UDK 903.2(497.11) "633\634">003>291.37 Documenta Praehistorica XXXII (2005) If the Vin;a script once really existed who could have written or read it| Andrej Starovic´ National Museum in Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro kontakt@narodnimuzej.org.yu ABSTRACT – The paper considers about the possible meaning and social function of signs and symbols from Vin.a, and used in Danube Neolithic society. Many scholars have tried to answer two main questions about the nature of the signs: first, does they form a system, and (if so), could such a system be interpreted as an original prehistoric script? A new approach to the problem, focused on an archaeological reconstruction of the basic function of ceramic objects bearing the signs, offers strong evidence that the signs were used in the context of ordinary domestic life, much more than in ritual and/or ceremonial contexts. An important set of data suggests that practically every single Vin.a household had inscribed objects and that many of the signs and sign groups are uniform, just as in organized writing. Consequently, such a complex notation system could have been a form of written communication throughout Vin.a society. IZVLE.EK – .lanek preu.uje mo.en pomen ter socialno funkcijo znakov in simbolov iz Vin.e in njihovo uporabo v neolitskih skupnostih na obmo.ju Donave. Veliko raziskovalcev se je trudilo odgovoriti na dve poglavitni vpra.anji o pomenu teh znakov: ali tvorijo sistem in (.e ga) ali lahko tak.en sistem interpretiramo kot prazgodovinsko pisavo? Nov pristop k problemu, osnovan na arheolo.ki rekonstrukciji osnovne funkcije kerami.nih predmetov z znaki, ponuja mo.an dokaz, da so znake veliko pogosteje uporabljali v kontekstu obi.ajnega, posvetnega .ivljenja, kot pa v ritualnih in obrednih kontekstih. Pomemben niz podatkov omogo.a domnevo, da so skoraj v vsakem gospodinjstvu nastopali predmeti z znaki ter da je veliko znakov in skupin znakov poenotenih, kot pri organizirani pisavi. Posledi.no je tak kompleksen sistem ozna.evanja, lahko oblika pisane komunikacije v celotni skupnosti, ki je sestavljala kulturo Vin.a. KEY WORDS – Late Neolithic; Early Chalcolithic; Vin.a culture; signs; symbols; writing; contextual analysis In May 2004 an important symposium was held in vered (around one thousand if we count all the pub- Novi Sad, Serbia1 that offered a unique opportunity lished and unpublished sites in Serbia, Montenegro, to discuss problems concerning the signs and sym-Bosnia, Hungary, Romania, FYR Macedonia, and Bulbols found at Vin.a. Many scholars in archaeology, garia). Moreover, an enormous collection of artepalaeolinguistics, ethnography, and socio-cultural facts has been gathered. During the 1850s and 60s anthropology have tried to answer crucial questions Serbian archaeologists, Vasi. himself (1931; 1936), about the nature, context, origin, and social role of then Miloj.i. (1950), Gara.anin (1951 et pass.), Jo- the Vin.a signs. vanovi. (1961), Srejovi. (1990) and others, fairly es tablished a general framework of knowledge about Several generations of scholars have explored the the distinctive aspects of Vin.a culture – environ- Vin.a culture. Many different sites have been disco-mental, socio-economic and cultural. Moreover, col 1 Thanks to Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Branch in Novi Sad and Institute of Archaeomythology, USA, International symposium on the Neolithic symbol system of SE Europe gathered more than 20 scientists from Europe and the USA in May 25–29, 2004. (text) © 2005 Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta - Univerza v Ljubljani, SI Andrej Starovic´ leagues from elsewhere made important contributions to the creation of more specific databases about the culture. For instance, they conducted extensive studies of its intensive agricultural subsistence economy, processes of strengthening power and expanding territory, as well as methods for obtaining important goods and raw materials, such as salt, flint, or obsidian. A significant contribution made by Jovanovi. (1971 et pass.) in the 70s and 80s shed new light on the Vin.a economy – the discovery of a copper mine at Rudna Glava suggests that the Vin.a people, previously described as (only) farmers, were actually also “involved” in metal-working. The most recent archaeological discoveries at the Plo.nik and Belovode sites (.ljivar and Kuzmanovi.-Cvetkovi. 1998; .ljivar and Jacanovi. 