Lably
Skip to content

Undeciphered writing systems

Writing systems and symbol systems without a generally accepted decipherment

  • 7 min read
  • 8 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Middle Ages, Text corpus and Paleolithic

While most examples are ancient, a small number are medieval or modern. In some cases the evidence is too limited to determine whether the marks represent a true writing system, a form of proto-writing, or a set of non-linguistic symbols; modern artistic traditions such as asemic writing likewise imitate the appearance of writing while intentionally withholding stable linguistic meaning. It is not clear all these cases were intended as writing systems with linguistic function or representation, and some inscribed symbols or characters may have other explanations such as being artwork.

Difficulties in decipherment commonly arise from one or more of the following: the absence of bilingual texts or other external "anchors" (such as securely identifiable names or dates); uncertain or unknown underlying languages (including possible language isolates); small corpora; and damage or loss of archaeological context needed to test proposed readings against use and genre. In some corpora, an additional difficulty is uncertainty over whether the signs constitute writing at all (as has often been argued for the Vinča symbols).

Various decipherment claims have been proposed for several items listed here (including the Indus script, the Phaistos Disc, and the Isthmian/Epi-Olmec script), but these proposals remain disputed and have not achieved broad acceptance in the scholarly literature unless otherwise noted.

Inclusion criteria

This list includes writing systems and sign systems that are commonly described in reliable secondary sources as undeciphered, not fully deciphered, or of uncertain decipherment. Items of disputed authenticity or disputed status as writing are explicitly identified as such.

Sign in to keep reading

7 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Archaeology