Jump to content

Talk:Cucuteni–Trypillia culture/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Map

The current map is not accurate. Tripolje is situated considerably to the east, on the Dnieper River. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Toronto exhibit

The Royal Ontario Museum is featuring an exhibit of Tripillian artefacts from Ukraine starting this November 30. http://images.rom.on.ca/public/index.php?function=query&action=smpl&ccid=&sid= Bandurist (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

Stumped about religion - imagine that...

Okay. I've been looking at the paragraph in the article entitled "Rites" for about five days now, and I have finally come to admit that I am defeated by it. I cannot make heads or tails about what that paragraph is trying to say. Here is the text:

"Rites" Based on the fact that some figures discovered in Gherlaiesti were arranged in cardinal position, considering the cross shape of the altars, and some symbols like gamma cross, some historians caracterize the Cucuteni rituals as Chthonic and Uranians,(footnote 56) still others historians deny the uranic character of Tripolie rituals.(footnote 56) In the same way were arranged, the mini clay figures (Circle of goddesses) found in Isaiia and Poduri. In all cases the figures were surrounded by grain straws.

So my question is this: what is this talking about? I get the idea that there is some kind of a debate as to whether Cuceteni-Trypillian religion incorporated rituals that had something to do with homosexuality. Is this correct? I also am thinking that there are rituals involving the Underworld and the Dead. Is this correct as well? If so, then such conclusions are most definitely NOT supported by the evidence cited that there are cross shaped altars and figures arranged in cardinal positions. What evidence is there to indicate the Chthonic and/or Uranic aspects of these rituals? ~ Saukkomies 01:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary Homosexual, but for sure Hermaphrodite in some cases.
The cross it is suppose is somehow connected with some astral circle:winter, spring, summer, autumn.

For the Uranic nature, I'll search againg the reference, it was a quote, I've used. Still there are some contextual scarifices regarding the new houses. See more somewere here regarding other cultures :http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf33/bacvarov33.pdf; And some interesting links here:http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/index.html

The uranic character is liked with the fire, with some eye symbols (the good supervising the livings); ther also somediscusion about the symbols itself reproducting what later is called arabesque. There is also, and I believe this was the reason: the snake symbol. CristianChirita (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for these clarifications. Let me see if I understand this: the archaeological artifacts from the C-T sites show us that there is evidence to indicate that these people practiced various rituals that involved both "Underworld" and "Sky/Heaven" aspects, depending on the purpose and context of the ritual. Is this correct? Saukkomies 19:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a case of false friends. In Romanian "Uranian" simply refers to religions where gods are believed to reside in sky/heaven, as opposed to "Chtonic" religions, who placed their gods beneath the surface of the earth/in the underworld. No matter what word will be used to convey the meaning of Romanian "Uranian", I think a parenthetic explanation would still be needed, as WP is not directed exclusively at experts.Anonimu (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I confirm that the translation from romanian was made whitout proper check the uranian word,it was uraninan in romanian, I've assumed that the sense is kept in english.CristianChirita (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This is okay. I am actually quite amazed at how you, my fellow Wikipedia editors, who do not speak English as your mother tongue are still able to get this article written at all (looking back at that sentence, I want to clarify that English - specifically American standard English - is my mother tongue). Saukkomies 19:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I also am understanding that there are clay figurines arranged in a "Circle of Goddesses" at some sites, and that they are surrounded (packed, maybe) with or in straw. Is this correct as well? Please someone, help clarify all this. I think I almost broke my brain trying to figure this out. Thanks for any help. ~ Saukkomies 01:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Some archeological findings at Poduri seems to prove this. My personal view is that the perforation in statues were having a purpose. It is not very clear specified in the review I have found how the straws of cereals were used to support the statues. The case at Ghelaiesti, the one depicted in article. At Poduri, the figurines were without wholes, still there were founfd straws from cereals in the vessel. I"ve [ut a new refference :) http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf32/32lazarovici.pdfCristianChirita (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Great link, Cristian! Lots of nice illustrations... Thanks for the further clarification on this. Saukkomies 19:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I think it would be better just to come out and use the word Swastika instead of Gamma Cross. If anyone reading this is confused about the fact that there are many cultures in history and around the world that have used the Swastika besides the Nazis, then they are also going to be confused about a lot of other things in this article. I'm quite certain that this is not an issue of concern - the issue of someone mistakenly connecting the word Swastika with the Nazis here. ~ Saukkomies 01:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've avoided Svastika due to the fact that in the geographically area covered by the Cucuteni Tripolie, there are some political issues regarding Svastika. There are some materials who make some assumptions regarding the link between Cucuteni-Tripolie Culture and modern day populations :) Still Considering the that this simbol is one in other 2500. The name is not relevant. CristianChirita (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Cristian, Thank you for clarifying the issue of how sensitive the use of the word Swastika may be in some parts of Southeastern Europe. And I would in no way wish for you to be harmed politically by using it. So how about if I be the one to do this - I'll take on the responsibility of changing the text to say Swastika, and let the political consequences fall on me. If the men in black leather coats and attack dogs come for me, I'll sick my Maine Coon attack cat on them! :) Saukkomies 19:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Cristian, I've been doing some more thinking about the Swastika issue. I feel that if this article was being written on the Romanian Wiki, that I'd be fully supportive of using an alternate word for this, acceding to your more thorough understanding of this situation in your native country. However, because this article is in English, I feel like maybe I'd like to further explain why I believe we ought to use the word "Swastika" instead of "Gamma Cross" or some other term. Part of it is, of course, the fact that countries where people speak English as their native tongue were not occupied by Nazis in WWII, so we don't have as dramatic and personal a history with that symbol as they would in other countries that were less fortunate.
But there is another reason too - and this is because, in English, this symbol really is known by just the one name = Swastika. It is true that sometimes one might run into another term that is used for it, but that is very rare, and usually it's done when they use the other term, but then immediately say that it is a Swastika. For instance: "The Bahai Temple in Chicago is decorated on its exterior with Sun Crosses, or Swastikas." Such uses like this strikes people as if someone is trying to hide something - to pretend that nobody is going to recognize that the symbol is what it is, and this comes across as if you were dealing with some kind of street hustler trying to sell you some cheap merchandise - it feels dishonest. If we were to use any other term for this symbol in the article, it would come across the same way, I think. Anyway, I hope that makes some sense - it's a difficult thing to explain. --Saukkomies talk 03:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(readjusting margins)

Okay, I've reworked the section on Ritual and religion a little bit. I hope I got everything right... If anyone has a mind to look at it and let me know whether there's any part of it that I got wrong, please let me know here. Thanks. --Saukkomies talk 05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Some useful online resources I'm consulting for reworking the article

Just thought I'd include these here in case they might be of help to anyone. If anyone else has some they know about, especially if they are helpful for this article, please feel free to include them here.

  • Archaeology Wordsmith: http://www.abbreviations.com/jas.asp
    • A site maintained for free without advertising by a well-published archaologist and linguist with rock-solid, reliable definitions of many obscure archaeological professional terms and jargon.
  • Directory of towns and cities in Romania: http://www.fallingrain.com/world/RO/
    • Basically, what it says it is...a great little online gazetteer. It provides thorough and succinct data about many towns, here's an example of Iasi. Moreover, if you go to the parent site, it does the same thing for many other countries of the world. Other sites out there might be more thorough than this one, though...
  • Wikipedia's Template:Cite book page, which gives lots of nice lovely citation tags for footnote references.
  • Wikipedia's Template:Citation/core page, which, along with the previous site, is basically all you need to make fantastic, professional-looking footnote citations in Wikipedia articles.

...and of course, it should go without saying:

  • Webster's online Dictionary and Thesaurus: http://www.merriam-webster.com/
    • Not that it's completely thorough, but if you find a definition there, it's reliable.

What I would still like to see for this article include:

  • Romanian/English dictionary
  • Ukrainian/English dictionary
  • Ukrainian/Latin text transliteration tool
  • Better map of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture than what we have now (refering to the German language map in the article)

--Saukkomies talk 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to put this reference here so I wouldn't forget it: Earth Fertility Goddess of Old Europe by Marija Gimbutas 1987. It appears to be a promising source of some references to the Goddess stuff in the article... --Saukkomies talk 05:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about Gherlăiești

Okay, I am having a huge amount of trouble trying to figure out what the name of this Cucuteni site is. I see it listed as Gherlăiești, but it is also apparently listed as Ghelaiesti and even possibly Gherăești‎. Apparently it is the site of one of the major Cucuteni archaeological digs. One thing I know for sure, is that after a fairly thorough search, I cannot find any reference to the word Gherlăiești anywhere outside of this article and other articles that basically directly quote material from this one. On the other hand, there are numerous references to both Ghelaiesti and Gherăești as being connected to Cucuteni sites. For this reason, I have huge doubts that the name Gherlăiești is correct, especially since one of the instances of it in the article is to a photographic file that uses the name Ghelaiesti in its filename.

The references in the article that use the suspect name Gherlăiești are:

  • In the section Ritual and religion:

Based on the fact that some figures discovered in Gherlăiești were arranged in cardinal position...

  • In the section "Circle of Goddesses" figurines, in a caption from one of the photographs:

Ritual vessel discovered at Gherlăieşti containing a "Circle of Goddesses" of clay figurines

  • In the section Ceramics, in a caption of one of the images:

Pottery Rotating Table reconstruction proposed by Ștefan Cucoș[26], based on the findings on Valeni and Gherlaiesti

Please, can someone help out with this question? What should be the correct term? Thanks in advance... --Saukkomies talk 06:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


Ghelăieşti – Nedeia, comuna Bârgăoani, judeţul Neamţ Sorry my mistake CristianChirita (talk)
The map of archeological sites and a description can be bound here: http://map.cimec.ro/scripts/mapserv.exe?map=e:/Mapserver/Mapserver/MapserverVechi/mapserver_en.map&mode=browseCristianChirita (talk)
:::Hey, no problemo friend. THanks for the speedy response! --Saukkomies talk  20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about significant reference

In the third paragraph of the article, it states that the first findings of Cucuteni were announced to the academic world by Nicolae Beldiceanu in 1885 in Antichitatile de la Cucuteni (The Antiquities at Cucuteni). I've seen this referenced in a few other places, but I've never seen the actual reference to Beldiceanu's article such that I entirely comfortable that it actually exists, or that it is correctly identified in this article (this is from my working as a Reference Librarian for years in major research libraries and learning how often things are incorrectly cited). So I've been looking all day long for this original article that Beldiceanu wrote, and I've come up with a couple of surprising discoveries:

  1. Beldiceanu's report was not a book, it's a journal article.
  2. The citational reference given in our article is incorrect, even though it is taken from another source.

However, I'm not completely positive that I have yet found the correct citation for this very important work. You'd think that - duh! - this would be something that would be significant enough to have been an easy thing to find - but it isn't. So, here's what I have so far:

I came upon a reference to Nicolae Beldiceanu's major works in the Universita degli Studi di Firenza's site called Dipartimento di Lingue e Letterature Neolatine - Cronologia della Letteratura Rumena, where it lists Beldiceanu's 1885 work as "Antichităţile de la Cucuteni. Schiţă arheologică (Le antichità di Cucuteni. Schizzo archeologico) (Iaşi, 1885)" The second title list is in Italian. So there we see the proof that the work was a journal article published in a journal that they are calling "Schiţă arheologică". If nothing else, this is a good place to start refining the search for this work, since it tells us that it's a journal article (not a book), and that it was indeed published in 1885.

However, well, there's a problem. I cannot find a reference ANYWHERE for Schiţă arheologică or Schizzo archeologico. And I've looked in a lot of places, including some "out-of-print and rare book" sites, as well as major research university OPACs (online catalogs), WorldCat, GoogleScholar, etc. I've tried many different spellings and multiple searches using different strategies for each possibility. It's not out there where I can find it... Perhaps this journal is gathering dust in the archives of a large library in Romania, and if that's the case, perhaps the only way to really verify it would be to have someone in Romania go to a museum or national library and get a reference librarian to help them find it.... (hint, hint, hint)...

But I am going on the hunch that the Firenza University botched the title of the journal. Not that I'm convinced that they did, but at this point that's all I can do without flying to Romania and digging through library archives in person. So this is what I came up with, using that as a temporary measure:

If you go there, look at the bottom of the second column of the article where it begins to talk about the discovery of the first site at Cucuteni. It talks about how Beldiceanu published the findings - here's the reference:

  • "Antichităţile de la Cucuteni" Revista de Istorie, Arheologie şi Filologie, 1885.

