Talk:Varna culture

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Varna 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725081024/http://www.amvarna.com/eindex.php?lang=2&lid=2&slid=&slid=1 to http://www.amvarna.com/eindex.php?lang=2&lid=2&slid=&slid=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212014030/http://www.omda.bg/ENGL/history/selishte1_engl.htm to http://www.omda.bg/engl/history/selishte1_engl.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Elite burial images

Elite burial at the Varna necropolis (reconstruction)

Detail

See images right ->

The top image "elite burial, reconstruction", and the image below "detail" are not the same images. So, the "detail" is not a detail. In fact, the "detail" image is a photo of the original find, whereas the so-called "reconstruction" is a very badly performed reconstruction omitting some key items and displacing others.

Compare eg the arm rings, both upper arms. These were upper arm arm rings, but in the reconstruction they've been moved to lower arm. Then the gold buttons on the pelvic area. These are laid carefully in three-four triangles in the original find, but not on the "reconstruction". Also, the original had a penis cover in solid gold, which has been misplaced to the upper right thigh bone in the "reconstruction". Otoh, the "reconstruction" has some item placed on the forehead, which was not there at the find. Also, the disc beneath the sceptre has been misplaced on the "reconstrunction" as has the axe-head that should be placed left of the hip. The solid disc that should be left of the cranium has been mislocated to the hip area, and some unrelated bowl has been placed there in stead, etc etc ad nauseam. This "reconstruction" is so badly performed that it does not deserve the name "reconstruction", it should be "artistic re-arrangement" if anything.

And, there are more errors than these. The "reconstruction" image is simply not serious and should not be used at all, for anything.

I am going to remove the "reconstruction" photo altogether, as it provides a false and erroneous image of the find, not a documentation. clsc (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Above edit done clsc (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Clsc: - Fascinating information! But I have two questions for you, one more important than the other:

1. Please give some evidence to support your contention that the "detail" photo is a more accurate reconstruction than the "reconstruction".
2. In the photo you suppose to be better, where has the gold penis sheath gone - wouldn't it appear at the bottom of the pelvis? yoyo (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)