 Map showing the extent of the Vinča culture | |
| Alternative names | Turdaş culture |
|---|---|
| Horizon | First Temperate Neolithic,Old Europe |
| Period | Neolithic–Chalcolithic |
| Dates | c. 5400–4500 BC |
| Type site | Vinča-Belo Brdo |
| Major sites | Belogradchik Drenovac Fafos Gomolava Gornja Tuzla Pločnik Rudna Glava Selevac Tărtăria Turdaş Vratsa Vršac |
| Characteristics | Largetell settlements Anthropomorphic figurines Vinča symbols |
| Preceded by | Starčevo culture |
| Followed by | Sălcuţa culture, Krivodol culture, Bubanj culture,Tiszapolgár culture |
TheVinča culture[ʋîːnt͜ʃa], also known asTurdaș culture orVinča-Turdaș culture, is aNeolithicarchaeological culture ofSoutheast Europe, dated to the period 5400–4500 BC.[1][2][3] It is named for itstype site,Vinča-Belo Brdo, a largetell settlement discovered by Serbian archaeologistMiloje Vasić in 1908. As with other cultures, it is mainly distinguished by its settlement pattern andritual behaviour. It was particularly noted for its distinctive dark-burnished pottery.
Farming technology first introduced to the region during theFirst Temperate Neolithic was developed further by the Vinča culture. This fuelled a population boom that produced some of the largest settlements in prehistoric Europe. These settlements maintained a high degree of cultural uniformity through the long-distance exchange of ritual items, but were probably not politically unified.
Various styles ofzoomorphic andanthropomorphicfigurines were hallmarks of the culture, as are theVinča symbols, which some conjecture to be the earliest form ofproto-writing. Although the Vinča culture has not been conventionally considered to be part of theChalcolithic or "Copper Age", it featured the earliest known example ofcoppersmelting.[4]
The Vinča culture occupied a region ofSoutheastern Europe (i.e. theBalkans) corresponding mainly to modern-daySerbia andKosovo, but also parts of SouthernmostHungary, Western-CentralRomania (Oltenia,Transylvania), WesternBulgaria, EasternCroatia, EasternBosnia, NorthernMontenegro andNorth Macedonia.[5][6][7] John Chapman (1981) previously includedGreece and excluded Hungary and Croatia (as new findings and conclusions were not known at the time).[8]
This region had already been settled by farming societies of theFirst Temperate Neolithic (such as theStarčevo culture) and during theNeolithic demographic transition, population sizes started to grow. During the Vinča period, improvements in technology and changes styles of pottery accelerated. Sustained population growth led to an unprecedented level of settlement size and density. Areas that were bypassed by earlier settlers were also settled.[9] Vinča settlements were considerably larger than those of almost all other contemporary European cultures (with the exception ofCucuteni–Trypillia culture),[10] and in some instances their size surpassed the cities of theAegean and earlyNear Eastern Bronze Age a millennium later.[11] Settlement sizes may be grouped into 1-1.9 ha, 4-4.9 ha and 20-29 ha.[12] One of the largest sites wasVinča-Belo Brdo (today a suburb ofBelgrade in Serbia), covering 29 hectares (72 acres) with up to 2,500 people.[11]
Early Vinča settlement population density was 50–200 people per hectare, in later phases an average of 50–100 people per hectare was common.[1] TheDivostin site was occupied twice between 4900 and 4650 B.C. and an estimate based on 17 houses suggests a lifespan per house of 56 years. 1028 houses were built on the site during that period with a final population size estimated to be between 868 and 2864.[13] Another large site wasCrkvine-Stubline from 4850/4800 BC. It may have contained a maximum population of 4,000. The settlement ofParţa maybe had 1,575 people living there at the same time.[14][15][13] It is considered that unlike other cultures of the Neolithic-Chalcolithic Age "there is no evidence for any proto-urbanism nor specialised military, religious or administrative centres",[16] though the settlements did have defensive formations.[17]
The origins of the Vinča culture are still debated and there exist two mainstream theories,[18][19][20] as stated by Marko Porčić (2016), "currently there is no sufficient evidence to accept or to reject out of hand any of the hypotheses proposed for the issue of the origins of the Vinča culture".[21] It is also debated whether it can be conceptually considered as a "culture" or a "phenomenon".[6][20]
