# The Tărtăria tablets: writing or signs?

*Tărtăria, Alba county · 1961*

In 1961, Nicolae Vlassa's team lifted three small tablets of unfired clay, all scratched with signs, from a pit at Tărtăria. Bones attributed to the same deposit were dated to 5370–5140 BC (68.2%), but the stratigraphic link between the bones and the tablets is uncertain; the tablets have no direct date. If the association is correct, the reckoning gives about 1,900 years before the first signs at Uruk.

Marius Comper · 19 September 2026

## The pit at Tărtăria

Tărtăria village lies some 30 kilometres from Alba Iulia. In 1942–1943 Kurt Horedt opened trenches A–F here; in 1961 Nicolae Vlassa, an archaeologist at the Cluj museum, opened trenches G–H and struck a pit some interpret as ritual.

The deposit held three tablets of unfired clay, 26 clay and stone figurines, a shell bracelet, and the broken, scattered bones of an adult, nicknamed “Milady Tărtăria”. Beside them: clay and alabaster idols. Once at the museum, the tablets were cleaned in a hydrochloric acid bath and impregnated in an autoclave for conservation; the treatment compromised other tests that might have helped date or characterise the pieces. Mineral clay cannot usually be radiocarbon dated: what was dated were bones attributed to the deposit, not the tablets.

Vlassa published the find in 1963, in the journal Dacia, and dated the pit between 2900 and 2700 BC, from resemblances to the Uruk and Jemdet Nasr tablets. Later analyses put the attributed bones before 4000 BC, some 1,300 years earlier than he expected; calibrated sample Rome-1631 gives 5370–5140 BC (68.2%), 5470–5060 (95.4%), 5480–5030 (99.7%). The tablets themselves have no direct date, and their stratigraphic link to the bones is uncertain. More than half a century has passed since, and the file is still open.

## The three tablets, sign by sign

The plates are simplified diagrams, not evidence: the drawing follows only the contours visible in the photograph, and the published drawings disagree on some signs. Some supposed signs may be scratches, and the acid treatment altered outlines. Choose a sign to see what is observed and what question stays open. None of the notes is a decipherment.

### The round tablet (6 cm, perforated, signs in four quadrants)

- **The stepped sign.** What is visible: Three horizontal bars between two firm vertical lines. / What stays open: One sign or several side by side? The published drawings disagree here.
- **The D-shaped sign.** What is visible: A rounded outline, closed on one straight side. / What stays open: The shape recurs across the corpus; recurrence alone shows no meaning.
- **The comb.** What is visible: A bar with parallel teeth, like a comb. / What stays open: Combs may be a potter's reckoning; proof is missing.
- **The row of D-shaped signs.** What is visible: Rounded, closed signs ranged in a row. / What stays open: Neither the order nor the reading direction can be read off the piece.
- **The loop.** What is visible: Short parallel lines, grouped tight. / What stays open: A sign in its own right, or decorative filling?
- **The double chevrons.** What is visible: Two pairs of adjacent angles. / What stays open: The motif recurs on many objects; its point here is unclear.
- **The lattice.** What is visible: Three vertical lines cut by two horizontals. / What stays open: One figure, or overlapping lines?
- **The crossed-lines motif.** What is visible: Vertical lines crossed by two diagonals. / What stays open: The lower-right corner differs from one published drawing to the next.

### The plain rectangular tablet (Unperforated: horned animal, unclear figure, vegetal motif)

- **The horned animal.** What is visible: A squarish body with legs, horns and a pointed snout. / What stays open: A given animal, or a schema? Likeness to other cultures weighs nothing alone.
- **The unclear figure.** What is visible: An upright outline with a round head and sketched limbs. / What stays open: Without a complete text the figure stays mute.
- **The branching motif.** What is visible: An upright stem with symmetric branches. / What stays open: Vegetal sign, tally or decoration? The piece does not say.

### The perforated rectangular tablet (Central perforation, sign panels on both sides)

- **The perforation.** What is visible: A round perforation with smoothed edges, in a zone without signs. / What stays open: A perforation does not show how the piece was worn, if it was worn.
- **The horned motif.** What is visible: A shield-like outline with two arched horns. / What stays open: An animal head or a geometric schema? The animal reading is a hypothesis.
- **The round hollows.** What is visible: Small round hollows, lined up in a row. / What stays open: Intended signs, wear marks, or damage?
- **The yoke-shaped motif.** What is visible: A divided rectangle on a rounded base. / What stays open: The shape recurs in the corpus; its function here stays open.

## Two timelines

The millennia before the common era, and the 65 years of argument since 1961.

Bones attributed to the deposit: 5370–5140 BC (68.2%); the tablets: no direct date; Uruk: about 3400 BC. If the association of the bones with the tablets is correct, the reckoning gives about 1,900 years.

