Talk:Cucuteni–Trypillia culture/Archive 2

Vinča–Turdaș script section

@Joe Roe: Your recent reply at my AfD had me notice something odd. The current has a section, Cucuteni–Trypillia culture § Vinča–Turdaș script, which resembles the Symbols and proto-writing of... article, however the section was completely different in a previous version until it was replaced by this revision a few minutes before "Symbols and..." was created on the same date. The reference for the paragraph justifying Vinča connection seems to have been taken from Tărtăria tablets, but I've not verified that. Regardless, looking at the original it actually looks somewhat better. (Although not without issues.) The current version is full of needless background that doesn't get to the point until the last paragraph, where it pushes the author's opinion that the proposed term "Danube script" isn't good enough. The original also has unnecessary background, but it gets to the point sooner and doesn't go on a tangent about the Vinča symbols. I think it may be best to actually just restore the old version of that section and copyedit/update that version of the section to clean it up a bit. What do you think? This is basically necromancy, so I wanted to get another opinion before boldly doing it. After it's done, it may be worth adding some material based on the Johannes Müller paper you quoted. I think it could be integrated well into the original version of the section which ends by explaining that scholars doubt that the symbols are writing. -- Scyrme (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

So this is an old issue with Cucuteni–Trypillia culture and related articles. The main article was significantly expanded by Saukkomies (no ping since he's no longer active) in c. 2010 who naturally then started splitting sections off to their own articles summary style. The problem was the source sections contained quite a lot of original research and unnecessarily broad background text (i.e. crossing over to WP:SYNTH) which was then propagated across the split articles. Some of these were merged back, others cleaned up piecemeal, leaving behind contextless fragments like Symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture.

But I don't think the original version of that section is worth reviving either. Merlini (the only cited source) is marginally reliable at the best of times; the Old European script/Danube script theory is fringe; and what mainstream discussion of the Vinča symbols exists is irrelevant given that Vinča and C-T are separated by about 600 km and as far as I know none of the actual signs have turned up on C-T pottery. As I read it Müller is saying "some people" (with no citation; maybe Merlini? maybe Gimbutas? maybe us?) have suggested a connection but that there is really nothing to it, which in my opinion is just another reason not to include this. I'd actually suggest removing Cucuteni–Trypillia culture § Vinča–Turdaș script entirely. – Joe (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I was planning on pruning the section after the AfD, depending on the outcome, before I noticed the older version and thought maybe something could be salvaged.

Regarding the connection, I looked around and although Merlini is a prominent proponent there do appear to be others, such as Mikhail Videiko. Most of what I found was associated with the Journal of Archaeomythology (including Merlini), but I've no idea if that publication or its associates are credible in the field.

If this is fringe, I don't object to deleting the section as giving undue weight to the topic. -- Scyrme (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: The AfD was closed in favour of delete, so I went and deleted this section as it's not any better. -- Scyrme (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Ritual and religion section

• The Cucuteni–Trypillia culture § Ritual and religion section seems to contradict the Kurgan hypothesis article in describing it as "her" hypothesis, in describing the Old European culture as "matriarchal" (as opposed to "matrifocal" or "matristic"), and in repeatedly emphasising that Gimbutas' work is "discredited" while the article refers to it as the most widely accepted model. It's also very vague, concerned more with saying that critics exist (a lot of them, supposedly) rather than naming who they are or what they have said on the topic, telling readers absolutely nothing about the ritual or religion of this culture. The section needs to be redacted and rewritten. -- Scyrme (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I second this, it is obscenely poorly written! 2600:1012:B1B4:8028:B499:73AE:6F05:EDC9 (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)