mean length of 1.4 signs⁠[13]. | | 2005 | Gheorghe Lazarovici and Marco Merlini⁠[8] | The Tărtăria find is a genuine early Vinča complex: the woman's bones date to 5370 to 5140 cal BC and the tablets belong with them. | Still possible | The dates are of the bones, and the association with the tablets rests on Vlassa's unpublished account⁠[26]. | | 2005 | Andrej Starović⁠[21] | The signs are a regular system of written communication present in nearly every Vinča household, probably carried by craftsmen and traders. | Disputed | Standardised shapes and wide distribution are also properties of potters' marks, which Mäder's tests favour⁠[14]. | | 2008 | Harald Haarmann⁠[12] | The Danube script meets a typology of script features: intentional asymmetric placement, shared conventions, basic forms with diacritic variants, and need not be deciphered to be recognised. | Disputed | The criteria are negative and do not distinguish a notation from writing, and no text has been read⁠[17]. | | 2009 | Marco Merlini⁠[10] | The DatDas databank of 5,421 signs on 971 artifacts shows an organised inventory of a Danube script in use from 5900 to 3500 BC. | Disputed | The databank is not published for checking, and its inscriptions are mostly two or three signs long⁠[14]. | | 2012 | Katherine Wu, Jennifer Solman, Ruth Linehan and Richard Sproat⁠[13] | The Vinča signs can be encoded from Winn's catalogue as a non-linguistic comparison corpus: 591 texts, 804 tokens, 185 types. | Accepted | The corpus is open and its figures reproduce; it treats Vinča as known non-writing, which is an assumption not a result⁠[28]. | | 2013 | Erika Qasim⁠[27] | The Tărtăria tablets are modern, their signs copied from reproductions of Sumerian tablets available in Romania before 1961. | Disputed | The re-examination of the discovery records found no evidence of fabrication, but the tablets have never been dated directly⁠[23]. | | 2014 | Yorgos Facorellis, Marina Sofronidou and George Hourmouziadis⁠[19] | The Dispilio wooden tablet dates to 5260 ± 40 BC and clay objects with similar marks come from the same layers. | Accepted | The radiocarbon date is published; the tablet's marks are not, so its relation to the Vinča signs cannot be assessed⁠[19]. | | 2017 | Aleksandar Palavestra⁠[17] | There is no evidence for a Vinča script or proto-script; the idea has been sustained by pseudo-archaeology and nationalism. | Most likely | It agrees with the only quantitative study, though that study leaves a minority of sequences as possible notation⁠[14]. | | 2019 | Michael Mäder⁠[14] | 59 per cent of signs are pottery marks, 11.5 per cent whorl ornament and 29.5 per cent possible non-phonetic notation; the Danube script is neither writing nor proto-writing. | Most likely | It is the only systematic test of the sequences, but it works from Winn's and Merlini's published material rather than an independent corpus⁠[14]. | ## What would settle it The question is answerable, because it is about the structure of a corpus rather than about an unknown language. What is needed first is an open sign-level corpus: every inscribed object with its site, phase, object type, position of the signs and sign sequence in a published order, with drawings, so that Winn's merging of variants and Merlini's much larger DatDas can be checked against each other⁠[[9]]⁠[[10]]⁠[[14]]. The Vinca.xml file is a start, but it covers four sites and reproduces Winn's rotations⁠[[13]]. With such a corpus, three tests follow. One is whether the multi-sign sequences repeat more often than chance across sites, as the names and commodity entries of a real administrative script do and as potters' marks do not⁠[[16]]. Another is whether sign position on the object predicts the sign, which would mark pottery marks, or whether sign order within a sequence predicts the next sign, which would mark a notation; Sproat's corpora of heraldry, kudurru emblems and barn stars give the comparison set for the latter⁠[[28]]. The third is whether any numeral system exists beyond strokes, since every genuine early script began with counting⁠[[29]]. For Tărtăria specifically, direct dating of the tablets' clay by thermoluminescence would settle whether they were fired in antiquity or in 1961, and a re-excavation of Vlassa's trench at Gura Luncii, which Lazarovici has begun, could find the pit's stratigraphy⁠[[8]]⁠[[23]]. For Dispilio, the full publication the excavators have promised since 1994 is still the one thing that would let anyone judge the tablet⁠[[19]]. A long text, of fifty signs or more in an excavated context, would change everything; none has been found in 150 years of digging, which is itself evidence⁠[[20]]. ## Questions 0 of 8 questions are answered. **Key questions** [All 8](https://mysteriesdept.com/questions/key-questions?mystery=vinca-signs) **0** [Do the Dispilio tablet, the Gradešnica plaque and the Karanovo seal belong to the same sign tradition as the Vinča pottery marks?