So - we see now that there is apparently another journal that this article was published in! Well, off we go to find a reference for the "Revista de Istorie, Arheologie şi Filologie". But guess what? I couldn't find it either!

Okay, I guess I picked the wrong week to stop drinking. But actually, I'm an old hand at this kind of thing... So, I dug around a bit, and I found out that there could have POSSIBLY been a journal that was in print back in 1885 in Romania with a title that contains "Revista de Istorie". However, it is problematic. Here's what I found:

  • Buletin de informare stiintifica

Apparently this is sometimes refered to as BI or B.I. (gotta love all those wonderful Romanian journal abbreviations!) And about 100 years or so ago it was being published in Bucharest by the Romanian government's "Centrul de Informare si Documentare în Stiintele Sociale si Politice" department. Now, to make things even more complicated, there isn't just ONE journal that BI published about 100 years ago, but about a half-dozen, all with different specialities. Over the years, BI has published dozens of different journals, but here is the list of those that were being published (as far as I can tell) 100 years ago by BI:

  • Buletin de informare stiintifica: istorie-arheologie OCLC: 219736991
    • Corp Author(s): Centrul de Informare si Documentare în Stiintele Sociale si Politice.
    • Publication: [Bucuresti,
    • Year: 1900s-?
  • Revista de referate recenzii si sinteze: istorie-arheologie OCLC: 221699661
    • Corp Author(s): Centrul de Informare si Documentare în Stiintele Sociale si Politice.
    • Publication: [Bucuresti,
    • Year: 1900s-?
  • BI. Istorie-arheologie OCLC: 16999695
    • Corp Author(s): Centrul de Informare si Documentare în Stiintele Sociale si Politice.
    • Publication: [S.l.] : Centrul
    • Year: 1900s-?
    • Frequency: Six no. a year
    • Note(s): Description based on: Vol. 8, 1, published in 1971./ Latest issue consulted: Vol. 8, 6 (1971).
  • Filosofie-logica: revista de referate, recenzii si sinteze. OCLC: 1783987
    • Corp Author(s): Centrul de Informare si Documentare în Stiintele Sociale si Politice.
    • Publication: [Bucuresti] Centrul de Informares si Documentare in Stiintele Socíale si Politice.
    • Year: 1900s-
    • Note(s): Title varies slightly.
    • General Info: Supersedes in part: "Revista de referate si recenzii: Filozofie, logica, sociologie, psihologie", and continues its numbering.
  • Buletin de informare stiintifica: sociologie OCLC: 227813617
    • Corp Author(s): Centrul de Informare si Documentare în Stiintele Sociale si Politice.
    • Publication: [Bucuresti]
    • Year: 1900s-?
    • Vols. for <1973- > issued by Centrul de Informare si Documentari în "Stiintele Sociale si Politice" of Academia de Stiinte si Politice.
  • Lingvistica-filologie; revista de referate, recenzii si sinteze OCLC: 3087548
    • Corp Author(s): Centrul de Informare si Documentare în Stiintele Sociale si Politice.
    • Publication: [Burcuresti] Centrul de Informare si Documentare în Stiintele Sociale si Politice.
    • Year: 1900s-?
    • Preceding Title: "Revista de referate si recenzii: Lingvistica, filologie"

Well, according to the reference above, the title should be "Arheologie şi Filologie". But that didn't exatly fit. However, none of these journals are listed as going back earlier than about 1900, and what I'm thinking is that they are all spinoffs of the original Buletin de informare stiintifica, which was then subdivided later into speciality journals.

in 1901 Theodor T. Burada publish in the magazine called "Arhiva" (belonging to)a Societăţii Ştiinţifice şi Literare din Iaşi, the story of Cucuteni Discovery.http://www.cucuteni5000.utm.md/files/cucuteni_2007.pdf
In the same material the name of the first Brediceanu work is called brochure
In the same year anothe material was published in: N. Beldiceanu, Antichităţile de la Cucuteni, în Revista pentru istorie, archeologie şi filologie, Bucureşti, an III, vol.V, 1885, pag. 187-192. (please keep in mind that after 100 years in romanian language the archeologie it is spell now arheologie) So I make a guess that the RIAF is the right one (considering the spelling used before WWII is preserved and present in the reference)http://www.doaks.org/research/byzantine/doaks_byz_abbreviations.html. I've found some references for Moses Gaster (Ţiganii ce şi-au mîncat biserica, în “Revista pentru istorie, archeologie şi filologie”, I, 1882, p.469 – 475). maybe someone could find references about this researching Moses Gaster bibliography.CristianChirita (talk)

But again, back to square one - at this point I can go no further. Perhaps someone in Romania can pick it up from here. SUffice it to say, though, that the reference we have in our article about Beldiceanu's first publication is incorrect as it now stands... --Saukkomies talk 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Next time when i'll go on the Piatra Neamt i'll visit the museum and search for the exposed journal if any, it will take some timeCristianChirita (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Great, Cristian! That would be fantastic. If, though, someone else in Romania happens to be going to a major research library before you get a chance, perhaps they could look this up, too. I think it's important to get this reference absolutely correct - it's not actually "wrong" as it stands now, but it is very incomplete. And because it is the first time anyone wrote anything about the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, it needs to be dead-on-accurate. Thanks again. --Saukkomies talk 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Image I'd love to add to the article

If anyone could help with this, I'd really appreciate it. There is an image that I'd love to add to the article that is of a painting - Russian or Ukrainian, I believe - that shows a woman in the foreground working in a wheat field with a Cucuteni-Trypillian settlement in the background. Here's the URL: http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/50/200px-tripol_village.jpg The caption is: Трипольское поселение глазами художника, which I think roughly translates as: Artist's perception of a Trypillian settlement.

It is part of the website here: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/11781

I cannot figure out how to request permission from the website owners to use this painting in Wikipedia because I don't speak Ukrainian or Russian (I do know how to read Cyrillic, though, so that helps a little, but not in this case). If someone could figure out how to contact the owner of this image to get permission to have it shown in the article, I think it would make a valuable contribution. It is much superior than most of the artwork I've seen about Cucuteni-Trypillian subjects. Thanks for any help! --Saukkomies talk 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Geography section?

I'm thinking that the article would be improved by adding a section about the physical geography of the C-T culture. There are bits and pieces of material describing the geography scattered throughout the article in places they don't really seem to fit, so I'd like to consolidate them in one section. Any thoughts? --Saukkomies talk 07:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'd like to go ahead and insert this proposed new section on Geography of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. I'll pull stuff out of the article that I believe out to best be included in the new section, but try to insure to maintain the narrative and structure of the article as a whole. If anyone has comments or suggestions about this, or feels like we should do something different, let's hear them! --Saukkomies talk 00:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of stuff in this new section that really is nice to round out the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, but really shouldn't be so close to the top of the main article. I realize this, and just want to make a note here so people would know I realize it. I guess what I am doing is trying to get the whole article worked up nice before splitting it up into a main article with sub-articles that are created mostly out of the material from the various sections in the main article. So, when this happens eventually, I believe that the section on Geography (with its overabundance of details and images) will be one of the first sections to be turned into a sub-article. What will be left will be a much trimmed-down paragraph, with a link to the new sub-article for further information on the subject of the Cucuteni-Trypillian geography. Such is the plan, also, of other sections in the main article that are being reworked - even though they are often over-complex and too lengthy, they will be turned into sub-articles eventually, with trimmed down text left behind. JUst letting folks know what my thinking is on this. Any input will be welcome. --Saukkomies talk 01:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Holocene epoch userbox template

The userbox template at the bottom of the article is giving me some unpleasantness. I just don't like it. Here are my reasons:

  1. It just doesn't fit with this article, because it includes the Mesolithic and Chalcolithic eras, which aren't really directly related to the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.
  2. It really isn't a Holocene epoch at all - it would probably be better to call it an "Early Holocene epoch" template, since it does start with the beginning of the Holocene (which coincides with the beginning of the Mesolithic). But the Holocene is still continuing on to today, and this userbox stops with the Copper Age.
  3. I don't like how it is called a Holocene epoch template, but then uses only human technological level chronozones, ignoring the fact that those are only one type of chronozonal classification system that may be used to describe the Holocene epoch - other systems would also include:
    1. the traditional chronozones based on fauna evidence: (Preboreal (10 ka – 9 ka), Boreal (9 ka – 8 ka), Atlantic (8 ka – 5 ka), Subboreal (5 ka – 2.5 ka) and Subatlantic (2.5 ka – present).
    2. the climatic chronozonal classification system that has Hypsithermal, Neoglacial and Anthropocene periods.
  4. Additionally, it is not even anywhere near being a comprehensive list of the various cultures in the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic eras! It leaves many cultures out.
  5. And finally, the lists of cultures are not formatted well: there isn't any order to the lists that I can determine, and they are all jumbled up in linear fashion separated only by comma breaks, making it hard to read through. Also, they don't have dates listed next to them, which would also be helpful.

So basically, I hate this userbox. I think that instead of using it, I'd rather create a new userbox that is for the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Here are my reasons:

  1. I am in the process of creating new articles (or improving existing ones) that cover every single Cucuteni-Trypillian settlement location in Moldova, Romania and Ukraine. This is a big task, and I don't plan on it being done any time soon. However, it's already started, and I plan on doing more work all along. These many different settlements would be good to have referenced in a userbox, I believe.
  2. Once the work on the main Cucuteni-Trypillian culture article is completed to a satisfactory level, I would very much like to create new sub-articles on the subject in order to reduce the size of the main article by moving material out of it into the sub-articles. These new subarticles will be good to have referenced in a Cucuteni-Trypillian culture userbox, I believe.
  3. I see this whole thing as becoming much larger than it is now, encompassing quite a number of articles, and having links to a number of other related subjects, which would be handled effectively by a well-designed infobox template, I believe.

So - I'd love to hear feedback. --Saukkomies talk 05:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

Periods

Has anyone an opinion about using the table from German page? The romanian clasiffication is the one used by romanian historians , I'm not sure about Ukrainian one.

Tripolje Cucuteni Time frame. BC Bulgarien
A Precucuteni I-III 4800-4500 Gumelnita
B1 A 4500-4200
B1-2 A/B 4200-4000
B2/C1 B 4000-3500
C2 - 3500-3200

CristianChirita (talk)

I would suggest using the chronology from Cornelia-Magda Mantu's 1998 "Cultura Cucuteni. Evoluţie, Cronologie, Legături" (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50161712&referer=brief_results) instead:

Cucuteni Years B.C. Tripolye Years B.C.
Precucuteni I-III 5100-4600 Tripolye A 4800-4500
Cucuteni A1-A4 4600-4050 Tripolye BI-BII 4500-4000
Cucuteni A/B 4100-3800 Tripolye BII 4000-3800
Cucuteni B 3800-3500 Tripolye CI-CII 3800-3500

Whitra (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


I like using this chart in the article, Christian. However, I do think that some of the changes that Whitra suggested are actually valid, and support the rest of what you've written much better. Further, though, I would like to suggest that the chart be tweaked just a little bit more. In my efforts to clean up this article a bit, I have tried to consistently maintain the discipline of using the label "Cucuteni-Trypillian" instead of all the other possibilities that have been used variously by sundry folk in the past. It seems like this is a very good compromise, and I support it. So, in this chart, I would suggest these names be used, instead of the names that the Germans have used for it. On the other hand, there is a problem here: the dates for the Cucuteni culture's periods that are given by Cornelia-Magda Mantu do not agree with the dates given for the Cucuteni periods that are in the first chart. Additionally, there is a third set of dates used within the article itself. Here is the breakdown:

Cucuteni Period Dates:

German chart:

  • Precucteni I-III: 4800-4500 BC
  • Cucuteni A: 4500-4200
  • Cucuteni A/B: 4200-4000
  • Cucuteni B: 4000-3500
  • - : 3500-3200

Cornelia-Magda Mantu dates:

  • Precucteni I-III: 5100-4600 BC
  • Cucuteni A1-A4: 4600-4050
  • Cucuteni A/B: 4100-3800
  • Cucuteni B: 3800-3500

Dates listed in the article, under section "Periodization":

  • Early: 5300-4600 B.C.
  • Middle: 4600-3200 B.C.
  • Late: 3200-2750/2600 B.C.