2001) confirmed the idea that (as least) the second period of Vin.a culture should be regarded as practically Early Chalcolithic (Fig. 1). The Vin.a culture has been studied in archaeology for more than a century. Archaeologists have witnessed a silent “war” for almost thirty years: endless debates between supporters of the “full literacy” of the culture and categorical opponents of such an idea. In fact, neither opponents nor supporters have provided convincing scientific arguments for their general opinion. This might cause a serious problem for a serious reader. What should be stressed above all when addressing the question of the Vin.a signs? The distribution of Fig. 2. Distribution map of the Vin.a sites with ob- jects that bear signs (the highest concentration is emphasised with a grey circle) Fig. 1. Two copper axe-type tools from the Plo.nik site, SE Serbia (National Museum in Belgrade, No. 16557 and 1821). the finds (Fig. 2) is, generally speaking, regular. Perhaps it is important to emphasize that the highest concentration is in large Serbian river valleys (such as the Danube, Sava, Morava). But, contrary to prevailing views of experts who have studied the topic, the northern area (e.g. the Danube Valley itself) is not the heartland of the signs, but the whole area covered by Vin.a culture. Around the end of 19th century Torma excavated the site of Turdas the in Romanian northern plain (then called Hunyad). In her research diaries she noted and drew over 200 of signs and symbols discovered on the bases of ceramic bowls. While the majority of signs were linear, the collection also included stylised representations of animals, and even humans. Roska published the collection for the first time, more than five decades later (Roska 1941). Vasi. made the most significant breakthrough, and improved our knowledge of Vin.a culture. As the first trained Serbian archaeologist, he initiated systematic excavations Belo brdo (‘White Hill’) site in 1906. In one of his first reports (Vassits 1910), Vasi. paid particular attention to “incised signs and marks”, emphasising that these signs and symbols were not a part of a system of vessel ornamentation, i.e., they emerged independently of ornamentation. His assumption was that these symbols referred to the pottery workshops or to the owners of the vessels, and were specific to certain clans or families. Several important discoveries from the northeastern region (for example, in Romania) reopened old discussions about the basic concepts of Vin.a society – its ideological structure, cults and/or religion. In 1961, during excavations at the site of Tartaria, Vlassa discovered three plaque-like objects of badly fired clay, at the bottom of a bizarre spot (a grave? a sacrificial pit?). Two of these objects had a perfo If the Vin;a script once really existed who could have written or read it| ration (similar to those on amulets), while the third was simply a flat plaque. The fact that each of these objects had extraordinary signs and symbols incised in fresh clay made them important and internationally famous as the “Tartaria tablets”. Clear representations of animals (goats?), humans, objects (a tripod?), organized in metopically separated zones, were combined with linear symbols in a manner which was already known to us as the Vin.a-type style. This discovery raised a storm among European archaeologists and palaeolinguists. Distinguished authors, such as Falkenstein (1965), S. Hood (1967), Makkay (1968) and others, started to write comprehensive studies on the importance and meaning of the Tartaria tablets. Apparently, the most confusing fact was a striking similarity between these objects (and their symbols) and the signs on cylindrical seals from a preceding, early phase of development of cuneiform, the so-called Uruk IV/Djemdet-Nasr phase. However, it was very difficult to explain a possible connection between the two, not only due to the huge geographical distance, but also due to a serious chronological mismatch. Djemdet-Nasr was dated to around 2800 BC, while Tartaria, e.g. its findings, must have been more than a thousand years older (bearing in mind that it belonged to an early phase of Vin.a culture). Interest in the phenomenon of incised signs and symbols on the prehistoric pottery from the Danube region and the Balkans increased upon the publishing of specific finds from Bulgarian sites: the so-called Grade.nica