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW3GWGE7R/do-the-dispilio-tablet-the-gradesnica-plaque-and-the) 0 of 0 sub-questions answered·0 No evidence yet **0** [Do the Vinča signs record language, a conventional notation, or neither?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW2Y5RPT1/do-the-vinca-signs-record-language-a-conventional-notation) 0 of 2 sub-questions answered·0 Open: 6 answers, none ahead **0** [How many distinct Vinča signs are there, and how stable is the inventory across sites and phases?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW37PF87Q/how-many-distinct-vinca-signs-are-there-and-how-stable-is) 0 of 0 sub-questions answered·0 No evidence yet **0** [What were the signs for: ownership, potters' marks, counting, ritual, or something else?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW3BWBZWN/what-were-the-signs-for-ownership-potters-marks-counting) 0 of 0 sub-questions answered·0 No evidence yet **0** [When were the Tărtăria tablets made, and are they genuine Neolithic objects from the pit Vlassa described?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW337CVM0/when-were-the-tartaria-tablets-made-and-are-they-genuine) 0 of 1 sub-questions answered·0 Open: 4 answers, none ahead ## Evidence 16 findings [Do the Vinča signs record language, a conventional notation, or neither?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW2Y5RPT1/do-the-vinca-signs-record-language-a-conventional-notation)10 findings [The signs are a writing system (the Danube script)](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/answers/ANS0DEDY2WPCBY6/the-signs-are-a-writing-system-the-danube-script)Still possible +[Starović's survey found inscribed objects in all 79 houses examined at 38 sites, with standardised recurring shapes across the whole Vinča area.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEE9ADM7YX2/starovics-survey-found-inscribed-objects-in-all-79-houses)Supported −[In the open Winn-based corpus 495 of 591 inscriptions are a single sign and the mean length is 1.4, leaving almost no sequential structure in which language could be detected.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEE9APGJGWX/in-the-open-winn-based-corpus-495-of-591-inscriptions-are-a)Supported −[Mäder's 2019 analysis of the sign sequences classed 59 per cent as pottery marks and 11.5 per cent as whorl ornament, and concluded the Danube script is neither writing nor proto-writing.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEE9AY8JDBR/maders-2019-analysis-of-the-sign-sequences-classed-59-per)Supported [The signs are proto-writing, a notation without language](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/answers/ANS0DEDY3VM7CCE/the-signs-are-proto-writing-a-notation-without-language)Still possible +[Comb and brush motifs make up about a sixth of all signs and are plausibly tallies, and Mäder leaves 29.5 per cent of signs as candidates for a non-phonetic notation.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEE9BH2JY3Y/comb-and-brush-motifs-make-up-about-a-sixth-of-all-signs-and)Suggestive −[Proto-cuneiform, the one well-studied proto-writing, is an administrative system of numerals, commodity signs and totals; the Vinča material has no numeral system beyond strokes and no totals.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEE9BZ5YRZX/proto-cuneiform-the-one-well-studied-proto-writing-is-an)Suggestive [The signs are marks and ornament, not a system](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/answers/ANS0DEDY4RKS918/the-signs-are-marks-and-ornament-not-a-system)Still possible +[Most signs sit alone on vessel bases or bodies in domestic contexts, where potters' and owners' marks are found in every pottery-using culture.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEE9CJ9X51M/most-signs-sit-alone-on-vessel-bases-or-bodies-in-domestic)Supported −[A few objects carry grouped signs in registers (the Tărtăria tablets, the Gradešnica plaque) that no mark-and-ornament account explains, if they are genuine Vinča-period objects.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEE9DTFE58M/a-few-objects-carry-grouped-signs-in-registers-the-tartaria)Suggestive [Mostly marks, with a small notation subset](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/answers/ANS0DEDY5KJ4CYS/mostly-marks-with-a-small-notation-subset)Still possible +[Mäder's three-way classification (59 per cent pottery marks, 11.5 per cent whorl ornament, 29.5 per cent possible notation) is the direct result of the only systematic test of the sign sequences.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEE9ET12F63/maders-three-way-classification-59-per-cent-pottery-marks-11)Supported [The signs are ancestral to the Aegean scripts](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/answers/ANS0DEDY6TDM8K0/the-signs-are-ancestral-to-the-aegean-scripts)Still possible +[Haarmann reports that about half of Linear A's roughly 120 signs have close shape parallels in the Old European inventory.