As you can see, there is a discrepancy with these dates. Please, we need to get this straightened out.

At any rate, I'd like to propose what I think this chart should look like, substituting the word "Trypillian" instead of "Tripolye", and using the dates that Whitra suggested (from Cornelia-Magda Mantu):

Cucuteni Years B.C. Trypillian Years B.C.
Precucuteni I-III 5100-4600 Trypillian A 4800-4500
Cucuteni A1-A4 4600-4050 Trypillian BI-BII 4500-4000
Cucuteni A/B 4100-3800 Trypillian BII 4000-3800
Cucuteni B 3800-3500 Trypillian CI-CII 3800-3500

So, I am going to go ahead and include this chart I just proposed into the article, as part of my overall attempt at reworking it. If anyone objects, please feel free to suggest another alternative, and please do not take offense. And of course, let's see if we can come to an agreement about what the dates are for the different periods. Thank, ~ Saukkomies 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Any of the above tables can be used, still there should be a mention regarding the fact that the periods are subjects of debates among historians. It is a work in progress. CristianChirita (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Christian. I'll note that in the article. ~ Saukkomies 00:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Solutrean

I'm going to go ahead and remove the wording in the caption of the fishhook that describes it as Solutrean in appearance, since the fishhook is made of copper, and the Solutrean artifacts were made entirely of flint, and predate the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture by some 10,000 years. ~ Saukkomies 03:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it was my mistake, when i made the affirmation I've search for needles, history, but the only thing I've found was the fish hook.CristianChirita (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem Christian. Indeed, with the huge extensive research that you brought to contribute to this article, a little thing like this is totally expected. I think you've done a great job, and when I saw this article, and realized just how much work you and others have done on it to bring it to where it is, this is partially what motivated me to tackle the job of cleaning it up - it is worth the effort. I think when we're all done with this, it will be a fantastic example of what a good wikipedia article can be - especially with the compromise title of "Cucuteni-Trypillian", which I believe is a fantastic idea. ~ Saukkomies 23:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for changes in the article's "Contents" titles

I would like to propose some changes in the Contents (and of course the section heading titles) of the article. Here is what it looks like now:

1 Nomenclature
2 Extent
3 Periodization
3.1 Early Period
3.2 Middle Period
3.3 Late Period
4 Features
4.1 The settlements
4.1.1 Largest settlements
4.1.2 House Burning
4.1.3 House Construction
4.1.4 Bordei dwellings
4.1.5 Interior of the house
4.2 Diet
4.2.1 Agriculture
4.2.2 Livestock
4.2.3 Hunting
4.2.4 World's Oldest Saltworks
4.3 Rites
4.3.1 The Living Goddesses or Old European Goddesses
4.3.1.1 Circle of Goddess
4.3.2 The Bird Goddess
4.3.3 Funerary Rites
4.3.3.1 Immolation
4.4 Arts and Crafts
4.4.1 Pottery
4.4.2 Technology
4.4.2.1 Modeling
4.4.2.2 Decorating
4.4.2.3 Firing
4.4.3 Binocular vessels
4.4.4 Figurines
4.4.4.1 Antropomorphic representations
4.4.4.2 Zoomorphic representations
4.4.5 Weaving and Clothing
4.5 Weapons and tools
4.6 Symbols and Proto-writing
4.6.1 Tokens
5 Interaction with other cultures
6 Decline
6.1 Gimbutist Kurgan Theory
6.1.1 Archaeogenetics
6.2 Anatolian and Balkano-Danubian Hypotheses
6.3 Deforestation, ecological degradation, and climatic change theories.
7 Notes
8 Bibliography
9 See also
10 External links


Here are my suggestions:

1 Nomenclature
2 Extent
3 Periodization
3.1 Early Period
3.2 Middle Period
3.3 Late Period
4 Settlements (includes both sections: "4 Features" and "4.1 The settlements")
4.1 Largest settlements
4.2 House burning
4.3 Construction techniques (was: "House Construction")
4.4 Bordei houses

(later correction: this should read: 4.4 Bordei dwellings) Saukkomies 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

4.5 House interior (was: "Interior of the house")
5 Diet
5.1 Agriculture
5.2 Livestock
5.3 Hunting
6 Ritual (was: "Rites")

(later correction: this should read: 6 Ritual and religion) Saukkomies 19:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

6.1 Mother goddess figurines (was: "Living Goddesses or Old European Goddesses")
6.2 "Circle of Goddess" figurines

(later correction: this should read: 6.2 "Circle of Goddesses" figurines) Saukkomies 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

6.3 Bird goddess figurines
6.4 Funerary rites
6.4.1 Cremation (was: "Immolation")
7 Technological developments
7.1 World's oldest saltworks (moved from section 4.2.4 to 7.1)
7.2 Ceramics (was: "Arts and Crafts")
7.2.1 Techniques (was: "Technology")
7.2.2 Decoration and glazing (was: "Decorating")
7.2.3 Firing
7.2.4 Binocular vessels
7.2.5 Ceramic figurines (was: "Figurines")
7.2.5.1 Anthropomorphic figurines (was: "Antropomorphic representations")
7.2.5.2 Zoomorphic figurines (was: "Zoomorphic representations")
7.3 Textiles (was: "Weaving and Clothing")
7.4 Weapons and tools
8 Symbols and proto-writing
9 Barter tokens (was: "Tokens")
10 Interaction with other cultures
11 Archaeogenetics
12 Decline and end of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
12.1 Kurgan hypothesis (was: "Gimbutist Kurgan Theory")
12.2 Anatolian hypothosis
12.3 Balkano-Danubian hypothesis
12.4 Ecological crisis theories (was: "Deforestation, ecological degradation, and climatic change theories")

(later correction: this should read: 12.4 Ecological crisis hypotheses) Saukkomies 19:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

13 Notes
14 Bibliography
15 See also
16 External links


If anyone has any opinions or changes they'd like to add about these suggestions, please respond. Thanks. ~ Saukkomies 03:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, after waiting for a couple of weeks, and without comments from anyone about this, I'll go ahead and make these changes to the outline structure and contents' titles of the article. If anyone has any problems with this, please let us know about it here, and we'll discuss it. I'm very open to suggestion, and hopefully am not going to upset or offend anyone by doing this. Saukkomies 19:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of brevity in attempting to shorten the Table of Contents list a little, I've gone ahead and removed the two sub-categories (7.2.5.1 Anthropomorphic figurines) and (7.2.5.2 Zoomorphic figurines). Instead, within the category (7.2.5 Ceramic figurines), I've labeled the two groups of images as 'Anthropomorphic Figurines' and 'Zoomorphic Figurines', which I think should suffice. If anyone has objections to this, please let me know. Saukkomies 17:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the rewriting, still there are some issue with some pictures in IE at lower resolution (1024x768)
Thanks for the feedback Cristian! Feel free, please, to advise, disagree, or chat about anything you feel regarding the article. I see this really as primarily your article, since you've been the biggest contributor, both through text and images. And although I want to help make it a "perfect" wiki article, and take some pride in my work, I have no problem with you disagreeing with anything I've done or making observations or giving advice.
Having said that, what exactly seems to be the problem with the the images? I'm not sure I know which ones you're talking about. Please elaborate further. (later edit: perhaps you might be talking about some of the images I haven't gotten around to tweaking with yet?) Saukkomies 19:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of splitting the article

I noticed that the article now is being flagged as being "too long". Here's the message at the top of the page when you go to edit the article now:

This page is 89 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.

Upon going to the Article size page, I found the following advice:

No need for haste


Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB overall. There is no need for haste, and the readable prose size should be considered separately from references and other overhead. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage.

So my gut instinct is that we could perhaps create several additional Wiki articles out of this one. For instance, we could have short summary-style paragraphs for the different major subjects within this article, with links that would lead the reader on to other articles that we could write that would go into greater depth of the subject at hand. However, in creating additional articles, it may be difficult to keep everything organized so that there is no Content forking - namely, that two or more articles end up discussing the same thing. If this is done - if this article is made into a summarized style with links to other articles - then there must be a high level of control to insure that all of the subarticles created out of this one end up addressing specific topics in order to avoid sloppy duplication.

There is no need for haste here, though. Personally, I'm still in the middle of my self-appointed sisyphean task of reworking the article, and so I'd vote for waiting until we get it to where it is at a polished and finished condition before breaking parts of it out to create new articles. I would think this would make sense because it would also give us an idea which subjects would be better to treat in this way. At any rate, let's talk about this. Saukkomies 01:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about fertility vs fecundity

In the section "Mother goddess figurines", there is the following reference:

Some researchers consider that the symbols used for representing the feminity are the rhombus for fertility and the triangle as a symbol for fecundity.

As far as I can tell, there is no real difference between fertility and fecundity. Am I missing something in translation? Saukkomies 02:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fertility equal motherhood, mother belly=rhombus.
Fecundity is about the act of creation, triangle=vulvaCristianChirita (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah - hah! Okay - fertility is "G-rated", fecundity is "R-rated".... :) Saukkomies 19:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Images

All valued artefacts from Piatra Neamt are exposed in THE LOST WORLD OF EUROPE Institute for the study of Ancient World New York. Anyone who can complete the commons gallery please do so...CristianChirita (talk) http://www.nyu.edu/isaw/exhibitions/oldeurope/

Wow. Thanks for sharing that, Cristian. I wish I could go to NY to see this exhibit and attend some of the lectures/discussions. Saukkomies 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing a footnote reference

The reference included in the article in the "Settlements" section where it's talking about the psychological/religious aspects of periodical settlement burning links to a site that really has nothing to do with supporting this subject. However, the link DID include the name of the notable scholar Dragoş Gheorghiu, and since he is not listed as a reference anywhere else in this article, I felt it would be a shame to remove his name completely, since he has contributed so much to the advancement of this subject. So, I went out and found another reference that he wrote that appears to discuss this issue, and I replaced the dead linked reference with it. Hopefully this won't ruffle anyone's feathers too much... --Saukkomies talk 01:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing quotation

I am going to remove the following unreferenced quotation from the text (section: House burning):

According to Sergiu Krolevets, director of the National History and Culture Museum of the Republic of Moldova, all of the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements were burned.

I'll explain the reasons why I'm doing this. First off, this quote is not needed. It is only providing additional and redundant substantiation for something that is already very well supported in the article by other, much better, and more supportable multiple references references.

Second, it is incorrect in several significant ways: Sergiu is not how one spells this person's name - it is correctly spelled in English transliteration as Sergey Krolevets. And he no longer is the director of the museum in Moldova, but is now the director of Ukraine's most significant and important national landmark - the famous National Historical and Cultural Reserve of Kiev Pechersk Lavra, which is the huge onion-domed monastery on top of the big bluff in the center of Old Kiev.

Third, I can find no reference to a "National History and Culture Museum" of Moldova. However, there IS a "National Museum of Archeology and History of Moldova". Unfortunately, I cannot find any reference anywhere that Sergey (or Sergiu or Sergiy) Krolevets (or any other person with the last name of Krolevets) was ever the director of that or any other museum in Moldova.

Fourth, and perhaps the most important reason, is that as far as I can tell, the original quotation that this is from was taken from a very questionable source - namely the horrid little rag of the Discovery Channel's online DiscoveryNews:

"We do not know why, but all of the 4,000 Cucuteni-Trypillians settlements were intentionally burned," said Sergiy Krolevets, director of the National History and Culture Museum of the Republic of Moldova.

Not only is this figure of 4000 settlements incorrect (from what little I've read so far on the subject, the largest number of settlements was only 3000), but the article goes on to say the following:

According to this hypothesis, every some 60-80 years they would sacrifice whole cities by intentionally burning thousands of their houses. Then they would move to create another settlement.

This also is an incorrect statement - the Cucuteni-Trypillian people did NOT move on to new settlements after burning their settlements, but rebuilt directly on top of them. The Italian woman who wrote this article - Rossella Lorenzi - seems to be focused on creating a career of becoming a sort of archaeological Paparazzi, creating sensationalistic stories about historical or archeological subject (including a recent one about how Amelia Earhart's body was eaten by coconut crabs). Of course, this is only further evidence to support my own personal claim that the Discovery Channel is a horrible source of accurate information - I won't go into this here, but my experience over the years is that one simply cannot take ANYTHING that is stated in the Discovery Channel (or, apparently its online journal) as truth or reality.