dish, Karanovo seal, etc. All these discoveries have created a controversy, and it has become inevitable to consider the possibility that the signs may represent a unique written communication system that was once typical of the Neo/Eneolithic in souteastern Europe. It should be remembered, however, that such a phenomenon existed in other parts of the world. A number of incised signs were found at the bottom of ceramic vessels from various cultures, such as the Greek Neolithic (especially the Thessalian Dimini phase), the Badari culture in Egypt, seals from the Mohenjo Daro in India, and the Yangshao culture in China, among others. All these discoveries suggest that it may be possible to regard these finds as anthropological phenomena, typical of something I call the first information revolution in history, developing from the intensive life of permanent Neolithic communities. In my opinion, Vin.a Culture went furthest in the process of developing this kind of communication. The work of Gara.anin (cf. 1951) had a crucial role in the process of defining the Vin.a-type findings and sites as integral parts of a uniform archaeological culture. He established an internal chronology, recognizing two basic phases (Turdas, and later, Plo.nik). Through proficient and profound analyses of material and spiritual culture, Gara.anin managed to explain the logic of development, its basic characteristics, and the richness of this extraordinary Neolithic culture of SE Europe. However, in this, as well as in his later work (Gara.anin 1973; 1979), he claimed that the signs were merely property marks. Although he strongly denied Vasi.’s idea (and provided strong arguments to support his own conclusions) about the absolute age, as well as the Vin.a cultural milieu in the Pre-Classical Greek world, he did not make an effort to reconsider the concept of Vin.a signs as the owner’s marks and/or manufacturer’s “trademarks”. In the 20th century, during the 50s and 60s, nearly one hundred additional Vin.a-type sites, mainly settlements, were been discovered and explored in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, and Romania. Incised signs on the pottery were mentioned occasionally. However, in every single case the signs were assumed to be “owner’s marks”. It is rather likely that Gara.anin’s great authority influenced others’ opinions, so his interpretation of signs has been taken for granted, and the phenomenon itself has been regarded as ephemeral, not relevant enough to deserve a thoughtful exploration. Thorough and responsible researchers also might deserve certain criticism: evidently, only a few of them have undertaken a systematic and holistic exploration of the phenomenon. The latter remark particularly applies to Serbian archaeologists and linguists, who have had a full access to the major part of the heritage – the objects with signs. Gara.anin (1951; 1973) and Srejovi. (1994) maintain that the signs were “owner’s marks” or “potter’s marks”. On the other hand, many non-scholars (and/or controversial, questionable scholars) have been trying to promote one doubtful idea throughout these years. Yet in 1940, Georgievskij interpreted the entire corpus of the Vin.a signs as a genuine representative of full prehistoric literacy, invented by the Vin.a people. Nowadays, we can also find “readings” of the Vin.a “texts” fully translated by the “interpreters” of the Vin.a language and script. Their “readings” have usually been rather convincing to the public, since they mention, almost as a rule, the glory Andrej Starovic´ of some unnamed goddess (if the signs are on a statuette of a female figure – Fig. 3). Similarly, these authors manage to persuade laypersons, as they have the “courage” to “describe” fantastic events, for example, the “historical” and even “political” end of the Vin.a civilization in the expulsion of the Vin.a population from their homeland (cf. Chudinov 2003; Pe.i. 1995). According to these interpretations, the content of those “texts” undoubtedly connects Neolithic Vin.a communities with Etrurians. Furthermore, Pe.i., for example (op.cit.) without any criticism, has “discovered” the origins of the Vin.a “literacy” – presumably, in the writing skills of the Lepenski Vir culture (?!) There is no need to waste paper on arguing with such ideas. Probably the most important study of the Vin.a signs was conducted by the American archaeologist Winn (dissertation