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEEAW1FZACE/haarmann-reports-that-about-half-of-linear-as-roughly-120)Speculative −[Owens, reviewing the Balkan Neolithic material as an Aegean epigrapher, found no demonstrable connection to the Aegean scripts, and the comparison spans about two thousand years with no intermediate corpus.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEE9HD5HE4K/owens-reviewing-the-balkan-neolithic-material-as-an-aegean)Supported [When were the Tărtăria tablets made, and are they genuine Neolithic objects from the pit Vlassa described?](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/questions/QST0DEDW337CVM0/when-were-the-tartaria-tablets-made-and-are-they-genuine)6 findings [Genuine early Vinča tablets of about 5300 BC](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/answers/ANS0DEDYJS93MPG/genuine-early-vinca-tablets-of-about-5300-bc)Still possible +[The human bones from the Tărtăria pit date to 6310 ± 65 BP (5370 to 5140 cal BC) and animal bone from the adjacent pit house to 6210 ± 65 BP, placing the complex in the early Vinča period.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEEA6DVE3SK/the-human-bones-from-the-tartaria-pit-date-to-6310-65-bp)Supported −[Vlassa never published the stratigraphy of the find, so the association between the tablets and the dated bones rests on his account alone.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEEAD5S6HT2/vlassa-never-published-the-stratigraphy-of-the-find-so-the)Supported [Later intrusive tablets showing Mesopotamian contact](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/answers/ANS0DEDYKE3ED1G/later-intrusive-tablets-showing-mesopotamian-contact)Still possible +[Hood found the Tărtăria signs comparable with those of Uruk III and Jemdet Nasr tablets of about 3000 BC.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEEAKR89ABJ/hood-found-the-tartaria-signs-comparable-with-those-of-uruk)Speculative −[Nothing dated from the Tărtăria pit is later than about 5100 cal BC, and no third-millennium material has been reported from the deposit.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEEAN4ZY1NW/nothing-dated-from-the-tartaria-pit-is-later-than-about-5100)Suggestive [Modern fabrications](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/answers/ANS0DEDYKS67VG7/modern-fabrications)Still possible +[Qasim matched the Tărtăria signs to reproductions of Sumerian tablets in books available in Romania before 1961, and the tablets were acid-cleaned and consolidated before outside scholars saw them.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEEAQXZNCA0/qasim-matched-the-tartaria-signs-to-reproductions-of)Speculative −[The re-examination of Vlassa's notes and the Cluj museum records found the discovery account internally consistent and no evidence of fabrication.](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/evidence/EVD0DEEAT0R66FZ/the-re-examination-of-vlassas-notes-and-the-cluj-museum)Suggestive ## Artifacts The films, photos, papers and objects this mystery rests on, each with its own key and its distance from the original. **Artifacts** Photo1 step from object [The Tărtăria tablets](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/artifacts/ART0DEDTJ8GEDK4/the-tartaria-tablets) Unknown (Wikimedia Commons upload, retouched 2007) · CC BY-SA 3.0 (uploader's licence; original photographer not recorded on Commons) Photo1 step from object [The Gradešnica plaque](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/artifacts/ART0DEDTK8A4818/the-gradesnica-plaque) Regional History Museum Vratsa via Europeana (author not named) · CC BY 3.0 Document1 step from object [The Dispilio tablet](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/artifacts/ART0DEDTMK5DB92/the-dispilio-tablet) Dispilio excavation (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), in conservation Document1 step from object [The Karanovo seal](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/artifacts/ART0DEDTNMKD73T/the-karanovo-seal) Bulgaria (Nova Zagora or Sofia museums; holder not confirmed here) Transcription1 step from object [The inscribed pottery, whorls and figurines of Vinča-Belo Brdo](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/vinca-signs/artifacts/ART0DEDTPFPT74T/the-inscribed-pottery-whorls-and-figurines-of-vinca-belo) Katherine Wu, Jennifer Solman, Ruth Linehan and Richard Sproat · Apache-2.0 ## See also [ **Proto-cuneiform: the archaic texts of Uruk** The oldest writing, 3350 to 3000 BC: numbers and goods are read, the language is not. ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/proto-cuneiform) [ **Cretan Hieroglyphic** The first script of Minoan Crete, 1900 to 1600 BC, on seals and clay, with no word read. ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/cretan-hieroglyphic) [ **Pictish symbol stones** About 200 carved stones in northern and eastern Scotland bearing Pictish symbols. ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/pictish-symbols) [ **Byblos syllabary** About fourteen inscriptions from Byblos, 1,046 signs in an unknown syllabary, with no bilingual, no agreed date and no accepted reading. ](https://mysteriesdept.com/mysteries/byblos-syllabary) ## References 1. 1.[Radiocarbon chronology for a deep sounding through the Vinča tell: Vinča occupation from the 52nd century cal BC, continuous growth, latest dated occupation late 47th to early 46th century cal BC. Gives the absolute frame (c. 5200 to 4550 BC) for the type-site. Radiocarbon 58(4): 795-831.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDN24C3394/interwoven-strands-for-refining-the-chronology-of-the)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.56)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDN24C3394 1. 2.[Bayesian radiocarbon model for the top of the Vinča-Belo Brdo tell: the settlement ended in the second half of the 46th century cal BC, with two burnt house horizons at most 25 years apart. Fixes the end of the type-site and so the latest secure context for the signs. Antiquity 89(347): 1064-1082.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDN1MBHXBR/the-end-of-the-affair-formal-chronological-modelling-for-the)[doi](https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.101)cited 4 times here**SRC** 0DEDN1MBHXBR 1. 3.[Used only as a finding aid for the discovery history (Torma at Turdaș 1875, Vasić at Vinča 1908, Gradešnica 1969) and for its reference list; every substantive claim is taken from the primary sources it points to.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDNTCTVP19/vinca-symbols-wikipedia-article)cited 4 times here**SRC** 0DEDNTCTVP19 1. 4.[Vasić's four-volume publication (1932-1936) of his excavations at Vinča-Belo Brdo from 1908, the first corpus of incised signs from the type-site; Vasić himself read them as Greek-influenced marks under a far too late chronology. Belgrade: State Printing House.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDNTZ7SP34/preistorijska-vinca-i-iv)cited 4 times here**SRC** 0DEDNTZ7SP34 1. 5.[Uses the Tărtăria tablets as the test case of the "radiocarbon revolution": if their Vinča context is genuine, calibrated dates make them older than Mesopotamian writing, so they cannot be derived from it; Renfrew doubts they carried meaning independent of speech. London: Jonathan Cape, pp. 186 ff.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDNSYB8CXW/before-civilization-the-radiocarbon-revolution-and)cited 1 time here**SRC** 0DEDNSYB8CXW 1. 6.[The excavator's publication of the 1961 Tărtăria find: three inscribed clay tablets, figurines and human bones in a pit, read by Vlassa as pictographic writing related to Mesopotamian tablets of the Jemdet Nasr period. Dacia, Nouvelle Série 7: 485-494. No open copy; the stratigraphy was never fully published.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDM5CFZHSM/chronology-of-the-neolithic-in-transylvania-in-the-light-of)cited 5 times here**SRC** 0DEDM5CFZHSM 1. 7.[Hood's comparison of the Tărtăria signs with Uruk III / Jemdet Nasr script, arguing for Mesopotamian influence reaching the Balkans, which implied a date near 3000 BC and so a conflict with the radiocarbon dates for the Vinča culture. Antiquity 41(162): 99-113.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDKPNTQADM/the-tartaria-tablets)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00033032)cited 5 times here**SRC** 0DEDKPNTQADM 1. 8.[Re-investigation of the Tărtăria find: the human bones from the pit are a woman of about 50-55; radiocarbon Rome-1631 6310 ± 65 BP (5370-5140 cal BC, 1 sigma) and Rome-1655 6210 ± 65 BP for animal bone, placing the complex in early Vinča. The authors treat the tablets as genuine and the fragility as due to acid cleaning, not firing. Documenta Praehistorica 32: 205-219. Open access.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDKQ0N6N8Z/new-archaeological-data-refering-to-tartaria-tablets)[doi](https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.32.16)cited 9 times here**SRC** 0DEDKQ0N6N8Z 1. 9.[The standard sign list (210 signs reduced to about 30 core shapes with variants) and the first systematic corpus, built from Vinča, Turdaș (Tordos), Banjica and Divostin material; Winn's own verdict was "pre-writing", not writing. Calgary: Western Publishers, ISBN 0-919119-09-3. Source of the sign numbering used in Sproat's Vinca.xml corpus.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDKP9499A0/pre-writing-in-southeastern-europe-the-sign-system-of-the)cited 8 times here**SRC** 0DEDKP9499A0 1. 10.[Merlini's monograph built on his DatDas databank: 5,421 signs on 1,178 inscriptions of two or more signs, from 971 inscribed artifacts, with an inventory of Danube script signs and their "life cycle". Biblioteca Brukenthal 33, Alba Iulia: Altip. Chapters are posted on Academia; the databank itself is not published for download.