The bottom line is that this quote is not needed, and it is highly questionable. So, let's just remove it. If anyone can come up with a solid source that shows that this quote is authentic, then let's reconsider its inclusion. --Saukkomies talk 02:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Formatting Romanian spelling

I have been going through and formatting all of the names and words in Romanian according to the latest standards laid out in this page: Romanian alphabet. If this information is outdated, please let me know here. Specifically, there's a part in that Wiki site that talks about some of the more tricky letters:

Unicode and HTML

The circumflex and breve accented Romanian letters were part of the Unicode standard since its inception, as well as the cedilla variants of s and t. Ș and ț (comma-below variants) were added to Unicode version 3.0.[1][2] From Unicode version 3.0 to version 5.1, the cedilla-using characters were specified by the Unicode Standard to be "used in both Turkish and Romanian data" and that "a glyph variant with comma below is preferred for Romanian"; On the newly encoded comma-using characters, it said that they should be used "when distinct comma below form is required".[3] Starting with Unicode 5.2, the next version of the Unicode Standard to be released in September-October 2009, Unicode plans to recommend only the comma-using characters, U+0218..021B to be used for Romanian.[4]

Widespread adoption was hampered for some years by the lack of fonts providing the new glyphs. In May 2007, five months after Romania (and Bulgaria) joined the EU, Microsoft released updated fonts that include all official glyphs of Romanian (and Bulgarian) alphabet[5]. This font update targeted Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Vista. The subset of Unicode most widely supported on Microsoft Windows systems, Windows Glyph List 4, still does not include the comma-below variants of S and T.

Phoneme With comma (official) With cedilla
Character Unicode position (hex) HTML entity Character Unicode position (hex) HTML entity
/ʃ/ Ș 0218 &#x218; or &#536; Ş 015E &#x15E; or &#350;
ș 0219 &#x219; or &#537; ş 015F &#x15F; or &#351;
/t͡s/ Ț 021A &#x21A; or &#538; Ţ 0162 &#x162; or &#354;
ț 021B &#x21B; or &#539; ţ 0163 &#x163; or &#355;

Vowels with diacritics are coded as follows:

Phoneme Character Unicode position (hex) HTML entity
/ə/ Ă 0102 &#x102; or &#258;
ă 0103 &#x103; or &#259;
/ɨ/ Â 00C2 &Acirc; or &#xC2; or &#194;
â 00E2 &acirc; or &#xE2; or &#226;
Î 00CE &Icirc; or &#xCE; or &#206;
î 00EE &icirc; or &#xEE; or &#238;

I would strongly urge that we try to maintain this standard of spelling in this article. Later, I'll try to find the Ukrainian corollary of standard, official transliterated alphabet, and I'll post it here. --Saukkomies talk 04:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went back through the article this morning, and I noticed that some of the links to Wikipedia articles didn't work after I'd changed the text to adhere to the above code. An example of this is Archaeology Museum Piatra Neamţ. Notice the ţ at the end of Neamţ in the title of the article is incorrect - it is the Unicode 3.0 version, not the updated, corrected Unicode 5.2 version, which would be ț instead. So, if you try to search for the site using the correct text, it won't locate it. So, temporarily, I've done a workaround in this article where I enter the link with a double name to look like this: (double opening brackets)Archaeology Museum Piatra Neamţ|Archaeology Museum Piatra Neamț(double closing brackets). This will make the link work to connect to the Wikipedia article using the incorrect form of ţ, but will display in this article as the correct form ț. Ultimately, though, I'd like to resolve this situation - most likely by creating alternate links to these Wikipedia sites so that they accept the correct form. --Saukkomies talk 15:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

In case anyone's interested...

Being one of the primary editors of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture articles, I just wanted to let anyone who might be wondering what's going on why there hasn't been much work done lately. The reason is that I've been swamped with Real Life stuff (I'm renovating a Victorian house we bought in May this year). However, although my Wiki editing has been put on the back burner this summer, please rest assured that once winter sets in, I will resume my efforts. I have several plans for doing some major work on the C-T articles, as well as producing a top-notch SVG map of the entire SE Europe (I'm halfway through with that). So, this subject is still dear to me, and I just wanted to let anyone who is wondering whether it has gone neglected to not worry - it is only on the back burner right now. --Saukkomies talk 03:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good that this topic is not forgotten. You should still upload the map even if it's only half-way done. Just update the original once you are done with it. Nergaal (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cucuteni-Trypillian culture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Toolbox

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: repaired three and tagged five dead links.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    By this time there had already been large amounts of written material that gave this culture with one of these two names. poor prose.
    This term is used here in this article self referential to Wikipedia, not needed.
    As of 2003, about 3000 sites of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture have been identified. Is there no more recent literature?
    Periodization
    There are two reasons for why there are discrepanciens in Cucuteni-Trypillian periodization: the first is due to it being done by separate scholars, and the second due to changes in how archeological typology is done as new methods and technologies were employed to analyze ancient cultural artifacts. This is barely literate.
    In terms of overall size, some of Cucuteni-Trypillian sites, such as Talianki (with a population of 15,000 and covering an area of some 450 hectares – 1100 acres) in the province of Uman Raion, Ukraine, are as large as (or perhaps even larger than) the more famous city-states of Sumer in the Fertile Crescent, and these Eastern European settlements predate the Sumerian cities by more than half of a millennium. poor prose.
    The houses of the Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements were constructed in several general ways:

Wattle and daub homes. Log homes, called (Ukrainian: площадки ploščadki). Semi-underground homes called Bordei. List, turn into prose.

  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Members of this culture belonged to tribal social groups, scattered over an area of southeast Europe encompassing territories in present-day Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. The important physical features of the land were rolling plains, river valleys, the Black Sea, and the Carpathian Mountains, which were covered by a mixed forest in the west, that gave way to the open grasslands of the steppes in the east. The climate during the time that this culture flourished has been named the Holocene climatic optimum, and featured cool, wet winters and warm, moist summers. These conditions would have created a very favorable climate for agriculture in this region. needs a citation.
    Some Cucuteni-Trypillian communities have been found that contain a special building located in the center of the settlement, which archaeologists have identified as sacred sanctuaries. Artifacts have been found inside these sanctuaries, some of them having been intentionally buried in the ground within the structure, that are clearly of a religious nature, and have provided insights into some of the beliefs, and perhaps some of the rituals and structure, of the members of this society. Additionally, artifacts of an apparent religious nature have also been found within many domestic Cucuteni-Trypillian homes. needs citing.
    Several dead links. I did not examine the rest of the refrences in detail due to the poor state of the artcile.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    However it should be borne in mind that when reading from other sources, both print and online, one may still encounter frequent references to this culture that use the other terms associated with it. The important thing to remember is that, regardless of whether the term Cucuteni, Trypillian, or Tripolie is being used, it is the same culture that is being talked about. appears to be POV. Needs repharsing neutraly and any opinions need to be attributed in the text.
    Her conclusions, which were always controversial says whom?
    One of the unanswered questions regarding the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture is the small number of artifacts associated with funerary rites. says whom?
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I noted several ungrammatical captions but did not examine the licensing.
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, I have read the whole article and pointed out some major defects above. in addition there are rather too many image galleries, I feel. The prose is of poor quality throughout and could do with a thorough copy-edit by an uninvolved editor. The article is a long way from Good Article status. GAN is not a substitute for peer review. I suggest that you work to remedy the defects and then go to peer review before renominating. Nominations at GAN should be ready for GA status and have (perhaps) only minor issues that need addressing. Iam going to fail this nomination now. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from editors

Good review and constructive criticism, Jezhotwells. I, for one, was a bit surprised that it was even being considered for Good Article status right now, and so I'll take the review and comments as points to address and repair to bring the article up to grade. Thanks for the time you took to do this. Although you suggested that the prose should be reworked by an uninvolved editor, until one volunteers to do so, I will take it upon myself to try to rewrite the thing. Keep in mind that when I first tackled this project, that it was in an pretty sad shape, and I was a very inexperienced editor. I feel now, though, that I could redo much of it and make big improvements on the narrative prose.

The images are pretty much all from one source: Cristian Chirita's own personal camera. He's taken many photographs in his travels around the region of Romania and Moldova, including many museums, and if you check into it, you'll find that it is his own work in every single photo used - and since he's turned his work over to public use, they're free and clear to use. Perhaps using fewer images would be good - indeed, this would be one of the reasons I decided to create the subarticles: to provide places to put some of these image galleries!

Thanks again - it helps to know where precisely to direct my best efforts. --Saukkomies talk 00:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors can help with copy-editing. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, Jezhotwells. :) --Saukkomies talk 00:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Slavs

Should we say that this culture could have played an important role for the ethnogenesis of the Slavs?Clearly this culture reached Dniestr a river which was famous for being the origin of the Slavs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This subject is (or soon will be) discussed in greater detail in the sub-articles called Decline and end of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture and Archaeogenetics of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. However, I see that the section in the main article here entitled Decline and end hasn't been reworked - and so thanks for bringing that to my attention. I will work on getting that section worked up nicely, and will work in some of the legacy that this culture contributed to the shaping of Europe.
However, I would not be entirely comfortable in singling out just the Slavic people as the only group that can trace its ethnogenesis to the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. There are a couple of ways of looking at how ethnogenesis works: 1) through cultural transference, and 2) through genetic transference. It is extremely difficult to measure the amount of cultural transference influence that the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture would have had on the Proto-Indo-Europeans who occupied their land after the end of their culture, due to the lack of evidence outside of whatever archaeological artifacts that have been preserved. Even so, we can see that there was indeed cultural transference between the Proto-Indo-Europeans (specifically, the Yamna culture), and the Cucuteni-Trypillians for over two thousand years. A good source to read about this is Mallory's book "In Search of the Indo Europeans", which is cited at some length in the "Decline and end" article mentioned above. Here's a quote from the book (note: he is refering to the Indo-European Yamna culture as or "pastoralists" or "mobile communities", and the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture as the "settled communities" in the quote):
Ethnographic evidence suggests a very fluid boundary between mobile and settled communities, and it is entirely probable that some pastoralists may have settled permanently whilst Tripoleans may have become integrated into the more mobile steppe communities. The resultant archaeological evidence certainly suggests the creation of hybrid communities. By the middle of the fourth millennium B.C. we witness the transformation of Late Tripolye groups into new cultural entities. Probably the most noted is the Usatovo culture which occupied the territory from the lower Dniester to the mouth of the Danube...In some aspects the culture retains traditional Tripolye styles of painted wares and figures. But, in addition, there also appears...a considerable series of daggers, along with axes, awls and rings, including rings made from silver which is a metal we would attribute to the Proto-Indo-Europeans.(p.237)
However, precisely how much other cultural transference took place between these two socieities is unclear - for instance, we have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of what the language would have been that was spoken by the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Perhaps some of their language was incorporated into the Yamna culture's language: we don't know. We do know a lot, but there's a lot we don't know.
The second part of the ethnogenesis transference involves genetics, and with the work being done in modern archaeogenetics, we have a much better handle on this now than we did even 10 years ago. What little I've studied shows that the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was almost entirely absorbed into the Indo-European societies that supplanted it. However, their genetic heritage did not just stay in the Danube River Valley and the river plains and mountains of western Ukraine. The haplogroups that are theoretically traced back to the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture seem to be spread to the west into Italy, Germany, and beyond. Indeed, there are people living in the British Isles who probably have Cucuteni-Trypillian blood in their veins to a measurable degree!
Given all this, how then can we state with any authority that the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was the root-stock of the Slavic peoples, without also saying that they probably contributed to the foundation of the Myceans, the Latins, the Celts, the Germans, and the Greeks? The Proto-Slavs did not emerge onto the scene until actually after the end of the great migration period (when all the Germanic/Gothic tribes basically ran over the entire continent of Europe and into North Africa) around the 7th or 8th Century A.D. - thousands of years after the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture had dissappeared and probably was absorbed into the Indo-European. If anything, I would suggest that the Baltic peoples had a much more prominent influence on the shaping of the uniqueness of the Slavic culture than the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture could ever have had, which we know from how much of the Slavic language was shaped at an early stage by a strong contact between the Slavs and the Baltic peoples, as well as a number of other things. It seems to me that the origins of the Slavic people should not be located in Ukraine, but in Belorussia.... But that's a very controversial subject.
At any rate, you've given me motivation to get these parts of the articles dealing with the legacies of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture reworked and in order. Let me know if this has answered your query. --Saukkomies talk 08:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that arheogenetics will work for Cucuteni culture since no necropolis was found. The late necropolis discovered by archeologists is from decline period of Cucuteni culture. (whith links to globular amphora culture, and maybe kurganization)CristianChirita (talk)
Wow! That is so cool to know, Cristian! I've been breaking my brain over trying to find some sort of reference that would provide solid evidence that specifically states which haplogroups are linked with the Cucuteni-Trypillian people. So now I don't have to worry about it any more. Whew! --Saukkomies talk 00:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This website http://www.trypillia.com/ states that some cultures can be attributed to the Slavs,and Cucuteni is one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was undoubtedly one of the significant contributing groups of societies to the eventual formation of the Slavic people. However, as I noted above, it would be a great mistake to not also point out that the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture was also just as significant in the formation of other Indo-European peoples, not just the Slavs.
The area where the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture flourished was basically the main "highway" from Asia into Europe from the beginning of the Bronze Age (circa 2700 B.C.) to modern times. The fact that there are archaeological sites physically located in Romania, Moldova and Ukraine should not be mistakenly taken as proof that the people who live in those areas today are descended directly from the people who lived in those ancient communities. Because of the absolutely huge numbers of peoples that have moved through this region over the millennia since the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture vanished, many of whom stayed to put down roots, it would be impossible to empirically state that the Slavic society owes a significant cultural and genetiic debt to Cucuteni-Trypillian society.
However, having said that, it is undoubtedly true that members of the Cucuteni-Trypillian society did leave a genetic legacy that is still with us today. But because we do not know with authority what the Cucuteni-Trypillian society's genetic makeup was, we simply cannot make anything but an educated guess as to what that genetic legacy might be, and which modern societies would have the best claim to being the descendants of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. We simply do not know. --Saukkomies talk 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Wheat or Barley?