thesis, Winn 1981). Through profound analyses of a series collected from around 50 Serbian Vin.a-type sites, he took the most significant step forward in methodological approaches to the problem. Instead of dealing with single and/or “convenient” examples (as most authors have done), and comparing them with already known cases in order to come to general conclusions, Winn first categorized them, and, further, suggested a model of sign classification, based on features (categories), which he had determined as relevant. It appeared that the latter was the only correct and productive way to approach and possibly solve the problem. Probably the most significant outcome of Winn’s work was that he provided convincing evidence that the Vin.a signs constituted a system, rather than a collection of arbitrary, random symbols. What was apparently missing in his comprehensive study was a clear analysis of the archaeological context in which the signs were found. Although this type of study could be extremely difficult to carry out in practice (especially due to problems related to systematisation), it has the potential of providing a clear archaeological answer to a crucial question: did the Vin.a signs constitute a script in the full meaning of the term? Of course, it is necessary to emphasis the work of Gimbutas, and the circle around the Institute of Archaeomythology. I would particulary like to stress Haarmann’s papers and books (cf. in this volume), and, now adays, Merlini’s excellent and ambitious attempt to promote the possible crucial importance of the main dilemma (script or not?) on his website “Prehistoric Knowledge“. Eight years ago, I started to study the problem of the Vin.a signs in order to solve my own dilemma about their possible significance in the context of Neolithic Vin.a society. At first glance, it was obvious that the signs did not fit into the ornamentation pattern that once existed. While there were some examples (especially on figurines and altars) that the symbols were incorporated into the ornamental pattern, many of the signs appeared on pots and bowls with no additional ornamentation. Assuming, just tentatively, that the signs on votive figurines were integral parts of symbolic formulae, single signs or groups of signs on the bottoms of domestic pots more often than not implied a quite different interpretation. However, other signs attracted my attention – those on loom weights and spindle whorls. Having in mind that both kinds of artefact could be connected with basic economic activity, I started to consider two main questions. The first was – could the Vin.a signs and symbols be a substantial system representing messages? Another question, even more difficult, was the following: was the entire corpus of the Vin.a signs coherent enough to be regarded as a system of written communication in its original context? In order to provide the answers to these two questions, I had to create an innovative analytical system. The first task was to develop a strategy to “rediscover” material, because it was virtually hidden. Needless to say, most of the artefacts had not been carefully studied, since they were considered unimportant or trivial. I studied 17 different museum collections throughout Serbia, and the collections from Fig. 3. Non-experts’ interpretation of the “Vin.a Script“: two tran- slations of a Vin.a type-site figurine “texts“: Pe.i. (1995), and Chudinov (2003). If the Vin;a script once really existed who could have written or read it| over 40 different Vin.a sites collecting data on than 1000 fired clay objects with over 1500 signs and symbols. Data gathered at sites can be divided into three groups: . general data about the site, conditions of the ob ject’s discovery (the technical as well as archaeo logical context), museum documentation data, as well as relative and absolute dating . analytical data relating to each object (formal and techno-morphological information, as well as di mensions and other features) . analytical data about each sign (formal characte ristics, number of lines, number of signs, intersec tions, typology, and so on) Furthermore, I took photographs of each object and the signs. Similarly, I made drawings of the object (in many cases, where possible, this had to be virtually reconstructed), and of the sign itself. In this manner, I established a principal sign database. It is obvious that there is a wide