This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The title of this page is incorrect, as it contains an Ä. I don't know how to fix this.
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)
I don't know much about this culture, but I'm assuming that they aren't an Indo-European group. Does someone have more info?--
Moosh88 05:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I find the "Vinča today" section lacks neutral phrasing ("thanks to" and alike...).
This article uses far too many times modern toponyms such as Serbia, Bulgaria, etc., which didn't exist for another 5000 years, as these peoples came a lot later into the Balkans. Phrases such as "modern-day Bulgaria", "what is today Serbia" should be used. 87.202.108.116 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the pronunciation of the Č (c with caron) in this word? How is it different from plain vinca?
The map titled File:Old Europe.png is very innaccurate and needs to be deleted immediately. The Vinča Culture shown on that map is completely wrong - it was actually only in a relatively small area in modern-day Serbia, and that map indicates that it took up half of Southeastern Europe! That is just one of the many errors in that map, and having it displayed in this article is just one more example why people feel that Wikipedia is not reliable. Delete it now, please. -- Saukkomies talk 04:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe the map is based on a map in EIEC but I'm unsure now. Anyway, the map is intended to show the spheres of influence of archaeological horizons, not the boundaries of archaeological cultures in the narrow sense. And yes, it is a rough overview, the culture boundaries cannot be expected to aim for pixel accuracy. You are most welcome to replace it with a more accurate version.
And no, the Vincha culture is not restricted to Serbia. The type site Vincha is in Serbia, and patriots tend to pick a type site as near to home as possible, the Romanian type site would be Turdaş and the Bulgarian one Gradeshnitsa, but the internationally most current name is still "Vincha culture". -- dab (𒁳) 13:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Check |author-link=
value (
help); External link in |author-link=
(
help)
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)
Back in the 1800s some researchers referred to this culture as Turdas/Tordos culture but it was before they realised that it's the same culture as what was found in Serbia. Now it's not called Turdas culture in Romania. Like the above person writes, Vinca-Turdas is a specific sub-culture in late phase of Vinca. The pottery style varies slightly from the regular Vinca pottery styles of this period. Even so, not all researchers use the term Vinca-Turdas. Probably the beginning of the article should be re-worded to reflect that there are not used now such regional names (at least not in Romania).-- Fata Muntilor ( talk) 13:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
68.188.203.251 (
talk) 00:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Extensive mining---but where did that hard labor go? Trade? For what? Copper can be site specific so where did it go? Malta?
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)
"The village's population increased when Romans settled." 86.135.244.44 ( talk) 23:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
p.s. I used to live few kilometres from Vinca, visiting museum and excavation site was weekly ritual during the summer
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
[1] (p. 63).
Dougweller (
talk •
contribs) 13:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ Joe Roe: so far as adding "Eurasia", that's straight from the source which is looking at the development of extractive metallurgy in Eurasia. Note that the source also confines itself to extractive metallurgy. As I understand it, the working of metal in its native form is also metallurgy. The Old Copper Complex was working with copper 10,000 years ago, and there's a copper pendant in the Middle East about 8500 years old [2] and there is evidence of processing copper at Çatal Höyük according to the source used in this article.
So after consideration, I propose that the article should say first copper smelting in Eurasia. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
"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)
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)
excluded the Vinča and Tiszapolgár population groups because they lacked sufficient high-quality data. Another had a short section on a single Vinča sample in the supplementary materials, again stating that
this site is one of only 2 known cemeteries of this cultural group in this region [...] demographic studies suggest that the Vinča burials are not representative of the average Vinča population. 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
90-97% Early European Farmers, 0-12% Western Hunter-Gatherer and 0-8% Western Steppe Herders, apart from being impenetrable nonsense to the general reader, is textbook original research by synthesis. – Joe ( talk) 10:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The title of this page is incorrect, as it contains an Ä. I don't know how to fix this.
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)
I don't know much about this culture, but I'm assuming that they aren't an Indo-European group. Does someone have more info?--
Moosh88 05:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I find the "Vinča today" section lacks neutral phrasing ("thanks to" and alike...).
This article uses far too many times modern toponyms such as Serbia, Bulgaria, etc., which didn't exist for another 5000 years, as these peoples came a lot later into the Balkans. Phrases such as "modern-day Bulgaria", "what is today Serbia" should be used. 87.202.108.116 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the pronunciation of the Č (c with caron) in this word? How is it different from plain vinca?
The map titled File:Old Europe.png is very innaccurate and needs to be deleted immediately. The Vinča Culture shown on that map is completely wrong - it was actually only in a relatively small area in modern-day Serbia, and that map indicates that it took up half of Southeastern Europe! That is just one of the many errors in that map, and having it displayed in this article is just one more example why people feel that Wikipedia is not reliable. Delete it now, please. -- Saukkomies talk 04:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe the map is based on a map in EIEC but I'm unsure now. Anyway, the map is intended to show the spheres of influence of archaeological horizons, not the boundaries of archaeological cultures in the narrow sense. And yes, it is a rough overview, the culture boundaries cannot be expected to aim for pixel accuracy. You are most welcome to replace it with a more accurate version.
And no, the Vincha culture is not restricted to Serbia. The type site Vincha is in Serbia, and patriots tend to pick a type site as near to home as possible, the Romanian type site would be Turdaş and the Bulgarian one Gradeshnitsa, but the internationally most current name is still "Vincha culture". -- dab (𒁳) 13:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
References
{{
citation}}
: Check |author-link=
value (
help); External link in |author-link=
(
help)
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)
Back in the 1800s some researchers referred to this culture as Turdas/Tordos culture but it was before they realised that it's the same culture as what was found in Serbia. Now it's not called Turdas culture in Romania. Like the above person writes, Vinca-Turdas is a specific sub-culture in late phase of Vinca. The pottery style varies slightly from the regular Vinca pottery styles of this period. Even so, not all researchers use the term Vinca-Turdas. Probably the beginning of the article should be re-worded to reflect that there are not used now such regional names (at least not in Romania).-- Fata Muntilor ( talk) 13:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
68.188.203.251 (
talk) 00:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Extensive mining---but where did that hard labor go? Trade? For what? Copper can be site specific so where did it go? Malta?
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)
"The village's population increased when Romans settled." 86.135.244.44 ( talk) 23:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
p.s. I used to live few kilometres from Vinca, visiting museum and excavation site was weekly ritual during the summer
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
[1] (p. 63).
Dougweller (
talk •
contribs) 13:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ Joe Roe: so far as adding "Eurasia", that's straight from the source which is looking at the development of extractive metallurgy in Eurasia. Note that the source also confines itself to extractive metallurgy. As I understand it, the working of metal in its native form is also metallurgy. The Old Copper Complex was working with copper 10,000 years ago, and there's a copper pendant in the Middle East about 8500 years old [2] and there is evidence of processing copper at Çatal Höyük according to the source used in this article.
So after consideration, I propose that the article should say first copper smelting in Eurasia. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
"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)
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)
excluded the Vinča and Tiszapolgár population groups because they lacked sufficient high-quality data. Another had a short section on a single Vinča sample in the supplementary materials, again stating that
this site is one of only 2 known cemeteries of this cultural group in this region [...] demographic studies suggest that the Vinča burials are not representative of the average Vinča population. 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
90-97% Early European Farmers, 0-12% Western Hunter-Gatherer and 0-8% Western Steppe Herders, apart from being impenetrable nonsense to the general reader, is textbook original research by synthesis. – Joe ( talk) 10:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
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)