I've run into a problem working on the Agriculture section. The text of the article says that the C-T people raised "Common wheat (Triticum compactum), and Wheat (Triticum Vulgare)". Checking this out further, though, I discovered that Triticum compactum is actually NOT "common wheat", but is called "club wheat". That's not the problem, since I'll go ahead and correct that. But what IS a problem is that there is apparently no such thing (at least that I can find) as Triticum vulgare. However, there IS something called Hordeum vulgare, but that is actually barley, not wheat.

Barley was known to have been cultivated in eastern Europe during the Neolithic, and since it is not listed in the C-T article here as one of the plants that were found in archaeological sites, I am going to make the assumption that what is actually intended is that the text "OUGHT" to read: barley (Hordeum vulgare) I will go ahead and put this change in the text of the article, and if anyone has an objection, please do not take offense - I'm just trying to do the best I can, since I do not have access to the documentation (which is in Romanian which I don't read), so I can't check it out for myself. Thanks for any input. ~ Saukkomies 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I know the issue, because I've not found the Triticum vulgare in the Stefan Cucos book, since it is possible that the Cucos has quote from memory. I'll check the romanian version, and i'll confirm or infirm if it is barley. CristianChirita (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort, Christian. I myself can't read Romanian, although I am fascinated by it. I suppose if I was doing this cleaning up in the "correct way", that I would have waited to change the text until we got solid confirmation on whether it was "common wheat" or "barley". So I apologize if this is a "sloppy" way of doing it - I mean: that I changed the text to say "barley" instead of "common wheat" - without waiting for confirmation. I guess it's due to the fact that I have such a strong conviction that "barley" is the correct grain that I went ahead and did it - but my strong conviction feelings have been known to be wrong before, and well, it's just sloppy academic practice. But after having said all that, I'm actually going to keep the text like it is now - to keep the term "barley" in. Forgive me for my overconfidence. If it turns out that it isn't barley, then I'll make the appropriate ablutions to Ceres or any other grainy deity one may care to profer. ~ Saukkomies 00:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've checked the Cucuos it does not mention barley only Triticum Vulgare having a refence M. Dinu SCIV 1955 (a romanian history book from 1955), so I cannot affirm or infirm your assumptionCristianChirita (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
How about this for a compromise: I'll change the text to exclude the reference to Triticum vulgare (since I cannot find a reference listing it as a type of grain in the Wiki article of Taxonomy of wheat, specifically, this is clear if you examine the attached table of wheat species. However, since there is no concrete evidence that we have seen here that proves that barley (Hordeum vulgare) was not found in the Cucuteni-Trypillian sites, I'll change the text to remove that as one of the grains found at these sites. Barley has been found in some of the sites from the earlier Linear Pottery Culture, that existed roughly in some of the same areas that the Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture did later. However, there is some debate whether the barley was being cultivated, or was merely just a weed, at this time. So - I suggest we remove the reference to barley as a crop cultivated by the C-T culture, and if anyone brings it up later, we can discuss it further... ~ Saukkomies 18:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
After reworking the section on Agriculture, I included nice little thumbnail photos of all the cultivated plants, and it seemed like we needed more photos there for some reason (I must have rocks in my head), so I decided to add Barley (Hordeum vulgare), but to put a note that it was possibly one of the grains, and then also put a "Citation needed" tag on it. If anyone objects to this, let's see if we can find a reference before just tossing it out. There are references to barley being cultivated by both the Vinča culture that preceded the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, and the Kurgans who came after them, so it would be logical that the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture also cultivated barley. But we don't have a reference yet that specifically states that... --Saukkomies talk 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(Margin readjust) Aha! I found a source substantiating that barley was cultivated by Cucuteni-Trypillian farmers! So, I'll include it now in the list of cultivated crops. Here's the source: <ref>{{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia= Словари и энциклопедии на Академике (Academic dictionaries and encyclopedias)|title= Трипольская культура ("Обзор")|trans_title= Tripolskie Culture (section entitled "Survey")|url= http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/11781|accessdate= 26 January 2010|language= Russian|publisher= http://dic.academic.ru|quote= Трипольцы выращивали пленчатую пшеницу, пленчатый и голозёрный овёс, просо, горох, ячмень, бобы, виноград, алычу, абрикосы. (The Tripoltsy raised club wheat, oats and rye, millet, peas, barley, beans, grapes, damson plum, apricots.)}}</ref> So, not to gloat, but my hunch was right! --Saukkomies talk 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed modifications for tokens

one of the picture was mislabeled as token instead pintandera, for pintandera definition look for aztec definition of the stamp tool.

Barter tokens

to be changend as follow:

Various artefacts

  1. Pintanderas

The question of the function and the use of some categories of prehistoric artefacts is complex and we cannot always offer an unabiguous answer...

It has become clear that the assumptions about the information load of pintanderas vary from "bearers of the main Neolithic set of signs" to representatives of the earliest ""letters".

[6]

Theories regarding the use of pintandera atamping the:

  • the human body
  • ceramics
  • backed goods
  • textiles
  • leather
  • interior
  • animals
  • gates of granaries
  • community fortress

Other theories state that the pintanderas were used as:

  • amulets
  • Leather treatment
  • brushes

Most of the researchers are agree that the most probable use was as a stamp tool.

[7]


  1. Tokens

Thus between 8000 and 7500 BCE farmers were given a clay token for each basket of grain placed in storage (Senner 1989: 23).[8]
Counting and data storage with tokens started in open air compounds where subsistence was based on cultivating or, at least, hoarding cereals. Their first purpose was to record quantities of the traditional Near Eastern staples: grain and small stock (Schmandt-Besserat 2001)[8] Researchers like Schmandt-Besserat consider that the tokens were the earliest system of signs for transmitting information.

  • Cucuteni Pintadera
    Cucuteni Pintadera
  • Decorative Tokens, some with M sign.[9]
    Decorative Tokens, some with M sign.[9]


Thanks for providing this great research. I'll be sure to incorporate all of it in any revision I do of that section. I just want to make sure we're on the same page, though - the word is actually spelled Pintadera. Here's a definition I found from http://www.archaeologywordsmith.com/
pintadera
CATEGORY: artifact
DEFINITION: A small object, usually of terra-cotta, consisting of a decorative stamp with a knob at the back for holding. The stamping surface is flat, concave, or convex. It has been suggested that they served to apply pigments to the human skin in repeat patterns as an alternative to tattooing. They are found in the Late Neolithic of central Europe and Italy, and pintaderas of both stamp and roller types occur widely in American cultures.
I notice you attempted to link one of the captions to the Wiki article entitled "Pintadera", but it doesn't exist yet. I think I'll create a Wiki article on this subject, so that should work okay then. --Saukkomies talk 06:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing Section. I'm going to remove the section from the main article that talks about this subject of barter tokens. I don't think it contains enough information right now to justify a separate section in the main article, and I don't really know where to include it in another section, since it has to do with both the economic aspects and the subject on the proto-writing aspects of the culture. However, I've created a separate article that discusses the Barter tokens of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, and have inserted links to it from the main article, as well as from the sub-articles on Economics and Proto-Writing (and did a little annotation about the barter tokens in the latter). If the sub-article about the barter tokens becomes large enough, maybe we can add it back into the main article here as its own section again, but for now it looks like just so much clutter. If anyone has objections, let's discuss. --Saukkomies talk 18:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Circle of Goddess

There is a theory regarding the fact the 21 statues, are in fact a fertility guide , based on 21 days fertility cicle. The theory is sustained by dr. Romeo Dumitrescu but I can't find any reference, only an interview :http://mariusmina.blogspot.com/2008/08/cine-ingroapa-in-anonimat-cultura-si.html CristianChirita (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cristian, this sounds very intriguing. Keep us posted. --Saukkomies talk 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for major Reorganization of the article

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the structure and presentation of this article, and I would like to offer a proposal. I believe that this article has become too big and too complex for anyone wishing to make sense out of the subject, whether they are reading it or attempting to edit it. Subsequently, I believe we need to break it down into smaller sections within the article, and to include embedded links to sub-articles that go into greater depth of each sub-category. This will help make the main article much more accessible, readable, and effective, and will still provide access to more in-depth information for anyone wishing to delve deeper into the various subjects at hand.

I am currently working on developing the major article sections, breaking them down to much smaller lengths, in order to introduce them one-at-a-time to be posted to the main article. Along with this, I'm trying to also create a corresponding smaller article to link to from each section I'm working on - also, to be completed one-at-a-time to be timed to correspond with when the main articles are edited. I am looking at this as a kind of "roll-out", in which one section at a time will be worked on to reduce down and at the same time to complete a corresponding sub article to go with it and to link to.

I have come up with a finished outline of what I'll be striving for. Here is the general outline table of contents - the "x" signifies where there will be a new sub-article created to link to from within the sections:

1 Nomenclature
2 Periodization
 x Periodization of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
3 History of research
4 Geography
 x Geography of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
5 Settlements
 x Settlements of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
 x Architecture of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
 x House burning of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
6 Culture
 x Cultural indicators of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
 x Technologies of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
 x Diet of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
 x Religion and ritual of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
 x Use of symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
 x Use of barter tokens of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
7 Decline and legacy
 x Theories of the decline of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
 x Archaeogenetics of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture
8 Notes
9 Bibliography
10 See also
11 External links

Let me know if you have any comments about this. Meanwhile, I'm going to begin work on this right away. --Saukkomies talk 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Further clarification about this:
* I am also planning on creating a Cucuteni-Trypillian culture "infobox", which I hope will be included at the bottom of the main article and all sub-articles about this culture.
* To see a rough example of what I'm trying to talk about, look at the Wiki article on Proto-Indo-Europeans, and note the various embedded links to sub-articles that are at the top of that page's sections.
Again, I appreciate any comments or opinions or insights about this whole process (as well as any help!). --Saukkomies talk 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


Okay, well, I just created the first of these sub-article pages. Just a note for clarification, I'm calling these "sub-articles", but by that I do not intend for that to mean I'm creating "sub-pages", which would not be allowed (main articles in Wikipedia are not supposed to have sub-pages, which include the / slash mark in their title). Rather, these pages are themselves actual articles, but they are linked from the main article to delve further into a particular subject in greater depth, thereby reducing the length of the main article. I hope that is clearly stated. At any rate, the newly-created sub-article that I just made is here: Geography of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. I will be removing some of the body of the text from the Geography section in the main article, as it is now redundant. I will also be working at creating the other sub-articles as outlined above. As always, I welcome input and comment. --Saukkomies talk 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Just wanted to check in and give anyone interested the opportunity to comment on the changes I'm making to the article. I've made it through about half of it, creating sub-articles and removing text from the main article to dramatically slim it down and give it an easier-to-read appearance. If anyone likes, dislikes, or even has no opinion about this, please post your comments here. Thanks. --Saukkomies talk 08:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

New Map!

