It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


old europe: the supression of the vinca

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 04:28 PM
after all my lurking and my recent career of posting i still am surprised that there aren't more mentions of of the vinca, the pyramids of the balkhans being the exception. here is an excellent article about the discovery and subsequent supression of artifacts which possibly date to the age of mesopotamian dominance and rival the works found at thera.

i personally discovered this subject through a novel that many on this site would absolutely love called waking the moon by elizabeth hand.

this rich culture was hidden from the public eye by zealous archeologists that didn't see a culturally advanced european culture fitting into their narrow worldview, much of the same attitudes that are employed by modern day archeologists in regards to giza and anomolous underwater structures. to this day vinca artifacts sit lonely and underrepresented in museums around the world due to the ignorance of a few almost a century ago, the richness of their culture inaccessible to the once and future generations that potentially could have learned so much from their study in regards to our present condition.

but i ramble. thoughts?

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 04:43 AM
hmmm where to start
well to begin with you seem to think that this is a fully fledged civilisation
it isn't
it was a neolithic culture
neolithic means new stone age
civilisations are typified by a central power base and a kingship
the Vinca culture had none of these
it isn't very special as worldwide cultures were at the same level at the same time
Sumerian history goes back to 5000bce in mesopotamia
Egyption history goes back to 5000bce
mesoamerican history goes back just as far
problem is that until these cultures got organised they don't show up very well in the archaeological record
until they discver writing they have no history to leave us of their own

this map should show you just how special the vinca culture was at the time
i.e. it wasn't
it was perfectly normal and not distinguished by anything except the fact that it didn't achieve the success of many of its contempories and was absorbed by its neighbours
fyi there is no such thing as the balkan pyramids
it is a hill
and Semir Osmaganic is a moslem fundementalist engineering contractor from Houston who believes that aliens did it
Even he doesnt attribute it to the vinca culture which according to his timeline is 6000 years too late to have built the alleged pyramid anyway

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:08 AM
well that's no fun. sounded really interesting for a second. i'm gonna look into this anyway

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:13 AM
that shouldn't take you too long
the Trichterbecher (funnelbeaker) culture is far more interesting to students of ancient history as it is the culture that resulted in passage tombs and henges in the UK and Europe

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:18 AM
During the period of the Vinča Culture, houses were erected above ground with complex architectural layouts and several rooms, built of wood that was covered in mud. The houses in the settlement are facing northeast - southwest, with streets between them, so that the first urban settlement in Europe was erected at Vinča, being older than the cities of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Owing to significant economic development during the early Neolithic Period, veritable metropolises were created on the territory of the Central Balkans at Vinča, Divostin, Potporanj, Selevac, Pločnik and Predionica.

that's sounds pretty special to me, the first urban settlement in Europe?

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:22 AM
Also, about Vinca having no writing:


"The tablets are generally believed to have belonged to the Vinča culture, which at the time was believed by Serbian and Romanian archaeologists to have originated around 2700 BC. Vlassa interpreted the Tărtăria tablets as a hunting scene and the other two with signs as a kind of primitive writing similar to the early pictograms of the Sumerians. The discovery caused great interest in the archeological world as it predated the first Minoan writing, the oldest known writing in Europe. It was suggested by some that the symbols indicated some sort of connection between south-eastern Europe and Sumerian Mesopotamia."

cool link about Funnelbeaker culture

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:27 AM
its a little inaccurate
the first settlement in europe is in turkey and is called Catalhoyuk
and its got its dating a little wrong
this settlement wasn't Vinca
it was the Starčevo-Körös culture

posted on Dec, 22 2006 @ 09:11 AM
Nice links, I'll be the first to admit I'm not educated on the subject, just learning as I'm going on, but this is all pretty interesting.

posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 09:25 PM
I hate seeing absolutes in archealogy. Catalhoyuk is what is believed today, by mainstreamers, was the first urban settlement. It may very well have been n the Balkans area. It may have even been on Antartica.

