Talk:Minoan civilization

message: First of all we don't really know about the dates, these are all hypotheses. Secondly, "Subminoan" maybe means that the island was totally flooded by the Santorini event, therefore wiping out any civilisation on this island? Minoa going submarine, right? Just asking... --178.197.236.244 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "Santorini event" is also a hypothesis, and a bad one at that.--Atlan (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why all these dating hypotheses? 

message: This article should have more to say about the influence of Egypt on this civilization. Any scholarly article or book you read about the subject, will start with the fact that Minoan Crete rose under Egyptian cultural influence. Whether it be in the arts, the architecture, their writing system, their government system and even its religion. They all show strong Egyptian influence. And this article should reflect that more than it does. I would appreciate it if someone could pick this up. Another thing is the fact that the Minoans had economic and diplomatic relations with Anatolia and Syria (and Egypt ofcourse). But none with Europe. Opening up with a line saying that Crete was 'the European missing link' misrepresents the reality back then.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Minoan Crete is European so who else would influence them more but other Europeans from mainland Europe. There was also influences from Anatolia. Egyptian influence on Minoan civilization was minimum at best. Evans over estimated Egyptian influence on Minoan civilization as the latest archeological and scientific studies proves this. Minoan Crete did not arise under Egyptian cultural influence, the two couldn't have been as different as night and day. Also Minoan civilization did not show strong Egyptian influences, from their architecture, writing system, government system and even its religion, they were different. From one Minoan was a "matriarchal culture", Egyptian and most Middle Eastern civilizations of that time were predominately patriarchal. Of course the Minoans had economic and diplomatic relations with Europeans, i.e. mainland Greece and other Balkan civilizations of Europe are who the Minoans would have had influences and contact with first and foremost over civilizations in other continents. Was there culture exchanges between Minoans and Egyptians and Middle Eastern civilizations going both ways? Of course there was. But to disregard the fact that the civilizations that would have influenced and from where Minoans would have grown out of were right there in their back yard in Europe is ridiculous. (Angar432 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with you that Minoans did not sire under Egyptian cultural influence, the statement "Minoan Crete is European" is relative. The civilization was on European soil (including the mainland Greece) yes, but it had little to share with the rest of Europe. Yes, ancestors of the Minoans spread in Europe and brought farming, but their origins were Anatolia. The "European Minoans" is a (deliberate?) misquotation/partion quotation by the media of Professor Stamatoyannopoulos comments of recent DNA research done on Minoans and modern inhabitants of the Lasithi plateau. Recently, the university of California released a new study showing the Anatolian origins http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1320811111.abstract . Interestingly, within a month a Spanish group of researchers came to the same conclusion by doing mtDna tests http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004401 . Fkitselis (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup and I don't disagree with you. Most Neolithic Farmer migrations into Europe were via Southeast Europe en route from Anatolia. As for the test done on the Minoans: the majority of Minoans were classified in European haplogroups H (43.2%), T (18.9%), K (16.2%) and I (8.1%). The greatest percentage of shared Minoan haplotypes was observed with European populations, particularly with individuals from Northern and Western Europe (26.98% and 29.28%, respectively). A gradient was observed, with the lowest affinity for Minoans found with African populations and the percentage of haplotype sharing increasing when moved through the Middle East, Caucasus and the Mediterranean islands, southern Europe and mainland Europe. So yes saying the 'European Minoans' would be accurate, IMO. Like I stated before, no one has denied Anatolian Neolithic origins for many Europeans. BTW, thanks for posting those studies, very enlighting results. Always interested in new studies that come out with regards to Europe and Anatolia because the two regions and people are closely connected and related to one another given most migrations routes into Europe were via Asia Minor. (Angar432 (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Egypt and Middle East