I just finished creating a new map of the approximate geographical extent of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. I am going to upload it to the article, replacing the older German-language map that was a little bit unsatisfactory. Any comments or corrections regarding the map will be appreciated. --Saukkomies talk 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've combined the historic era template and map together to create a nice-looking little box that floats to the right in the article I'm working on about the Geography of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Here's what it looks like, and feel free to copy and use it elsewhere:
What are the source for that map? AFAIK the Cucuteni culture never extended over Dobruja, and the few finds in the region of the Delta have been attributed to commercial exchanges. The same goes for Northern Bulgaria, as CT is virtually unknown in the region.Anonimu (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your pointing this out. I need to redo that map and make sure it is much more accurate. It was done as a "quick-and-dirty" attempt to get some kind of overall map of the Cucuteni-Trypillian geographical region, which I couldn't find in Wikicommons (trust me, I looked hard), that was acceptable. There are many different maps showing many different geographical areas that the C-T culture covered. Which ones to trust? So I did the best I could, using several maps in Wikicommons and piecing together evidence from the articles I've been editing that mention C-T archaeological sites in various places. However, by no means is that map meant to be dead-on accurate: that's why I included the caveat in the map's file that specifically stated that it showed the **approximate** extent of the culture.
However, I intend to correct the map post haste. In fact, I was just in the process of bringing more map data together when I saw your message posted to this talk page... I'll rework the map, using very reliable sources, which I will also include in the map's file notes. Then I'll replace the old map in Wikicommons with the new, effectively updating it to a more accurate map and marking the old one for deletion. I hope that will replace all of the instances of this map's use in other articles. When I do this, I'll be sure to make a note of it here... THanks again for the feedback! --Saukkomies talk 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the map, basing it in part on the maps and information that are located in the fantastic Eliznik folk dancers' web page on Southeast European History. If it's still wrong, please let me know. --Saukkomies talk 04:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


Cucuteni–Trypillia culture
(c. 4800 to 3000 BC)
Characteristic example of Cucuteni–Trypillia pottery
Topics
Related articles
Map of the approximate extent of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture

Any comments will be appreciate. Speaking of which, someone just vandalized this talk page, but I reverted it back. If anyone has anything to say about what I'm doing, please include a note here, and we can discuss it in a civilized way. If it happens again, I'm reporting the abuser. --Saukkomies talk 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note - the user who vandalized this talk page vandalized his own talk page to remove the note of warning I placed there. So he got reported and has been dealt with by an admin. --Saukkomies talk 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Cucuteni-Trypillian culture infobox

As I mentioned in the previous section of this talk page, I would like to create an infobox to be used in each of the articles directly about the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. This infobox may be used in conjunction with other infoboxes, and is not meant to necessarily replace any other infobox already in the article. I would like to have it so that each of the sub-articles would be included in the infobox, as well as a general chronological outline, such as: Preceded by xxx culture and Followed by xxx culture, as is outlined in the Template:Infobox historical era template.

In addition, I would like to have an image that would be selected to include in the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture infobox template that would represent the culture as a whole - sort of a visual identifier. Perhaps, Cristian, you could come up with that!

Again, as always, comments, opinions, and insights are welcome. --Saukkomies talk 15:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to use the above-noted "Infobox historical Era" template, but to make it work you have to basically use it to create a separate template and insert data into the various fields. So, I did that. Here is the link to the new infobox template I just created, that is specifically designed for the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture: Template:Infobox Cucuteni-Trypillian historical era. Here's what it looks like:
Cucuteni–Trypillia culture
(c. 4800 to 3000 BC)
Characteristic example of Cucuteni–Trypillia pottery
Topics
Related articles
To view the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture infobox template I'm working on, you may go to my sandbox. However, to leave any comments on this project, please do so here, so that everyone may see them. --Saukkomies talk 16:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so this infobox template is now "live". You may view it here: Template:Cucuteni-Trypillian Culture To use this infobox, place the tag at the bottom of an article. Please make certain that if you add this tag to an article that is not listed in the infobox contents, to then go to the template's page (which is the link I just included), and edit it so that it will include the new article. --Saukkomies talk 23:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Cristian - I've included one of your many wonderful photos in the Cucuteni-Trypillian infobox I'm making. I selected the image at the top of the main article (see the thumbnail of it at left), but I did so because I was designing the template for the infobox, and just wanted to have something there to give me an example of what it would look like. In other words, I'm not saying that this should be the image for the template - I am completely open to having another image included, and just used this one for expediency. If you (or anyone else) has a particular image or photo they'd like to use as the visual depiction of the C-T culture, to be included in the infobox template, please speak up! Thanks. --Saukkomies talk 18:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)



In addition to the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture infobox to be created, I wanted to point to some additional infoboxes for possible inclusion to use with some of the items in the articles about this subject. It would be useful to create a standard for these things within the article that also reflected a broader standard in use in other places in Wikipedia:

Templates for possible use:

Wikipedia:Citation templates - to be used for formatting references and footnotes.

Template:DisplayTranslations - to be used in formatting translations of key phrases or references.

Template:Audio-IPA - to be used in creating "sound samples" that will allow the reader to play a short audio file of how a word or phrase is pronounced.

Template:Infobox language/IPA notice - a template to be used to alert the reader that an article uses IPA Unicode characters, which may not be viewable in some browsers.

Template:Infobox language - a standard guide to use for referencing a specific language (other than English).

Template:Infobox artifact - to be used for images of specific archaeological artifacts in the articles.

Template:Infobox historic area - to be used when mentioning specific archaeological sites or settlements in the article.

Template:Infobox museum - to be used when naming a specific museum in the text of the article.

Template:HaploFreq - to be used with specific mtDNA genetic haplotypes mentioned in the article.

Template:YHaplogroupFreq - to be used with specific Y-DNA genetic haplotypes mentioned in the article.

Template:Infobox rock - to be used to identify specific rocks named in articles.

Template:Infobox person - to be used when identifying a specific person named in the articles.

Template:Coord - a short guide on how to include geographical map coordinates in articles.

The following templates are handy to use for automatically calculating and displaying measurements of land in metric and English equivalents:
Template:Infobox settlement/lengthdisp - displays distance, example: 42 ft (13 m)

Template:Infobox settlement/densdisp - displays population density, example: 200/sq mi (77.2/km2)
Template:Infobox settlement/areadisp - displays geographical area, example: 42 sq mi (108.8 km2)

And, finally, a guide to using and creating infoboxes: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)
--Saukkomies talk 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Info Box

The Triplia is situated in Cordedware (Middle Dnieper culture) region, it is not quite sure that the Yamma was the only culture who has replaced Cucuteni because on present day Romania it seem that the Cucuteni was replaced by Globular Amphora Culture. - signed later by Saukkomies on behalf of CristianChirita, who posted this comment on: 09:36 01 March 2010

Thanks for the input, Cristian. I'll try to work that data into the infobox and the articles. --Saukkomies talk 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Major Revision Done!

I have now created all of the new articles, and have moved almost all of the text from the main article, with only a couple of minor editing left to do. I still plan on reworking the sections in the main article on Barter tokens and Decline and end, as well as reworking the sub-articles that correspond with them, but I'm tuckered out after all this work, so I'll leave it till the morning. I hope this all suits everyone who may be interesting in this, and as always, I'm open to any and all comments and opinions and feedback. --Saukkomies talk 07:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


Oh, and I almost forgot - I'll be reworking the Archogenetics article, too. --Saukkomies talk 07:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


For what it's worth, the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at NYU (where I work) has a new compilation to accompany its "Old Europe" and it might be worth a look as a reference: http://www.nyu.edu/isaw/exhibitions/oldeurope/exhibitioncatalogue.html, http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9052.html. If you're interested, I'll see what I can do about getting some exhibit photos on the commons or Flickr with a CC license. Sgillies (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for offering some material, Sgillies. If you do upload anything to WikiCommons that is connected with the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, please let us know about it here so we can see about integrating it into any of the articles. What we are in very great need of right now is a nice list of ALL Cucuteni-Trypillian settlement sites - their locations,e tc. If you have access to anything like that, I'd love to know about it. I glanced at the "Old Europe" exhibit, and I must say Im' quite excited about it - I'd love to be able to attend some of the events, but distance (and lack of funds) precludes this. Still, I'm delighted this is something that is being put out there to the public. If you have a mind to helping out with any of the articles about this culture, let me know - we can always use the help. Thanks again. --Saukkomies talk 17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Josef Szombathy

It appear that Josef Szombathy was one of the first who researched the Tripolie Culture. Some references need to included in article.

I'll dig around, but if you have something that supports Szombathy's connection with the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, please include it here. --Saukkomies talk 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

James Dow Allen web page link removed

I am removing the link to James Allen's web page entitled "Inferring Prehistory from Language Genealogy" located here: http://james.fabpedigree.com/lmclade.htm. There are several good reasons for removing this link in the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture article: 1) it only touches on the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture as a side-issue relating to the web site's thesis of supporting the Kurgan Hypothesis, not as a major theme; 2) it is extremely biased in its treatment and its point of view on the subject of the Kurgan Hypothesis; and 3) it is innaccurate to some degree regarding the Cucuteni-Trypillian and Kurgan/Yamna/PIE culture's interaction. The latter is attested by the inclusion of the following text in the web site: Because the Danubian farmers and Kurgan stockbreeders had completely different cultures and were isolated from each other... This statement is innaccurate to a very large degree, since it ignores the very substantial physical evidence that has been found that conclusively shows that the Yamna/Kurgans were living in settlements scattered throughout the Cucuteni-Trypillian cultural region for over 2000 years (which is referenced by many scholars, including J.P. Mallory in "In Search of the Indo-Europeans").

To sum up, this web site is biased, is pushing an agenda, is non-academic, is only indirectly connected to the main thesis of the article, and it is innaccurate. So, I'm removing it as a referenced link. --Saukkomies talk 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

Dashes

Cucuteni-Trypillian culture → Cucuteni–Trypillian culture — The right writing is with ndash; it is a disjunction, not a conjunction. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but all the printed sources I have to hand use a hyphen in Cucuteni-Trypillian and similar constructions like Dniepr-Donets and Starčevo-Kőrös-Criş. It seems to be used in the same sense as e.g. Franco-Prussian War? joe•roet•c 07:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Franco-Prussian War is different; it is a combining form and hyphen is used to express joining. So is the case with Austria-Hungary or Guinea-Bissau. But in cases like Cucuteni–Trypillian culture we clearly have a disjunction as defined by the Manual of Style (cf. Nerva–Antonine dynasty). Plus, all the related articles already use ndash: Diet of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture, Barter tokens of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture, Architecture of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture, Archaeogenetics of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture. Surpisingly, sources don't really matter regarding this specific issue. It's just a useful typographic convention used throughout Wikipedia. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Joe - I too thought the same as you, but it seems like Omnipaedista knows what he's talking about. I suppose you learn new stuff all the time. :) --Saukkomies talk 15:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Nomenclature question

I was going to get to this, but it seems to have already gone thru an extreme move/re-move/merge cycle in the last week. Mallory calls it the Tripolye culture, which I guess I have to bold. --FourthAve 04:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

--- Who is Mallory and why is he qualified to name this culture for Tripoley? Go and google and see how many results you'll find for Tripolye. You won't find many. Now, compare to Cucuteni. --Anittas 06:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

J. P. Mallory is a major scholar in the field, and author of In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, there is no such 'Balkan War' over the name, as you mentioned. This culture was first discovered in Romania and, normally, it was given a Romanian name. We couldn't predict that later, Russians would find similar settlements and try to change the name to Tripolye. We did nothing wrong. --Anittas 06:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

