Talk:Vinča culture

NO WORD ON MOST ANCIENT LETTERS OF THE WORLD ?

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)

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)

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)

Earliest known example of copper metallurgy

@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 [1] 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)

Good point, thanks. I was also wrong in my edit summary about the Radivojević et al. source already being cited in the article body—I'm sure it was at one point, probably lost to the mists of time—so I've added that back in too. One of the great things about that paper is that it doesn't just say "hey look we found a really old piece of slag", but shows that the invention of smelting followed a long period of experimentation with metal ores and high-temperature kilns for pottery, so it really does seem like Vinča was an independent centre of origin.

You're also right about Çatalhöyük possibly being earlier, though Radivojević et al. have disputed that evidence.[2] Sorry, I was too quick to revert. – Joe (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem, we all do something like that from time to time no matter how experienced we are.😀 Doug Weller talk 18:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Preceded by/ Followed by

"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)

Genetics

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)

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 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)

That's not SYNTH nor nonsense to the general reader. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

"Europe is not a period"

- 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)

@Ario1234: Old Europe is not, and doesn't belong in that part of the infobox. – Joe (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What does prosomorphic mean??

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)