range of objects that once had signs and symbols on them (Fig. 4). But, a serious question as to their provenance and function within the structure of Vin.a society is still unresolved. On the one hand, some scientists, e.g. Gimbutas (1973; 1974 and later) thought they were religious. Her efforts and insights had some merit. According to my exploration, the most significant signs and their combinations (logograms, ideograms, groups of signs) were primarily on objects that could be religious: votive figurines, amulets, face-like lids, tablets, etc. On the other hand, the most frequent occurring signs/groups of signs were found on ordinary, utilitarian objects: containers for processing and consuming food, loom weights, etc. Assuming that the second case predominated, the Vin.a signs could be interpreted as evolving into a full writing system, since this is already known for the historical development of ancient writing systems (Mesopotamia, Crete, China). Certainly, the latter conclusion could be supported if the signs on the vessels referred to practical information, such as number of breeding stock, volume of jars, meat and hide weight, and so on. A problem mentioned above has evoked the most intriguing question: is it possible that the entire set of Vin.a signs did not constitute a single uniform, mono-sign system? Fig. 4. Examples of various types of ceramic ob- jects with signs: prosopomorhic (face-like) lid from Vin.a-Belo brdo (A), amulet and miniature vessel from Gomolava (B and C), and, loom weight from Potporanj (D). Is it possible to prove or reject the idea that the Vin.a signs were a fully comprehensive system of written communication, even if we do not know its (possible) meaning? There are three main points that I wish to emphasise here: . Formal grouping and/or classification should help to establish general the framework of the signs’ sequence; however, since many authors have only tried to combine and compare graphic representations of the signs with each other, the results were unsatisfactory. More extreme attempts led to supposed analogies with symbols from recognised early writing systems, such the archaic phase in the development of cuneiform. If it even produced problems with chronological correspondence, such authors (cf. Makkay 1969) were ready to change drastically the chronology itself. . Another possible approach is to concentrate on the objects with the signs. It is now quite clear that practically every single category of object of fired clay had been inscribed: pots, lids, loom weights and spindle whorls, as well as figurines, mask-like lids, small altars, peculiar artefacts resembling dolls, and even plaques or tablets. The latter (such as the famous Tartaria Tablets) were especially interesting to many scholars, because they offered evidence for reconsidering the existence of written communication. The main reason is than the exclusive purpose of Andrej Starovic´ making such objects was to carry signs. But if we overturn the point of view, it could be assumed that the Vin.a people needed to inscribe various utilitarian and non-utilitarian accessories; if so, why? . Perhaps the most promising approach is a comprehensive analysis of the original context of the object (and the signs’, too), when possible. In the evaluation of previous attempts to solve the problem of the Vin.a signs and symbols, their importance and original significance, I noticed that none of the authors paid enough attention to this point except in general terms. The signs were found in house interiors, in the context of households, in different kinds of workshop activities (such as weaving, or pottery production), and even in graves. But, all of it – in what proportions? Having been analysed the question, I would like to present some interesting evidence. Of course, it should be stressed that none of those three starting points for the study of the Vin.a signs is exclusive or matchless: a fully comprehensive analysis has to interrelate all of those three levels of data. Firstly, when we look at the studied corpus, it is obvious that the quality of basic contextual data is quite high (Fig. 5). More than 80 % of all finds were discovered through systematic and/or test excavations. Basic information about the cultural sequence, stratigraphy, and relative date potentially exists. But, if we consider more closely not only the stratigraphic or technical, but also the