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDMME8S2NA/neo-eneolithic-literacy-in-southeastern-europe-an-inquiry)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDMME8S2NA 1. 11.[Gimbutas's synthesis of "Old Europe", with the chapter on the "sacred script": the Vinča signs as a religious writing system on figurines and cult objects, the Tărtăria tablets dated by association to about 5300 BC. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, ISBN 0-06-250337-5. The script claim is the one most archaeologists have rejected.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDMNFT1DJR/the-civilization-of-the-goddess-the-world-of-old-europe)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0DEDMNFT1DJR 1. 12.[Sets out the "Danube script" case and its criteria: negative identification (not decoration, not potters' marks), asymmetric placement, conventions shared across sites, an inventory of basic shapes with diacritic variants (700 to 1,000 components), and the claim that a script need not be deciphered to be recognised. Journal of Archaeomythology 4(1): 12-46. Open PDF.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDMKHPVANW/the-danube-script-and-other-ancient-writing-systems-a)cited 4 times here**SRC** 0DEDMKHPVANW 1. 13.[Describes the XML corpora of eight non-linguistic symbol systems built to test entropy-based "is it writing" claims, including a Vinča corpus encoded from Winn 1981: 591 texts, 804 sign tokens, 185 sign types, mean text length 1.4. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts 3. Open access.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDNEMDSTTH/corpora-of-non-linguistic-symbol-systems)[doi](https://doi.org/10.3765/exabs.v0i0.576)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0DEDNEMDSTTH 1. 14.[The only systematic quantitative study of the sign sequences. Classifies 59 per cent of signs as pottery marks, 11.5 per cent as asymmetric spindle-whorl ornament and 29.5 per cent as possible non-phonetic (semasiographic) notation; concludes the Danube script is neither writing nor proto-writing, and criticises Winn's list for rotating and grouping signs arbitrarily. Budapest: Archaeolingua, Series Minor 42, 110 pp., ISBN 978-615-5766-29-9.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDMNMGY359/ist-die-donauschrift-schrift-eine-systematische-untersuchung)cited 8 times here**SRC** 0DEDMNMGY359 1. 15.[The standard English synthesis of the Vinča culture: its phases (A to D), economy and settlement; treats the incised signs as potters' and owners' marks within a household economy without administrative institutions. BAR International Series 117, Oxford, 2 vols.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDN1DYWG0V/the-vinca-culture-of-south-east-europe-studies-in-chronology)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDN1DYWG0V 1. 16.[The standard account of proto-cuneiform (Uruk IV-III, c. 3300-3000 BC): about 5,000 tablets with numerical systems, commodity signs, totals and lexical lists, understood through their arithmetic although the language is uncertain. Used here as the test case of what a genuine early administrative script looks like against which the Vinča material is measured. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-58659-6.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDNFYFN002/archaic-bookkeeping-early-writing-and-techniques-of-economic)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0DEDNFYFN002 1. 17.[History of the "Vinča script" idea from the short-chronology era through Pešić's 1987 "decipherment" via Etruscan and Cyrillic look-alikes, to the 2004 Novi Sad conference and the 2005 Documenta Praehistorica issue; argues there is no evidence for a script or proto-script and that the claim is sustained by nationalism and media. Arhaika 5: 143-165 (Belgrade).](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDN11RA1Z8/all-shades-of-gray-the-case-of-vinca-script)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0DEDN11RA1Z8 1. 18.[Autopsy of the Gradešnica plaque (Vratsa museum inv. A-2700): a shallow clay tray 12.5 by 10.5 by 2 cm with two suspension holes, a figure and nine signs outside, four registers of signs inside, previously reported as over 40 signs; earlier drawings disagree. Merlini reads it as a lunar calendar, which is his interpretation and not accepted. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 5. Open.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDMN10Y281/the-gradesnica-script-revisited)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0DEDMN10Y281 1. 19.[The only peer-reviewed publication of the Dispilio tablet's date: the inscribed wooden tablet is radiocarbon dated to 5260 ± 40 BC (6270 ± 38 BP, 5324-5079 cal BC at 95.4 per cent), within a Middle and Late Neolithic sequence of c. 5470 to 4850 BC; clay objects with similar marks come from the same layers. Includes the only published photograph of the tablet. Radiocarbon 56(2): 511-528.