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Minoan civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006144100/http://www.uri.edu/endeavor/thera/EOS.pdf to http://www.uri.edu/endeavor/thera/EOS.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has used BCE since mid-March of 2013, with some minor instances of backing and forthing. The instances I saw, skimming the history, have been speedily reverted to BCE. Most recently, an editor put it back to BC, commenting "Original article style reinstated".
WP:ERA says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." It says nothing about "original" style, and I will argue that three years of stylistic stability is enough to "establish" a style. This is not a Christian ecclesiastical topic, so BCE is perfectly appropriate. Your thoughts? Just plain Bill (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick look shows that you're right. I'll make the change. Neutralitytalk 00:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

text: "Do not change the established era style..." means just that - the original style - which is well-established practice throughout Wiki. If an article begins with BC, leave it that way, and vise-versa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.210 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era designation 

message: The current section on warfare is woefully inadequate. The article assumes that "Pax Minoica" refers only to a lack of violence whatsoever. No mention is made of the vastly superior Minoan navy that we know existed, since the Greeks invented an entirely new word for it (thalassocracy). I'm going to try to fix this section. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warfare section 

message: Considering that the species is generally thought to have arisen som 200 000 years ago, I removed the few words.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtdriver (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern humans were there 530 000 years ago? 

message: There appears to be a line of keyboard spam at the top of the article that isn't showing up in the editor, so I can't remove it. The fact that it doesn't show up in editor is making me a little worried, could this be underlying Wikipedia bug/vulnerability? Screenshots attached incase this is somehow a localized/isolated thing (I swear I'm not locally messing with the html, a friend of mine can see it too).
The page
Editor view  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.76.221 (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: appears to be fixed now - purge cache. :) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keyboard spam at top of the article? 

message: I've created a new subsection under Art for metal vessels and have put in a few sentences with the intention of putting in a detailed entry over the next couple of days.  However, it's occurred to me that the other subsections under Art are extremely small and need a lot of expansion (and in fact there is a lot more that needs to be written on Minoan art to fill this out), so if I put in my 800-odd words on Minoan metal vessels, it will be well out of proportion with the other Art subsections.  I see that under the Pottery subsection there is a link to a larger article on the topic.  I'm looking for opinions on if I should just go ahead and add my piece to this article or if I should go and create a new article and link to it through here. (I'm new here)--Dina (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the work Dina. You are right that the section needs expansion. However, I wonder if the metal section would be better placed under the Minoan pottery article. For example, I included glass and metal sections in the Pottery of ancient Greece. Then a better, longer summary of the pottery article can be in this article. Need a good source on Minoan painting. Cake (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your input Cake. I think Minoan specialists would regard metals as quite separate from the pottery and might get a bit upset about them being put together.  Really, it would make sense to have an article dedicated to Minoan art which includes pottery, metals, painting and all the other media as sections.  I'm completely new to editing here and don't want to step on any toes, however. Dina (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe my edits to pottery in ancient Greece should be amended. I assumed the similarity of forms was enough to put them under the same heading. Say you got a silver amphora rather than a clay one. You are right about "Minoan art" as a sorely needed article. Cake (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minoan metal vessels 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Minoan civilization. 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/20090305052142/http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/KingAHG-08-72-205.pdf to http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/KingAHG-08-72-205.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section Warfare and the "Minoan peace" is missing a citation. Acrodgers (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Citation 

message: There were several reasons I changed the image in the infobox and moved it:
- the map in the infobox is too small to be read, making it pretty much useless
- that map can be more usefully displayed by the geography section, which lists most of the places on the map
- the map currently by the geography section gives minimal information while taking up lots of screen space 
- since this is the Minoan Civilization page, an image illustrating Minoan Civilization is at least as appropriate in the infobox, and I would say more appropiate, than a simple map
Though some WP articles on societies, histories, or civilizations have a map in the infobox, many do not: History of India, History of Japan, Inca society, and many others have landscapes, buildings, or cultural objects in the infobox.
I'd like to reinstitute my changes, but I will wait to see if anyone comments.  The Uncle of History (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is not "pretty much useless", because, even as small as it is, the reader can easily click on it to see it at full size. The size you had it at in the "Geography" section was overly massive, in my view, since it took up more space on the computer screen than the actual text in that section. Using a map for the infobox image seems to be standard for "civilization" articles. The articles Mycenaean civilization, Classical Athens, Sparta, and Cycladic culture are just a few examples of this. Besides, it makes more sense to use a map because one of the first things a person reading about the Minoan civilization for the first time is going to want to know is where it was located. The map answers that question. The image you added, while undoubtedly a fine example of Minoan artwork, does not really tell the reader very much about the Minoan civilization as a whole and would be much more meaningful later in the article. I agree that the current map used in the "Geography" section is not the most useful map that could be placed there, since it only shows Knossos and Gortyn. It may be a good idea to try to find a better map with more locations marked on it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the image is a fine example of Minoan art, and that the map is more informative in the infobox. It might be even better for the infobox to show Crete’s placement in the Aegean. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map in infobox 