The first hypothesis is that the Vinča culture developed locally from the preceding NeolithicStarčevo culture—first proposed byColin Renfrew (1969) andRuth Tringham (1971). This became accepted by many scholars,[19] showing "strong links with the contemporaneousKaranovo (phases III to Kodžadermen-Gumelnita-Karanovo VI) in Bulgaria,Precucuteni-Trypillia A in Moldova and Ukraine,Dimini in Greece, and the late manifestations of theStarčevo culture and earlySopot culture in eastern Croatia".[19][20] However, the evidence is not conclusive,[20][22][23] and according to recent research "the earliest Vinča sites in the south seem to be as early as those in the north" and lack local continuity.[19][20]
According to the second hypothesis—first proposed byV. Gordon Childe (1929) and Milutin Garašanin (1982), and based ontypological similarities, paleodemography and archaeogenetics—the Vinča culture and those of 'Dark Burnished Ware' developed by a second wave population movement from Anatolia to the Balkans after demographic-cultural decline and discontinuity between Early-Late Neolithic in the Central Balkans.[20][19] Recent studies suggest the possibility of both local and migratory origin, which may also be related to the emergence ofDudești andBoian culture in Romania.[20][24][25][26]
The 2017 and 2018archaeogenetic studies on 15 samples show that all except one belonged to the paternal Y-DNA haplogroupG-M201 (G2a2a; G2a2a1; 2x G2a2a1a; G2a2b2a1a-PF3346), while the remaining sample belonged tohaplogroup H-P96. Their maternal mtDNA haplogroups belonged to H, H3h2, H26, HV, K1a1, K1a4, K2a, T2b, T2c1, and U2 respectively.[26][27][28][29] According to ADMIXTURE analysis they had approximately 90-97%Early European Farmers, 0-12%Western Hunter-Gatherer and 0-8%Western Steppe Herders-related ancestry,[29] and were closest "to the samples from Neolithic Anatolia and to those of TransdanubiaLBK and Starčevo, and from the Early Neolithic period from Germany ... consistent with the presumed direction of Neolithic demic movement from Anatolia through the Balkans to central Europe".[26]
A 2021 study found that Neolithic farmers, including those of the Vinča culture, produced much lesscytokine levels for inflammation than earlier hunter-gatherers, an evolutionary introduction to the European genomic heritage which helps the immune system of recent Europeans.[30]
There are several divisions of the culture. According to J. Chapman (1981), they can be divided into two mainphases which are subsequently divided into four sub-phases (A-D), each closely linked with those of its type site Vinča-Belo Brdo and dated between 5700 and 4200 BC.[31][32] According to the most recentradiocarbon dating based on 76 dates (1996) Vinča-Belo Brdo spanned between 5200 and 4500 BC; on 155 dates (2009) it was dated between 5400/5300-4650/4600 BC;[33] and on 600 dates (2016) it was concluded that the culture existed between 5400/5300 and 4500 BC.[34][35]
There were many significant changed to the Vinča C phase's pottery styles, settlements and pyrometallurgical activities. There was also an increase in ritual figurines called "Vinča C shock" and "Gradac Phase" (Vinča B2-C1).[36][37] The phenomenon was particularly strong in the South-Moravian and Kosovian variation of the culture.[38]
| Vinča culture | Vinča-Belo Brdo | Years BC |
|---|---|---|
| Early Vinča period | Vinča A | 5400/5300–5200 |
| Vinča B | 5200–5000/4950 | |
| Vinča C | 5000/4950–4850/4800 | |
| Late Vinča period | Vinča D | 4850/4800–4600/4500 |
In its late Vinča D phase, the centre of the Vinča network shifted from Vinča-Belo Brdo toVršac.The long-distance exchange ofobsidian andSpondylus artefacts from modern-day Hungary and theAegean became more important than that of Vinča figurines. Eventually the network lost its cohesion altogether and fell into decline. It is likely that, after two millennia ofintensive farming, economic stresses caused by decreasing soil fertility were partly responsible for this decline.[39]
