Talk:Nuragic civilization

Creation

Hi! I've just created this article basing on the Italian version. Collaborators are welcome for cleanup, additions, etc. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Attilios. This taught me something I never knew before. The article looks good to me.PiCo (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Attilios, nice job.--Shardan (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sword

The sword from Nuraghe Attentu shown in the article is not nuragic , it was imported from the italian peninsula , probably from Etruria (maybe someone can add this clarification). That sword is clearly an antennae sword typical of the urnfield culture (and proto-villanovian/villanovian culture in the italian peninsula). An example of nuragic swords are those from Decimoputzu/Sant'Iroxi (Late bonnanaro culture) , almost identical with those used by the Sherden :(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_g2l9aqmE89Q/S635yAHs7kI/AAAAAAAAACY/hi6huj9uOCs/s1600/Fig.+18+Le+spade+Sant%E2%80%99Iroxi+in+rame+arsenicato.bmp) --Xoil (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Note: this requested move seems to have languished for more than a year. It has been in Category:Requested moves but apparently has not been listed at WP:RM. I am closing it now, but alternatively it could be relisted, if anyone cares to do so. —P.T. Aufrette (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I don't know if "Nuragic" is an English word, it may well be. But to anyone who knows Italian it just looks like a spelling mistake, another "Sienna". I see that "Nuraghic" is fairly widely used, including by Brittanica Online and sardegna.com. Would there be a strong objection to moving the page?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tin

Thank you Attilios. That was a very interesting article on Nuragic civilization in the english Wikipedia.

There is one item that confuses me, however, and perhaps you can explain and edit the article to make it clearer. Was there native tin in Nuragic Sardinia, or did all (or most) of the bronze metallurgy make use of imported tin?

In the section "Bronze Age" the article says: "Tin may have drawn Bronze Age traders from the Aegean where copper is available but tin for bronze-making is scarce;[6] The first verifiable smelting slag has come to light; its appearance in a hoard of ancient tin confirms local smelting as well as casting." But this leaves open the question whether this hoard was of native or imported tin, although it suggests that traders came from tin-poor places to Sardinia for Sardinian tin.

In the later section "Economy" it says: "The widespread use of bronze, an alloy which used tin, a metal which however was not present in Sardinia if not in a single deposit, further proves the capability of the Nuragic people to trade in the resources they needed." Without the phrase: "if not in a single deposit", the sentence would state clearly that there was no tin in sardinia and that all the tin for bronze was imported. However that qualifying phrase confuses the sense of the sentence, and makes it seem as if there might have been tin spread out over many deposits.

I think a clarification would be useful. What do you think? RobLandau (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

First great European civilization west of Crete? Culture or civilization

We'd need very good sources, possibly attributed, to say this is the first great European civilization west of Crete. And besides A Prehistory of Sardinia, 2300-500 BC By Gary S. Webster, this paper calls it a culture:[1], as do many other books in the last 15 years.[2] - Google scholar is pretty evenly split. Doug Weller (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Dates seem to depend upon whether we focus on the culture or the alleged civilization

Culture is a clear archaeological term and is based on physical evidence. "Civilization" is much more vague and that clearly ended when the Romans took over, if not with the Carthaginians. In the course of my editing today I have discovered that archaeologists, or at least some, think there was a Nuragic VI in the north (and why in hell aren't the other phases discussed here? We use Lilliu as a source! My guess is pov editing with a narrow focus). Anyway, the suggestion is that some native communities may have preserved the culture during the Roman period.[3] Three more sources for the article.[4][5][6] Doug Weller talk 10:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The use of "culture" instead of "civilization" seems to mostly occur in English texts, and even there, as you wrote, both are used. In the Italian sources, that definitely make up the majority of the studies, the term "civilization" is the one that's almost always used, and the two terms have the same meaning they do in English. So the term to be used should be that one.

In the book you cited G. Webster wrote: "it was rightly recognized as falling within the range of societies classified as Barbarian and thus occupying an evolutionary position somewhere between the Savagery of hunter-gatherers and the Civilization of agricultural state societies"

This entire sentence is absurd. First of all: the Nuragic civilization was an agricultural society as well. Proofs of domesticated plants like grapes and melons have been found and we know they produced wine and bread. The Nuragics also commerced in all of the Mediterranean (the Kommos settlement is one of the many proofs of that) and had complex societies with hierarchies and different jobs. Saying they were "in between" makes no sense. Architecturally speaking they were more advanced than the Minoans, are we going to stop calling them a civilization as well and change the article about them? And, to be honest, even the definition of "Barbarian" and "Savagery" look very outdated to me.