### The millennia

| When | What |
| --- | --- |
| 5400 BC | **The Vinča culture begins**: Farming villages in the Balkans and Transylvania, with fine pottery and signs scratched on vessels. |
| 5370–5140 BC | **The attributed bones**: The date of the bones, not the tablets: 6310±65 BP, calibrated to 5370–5140 BC (68.2%). The stratigraphic link is uncertain; the tablets have no direct date. |
| 6th millennium BC | **Dispilio, Greece**: A wooden tablet with signs, found near Kastoria in 1993. The 2024 study dated the settlement's construction timbers, not the inscribed object. |
| 4500–4000 BC | **The bulk of Vinča symbolism**: The span to which the bulk of Vinča symbolism is dated. The DatDas catalogue separately gathers 5,421 sign occurrences. |
| 3500 BC | **The signs fall out of use**: Around 3500 BC, the signs and their objects fall out of use. |
| about 3400 BC | **Uruk, Sumer**: Proto-cuneiform: accounting tablets in an organised recording system. Whether it already encoded speech is debated. |
| 4th millennium BC | **Gradeshnitsa, Bulgaria**: Clay tablets with signs, found in 1969, kept at the Vratsa museum. |
| Jemdet Nasr | **The comparison period**: Late fourth to early third millennium: the writing Vlassa matched his tablets against. |

### The argument

| When | What |
| --- | --- |
| 1875 | **Torma at Turdaș**: Zsófia Torma digs at Turdaș and finds the first sherds with unknown signs. |
| 1908 | **Vasić at Vinča**: Miloje Vasić finds similar signs near Belgrade, 245 kilometres from Turdaș. |
| 1942–1943 | **Horedt at Tărtăria**: Kurt Horedt opens trenches A–F on the Tărtăria hill. |
| 1961 | **Vlassa finds the tablets**: Trenches G–H uncover the pit: 3 tablets, 26 figurines, the bones. |
| 1963 | **Publication**: Vlassa publishes in Dacia and dates the pit between 2900 and 2700 BC. |
| 1965 | **Milojčić takes up the cause**: Vladimir Milojčić writes on the tablets in Germania and defends their importance. |
| 1967 | **Hood spoils the match**: Sinclair Hood shows the tablet shapes do not fit the Jemdet Nasr tablets. |
| 1981 | **The Winn catalogue**: Shan Winn gathers 210 Vinča sign types. |
| 1993 | **Dispilio comes to light**: Hourmouziadis's team finds the wooden tablet near Kastoria. |
| 2013 | **The forgery charge**: Erika Qasim suggests in Das Altertum that Vlassa and Milojčić forged the tablets. |
| 2016 | **The microscope replies**: Attila László shows the soil traces inside the sign grooves: the tablets lay long underground. |
| 2024 | **Dispilio: the settlement anchored**: Tree rings and the 5259 BC solar storm anchor the settlement's phases. The inscribed tablet is not independently dated. |

## Five separate questions

Authentication, chronology, sign classification, function and language encoding are separate questions. Nobody has deciphered the signs.

### The words, used once

- **Writing**: the systematic representation of speech. Only this is “writing” on this page.
- **Semasiographic notation**: a conventional message that does not encode speech, like a road sign.
- **Sign, symbol**: a mark whose meaning is uncertain.

### 1. Are the pieces authentic?

*A strong argument for age, not certainty.*

László and his colleagues read the soil traces in the grooves as proof of long burial underground; Qasim had suggested a modern forgery in 2013. The patchy dig record leaves the exact context uncertain.

### 2. Do the tablets belong with the dated deposit?

*Uncertain.*

The bones attributed to the pit give 6310±65 BP, calibrated to 5370–5140 BC (68.2%), but the stratigraphic link to the tablets is unproven. Vlassa himself had dated them between 2900 and 2700 BC.

### 3. Are the signs deliberate and conventional?

*Debated.*

The DatDas catalogue counts 5,421 occurrences, 1,178 inscriptions and 971 objects, and Winn distinguishes 210 types: repeated shapes (Merlini). Sceptics demand proof of convention: shape alone shows no meaning (Renfrew, Milisauskas).

### 4. Do the signs record information?

*Debated.*

Hypotheses: owner's marks (Garašanin, Srejović), a potter's tallies (the combs), possible semasiographic notation (Mäder 2019: 29.5%), votive offerings (Gimbutas).

### 5. Do the signs encode speech?

*Unproven.*

Haarmann and Gimbutas speak of a Danubian script, beside Merlini, Marler and Lazarovici; Anthony ties the first notations to ritual, as in early China. Ritual use does not exclude writing.

### Where things stand

László and his colleagues read the soil traces inside the grooves as a strong argument against a modern forgery; incomplete documentation of the find leaves the exact context and the date of the pieces uncertain. Until a direct date or an accepted decipherment, the headline question stays open.