We don't care what it is called, ok? These are just random villages without any relation to the culture. The row over the name is an embarassing case of petty nationalism of everybody involved. The culture was first discovered near Cucuteni, but its actual center lay nearer Trypillia/Tripolye. It really doesn't matter (*rolleyes*). I wish that there was neutral name like trans-Carpathian culture or something, but to avoid the (silly) Trypillia/Tripolye dispute, I suggest we keep it here at Cucuteni. dab (ᛏ) 07:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I strongly disagree at naming this article Cucuteni culture for the simple reason that the name Trypillya is much widely known, and there exists a substancial amount of literature on Trypillya culture so, one can imagine athat a number of people will be looking for this name in the Wiki. Actually, google gives ca. 10500 hits on Trypillya culture, and around 900 at Cucutenni. So, I suggest putting Trypillia in the title of the article, or else, a separate article should be created.Compay 10:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The name Trypillya is not known more. Use quotes when you search for it. Google will then give you 144 results. Did you read the article? This culture was found by a Romanian lady in a Romanian town. We have the right to name it what we want. If you find a new star or planet, you're allowed to name it Compay. Same thing here. --Anittas 21:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Even though I am not a scholar, I've read lots of scholarly literature on the question, and there is in fact strong disagreement on what to call it. The culture started in NE Romania around 4500 BCE then gradually expanded into Ukraine where it was centered (near Kiev) from around 3700 to 3000 BCE. The Romanians call it Cucuteni while the Ukrainians call it Tripolye (note: I'm using old spellings here, Ukrainians recently reformed their spelling). Among scholars in the USA, the convention is to call it Cucuteni-Tripolye, and divided it into two phases: Cucuteni-Tripolye A (4500 - 3700, mostly NE Romania) and Cucuteni-Tripolye B (3700 - 3000, mostly west-central Urkraine and northern Moldova). Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Early Period

In the second half of VI millennium and in the first half of V millennium BCE. tribes Tripoli culture rozselyuvalysya pool Dniester and Southern Bug, where researchers found many rannotrypilskyh settlements. During this period, they settled mostly in low areas near rivers, but also revealed settlement placed on the high plateau. Housing built in a depth dugouts or clay, and preferably ground, floor and fireplace or furnace with prypichkom strengthened clay walls constructed of wood or raft, smeared with clay. Early development of Tripoli culture appear as ground rectangular building on pillars of wood smeared with clay wicker walls that had straw or reed roof. In settlements located on the elevated plateau, the plan allocation of dwellings closer to form a circle or oval. The basis of the economy for this period was farming and ranching, hunting, fishing and gathering were also important. Sown wheat (odnozernyanku, dvozernyanku, spelled), barley, peas. Land cultivated with hoes made of deer horn, stone or bone and sticks-kopalok with sharp points. Harvest collected using sickles with silicon liner. Grain rubbing stone zernoterkamy. Woman sculptured vessels, producing yarn, clothing, etc., and played in public life role. Men hunted, kept cattle, producing tools from flint, bone and stone. In animal first place belonged to cattle, were the second pig, sheep, goats. The famous horse home. To replenish the meat food for this period was of great importance to hunt deer, wild pig and roe. Significant development made pottery. Pottery of various forms sculptured: large pear-shaped receptacle for grains of different shape pots, bowls, spoons, colander, binoklepodibnyy dishes. With clay sculptured female figurines, modelki housing, necklace, amulets. Surface vessels were covered thoroughly ornament or stria in the form of tapes of several parallel lines that formed a spiral ornament. This ornament is also covered most of the statues. Figurines, modelki dwellings and amulets had ritual purposes and were associated with crop cults. Among the surveyed settlements rannotrypilskyh found, though rarely, various copper products, mainly jewelry: bracelets, rings, hooks, etc., as in the settlement near the village in Moldova Korbuny found a great treasure of copper items, mostly jewelry, which is dated the first half of V millennium BCE.

The above (unsigned) post was originally in Ukrainian. Translated using Google Translate. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Late Period

In the late period of TK significantly extended the territory inhabited Trypillians: on the ground east. Volyn stochyscha p. Happened and Horyn, both banks of Kyiv. Dnepr steppes and pivn.-western. Black Sea, where Trypilians faced other carriers. cultures. Significantly increased values ​​of cattle. Livestock semi character, consisted mainly of small livestock (sheep, goats). Significant value gained horse (Usatove). During this period, according to some experts, is the patriarchal order. Under the influence of contacts with other tribes. cultures at the beginning of III millennium BCE. steppe. zone south. forest-steppe regions of NE. Europe and the Dnieper basin occupied by pastoralist tribes so called. yamnoyi culture posuvalysya from the steppes of the Volga and the Don in search of new pastures in the culture piznotrypilskyh tribes disappeared many features characteristic for TK last time. Changing nature of house construction, eliminating spiral ornamentation in painting inspired dishes and typical Trypillia its shape, but there is a new type of vessel, and an ornamental prints cord shematyzuyetsya anthropomorphic plastic. A new type of burial pits with and without the bulk of the embankment with stone facing around and vytvoryuyetsya burial rite, ritual similar neighboring tribes yamnoyi patriarchal culture. Usativski western tribes. North districts. Black and lower Podnistrov'ya (link fixed Usatove, Halerkany, Borysivka, Lighthouses, etc.). Yamnoyi were assimilated native culture, and then praindoyevropeytsyamy. East. fate of others. piznotrypilskyh tribes was different, and changes in their culture Avg. and Gore. Podnistrov'ya associated with the appearance of the area tribes Globular Amphora culture (ran. bronze).

The above (unsigned) post was originally in Ukrainian. Translated using Google Translate. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bizarre Case of the Two Neolithic "Thinker" Statues

Okay, while researching to do work on this article, I stumbled upon this from the Hamangia culture page. Apparently there are two, almost identical, "Thinker" statues dating back to the same time period - one in Bulgaria, and the other in Romania!! Here, look for yourself:

A famous Cucuteni-Trypillian statue entitled: Gânditorul din Târpești (The Thinker of Tarpesti)
Ganditorul de la Hamangia (The Thinker of Hamangia)

At first glance it might appear that these are two photos of the same statue, but upon closer inspection, you can see they are different statues. But - how weird is that?!? LOL! ~ Saukkomies 02:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Both were found in modern day Romania.Still are considered from different cultures. It culd be a clear infuence of Gumelnita culture :) CristianChirita (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This is was common style of art in the Balkan Neolithic. Lots of photos in Marija Gambutas books (Language of the Goddess, etc.). You can also see examples of this sort of thing at the National Museum of Prehistory in Bucharest, and the at the archaeological museum at Cucuteni. The Thinker is one of several recurring themes. Future archaeologists may marvel at present-day crucifixes and Buddha statues. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Tartaria tablets.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tartaria tablets.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

Merging in forked articles

I've been very bold and started to merge several of Saukkomies' forked articles (e.g. Geography of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, Periodization of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture) back into here, for a few reasons. One, most of the content in the forked article is simply better than the stuff here, not just an expanded version of it. Two, I think this article is over-forked: some things like geography don't have enough to them to be a standalone article, and others like periodization (which was actually more of a "history" than just a discussion of periodization) need to be in the main article in detail because they're central to the topic. And three, a lot of the forked articles are a bit flabby, with galleries and sections on related subjects which really ought to be elsewhere, and so by condensing them as I merge them here we can keep the main article a more manageable size. Some of course do have a lot of relevant detail and should remain forked, but neat as it might look in a template I don't think every section here should have a corresponding fork.

To start with I'm just merging them in more or less untouched, which is a little messy, but later I intend to tidy them up afterwards to make the article nice and cohesive. I'll also add links to the forked talk pages here as archives, and update the various templates. joe•roet•c 11:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, Joe. When I forked the original article, I basically created a new article for each of the main subheadings in the original. Remerging some of them should be fine, I believe. It's not really rocket science, so I doubt anyone should get worked up about it, whatever is done. :) --Saukkomies talk 16:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


Map

Hello all! I study the settlements and population dynamics of the Cucuteni-Tripol'ye culture. I could not help but notice that the map here is quite inaccurate (you have the C-T complex extending too far to the west and east, and not far enough north or south). However, I am but a dabbling Wikipedia editor and I am unsure about unilaterally changing an image that is linked to so many pages. Therefore, please consider this image as a replacement (or as a source, if you don't like the formatting): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cucuteni-Tripol%27ye_Culture_Outline_Map.png. It is drawn from a n=2600 dataset of Cucuteni-Tripol'ye sites, identical to the data shown in the maps published in Manzura 2005 ("Steps to the Steppe"), if you'd like to read an article that addresses some of these large-scale spatial issues. Kind Regards, --Thomas.K.Harper (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Your map does look superior to the one in use. Bravo! Maybe, if you'd like to learn a bit about how to edit Wikipedia, you could take on the job of integrating it and replacing the old one with yours. You have my full support in this, for whatever that is worth (I have contributed a lot to the Cucuteni-Trypillian articles, so maybe that's worth a little bit). I'm sure that nobody will yell at you for giving it a go - enjoy the experience. :) --Saukkomies talk 03:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I tried, but it immediately got reverted by the previous editor (who says his was "better"). I had thought about editing some of these entries for accuracy, but I'm not so sure that my input is desired. =/

Anyhow, thanks for your time and kind words! --Thomas.K.Harper (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thomas, it appears that your map is the one that's featured now. I think it looks great, thanks for the contribution. --Saukkomies talk 18:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


potters wheel

Please coordinate the different and mutually excluding sentences about the knowlege of the potters wheel. Thanks. HJJHolm (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's probably in Cucoș, Ștefan (1999). "Faza Cucuteni B în zona subcarpatică a Moldovei". Kortoso (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be expeditious and beneficial to cite the respective text which is of concern. --Saukkomies talk 21:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Precucuteni?

This is not an appropriate word usage in English. Please consider substituting with pre-Cucuteni throughout. Kortoso (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Right you are! Thanks for bringing this to attention. The correct spelling is indeed Pre-Cucuteni (per Mallory, et al). However, I'm busy atm, and so don't have a lot of time to go through and change this. If anyone wants to do so, please feel more than welcome to. --Saukkomies talk 21:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed All instances of Precucuteni changed to Pre-Cucuteni. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Iryna. --Saukkomies talk 12:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Cheers to you both, Kortoso andSaukkomies, for bringing this to my attention. It struck me as being strange quite some time ago, but thought I'd get back to it... and forgot. I know that there are conventions whereby postmodernism and other 'post' norms have been adopted in other academic fields, but couldn't think of any such convention for 'proto' or 'pre' being applied to any historical/archaeological disciplines sans hyphenation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that the rule of thumb in English, is that an unusual word such as Cucuteni, would not be recognized without a hyphen separating the "pre". At your service. Kortoso (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Map

The green-yellow map is complete consense, because NO READER has any notice of what the smaller areas represent. It does not help at all to tell us that these are perhaps counties or what ever. Maps should be based on mountains and rivers, to be found in well-known atlases. 217.93.171.23 (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Invention of the wheel?

As long as there are only finds of toy wheels and NO SINGLE trait of a real wheel, and NO SINGLE depiction of any kind of wagon, the sentence was pure phantasy. The writer of this is obviously not even able to read Parpola in origin, but cites only secondary sources from very unreliable publications. 217.93.171.23 (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. I'm closing this myself because it isn't controversial. The consensus is to move all seven pages to the Trypillia spelling, but using en dashes (–) instead of hyphens (-). (non-admin closure) – Joe (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a very minor point but it's bugged me for years so it would be nice to get it sorted. The name for the Ukrainian half of this culture that's currently preferred in English-language scholarship is Trypillia (see e.g. [2][3][4]) – the Romanization of the name of the type site in Ukrainian (Трипiлля) using Ukraine's official transcription system. The Trypillian variant came about from hyper-correction by non-native speakers: in Ukrainian, when naming archaeological cultures, the type site is changed into an adjective (Трипільська культура), so when writing in English they've tried to turn the noun into an adjective too (Trypillian, presumably by analogy with Australia/Australian). However this isn't necessary in English grammar, and is never done with archaeological cultures. We call it the Bell Beaker culture not the Bell Beakerish culture. I think we ended up using Trypillian because Videiko did in his earlier papers, but it's a mistake a good proofreader should have caught, and its use on Wikipedia for the last few years seems to be perpetuating the error.

Just to be clear I'm not saying that we have to make our article titles grammatically "correct". The rationale for the move is that Trypillia is the more common spelling in English sources – Trypillian is only occasionally used by non-native speakers.

I think this should be uncontroversial; I'm only doing an RM because it will involve moving a lot of spin-off articles in addition to this one. While we're at it we can also fix the use of en-dashes instead of hyphens. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge?