According toMarija Gimbutas, the Vinča culture was part ofOld Europe – a relatively homogeneous, peaceful andmatriarchal culture that occupied Europe during the Neolithic. According to this hypothesis, its period of decline was followed by an invasion of warlike, horse-ridingProto-Indo-European tribes from thePontic–Caspian steppe.[40] This "New Age sentiment" viewpoint was prevalent until the 1990s, when evidence started to emerge of violent massacres and defensively-enclosed fortified settlements in the Neolithic period.[17]
.jpg)
Most people in Vinča settlements would have been occupied with the provision of food. They practised a mixed subsistence economy whereagriculture,animal husbandry andhunting and foraging all contributed to the diet of the growing Vinča population. Compared to earlier cultures of theFirst Temperate Neolithic (FTN) these practices were intensified, with increasing specialisation on high-yieldcereal crops and thesecondary products of domesticated animals, consistent with the increased population density.[41] In the late Vinča period (Vinča D; c. 4850-4500 cal BC) the firsttoggling harpoon appeared.[42]
Vinča agriculture introducedcommon wheat,oat andflax to temperate Europe, and made greater use ofbarley than the cultures of the FTN. These innovations increased crop yields and allowed the manufacture of clothes made from plant textiles as well as animal products (i.e. leather and wool). There is indirect evidence that Vinča farmers made use of the cattle-drivenplough, which would have had a major effect on the amount of human labour required for agriculture as well as opening up new area of land for farming. Many of the largest Vinča sites occupy regions dominated by soil types that would have required ploughing.[41]
Areas with less arable potential were exploited throughtranshumantpastoralism, where groups from the lowland villages moved their livestock to nearby upland areas on a seasonal basis. Cattle were more important than sheep and goats in Vinča herds and, in comparison to the cultures of the FTN, livestock was increasingly kept for milk, leather and asdraft animals, rather than solely for meat. Seasonal movement to upland areas was also motivated by the exploitation of stone and mineral resources. Where these especially rich permanent upland settlements were established, people would have relied more heavily on pastoralism for subsistence.[41]
Although increasingly focused on domesticated plants and animals, the Vinča subsistence economy still made use of wild food resources. The hunting ofdeer,boar andaurochs, fishing ofcarp andcatfish, shell-collecting,fowling and foraging of wild cereals, forest fruits and nuts provided for a significant part of the diet at some Vinča sites. These, however, were in the minority; settlements were largely located with agricultural rather than wild food potential in mind, and wild resources were usually underexploited unless the area was low in arable productivity.[41]
Generally speaking craft production within the Vinča network was carried out at the household level; there is little evidence for individualeconomic specialisation. Nevertheless, some Vinča artefacts were made with considerable levels of technical skill. A two-stage method was used to producepottery with a polished, multi-coloured finish, known as 'Black-topped' and 'Rainbow Ware'. Sometimes powderedcinnabar andlimonite were applied to the fired clay for decoration. The style of Vinča clothing can be inferred from figurines depicted with open-neckedtunics and decorated skirts. Cloth was woven from both flax and wool (with flax becoming more important in the later Vinča period), and buttons made from shell or stone were also used.[43]
The Vinča site ofPločnik has produced the earliest example ofcopper tools in the world. However, the people of the Vinča network practised only an early and limited form of metallurgy.[44] Copper ores were mined on a large scale at sites likeRudna Glava, but only a fraction were smelted and cast into metal artefacts – and these were ornaments and trinkets rather than functional tools, which continued to be made fromchipped stone, bone and antler. It is likely that the primary use of mined ores was in their powdered form, in the production of pottery or as bodily decoration.[43]
.jpg)
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)