message: I suggest just removing the Etymology section. We can leave the statement in the first paragraph that Minoan comes from Minos.  But I don't see any reason to have a whole section about where the term came from. It's not irrelevant, but it's a very minor scholarly quarrel that almost no general reader is going to have any interest in. The Uncle of History (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the "Etymology" section should be kept; if we delete it, people will automatically assume that "Minoan" was what the ancient Minoans actually called themselves. The section also provides valuable information about where the name comes from and it has numerous useful citations in it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the etymology section is valuable and should be kept. Dr. K. 18:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need an Etymology section? 

message: It seems that whenever during an edit I click show preview, then click save changes, I do NOT get prompted for an explanation of the changes.  Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong?  Anyway, that's why there is no explanation of my changes to the religion para.  I've rephrased it and added cites which are actually meaningful, since the previous ones weren't, having no page numbers.  I've also removed the term "matriarchal," not because I think it's necessarily wrong, but because as it stands now the cites don't verify the use of this term to describe Minoan religion by reliable sources. The Uncle of History (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Matriarchal society is verified by Sarah Iles Johnston on page 208. Dr. K. 16:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the reference to matriarchy again because it is still without a citation attached to this sentence.  It's not clear to me from your comment what you mean by "Sarah Iles Johnston on page 208"  If you mean the book  Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide By Sarah Iles Johnston, page 208 of that book is part of an article by Nanno Marinatos and no mention of matriarchy is made on that page. (This exchange shows why it is so important to give complete bibliographic information and exact page numbers to a book cite, so that it can be verified.)  I have nothing against matriarchy, and if any reliable sources have argued that Minoan society was one, that can be put in the article. The Uncle of History (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't difficult. The full citation is in the article. Click on it and page 206 will pop up. Read the page and you will see the reference to "matriarchal society". Dr. K. 17:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already in the article but I added another copy of the same reference so that you can find it. In any case, instead of edit-warring, you can actually Google yourself using the keywords "Minoan matriarchal" and you will find many sources about the subject. Edit-warring is easy, but finding sources is more rewarding. Best. Dr. K. 17:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Minoan civilization. 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/20100425083244/http://www.therafoundation.org/articles/economysociety/theislesofcretetheminoanthalassocracyrevisited to http://www.therafoundation.org/articles/economysociety/theislesofcretetheminoanthalassocracyrevisited
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508030100/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Early-Aegean-Warrior-5000%E2%80%931450-BC_9781780968582 to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Early-Aegean-Warrior-5000%E2%80%931450-BC_9781780968582
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to this website, the catastrophe the ended the LMIB phase happened in 1490 BC.  NOTE: Sonchis showed Solon the "Atlantis" enscriptions in 590 BC.  Sonchis said they were 9,000 years old.  But, we know that Atlantis was the Minoan Civilization.  If, instead of 9,000 years, the enscriptions actually read, 900 years, then 1490 BC is again indicated.
http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/26.html
Hate to burst the bubble but Atlantis isn't real. Any reputable historian does not take it seriously. It makes sense if one thinks logically. Allegedly (Atlantis) the most advanced civilisation on Earth disappears without a trace in a single day, and there are zero references to it in history and archeology, from ANY neighbouring civilization. Not a couple of references, not 1, but 0, for 9300 years.  Until Plato comes along and says, "by the way, there was this place called Atlantis".
The Platonic dialogues Timaeus and Critias, where Atlantis is mentioned, are considered to be political commentary on the socioeconomic issues plaguing Greece at th time they were written.
77.250.197.189 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 1. "Although Evans' 1931 claim that the term was "unminted" before he used it was called a "brazen suggestion" by Karadimas and Momigliano, he coined its archaeological meaning."
The sentence does not flow well. I could be improved.
2. "Also mentioned are Cretan cities (such as Amnisos, Phaistos, Kydonia and Knossos) and toponyms reconstructed as in the Cyclades or the Greek mainland. If the values of these Egyptian names are accurate, the pharaoh did not value LMIII Knossos more than other states in the region."
I don't understand the meaning/function of the second instance of the word "as". Is the right word "states" or "cities"?
3. "After about a century of partial recovery, most Cretan cities and palaces declined during the 13th century BC (LHIIIB-LMIIIB). The last Linear A archives date to LMIIIA, contemporary with LHIIIA."
What does "LH" stand for? The Minoan chronology table does not explain it.
4. The list of major Minoan archeological sites lists Karfi and describes it as a "refuge site".
What does that mean?
5. "copper-containing Cyprus" or copper-producing Cyprus?
6. "The prevalence of edible molluscs in site material and artistic representations of marine fish and animals (including the distinctive LM IIIC "Octopus" stirrup jar), indicate appreciation and occasional use of fish by the economy."
What's the intention of the word "occasional" in the context of the sentence?
7. "In contrast to Egyptian frescoes, Crete had true frescoes. Probably the most famous fresco is the bull-leaping fresco."
What kind of frescoes are the Egyptian frescoes if they are not "true" frescos?
8. "Keith Branigan estimated that 95 percent of Minoan "weapons" had hafting (hilts or handles) which would have prevented their use as such."
Can somebody explain the meaning of weapons with handles that would have prevented their use. I don't understand.
9. "The researchers found that the Minoan skeletons were genetically very similar to modern-day Europeans" is followed by "They were very similar to Neolithic Europeans and very similar to present day-Cretans" in the same paragraph.
The use of "very similar" is repetitive.
ICE77 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Continued: How "intelligent" must one be to write such self-contradicting sentences like, "The Early Bronze Age (3500 to 2100 BC) has been described as indicating a "promise of greatness" in light of later developments on the island.[18] The Bronze Age began on Crete around 3200 BC.[19]." It is unbelievable! 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:CC3E:3442:2B02:CFCF (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, give or take 300 years it is not all that inconsistent. And it is the two sentences that are somewhat out of whack with each other; each on its own is not self-contradictory. I do agree that indicating a "promise of greatness" in light of later developments, if not self-contradictory, seems to be limping on two opinions: if the promise was definitely there in contemporary evidence, we do not need the light of later times -- or it could be that only in that light we can discern the germs of what was to come (I suspect the latter, but you never know with authors of such flowery circumlocutions).  24.132.16.40 (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments and questions 