structural context of the signs, the situation is even more informative: almost 95 % of well-defined artefacts were found inside houses or backyards (e.g. the household area), including storage/ garbage pits. In my opinion, this is very significant, because it clearly implies that the predominant use of the signs was connected to domestic activities (Fig. 6). Moreover, another result of the study seems to be most significant. During the basic contextual analysis of 38 different sites, I found 79 different houses had been excavated from every sequential phase, and, beyond my expectations, signs were found in all of them (Fig. 7)! This is probably a very important result, but, what does such evidence tell us? Before we jump to conclusions, I would like to provide only one example. When we try to calculate the minimum number of pots (MNP) in a well-defined context, the results might be surprising. When I did such a calculation (Starovi. 1993) through an analysis of the Late Vin.a set that belonged to only one house in its lifespan, probably one generation only, I reached a total of 3552. I must also emphasise that the techno- morphological quality of this pottery collection was high. Further, the size of the house was quite common. If we take a closer look, it can be assumed that such a large number of pottery products could also mean a high degree of intensive economic activity, such as food production resulting in a surplus, so it is possible to consider the idea of a food trade. Furthermore, scholars who have studied the problem of Late Neolithic socio-cultural transformations Fig. 5. Way of providing of analysed Vin.a ceramic objects with signs (after Starovi. 2002.85) Fig. 6. Types of structure in which objects with signs were found (after Starovi. ibid.) If the Vin;a script once really existed who could have written or read it| Fig. 7. Ideal reconstruction of an ordinary house from a Vin.a-type site (after Tasi. 2003). communication existed is satisfying. While understanding that many obstacles seriously hinder attempts to decipher the signs, we should remember that the Vin.a symbols were once messages, notes, information. Then who could have written them, and why? After much consideration, I have concluded that the origin and invention of the signs and symbols were religious and ceremonial. The most common signs, the repetition of formulaic sign groups, votive and religious objects incised before firing in SE Europe (especially in the Balkans) have admit-(just as in a kind of initiation) all support this idea. ted that the most sensitive (archaeologically speaking) “filter” for testing and understanding basic But archaeological evidence strongly supports some- ideology of the Vin.a culture has probably been ab-thing else. In time, starting from the Vin.a B2 phase, sent: representative evidence of funerary practices. the signs incised (or rather scratched in) after fir- Without a doubt, the substantial lack of graves (in ing become the most common. It seems that in later comparison to the number of settlements) became phases pots became very convenient media for the the “trademark” in archaeological explanations of transfer of practical information in everyday life. Vin.a social activities. If we exclude almost spora-Many numbers, different sign groups, and even ligadic discoveries of single graves within the settle-tures (just as in the modern system of stenography), ments (like those at Vin.a itself, then, possibly Tar-and regional types of sign design, should mean that taria and some other sites), only two ‘proper’ ceme-the Vin.a people had started to write more precise teries have been found: Boto. near Zrenjanin, and messages, and to understand them. So, who could Gomolava near Ruma. Both were outside the settle-write and read it? The dynamics of the social and ments: the cemetery in .ivani.eva Dolja (Boto.) was economic transformation of a relatively simple tribal in the vicinity of two settlements, Stari Vinogradi community into a more complex society are also eviand Aradac, while the necropolis in Gomolava was dent. Extra goods such as flint, salt, copper, and, par- in a temporarily uninhabited sector of the tell. ticularly, their increasing number, imply the possi bility of commercial trade. Perhaps travelling crafts- Finally, I would turn to the anthropological, and men and traders were the authors of the majority of even palaeo-sociological point