Like was mentioned earlier, without writing, archeologists work with educated guesses. Without true and correct writing, archeologists still work with educated guesses. Guesses all the same.

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 06:07 AM

It may very well have been n the Balkans area. It may have even been on Antartica.

err yes ok
shall we take this wild speculation a little further
it may have even been in timbuktu
it may have even been on the moon
it may have even been on pluto
unfortunately there is no evidence to support any of these locations except for Catalhoyuk in anatolia where the evidence is both factual and overwhelming

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 11:20 AM
Thanks for drawing out the point I was making.

As far as rebutting your 'factual and overwhelming' evidence; read my earlier reply here

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 12:33 AM
your rebuttal isnt valid in this case as it covers fossil evidence
we are talking about the vince culture and more recently that of Catalhoyuk
this is recent history and doesn't require the expertise of palaeontologists
archaeologists and historians cover this area
and they don't have any gaps in their fossil record

you should try to understand that our civilisation is at most 10,000 years old
it gioes as far back as the ice age when every human on earth lived a hunter gatherer existence and so didnt have time to go building cities
the ice age lasted for 60,000 + years
we hadn't evolved as a species for very long before it started

currently heres a very brief timeline, the dates are in years BP (before present)

100,000 "woohoo yeah we're the human race buddy we're gonna take over this damned planet"
70,000 "why did it suddenly get cold"
10,000 "hey look the sun came up"
8000 "hey look i can make bricks"
100 "hey look i can make petrol"
60 "hey look i can make rocket fuel"
40 "hey look i can make it off this planet"
5 "hey look i can make it to another planet"

thats all we wrote so far

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 11:25 AM
I understand your intensity now. You use the pronoun 'we'. You take it personally.

I won't laugh or yell at you when those dates you posted are revised with newer and newer findings.

My rebuttal may not fit you, but it fits me. I'm sure I don't need to post a picture of the Catalhoyuk 'excavation site' do I? I'm sure you've been there, or studied it at least.

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by nextguyinline
I understand your intensity now. You use the pronoun 'we'. You take it personally.

I won't laugh or yell at you when those dates you posted are revised with newer and newer findings.

My rebuttal may not fit you, but it fits me. I'm sure I don't need to post a picture of the Catalhoyuk 'excavation site' do I? I'm sure you've been there, or studied it at least.

i use the pronoun we because i regard myself as a member of the human race

you won't be able to laugh or yell because the dates from Catalhoyuk are written in stone (thats a metaphor)

Your rebuttal doesnt fit what we are discussing in this thread so it isn't a rebuttal its just an out of place statement

I have studied the Catalhoyuk site as well as all of the sites in the ancient world
whats your point exactly
that those dates will be revised backwards and that at some point we will discover that we got it all wrong
speak for yourself buddy

when you're dealing with the facts it does actually help if you know what they are
speculation isn't valid when it comes to discussing the Vinca culture
it isnt lost and it hasn't been hidden
it just didn't get anywhere so its not regarded as very important

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 01:29 PM
I suppose it would help if we arguing the same point. Obviously that isn't the case.

The dates you 'posted' will be revised. Not the dates of Catalhoyuk.

My rebuttal fits because when the next 'older' uban city is found, Catalhoyuk will then be the 2nd oldest, then it will be the third....etc.

Facts change buddy

posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 02:49 PM

Facts change buddy

sometimes they do
but not always
you're going to be very hard pushed to find an Urban settlement older than Catalhoyuk because of the ice age hunter gatherer neccesity problem
until you do then that is the oldest that there is
and until you do
you just have speculation
that really isn't very helpful to understanding the past when we have known facts based on empirical data to deal with imo

the one thing that is a big clue in this area is that the Catalhoyuk settlement was completely unknown to anyone until it was discovered
had there been an older civilisation which mentioned it then that wouldn't be the case
but if it is really the first (as all the current evidence says it is) that is perfectly normal

but in any case
the Vinca culture was not a civilisation

new topics

top topics


log in