Also the Nuragic VI was supposed to be in the center-east of the Island (in the area known as Barbagia even today for that reason), not in the north.--L2212 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've lost my quote for north, sorry. How do you define civilization? Doug Weller talk 18:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

There are different ways to define a civilization, looking at different dictionaries:

From Oxford dictionary (taking only the ones relative to our discussion):

“The process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization.” (to answer to your question, that’s the best definition out of these, in my opinion, because it’s probably the only one that includes and defines all of those that are already called “civilizations”)

“The society, culture, and way of life of a particular area.”

Anyway these both apply to the Nuragic civilization.

From Merriam-Webster:

“a relatively high level of cultural and technological development

specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained ”

“the culture characteristic of a particular time or place“

For the first one: even though these requirements are considered too strict and not usually applied completely (like this source, used in the opening of the Civilization article, says, the Inca civilization had no writing, and the Maya settlements, being too dispersed, were not proper cities, according to some scholars, but both are still called civilizations and the definition "should not to be used dogmatically": ) archaeologists found more than 60 artifacts dating back to the Iron Age with written symbols (probably developed starting from the late Bronze) on them , and an even older system of measurement as well (from at least the XVII century BCE), so both apply to the Nuragics as well.

Other definitions (like the one used in the Civilization articles following sources like these:) also include urban development, separation of jobs and classes. Both can be applied to the Nuragic society. Speaking about different jobs, artisans and classes we can see it in the bronze statuettes and even more in the architectural changes in the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age, that are explained by an aristocratic rule. Urbanization have also been found in the Nuragic society. So all these definitions are applicable to Nuragic Sardinia.--L2212 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions are often useless for technical concepts. Bruce Trigger in his book on Early Civilizations also has "An instrumental form of political organisation (state) based on residence instead of kinship, with a clearly demarcated territory and the monopoly of the use of force. " and "2. The centralised accumulation of surplus wealth (or capital) resulting from taxation following on from intensive land use and increased productivity." You of course have mentioned an aristocracy, but that's not sufficient. Nor is urbanisation, classes imposed by a cultural eliete, etc. You need a state-wide polity. You have an enviable advantage over me in your language skills and I can't read your sources, but it looks as though you haven't looked at English language sources. The The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean states:

What the new waves of foreign contacts in the LBA and FBA allow us to do is see clearly the weaknesses of the Nuragic elites of that period. The fact that the inhabitants of the largest nuraghi, clearly with many people at their command, seem to have made no attempt to control the metals industry or the access to exotica may be a clue to the ultimate ‘balkanization’ of Nuragic society in the Iron Age and the abandonment of the nuraghi in favor of new dwellings. In the Bronze Age, Sardinia seemed to be on a trajectory toward a state-level polity, but the Iron Age saw no such coalescence into a supra-regional political unit. While there is evidence of wealthy Iron Age elites, perhaps a veritable aristocracy, from such sites as Monte Prama with its magnificent statues, these elites are no longer centered at the nuraghi, and there are no signs of a coherent political framework of territorial control on a large scale (see Perra 2009 for a reinterpretation of Nuragic political structure over time, and see Tronchetti and van Dommelen 2005 for a study of Monte Prama and its Iron Age cultural context). The Phoenician colonists to the island cannot be blamed for this, as van Dommelen (1998: 107-109) makes clear, because the eighth century BC did not see any hardships inflicted on the Sardinians from outside. Instead, it was the case that the Nuragic political authorities of the LBA and FBA had not sufficiently harnessed the economic opportunities offered by the foreign contacts, focusing on a traditional resource base of land and livestock. While they were at pains to appropriate material symbols of status and power, in particular the nuraghi themselves, the abandonment of the nuraghi in the subsequent period suggests that they were not successful. In the first millennium BC, trade and metals were sources of power, and while a new class of Sardinian elites benefited from interactions with the Phoenician colonists, the ‘old guard’ presumably did not. Cultural uniformity was not protection enough against outside threats: political and economic centralization were necessary, and these were missing. The island’s peoples could never achieve an island-wide state-level policy on live-stock alone despite their foreign contacts... Cultural uniformity was not protection enough against outside threats: political and economic centralization were necessary, and these were missing. The island’s peoples could never achieve an island-wide state-level polity on livestock alone, despite their foreign contacts. While there is an appeal to the acephalous cultural cohesion characterizing Sardinia in the second millennium BC, it could not withstand the pressures of the first power to try to control it, Carthage, and although elements of the Nuragic culture lingered for many centuries, it would never enjoy the same level of political, cultural, or economic autonomy again.[7]

