Was the Vinča culture a unified state...

The lack of turbofolk sluts ITT is upsetting.

>They apparently all used the same proto-writing and cultural artifacts are very similar from all over the area they inhabited.
That's not even close to being enough to consider them a unified state. Archaic Greece and Syria were in the same situation and they were divided in puny city states.

>Archaic Syria

You mean Lebanon?

No, I meant Syria. There was more than Tyre and Byblos to the region back then.

Who is this woman?

Dara Bubamara. Serbia is choke full of sluts singing shitty music. Pic related was married to Arkan. That Arkan, yes.

Beautiful. Would like to live in a matriarchal society ruled by women like her.

It seems unlikely, they were highly developed no doubt but they existed before the horse allowed a single ruler to rule more than his own clan. A model more like that of the Celts might be more appropriate, a barbarian (agricultural but village-based) culture-complex that could unify against an outside threat but that for the most part is still engaged in the "war of all against all".

>primest real estate is always on the water front for one..

You do realise the Danube is Europe's biggest river?

Or the grandaddy writers themselves, the Sumerians. In fact Egypt is the only early civilisation that was also a single state, for purely geographical reasons (Crete was unified very early on too, but it's not very big and an island so it's easy to unify).

youtube.com/watch?v=_TiHfYWhDmo

>Crete was unified very early on too

Impossible to establish and very unlikely, Crete had small towns, each town had its own palace, it's impossible to establish which town/palace ruled if any because Minoan langauge (encoded in Linear A) has never been translated to this day due to being most likely a language isolate.

Knossos. It was ruled from Knossos. The early unification of Crete /is/ something of an assumption, but the total lack of evidence for intra-Cretean conflict or fortifications of any kind and the historical fact that it was a unified state under the Myceneans ruling from Knossos both paint a pretty clear picture.

>Knossos. It was ruled from Knossos.

Any proof of this besides Knossos being the biggest palace?

It's by far the biggest and was the site the Myceneans ruled from. The other palaces no doubt administered their regions autonomously, but the Knossean state maintained diplomatic ties on behalf of the whole island and there is a total lack of evidence from archeology or the written records of other states for any division among the Creteans, as there is for most other peoples including the Myceneans.

>It's by far the biggest and was the site the Myceneans ruled from.

Then you should have said Mycenean, not "Minoan", the Minoan civilization ends in 1450 bc.

Plus since you are referring to the Mycenean period, you should know that signs of wars are plenty during that period, palaces getting burned down and the likes of that.

It was a military conquest how could there be no conflicts?

From the very earliest stages of Minoan civilisation, there is no evidence for inter-cretean combat or of fortifications of any kind. In addition, the palaces of Crete are built to a standard pattern, implying that architects and artists at the very least were free to travel the island.

Because he learned about both civilizations from a skim of Wikipedia and the odd blog

What did they use swords and dagger for then?

>no fortifications

False, there are several Minoan fortifications, they just didn't usually wall their settlement but still had forts.

Fun fact:

If archaeology calls a people "x culture" then it means we have NO idea what the history of these people were beyond material culture they left.

This is why they're named after the places they're discovered for most of the time: Halstatt Culture, Erlitou Culture, La Tene culture and so on.

So to answer your question: no idea.

I'm not saying they were pacifists, just that they had no tradition of warfare between themselves from very early on. Whether this was due to a unifying religion or because one warlord beat the others so early on that by the time of their civilised period they were already coordinating as one state.

Same thing about some civilizations like Minoans and Indus valley people.

Except you absolutely can make some judgements about a society based purely on their material culture. It's never going to be a hard science but then most subjects aren't, it's still better than pure guesswork or relying on myths.

It could be very like due to a unifying religion or cult, not necessarily a ruling warlord.

Also if there were small conflicts they most likely left no trace, I'm not saying they were constantly warring but there is no evidence of a palace being the political center of the isle before the Myceneans.

The fact that inland forts were often built suggests that the danger of attacks from people from other sides of the island was real.

There's no obvious evidence that they were ruled by warlords at all, their kings were more like CEO's who oversaw and orchestrated the economy.

And the only fortifications on the island post-fate the eruption of Thera and the century or so of sporadic Mycenean raiding culminating in the successful invasion.

>the Spiritual successors of the Catal Hoyuk

Source?

Well they were Balkano-Anatolians just like the Catal Hoyuk people.

This means nothing in prehistoric (even if Vinča script turns out to be a true writing, it would still be rare and not in commom use and the society would still be effectively prehistory) times, when the diversity of cultures, religions, peoples is far larger than today.

I want evidence based on comparison of their cultures.

Why shitpost with Ceca when you can shitpost with Dara?

Also, about Vinca, i read somewhere they were a related ethnic group to the later Sranjepostavljanje peopld