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDN2BQ0HVN/radiocarbon-dating-of-the-neolithic-lakeside-settlement-of)[doi](https://doi.org/10.2458/56.17456)cited 7 times here**SRC** 0DEDN2BQ0HVN 1. 20.[An Aegean epigrapher's short review of the Balkan Neolithic sign material (Tărtăria, Gradešnica, Karanovo, Dispilio), asking whether it meets the criteria for script and noting the lack of long texts and of any link to the Aegean scripts. Kadmos 38(1-2): 114-120.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDNE996X68/balkan-neolithic-scripts)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1515/kadm.1999.38.1-2.114)cited 5 times here**SRC** 0DEDNE996X68 1. 21.[Survey of more than 1,000 inscribed fired-clay objects with over 1,500 signs from 17 museum collections and over 40 Vinča sites; about 95 per cent of well-recorded finds come from houses and their pits, so the signs belong to domestic life. Starović argues the signs are a regular system of written communication, perhaps carried by craftsmen and traders. Documenta Praehistorica 32: 253-260. Open access.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDM6KDA4ZV/if-the-vinca-script-once-really-existed-who-could-have)[doi](https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.32.19)cited 7 times here**SRC** 0DEDM6KDA4ZV 1. 22.[Download page for corpora.zip (XML corpora including Vinca.xml, licensed Apache 2.0 in the file headers) and tools.zip (xtract.py, ngram-entropy), the data behind Sproat 2014.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDNEWPQ30C/non-linguistic-symbol-system-corpora-download-page)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0DEDNEWPQ30C 1. 23.[Long re-examination of the 1961 discovery from Vlassa's notes and museum records: the pit, the bones, the conservation history of the tablets and the argument for a date around 5300 BC. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 7 (Sibiu). Open PDF.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDM5J1BK82/settling-discovery-circumstances-dating-and-utilization-of)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0DEDM5J1BK82 1. 24.[Reply to Hood: the tablets' Vinča context and the calibrated radiocarbon chronology cannot be reconciled with a Jemdet Nasr date, so either the context or the Mesopotamian comparison must give. Antiquity 42(165): 32-35.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDKPRGN3V3/the-tartaria-tablets-a-chronological-issue)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0DEDKPRGN3V3 1. 25.[Haarmann's fullest statement that the Vinča signs are an "Old European script", the earliest writing, and that about half of Linear A's signs derive from it. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Approaches to Semiotics 124), ISBN 3-11-014651-7; imprint date 1996 on some copies. The Linear A derivation rests on shape comparison across two millennia and has no following among Aegean epigraphers.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDMJX0ATR4/early-civilization-and-literacy-in-europe-an-inquiry-into)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDMJX0ATR4 1. 26.[Review of thirty years of debate on the tablets' date and meaning, with the view that they belong to an Old European sign tradition rather than to Mesopotamian writing. Dialogues d'histoire ancienne 19(1): 9-43. Open on Persée.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDM6EBR6T0/the-tablets-of-tartaria-an-enigma-a-reconsideration-and)[doi](https://doi.org/10.3406/dha.1993.2073)cited 2 times here**SRC** 0DEDM6EBR6T0 1. 27.[Argues that the Tărtăria tablets are modern, their signs copied from reproductions of Sumerian tablets available in Romanian books before 1961. Das Altertum 58(4): 307-318. The forgery claim has not been accepted by the excavation's re-investigators and remains a minority view.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDM66KANFT/die-tartaria-tafelchen-eine-neubewertung)cited 3 times here**SRC** 0DEDM66KANFT 1. 28.[Sproat, R. 2014. A Statistical Comparison of Written Language and Nonlinguistic Symbol Systems. Language.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0D8MT1SM3EB0/a-statistical-comparison-of-written-language-and)[doi](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0031)cited 21 times here**SRC** 0D8MT1SM3EB0 1. 29.[Damerow's argument that proto-cuneiform is proto-writing: a knowledge-representation system with little or no phonetic coding, judged on its own terms rather than as deficient writing; sign-frequency statistics (about 530 signs once, about 104 over 100 times). Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2006:1. CC BY 4.0.](https://mysteriesdept.com/sources/SRC0DEDHS8P4A8J/the-origins-of-writing-as-a-problem-of-historical)cited 6 times here**SRC** 0DEDHS8P4A8J Last edited 31 Oct 2026