Talk:Vinča culture

message: The title of this page is incorrect, as it contains an Ä. I don't know how to fix this.
:Not at my Windows system.HJJHolm (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Title wrong

message: The chronology adduced seems to be severely wrong. It should in fact be 1,000 years older. New calibrated data see the German wiki.HJJHolm (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they were not. In the 6th millenium BC, the Indo-Europeans still lived in their Urheimat. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 07:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It's pronounced as ch in chair. Plain vinca doesn't mean anything, I assume the only reason people sometimes write it that way is because they don't have the central european languages character set installed on their machine. Edrigu 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Chronology

message: The opening section of the article is inaccurate. In Romania the Vinča culture is not called the Tordos or Turdas culture. It's called the Vinča culture. The Turdas-Vinča culture (or Tordos-Vinča culture, depending on whether you prefer the Romanian or Hungarian variant of the town name) is considered a sub-group within the Vinča culture. It's not used by all researchers even. When it's used, it denotes a late Vinča culture group based on pottery styles which vary slightly from the contemporary Vinča type pottery found in the Danube region around Belgrade. It's geographically specific to Transylvania.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.143.39.201 (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to fix this but I can't find an appropriate reference. —Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 08:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional names

message: It might be worth noting somewhere that the term Vinča culture (like many other prehistoric cultures) is defined almost solely on pottery typology. This is understandable as pottery is probably the most visible and easily determined cultural factor that an archaeologist can study. It can be done in the field after picking up a few potsherds. BUT it doesn't tell the whole story. Architectural styles, lithic styles, raw material acquisition patterns, social/communication/trade networks, and other factors often indicate that cultural groupings based on pottery typologies alone are not completely accurate. In the case of the Vinča culture there is a difference in the architectural styles used in different regions. As well, based on raw materials used for lithics, it appears that the Vinča populations in the Transylvanian plateau area had little or no contact with the Vinča populations in the Southern Carpathian and Danube regions. They DID though have extensive contact with non-Vinča populations to their north-west and north-east. Pottery typologies are a valuable tool for relative dating but they are often misapplied to cultural studies and give a misleading picture or in the least a highly incomplete picture of the past.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.143.39.201 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are underestimating the sophistication with which archaeologists try to relate material remains to actual people - the discipline has come a long way from "pots equal people". In the case of the Vinca culture it is the widespread distribution of relatively homogeneous ritual artefacts (which appear to originate from Vinca-Belo Brdo) that has led archaeologists to believe Vinca sites were connected by some kind of exchange network and probably had a degree of culture cohesion, maybe even a shared cultural identity. Even if that were not true the rise and fall of these large settlements at about the same time and in a particular ecozone justifies treating Vinca culture as a discrete historical phenomenon. That said, in updating this article I've tried to be very careful in my wording so that it's clear that the "Vinca culture" is an archaeological culture defined on artefact typologies, and the relationship between that an actual past human group is an extra step in the interpretation. That way, even if the picture is not complete, it shouldn't be misleading. —Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 12:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Based on Pottery

message: Does there exist a list of Vinča archaeological sites? If not, should there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fata Muntilor (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Chapman has an extensive list of the Vinca sites, 639 in total. But I gather reproducing large lists just for their own sake is frowned upon, so perhaps just selecting the major ones would be better. Also, it was published in 1981 so there are probably a lot of newly discovered sites missing. —Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 08:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Vinča sites

message: See :File:European Late Neolithic.gif - and what are "eastern aborigin cultures'?
I found a good map, which we can't use, of the Vinca culture at  (p. 63).  Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are "western aborigin cultures" 

message: A link to this study should be added (I'm not familiar with Wikipedia so I won't do it): 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.012 
"On the origins of extractive metallurgy: new evidence from Europe" - comment added by noop - 17:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only one way to get familiar! —Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 19:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major link to add 

message: In French version of the same article there is a nice writing on MOST ANCIENT LETTERS OF THE WORLD = VINCA LETTERS. Why there is no mention on so imortant issue? People have to know that Vinca letters are more ancient of the world and that Serbian culture is the leading one  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.132.175 (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The French article is pretty poor - but it doesn't call them letters, it calls them "symbols" which is what they are. A letter is a part of an alphabet, and this is not an alphabet. Unlike the French wikipedia we have a separate article on them at Vinča symbols. And there was no Serbian culture at that time of course. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is the "letter" only part of the "alphabet"??? It is a writing system, they may have not written poems, but definitely wrote something with it. Pixius  talk 15:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: NO WORD ON MOST ANCIENT LETTERS OF THE WORLD ? 

message: "Like the Vinca, the Tisza culture descended from the Starcevo (Koros) culture … its divergence from the Vinca culture is due to specific ecological conditions in the River Tisza basin, and its emergence as a separate unit is correlated with the appearance of tell settlements and tell-based economies.” 
Gimbutas (1991), 'The Civilization of the Goddess', p.70-71
The Tisza culture is partly contemporary with Vinca but begins later. It might be better to put this as a related culture if this can be added to the infobox. Ario1234 (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preceded by/ Followed by 

message: User:Joe Roe, primary sources reputably published can be still used, cited and based section on them. There was no interpretation or misuse of the information from the sources, only "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access...". In the section were cited three peer-review studies, of which the third was basically a secondary source as it made an additional review of the samples. Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There were three primary sources cited for that section. Only one mentioned the Vinča culture in the article text, and that was to say that the authors . Another had a short section on a single Vinča sample in the supplementary materials, again stating that . The third, which is about the genetic history of Britain in the Bronze Age, 1500 km and 2000 years distant from the Vinča culture, has data on a handful of samples in a supplementary table. So the only thing approaching a usable, secondary interpretation we can find in these sources is that there are insufficient samples from the Vinča culture to say much about its population genetics. Ignoring that and digging through supplementary tables to cobble together the claim that they were , apart from being impenetrable nonsense to the general reader, is textbook original research by synthesis. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not SYNTH nor nonsense to the general reader. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

text: We disagree here, thanks for response, won't take it further. There will be other studies in the future which will, most likely, prove old results, have more text on the samples and so on, until then.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics 

message: - The above comment was posted by editor Joe Roe.
Thanks Joe. The European Neolithic is a distinct period. It's a subset of the Neolithic in general. Neolithic cultures in Europe should go to the dedicated European Neolithic page before the general Neolithic page. The European Neolithic page, as it is, is called 'Neolithic Europe'. Ario1234 (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Old Europe is not, and doesn't belong in that part of the infobox. – Joe (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Europe is not a period" 

message: The word 'prosomorphic' is used in one the gallery images. I've been unable to locate a definition for prosomorphic. Should it be protomorphic? Creedweber (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does prosomorphic mean??