Do your sources have counter-arguments or discuss these issues? Do they argue for a civilization without a state-wide polity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 07:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Dictionary definitions in this case are quite relevant, because they are taken from the history of the use of the term itself, and "civilization" is a term that had way more different interpretations during time and according to the scholar if compared with other technical concepts. Also I didn’t just refer to those. I also cited the books used as sources at the start of the Civilization article itself. And one of those sources is the one that explains how the definition is much more flexible that is seems, since otherwise some civilization (the Inca and Maya ones, for example) would not be considered as such. Also, in the list inside it a single government for all the civilization is not included, it's more about the monopoly on force (that the nuragics had, with defined territories and a structure that in many ways resembled a feudal one) and it also states how it's actually difficult to distinguish between chiefdoms and states (the idea that that the differentiation between the two is based mostly on that "monopoly on force" factor is in page 138).

Same thing for the centralization of power: even though there are actually scholars that consider the Nuragic society a politically united one (with the ability to interact with the outside, if necessary, as a single entity and even having "federal" meetings in sacred places), we can’t use that as a requirement because there are civilizations that had not a central political government. For example the so called “Phoenician civilization" was actually a group of independent cities. Same thing with Ancient Greece, composed of a group of independent city-states with even very different kinds of political systems. Even for the older Mycenaean civilization, with its palatial states, the existence of some “Great King” or a confederation is an hypothesis that’s not supported by everyone. The culture in all those cases was either similar or the same, but from that point of view the Nuragics expressed homogeneity as well.--L2212 (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Good point about city states, some civilizations are groups of polities, but government is still key. Where we may disagree is how long Nuragic culture/society lasted as a civilization. And I stand by my statement about dictionaries, what we care about is how anthropologists and archaeologists define the word, that's all. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sulky and Monte Sirai, inhabitants and who attacked

The Archaeology of Cremation: Burned Human Remains in Funerary Studie "The site of Monte Sirai is located in the south-western part of Sardinia near the city of Carbonia (Fig. 5.1a and b). It is thought to have been established by the Phoenicians of Sulky (today known as S. Antioco) or by the early settlers living in the anonymous downtown of Portoscuso around 740 BC (Botto 1994), and soon after assumed importance for its strategic position near the coastline and leading to the Campidano plane of the island. Around the year 540 BC, Carthago decided to occupy the island using force, but a coalition of Phoenician cities in Sardinia, certainly involving Sulcis and Monte Sirai, firmly resisted to this expansion. Undeterred, Carthago organised a second military expedition a few years later that finally defeated the Phoenician alliance."[8]

That agrees with Bartolini's claim that Carthage attacked, but why does he say "rather than the natives who lived in those cities with the Phoenicians, for the Phoenician cities which were destroyed like Sulky or Monte Sirai which he believes were inhabited mostly by native Sardinians[40]. Or perhaps why are we making that argument as the article doesn't suggest it was the natives. Not that my quote agrees that the inhabitants of these two cities were mainly Sardinian.

The Phoenicians By Sabatino Moscati says "The Monte Sirai fortress is situated behind Sulcis on a small plateau overlooking the roads running along the coast and inland to the Campidano. It offers a fine exam- ple of the evolution of an interior centre of Punic Sardinia. The hill, covered by a wide spread of lava, shows signs of nuraghic presence and was the seat of a community of Phoenician colonists from the second half of the 7th cen- tury B.C. The site was then fortified and militarily occupied" Phoenicians, not Sardinians.[9] Sulky was also a Phoencian foundation.[10] Doug Weller talk 16:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Dubious image of bronze nuraghe model

I'm a tourist not a regular, so forgive me if I break protocol.

This lovely bronze model caught my eye. The image caption says it's 10th century BC but the file description says 7th-6th century BC. I'd even be surprised if it's that early, because it looks Really Nice. I can't find any more info about it online.

So yeah, at least one of these dates is 300 years wrong and even if two legitimate sources give these dates, they aren't cited anywhere (is that necessary for image captions)? Peace out

Start of the Nuragic civilization

Obviously there weren't nuraghi in 2200 BC, the first protonuraghi were built at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age not in 2200-1800 BC (Early Bronze Age), see Webster 2015. Xóil (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Music

The article mentions that some of the bronze statues represent musicians. (Though there's no inline citation.) What can we infer about the musical instruments in use, and their tuning? yoyo (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)