of the main question the signs and symbols? (script or not?): perhaps this is surprising, but it becomes irrelevant. In other words, if one wants to As a final conclusion, I suggest we begin to re-consielaborate on the further significance of the pheno-der common attitudes to the nature and complexity menon, then the fact that a regular system of written of Vin.a society. . REFERENCES BRUKNER B. 1974. Pozni neolit. In Brukner B., Jovanovi. B. and Tasi. N. (eds.), Praistorija Vojvodine: 56–152. CHUDINOV V. A. 2003. O knige Anticha i Vinchanskom pisme. www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0211/005a/ 02110011.htm (in Russian). FALKENSTEIN A. 1965. Zu dem aus Tartaria. Germania 43:269–273. FEWKES V. 1936. Neolithic Sites in the Moravo-Danubian Area Eastern Yugoslavia). American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 12: 5–81. GARA.ANIN M. 1951. Hronologija vin.anske kulture. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 1956. Sahranjivanje u balkansko-anadolskom kompleksu mla.eg neolita. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu (n.s.) XI: 205–236. Andrej Starovic´ 1979. Vin.anska kultura. In A. Benac (ed.), Preistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja tom II: 309–333. 1981. Praistorija na tlu SR Srbije. Vol. I and II. Srpska knji.evna zadruga. Beograd. GEORGIJEVSKIJ M. A. 1940. Pismenije znaki i nadpisi iz Vin.i. Sbornik ruskovo arheologi.eskovo ob..estva v Korolevstvo Jugoslaviji III: 175–188. GIMBUTAS M. 1973. The Classification of Old Europe – 7000–3500 BC. Actes du VIIIe Congres international des sciences prehistoriques et protohistoriques II: 235–242, Figs. 1–3. 1974. The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe: 7000–3500 BC. Thames and Hudson. London. HOLSTE F. 1939. Zur chronologischen Stellung der Vin.akeramik. Wiener Prahistorische Zeitschrift 26: 1–21. HOOD M. S. F. 1967. The Tartaria Tablets. Antiquity XLI: 99–102. GRBI. M. 1934. Neolitsko groblje u Boto.u kod Velikog Be.kereka. Starinar VIII–IX: 40–58. JOVANOVI. B. 1961. Stratigrafska podela vin.anskog naselja. Starinar (N.S.) XI: 9–20. 1971. Early Copper Metallurgy of the Central Balkans. In Actes du VIIIeme Congres International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques: 131–140. Belgrade: UISPP. MAKKAY J. 1968. The Tartaria Tablets. Orientalia (Roma) 37: 272–289. 1969. The Late Neolithic Tordos group of signs. Alba Regia X: 9–49. MILOJ.I. V. 1949. South-Eastern Elements in the Prehistoric Civilization of Serbia. Annual of the British School in Athens XLIV: 266–285. 1950. Körös-Star.evo-Vin.a. In G. Behrens and J. Werner (eds.), Reinecke Festschrift: 108–118. PE.I. R. 1995. Vin.ansko pismo. Pe.i. i sinovi/Dugan. Beograd/Milano. ROSKA M. 1941. Die Sammlung von Zsofia von Tor- ma in der Numismatich-Archaolohischen Abzeilung des Siebenburgischen Nationalmuseums. Koloszvar (Cluj). SCHMANDT-BESSERAT D. 1992. Before Writing. 2 vols. Austin. 1999. Tokens: the Cognitive Significance. In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica XXVI: 72–81. SREJOVI. D. 1990. Vin.a – centar neolitske kulture u Podunavlju. Beograd: Centar za arheolo.ka istra.ivanja Filozofskog fakulteta. STANI.I. V. 1992. ‘Vin.a-Schrift’ oder ‘Vin.a-Zeichen’. Balcanica XXIII: 187–193, Abb. 1–4. STAROVI. A. 1993. Analiza kerami.kih artefakata sa neolitskog naselja u Petnici. Petni.ke sveske 29: 34– 72. 2002. Kontekst nalaza vin.anskih znakova u Srbiji. Glasnik DKZ 44: 81-87. TASI. N. N. 2003. http://www.online-archaeology. com/HouseReconstruction.htm TODOROVI. J. 1969. Written signs in the Neolithic cultures of Southeastern Europe. Archaeologia Iugoslavica X: 77–84, T. I–XII. TORMA Z. 1879. Neolithic settlements in the County Hunyad. Erglyi museum VI: 5–7; 130. VASSITS M. M. 1910. Die Hauptergebnisse der prahistorischen Ausgrabung in Vin.a in Jahre 1908. Praehistorischen Zeitschrift II, Heft 1: 23–39 + Taf. 7–16. VASI. M. M. 1931. Preistoriska Vin.a. Tom I. Dr.avna .tamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije. Beograd. 1936. Preistoriska Vin.a. Tom II–IV. Dr.avna .tamparija Kraljevine Jugoslavije. Beograd. 1950. Jonska kolonija Vin.a. SAN. Beograd. VLASSA N. 1963. Chronology of Neolithic in Transilvania, in the Light of the Tartaria Settlement’s Stratigraphy. Dacia (n. s.) VII: 485–494, Figs. 1–10. WINN M. M. Sh. 1981. Pre-writing in Southeastern Europe: the sign system of the Vin.a Culture ca 4000 BC. Calgary, Alberta.