This articlemay need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia'squality standards. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page.You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions.(February 2026)
Seals showing theIndus script, an ancient undeciphered script
Undeciphered writing systems are proposed writing systems for which no decipherment has achieved broad acceptance in the specialist literature.[1]Most examples are ancient, but a small number are medieval or modern.[1] In some cases the evidence is too limited to determine whether the marks represent a true writing system, a form ofproto-writing, or a set of non-linguistic symbols; modern artistic traditions such asasemic writing likewise imitate the appearance of writing while intentionally withholding stable linguistic meaning.[2]
Difficulties indecipherment 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 possiblelanguage isolates); small corpora; and damage or loss of archaeological context needed to test proposed readings against use and genre.[1] In some corpora, an additional difficulty is uncertainty over whether the signs constitute writing at all (as has often been argued for theVinča symbols).[3]
Various decipherment claims have been proposed for several items listed here (including theIndus script, thePhaistos Disc, and theIsthmian/Epi-Olmec script), but these proposals remain disputed and have not achieved broad acceptance in the scholarly literature unless otherwise noted.[4][5]
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.
Sawveh –Guangxi, China; reported as possible proto-writing or writing in some local traditions and secondary sources; status as a historical writing system is uncertain.[12]
Paleohispanic scripts – several scripts are partly deciphered (sign values largely known), but many inscriptions and underlying languages remain only partly understood; inclusion and degree of decipherment vary by script.[citation needed]
An inscription in the Pisa Baptistery – a short medieval religious inscription attested in Tuscany; the script/language and interpretation remain debated in the literature.[32]
The Starving of Saqqara – a privately held sculpture claimed to be ancient and bearing an unidentified inscription; provenance and authenticity have been questioned, and the markings are not securely established as an ancient writing system.[33]
Wadi el-Hol inscriptions – Egypt; early alphabetic inscriptions (often dated to the late Middle Kingdom, roughly early 2nd millennium BCE) with proposed readings but no universally accepted full decipherment; frequently discussed in relation toProto-Sinaitic script.[34][35]
Ancient inscriptions in Somalia – inscriptions reported onTaalo Tiiriyaad structures; independent archaeological verification and interpretation vary in the literature.[36]
Quipu – used in theInca Empire and predecessor states (e.g.,Huari,Paracas,Caral–Supe), and in some contexts into the modern period. Quipu are widely accepted as record-keeping devices; whether they constitute “writing” (and what kind) remains debated. Some recent work argues that certain colonial-era quipu corpora show features consistent with logosyllabic encoding and proposes tentative readings of specific elements, but this remains an active research area rather than a settled decipherment.[37]
Many Mesoamerican glyphic traditions remain only partly understood, with theClassic/Lowland Maya script being the best-attested and most extensively deciphered. Other regional traditions (including those often grouped under “Mixteca-Puebla” or pictorial-historical codex traditions) are interpreted in the literature to varying extents, but do not have a single universally accepted “decipherment” comparable to Classic Maya.
La Venta Stele 19
Olmec colossal head in La Venta (possible name glyph on forehead)
A related concept is that offalse writing systems, which appear to be writing but are not. False writing cannot be deciphered because it has no stablesemantic meaning. This includes many forms ofasemic writing created for artistic purposes. A prominent example is theCodex Seraphinianus.
Another related concept is that of undecipheredcryptograms orcipher messages. These are not writing systemsper se, but enciphered forms of texts written in known systems. Some have become famous and are listed inlist of ciphertexts.
^Lazarovici, Gheorghe; Merlini, Marco (2016). "Tărtăria Tablets: The Latest Evidence in an Archaeological Thriller". In Nikolova, Lolita (ed.).Western-Pontic Culture Ambience and Pattern: In Memory of Eugen Comsa. Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter Open Poland. pp. 53–142.
^Woon, Wee Lee (1987).漢字的原始和演變 [Chinese Writing: Its Origin and Evolution] (in Chinese). Macau: University of East Asia. pp. 275–276.
^Qiu, Xigui (2000) [1988].Chinese Writing. Translated by Mattos, Gilbert L.; Norman, Jerry. Berkeley: Society for the Study of Early China and The Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California. p. 33.ISBN978-1-55729-071-7.
^Tan, Shengmin (2003).壮泰民族传统文化比较研究 [A Comprehensive Comparative Study on Zhuang and Thai Nationalities' Traditional Culture] (in Chinese). Vol. II. Guangxi People's Publishing House. pp. 798–799.ISBN978-7-219-04915-0.
^Liang, Tingwang (2000).壮族文化概论 [Overview of the Culture of the Zhuang People] (in Chinese). Guangxi Educational Publishing House. pp. 496–498.ISBN978-7-5435-2992-2.
^abEncyclopedia of the Zhuang Ethnicity Editorial Committee (April 1993). "本源书" [Sawgoek].壮族百科辞典 [Encyclopedia of the Zhuang Ethnicity] (in Chinese). Guangxi People's Publishing House.ISBN978-7-219-02476-8.
^Lazarovici, Gheorghe; Merlini, Marco (2016). "Tărtăria Tablets: The Latest Evidence in an Archaeological Thriller". In Nikolova, Lolita (ed.).Western-Pontic Culture Ambience and Pattern: In Memory of Eugen Comsa. Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter Open Poland. pp. 53–142.
^Lal, B. B. (1962). "From the Megalithic to Harappa: Tracing Back the Graffiti on the Pottery".Ancient India: Bulletin of the Archaeological Survey of India.16:21–24.
^Yeganeh, Sepideh Jamshidi; Holakooei, Parviz; Nokandeh, Jebrael; Piran, Sedigheh; Dahl, Jacob L. (2025). "Complexity of proto-elamite administration system: Insights from compositional data from sealings and tablets".Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.61 104973.Bibcode:2025JArSR..61j4973J.doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.104973.
^Waal, Willemijn (2017). "How to Read the Signs: The Use of Symbols, Markings and Pictographs in Bronze Age Anatolia". In Jasink, Anna Margherita; Weingarten, Judith; Ferrara, Silvia (eds.).Non-scribal Communication Media in the Bronze Age Aegean and Surrounding Areas: The Semantics of a-literate and Proto-literate Media. Firenze University Press. pp. 111–129.
^Carrara, Elisa; Stolbunova, Vera; de la Vaissière, Étienne (2023). "The decipherment of the 'unknown Kushan' script".Transactions of the Philological Society.doi:10.1111/1467-968X.12255.
^Duhoux, Yves (1977).Le disque de Phaestos [The Phaistos Disc] (in French). Leuven.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^Achterberg, Winfried; Best, Jan; Enzler, Kees; Rietveld, Lia; Woudhuizen, Fred (2004).The Phaistos Disc: A Luwian Letter to Nestor. Publications of the Henry Frankfort Foundation. Vol. 13.ISBN978-90-72067-11-1.