Indeed, some of the sub-articles ought to be absorbed back into the main article. They were originally separated due to the enormous breadth of scope that the main article covered. However, over time it has become apparent that some of the sub-articles are not going to expand beyond a minimal level, so they ought to be re-absorbed, in my opinion (I being the editor that originally separated them out lo these eons ago). However, there are some of the sub-articles that should stay separate, due to their lengthiness and scope. I would suggest the Settlements, Economy and Decline articles remain standing on their own. --Saukkomies talk 13:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Saukkomies: I think you may have misunderstood slightly, I'm proposing that we rename this article and all its sub-articles to reflect the correct spelling Trypillia. But they'd stay separate; I'm not suggesting a merge. (Although I do agree some could do to be merged back, if you want to start that discussion as well.) – Joe (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, Joe. And yes, I do actually remember you! I think you have a very fair proposal, and so you have my vote in support of such a change, for whatever it is worth. --Saukkomies talk 21:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Using ResearchGate as a source

There has been a recent revision conflict over using a reference taken from a paper published through ResearchGate. The paper (which deals with the DNA haplogroups of southeast Europe) is quite fascinating, and does have relevance to this Wiki article about the Neolithic people of that region, but because it is published by ResearchGate, it is tainted with that organization's somewhat shady scholarly reputation. Perhaps the resolution to this would be to look at the names listed on the article (I believe it had four listed authors), and then to do some research through more widely-accepted scholarly publications to see whether they might have published their ideas elsewhere. This would be a great research thread to follow and perhaps it would be appropriate to include it here. Just my two bits... --Saukkomies talk 12:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither are really publishers, biorXiv is a preprint server and ResearchGate is a (horribly unethical) self-archive repository, so yes both versions are technically WP:SPS. However, the biorXiv version lists about a million authors including some big names, so I don't think we need to worry about the reliability too much. If they're putting it online then it's likely the paper has already been submitted and accepted by a peer reviewed journal and will appear very soon.
But either way I don't think we should rush to add this to the article. There have been lots of these big ancient DNA papers lately and while the results are fascinating they're often accompanied by simplistic and questionable archaeological interpretations. In my opinion we should be cautious about using them until the findings are incorporated into secondary sources. – Joe (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The researchgate page that is being used as source clearly states that it's a "reprint" of material from bioRxiv, a site where anyone can publish anything without any review of the scientific quality of the research done, or the conclusions that are being drawn ("Articles are not peer-reviewed", "No endorsement of an article’s methods, assumptions, conclusions, or scientific quality ... is implied by its appearance in bioRxiv", both quotes from their "about us" page), the researchgate page also clearly states that the material has not been peer-reviewed. And per Wikipedia policy we do not use self-published sources, material that is presented as academic research, as the material in question is, should also be peer-reviewed, which this material isn't. Which means that we, no matter how "fascinating" it is, can not use it as a source for any of the claims made in it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: As far as I'm aware WP:RS doesn't contain an absolute ban on self-published sources. bioRxiv and the better-known arXiv are commonly used by scientists to disseminate papers that have been submitted to a journal but not yet published, so others can see the results without waiting for the often lengthy process of academic peer review. This is the case here, and as the authors of the paper are all established, reputable researchers, I think we can use it per WP:SPS:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
However personally I don't think we should use it, not because it's a self-published source, but because it's a primary source in a field where the primary literature is volatile and difficult to use correctly. – Joe (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I know about that exception, but in order to claim an exception you have to prove beyond doubt that the several dozen people that are listed as being authors really are acknowledged experts within that field, and have published multiple peer-reviewed scientific reports within that field before this un-reviewed self-published one, which makes it virtually impossible to claim the exception in a case like this. And true acknowledged experts in a field like this don't publish their reports through bioRxiv and Researchgate, but through reputable academic channels... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect I think you've rather misunderstood the nature of things like bioRxiv and ResearchGate, Tom. They're not a subversion or ersatz version of traditional academic publishing, they're a supplement to it. Not only do "reputable" researchers put papers in bioRxiv or ResearchGate (or arXiv, or Academia.edu, etc. etc.), it's become de rigueur to do so. I do it myself. They do it for papers that also, or will soon, appear in a peer-reviewed journal, because journals are very slow and often sit behind restrictive paywalls.
It seems like unnecessary hoop-jumping to ask me to "prove beyond doubt" that all the authors are established experts. But for example the lead author is a postdoc in the genetics lab at Harvard, the senior author David Reich is the head of that lab, Nicholas Conard is a professor of prehistory at Tübingen, Thomas Higham is a leading expert on radiocarbon dating (we should really have a page on him...), T. Douglas Price is Professor Emeritus of European Archaeology at Michigan (ditto), Johannes Krause is the director of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History... I could go on. – Joe (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
If you believe you can prove that it's reliable take it to the reliable sources noticeboard and discuss it there, telling them that it is intended to be used to prove controversial theories about the ethnic origin of people in south-eastern Europe (since attempts have been made to add it both on this article and on Genetic studies on Bulgarians), based on samples from just a handfull individuals, people who could just as well have been a small number of wandering nomads from far away just passing through, as a resident population. Making it impossible to draw any other conclusions from it than that most of the handfull of available samples, all found in a single location, seem to have been bearers of a certain gene. Personally I very much dislike attempts to use this kind of studies to "prove" what kind of people lived where a very long time ago, such as the claims that have repeatedly been made here on en-WP about Finns having been the original native population of the Scandinavian Peninsula, based only on a DNA study saying that 6,000 years old human bone fragments from two individuals, found on Gotland, an island far out in the middle of the Baltic Sea, could possibly have been Finns... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like you don't like the entire field of ancient DNA then, which I'm sorry to hear. But this study is not based on a small sample. It is based on a sample of 204 which is gigantic by aDNA standards. Its findings are also not particularly controversial; they line up well with previous large-scale aDNA and population genetic studies that have come out in recent years. And the IP editor who originally tried to introduce this source (and got three talk page warnings and a threat to block for their trouble!) only tried to add the statement "Four out of five tested samples (dated 3000-4000 BC) belong to Haplogroup G2a", which is as innocuous and straightforwardly empirical as it gets.
Having read through the paper some more I think it is worth using it to update the archaeogenetics section. We don't have to seek approval from WP:RSN. – Joe (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no problems with DNA-analysis of old bone fragments, what I have problems with is that people here on en-WP try to draw conclusions from the tests that tests on an extremely small number of samples from a single location can't possibly support, such as the ethnic/genetic origin of the people of the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture, or who the ancient Bulgarians were... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is trying to do that on this page. – Joe (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
The test of the ancient samples has been done by experts. These samples tested positive for the mutation of G2a or any other one are done and would not be tested again, they are going to remain the same in the peer-reviewed publication. As long as the article is not peer-reviewed there must be no quoting of conclusions from it. The empirical evidence is very clear and the sampling of these farmers is not going to be retaken, neither the peer-reviewers would fix wrong positives. Even if they disapprove the entire article, the quality of the sequenced farmers remain and there is no need for it to be peer-reviewed to be an evidence. Anyway since the article is authored by so many experts its format may be changed, but there is hardly any chance that it is not going to be published. The haplogroups from humans of Cucuteni are in consistency with series of previous studies, claiming that over half of the human remains from Neolithic Europe (7000 BC- 3000 BC) belonged to the mutation G2a. (list, chart) --83.148.76.196 (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

(reset margin)

This conversation is incredibly fascinating to me, and I am actually learning quite a bit reading over your shoulders as you guys discuss genetic archaeology (or whatever it's called). However, let's try to keep the conversation above board. Here's a humorous comic about fallacious arguments you might find amusing: The Adventures of Fallacy Man. Meanwhile, I'm enjoying reading what you are writing, and look forward to more. --Saukkomies talk 11:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cucuteni–Trypillia culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

nonsense intro

"The Cucuteni-Trypillia culture (traditionally Romanian-Ukrainian: Cucuteni-Trypillia" was senseless; obviously it should read, "The Cucuteni-Trypillia culture (traditionally Romanian-Russian: Cucuteni-Tripol'e ..." HJJHolm (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

6500?

Change makes no sense, since 6500 BC isn't in the 6th millennium BC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2017/November#Cucuteni-Trypillia culture (I censored the ridiculius personal attacks):

You pretend [...] that tha chapter/paragraf in question (Early period 4800-4000 BC) "does not say anything about 6500-5000 BC period".

I can't guess if you are lying premeditate [...] you just can't read. I COPIED the text fron that paragraph[...] HERE the paragraph text (only the begining of it):

"The roots of Cucuteni-Trypillia culture can be found in the Starčevo-Körös-Criș and Vinča cultures of the 6th to 5th millennia,[8] with additional influence from the Bug-Dniester culture (6500-5000 BC).[22] During the early period of its existence (in the 5th millennium BC), the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture was also influenced by the Linear Pottery culture from the north..."

So "the paragraph text does not say 6500-5000 BC" ??????? ????????? ??????? Muntele (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Apparently you're able to read, but not able to understand:

  • "During the early period of its existence (in the 5th millennium BC), the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture"
  • Starčevo-Körös-Criș, Vinča cultures, and the Bug-Dniester culture have provided the roots of the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture; they're not the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture itself.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

And to quote from User talk:Joe Roe#Cucuteni-Trypillia culture: "the paragraph itself describe this Early period as the period between 6500-5000 BC" - no, it does not, as stated above: "During the early period of its existence (in the 5th millennium BC)". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I suspect Muntele has misunderstood the reference to the 6th millennium cultures that preceded C-T (Starcevo, Vinca, etc.) as meaning that the C-T culture itself started then. The current chronology is cited to a solid, recent source. I also checked some books I have to hand (Anthony 2007, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language; Anthony 2010, The Lost World of Old Europe; and Muller et al. Trypillia Mega-Sites and European Prehistory: 4100-3400 BCE) and they're all roughly in agreement. So unless there's been a radical change in the radiocarbon chronology recently, I think we're good. In their tirade on my talk page Muntele refers to a source by an "History professor at NY University" but I have no idea what they're talking about. Potentially there could also be some BP/BCE confusion? – Joe (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cucuteni–Trypillia culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cucuteni–Trypillia culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

egalitarian?

What/Where is the evidence? It's a nice romance but completely untrue. Sure they may have been more "egalitarian" before the Bronze Age what with fewer people and fewer personal belongings. But there has never been a human society that was completely egalitarian. It's not in human nature to do so except out of extreme necessity. People always find ways to lord it over someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.13.32 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the start date of Middle C/T?

The text says 5000 BCE, but the titles say 4000 BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:555:2301:3613:E8FF:FE36:8058 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

House Burning

No funerary rites <-> House burning every 60-80 years ... Little to no division of labour. Hm... "Gift" i.e. propertyless economy and reciprocity/mutuality relies on everybody learning to be competent and self-reliant, and doing their part for the community. The house is burnt when the person who built it dies. And you're not an adult fit to leave your parental home (and marry?) until you built your own house. There probably was an examination, the house was your thesis, or one of them at least. An egalitarian society can't have inheritance, your stuff goes with you.


Just do the math, please ... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.207.16 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


  1. Enchainment and fragmentation, is not clear explained in the reference thesis used as reference.

Maybe someone could explain better the fragmentation hypothesis. It is about the whole house as a symbol, and every fragment of artefact in the house having his role and symbolic signification. Still the reference I've found is a little inconclusive, lacking a clear description. CristianChirita (talk)

there's more on that here: BBC
  1. ^ Unicode 3.0 standard, p.162
  2. ^ [5]
  3. ^ [6][7]
  4. ^ "Approved Minutes of the UTC 117 / L2 214 Joint Meeting". The Unicode Consortium.
  5. ^ European Union Expansion Font Update
  6. ^ Tanya Dzhanfezova - The possible functions of stamp seals some considerations. Cucuteni 120 Years of research - Time to sum up. CCIRC Piatra Neamt
  7. ^ Tanya Dzhanfezova - The possible functions of stamp seals some considerations. Cucuteni 120 Years of research - Time to sum up. CCIRC Piatra Neamt
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference XXXIII Marco Merlini 2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ http://www.brukenthalmuseum.ro/pdf/Biblioteca_Brukenthal/XXXIII/25%20Fall%20phase.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cucuteni–Trypillia_culture/Archive_1&oldid=1136644211"