## If not writing, then what?

Five answers in circulation, from the most mundane to the most solemn. None is proven; all have names behind them. Ritual use does not exclude writing: the first Chinese characters served sacred power, not administration.

### Owner's marks

Milutin Garašanin and Dragoslav Srejović: the signs say “X's”. Some appear only on vessel bases and are unique: contents, place or maker.

### A potter's numbers

Combs, about a sixth of all signs, may be reckonings: what a pot is worth or what it holds.

### Ritual signs

Marija Gimbutas saw votive offerings: requests and vows buried after the ceremony. David Anthony adds the Chinese parallel: the first characters served sacred power, not administration.

### Possible semasiographic notation

A 2019 count splits the signs into 59% pottery marks, 11.5% ornaments and 29.5% possible semasiographic notation: message without language, like a road sign.

### Imitations? It does not fit.

Clumsy copying of an advanced culture was proposed too, but no literate culture then existed to copy from.

## Six questions, no hedging

True or false? Answer, then open the book.

1. **Age.** The bones attributed to the Tărtăria deposit are older than the Uruk proto-cuneiform. *True. The bones give 5370–5140 BC, and Uruk about 3400 BC; the reckoning of about 1,900 years holds only if the association of the bones with the tablets is correct.*
2. **Dating.** The tablets were directly radiocarbon dated. *False. Mineral clay cannot usually be radiocarbon dated, and the acid bath and impregnation compromised other tests. What was dated were the attributed bones: 5370–5140 BC.*
3. **Shape.** All three tablets are rectangular. *False. Two are rectangular and one is round, 6 cm across; two of them are perforated.*
4. **The many.** Most Vinča inscriptions carry a single sign. *True. The DatDas catalogue counts over 85% single-sign inscriptions, usually on pottery.*
5. **Publication.** Vlassa published the find that same year, 1961. *False. Publication came in 1963, in the journal Dacia, 2 years after the dig.*
6. **Forgery.** The tablets proved to be modern forgeries. *False. In 2016 László and his colleagues showed that the soil traces in the grooves are a strong argument against a modern forgery; the exact context and date of the pieces stay uncertain.*

## Sources and method

Every fact about the find comes from Attila László's article, Dacia, 2016, read in full, and from encyclopaedia syntheses read on 19 September 2026. The DatDas, Winn and Mäder totals, like the comparison dates (Uruk, Gradeshnitsa, Karanovo), are quoted via syntheses, unverified in the works of origin; the evidence ledger marks each status.

The years before the common era are published figures, not our own measurements: the checker recomputes only the differences 5370–5140, 5470–5060, 5480–5030 and looks for their endpoints on the page. The plates are simplified diagrams, labelled as such: the published drawings disagree, some supposed signs may be scratches, and the acid treatment altered outlines.

### The find

- [Attila László, “Cui bono? Thoughts about a ‘reconsideration’ of the Tărtăria tablets”, Dacia N.S. LX, 2016, pp. 281–292: the bone date, the acid treatment, the soil traces in the grooves](https://daciajournal.ro/pdf/dacia2016/18.pdf)
- [Absolute dating of the Dispilio settlement via the 5259 BC solar storm, Nature Communications, 2024 (construction timbers, not the tablet)](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48402-1)
- [Tărtăria tablets: discovery, description, dating (encyclopaedia synthesis, read 19 September 2026; not verified in the original works)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%83rt%C4%83ria_tablets)
- [Tărtăria tablets, Romanian edition: Karanovo, alabaster, Spondylus (encyclopaedia synthesis, read 19 September 2026; not verified in the original works)](https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%83bli%C8%9Bele_de_la_T%C4%83rt%C4%83ria)

### The signs

- [Vinča symbols: corpus, dating, interpretations (encyclopaedia synthesis, read 19 September 2026; not verified in the original works)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_symbols)
- [Vinča culture, 5400–4500 BC (encyclopaedia synthesis, read 19 September 2026; not verified in the original works)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_culture)
- [Gradeshnitsa tablets, found 1969, 4th millennium BC (encyclopaedia synthesis, read 19 September 2026; not verified in the original works)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradeshnitsa_tablets)
- [Winn catalogue: 210 sign types (summary of the 1981 catalogue; year and pagination to verify in the original)](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10082208/3/Josiffe_10082208_thesis.pdf)

### The debate

- [Uruk, the first city: proto-cuneiform towards the end of the 4th millennium BC (Metropolitan Museum, conventional anchor)](https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/uruk/hd_uruk.htm)
- Vlassa 1963, Dacia VII, pp. 485–494 (not quoted directly; contents via syntheses only)

---

Text and plates by [Marius Comper](https://mariuscomper.uk/en/) · https://mariuscomper.uk/tablitele-de-la-tartaria/en/