Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 10. 1969 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1969)

Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Makkay János: The Late Neolithic Tordos Group of Sign. X, 1969. p. 9–49. t. I–IV.

nommen, was bis jetzt von den Gelehrten bestritten wurde."

10 It was by this statement that the investigation of the perhaps most mysterious assemblage of South-Eastern Europe was begun. At first this could hardly be done with exact methods, and students were bound to make guesses. Later an increasingly strong possibility was opened up for the proposal and later the elaboration of theses which led research logically to an investigation of the connections between Mesopotamia and South-East Europe in the fourth and the third millennium. As chance the first phase of this process, which is relevant to the history of research, has been ended by the lucky but by no means final discovery of the Tärtäria tablets. Comparisons of this kind could doubtless be only sterile for decades. As far as we know, a comparison between the Tordos and the Troy forms of pottery signs was drawn for the first time by P. Reinecke.

11 Considering the various possible analogies, the research made by H. Schmidt represents an important step forward. From a first hand study of the signs he stated that the Tordos signs ("eingeritzte Marken oder schriftartige Zeichen") were scratched into the still soft clay (now we know that signs A 20,8 and A 23,24 are exceptions, as they were added to the already burnt vessels) and that they may be distinguished exactly from ornamental elements in each case

12

. H. Schmidt has drawn his Mediterranean parallels from among the i ncised marks of Trojan and Cycladic (in the first place Phylakopian) vessels and whorls, or from among the "Prehistoric" Egyptian and the earliest Aegean marks, respectively. Regarding the problem from the side of the relics of Cretaln script, A. Evans also dealt with the Tordos signs as parallels, the remnants of a primitive system of writing.

13 Naturaly we know by now that the Cretan, Cycladic and the Trojan signs may be compared with the Tordos ones, but generally by no means on account of direct connections or of equivalent date; although the late Vinca (Vinca

— Plocnik) pottery has very good parallels precisely in the earliest material of Troy and the early finds of the Cyclades (e.g. the pedestalled-base bowls, etc.). In course of his excavations on the Vinca tell, executed from 1905 on, Vasié also found numerous incised signs though less than occur at Tordos.

14 They were (and are) significant not only because they enlarged the orbit of comparison but also because they have proved that the existence of the Tordos signs was a phenomenon by no means isolated but typical of the Vinca culture. At the same time there would have been a chance of making up at Vinca all that has been omitted at Tordos: to define the exact date of the finds bearing such marks, i.e. the stratigraphical limits of their occurrence. This did not happen, however, owing to the wrong methods of Vasic's excavations. For example, Vasic himself writes on the Vinca marks the following: "Die pictographischen Zeichen oder Marken (Taf. 16) erscheinen in der Tiefe von 0,6 bis 5,4 m, aber auch in der Wohngrubenschicht." ... "Ähnliche Zeichen findet 1° MAG Corr. 19 (1889) [114]. 11 Arch. Ért. 18 (1898) 97-103, Fig. 8. His forms of signs are not exact. 1

2 ZfE 1903. 438-469, Fig. 39-41. is M. S. F. HOOD: Antiquity 41 (1967) notes 14 and 15. " V. MILOJCIC: Germania 43 (1965) 261, notes 3 and 21. Unfortunately I have been unable to acquire the '• study mentioned by M i 1 о j б i 6, written by an author called Georgijevski. « J. MAKKAY: Acta Arch. Hung. 21 (1969) 13 seqq. man an den Böden, oberhalb derselben, am Bauche und am Halse der Gefässe von Vinca (Taf. 16). Sie erscheinen in Vinca in allen Schichten."

16 The defective excavation data also prevented V. J. Fewkes 25 years later from defining their exact dates. He said: "The so-called 'pictographic marks' or 'script' again not assignable to a separate category, rather appearing on sherds belonging to the burnished or fluted and ribbed classes, are, it seems, a rather late phenomenon at Vinca. In 1911, their occurrence was said have been noted from 2,5 m to 5,4 m. The specimens from the bothros level, as far as I have examined them, show, in my opinion, no more than meaningless scratches. Although the possibility of proprietary marks is not to be denied .. . "

17 It is clear, consequently, that a dating of the Tordos and Vinca marks is possible only through the typological investigation of the potsherds and other earthen objects bearing them. According to a recent statement

18 all the Yougoslavian sites of the Vinca culture (with the evident exception of Vinca itself) which have yielded similar incised marks (Yakovo — Kormandin, KalimegdannearBeograd, Hrkovci in Sirmia, Gornja Tuzla in Northern Bosnia and Pljosna Stijena near Titovo Uzice) belong to the Vinca

—Plocnik period (Vinca С — D). Nevertheless, if we accept the unequivocal dating of Tordos between the given limits, this statement is not valid for the marks occurring in the Vinca culture generally. V. G. Childe was the first to investigate the finds of Vinca and Tordos as the relics of essentially the same culture. However, on the incised signs of the two sites he only recapitulated the statements of H. Schmidt.

19 It was at the same time (1929) that the paradoxical work by L. A. Waddell was published.

20 It deals with the scratched pottery marks of the Vinca

—Tordos culture and their analogies with the Sumerian pictographs. His data on the Carpathian basin and Vinca come from Vasic, but he reveals his evident ignorance of archaeological problems. His comparisons were probably made possible by the publication of the Jemdet Nasr pictographs in 1928.

21 Nevertheless it cannot be denied that Waddel was the first person to attempt a documentary proof of the close connection between the Tordos group of signs and the Mesopotamian pictographs. This fact should not be neglected even if one knows that his basic idea, the aim of his work and all his conclusions are unhistorical and far from the requirements of science. The faults mentioned have prevented specialists, with a single exception,

22 from paying attention to his essentially right discovery. In the second half of the '20s H. Frankfort made the first step towards the detailed treatment of the connections between Mesopotamia, the Aegean and South-East Europe in the third and the second millennia B.C.

23 In those years, however, the knowledge of the prehistoric finds either of Mesopotamia and Anatolia, or of Greece « M. VASIC: PZ 2 (1910) 31,38. 17 Neolithic Sites in the Moravo-Danubian Area. BASPR 12 (1936) 34. « BANJICA 82. "Antiquity 1 (1927) 83, 88; Id., The Danube in Prehistory (1929) 31, 33. 20 The Makers of Civilization in Race and History. (London 1929.) Chap. XIII. bears the title: Sumerian Writing as „Owners' Marks" on Prehistoric Pottery (Töpferwaare, Scherben) in the Danube (Donau) Valley of Middle Europe, 599-606. 2i OECT VII. 22 SKS 10, note 6, does not quote the title exactly. г» SEPNE I and II. 10