message: This isp edit in April 2017 changed the table of dates that had been here for ages, unsourced, to one sourced & referenced from a book of 1965.  Unfortunately, this puts us well out of whack with the much larger, and multi-source referenced table at Minoan chronology. In particular the current table here begins EM1 at 2600 BC, surely a view no one today holds? It was 3650 BC before (although the old table ended LM at 1450, also unsustainable). At Minoan pottery, before seeing the old table, I added the table with changed dates taken from here (also linked to by other academic websites), which is close to both the old table here, and the one at Minoan chronology (EM1 begins 3500). In the MM they actually match up at points.  Minor fiddling was needed where 2 periods are run together in the source - I just split the difference. Notoriously no one source agrees with another, but this revised table fits much better with other recent sources, & if no one objects I will copy it here.  Or let me know queries. User:Botteville I think did the big table, back in 2006. This is my revised table:
3500–2900 BCThis chronology of Minoan Crete is (with minor simplifications) the one used by Andonis Vasilakis in his book on Minoan Crete, published by Adam Editions in 2000, but other chronologies will vary, sometimes quite considerably (EM periods especially). Sets of different dates from other authors are set out at Minoan chronology	EMI   	Prepalatial
2900–2300 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	EMII  	Prepalatial
2300–2100 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	EMIII 	Prepalatial
2100–1900 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	MMIA  	Prepalatial
1900–1800 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	MMIB  	Protopalatial(Old Palace Period)
1800–1750 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	MMIIA 	Protopalatial(Old Palace Period)
1750-1700 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	MMIIB 	Neopalatial(New Palace Period)
1700–1650 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	MMIIIA	Neopalatial(New Palace Period)
1650–1600 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	MMIIIB	Neopalatial(New Palace Period)
1600–1500 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	LMIA  	Neopalatial(New Palace Period)
1500–1450 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	LMIB  	Postpalatial (at Knossos; Final Palace Period)
1450–1400 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	LMII  	Postpalatial (at Knossos; Final Palace Period)
1400–1350 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	LMIIIA	Postpalatial (at Knossos; Final Palace Period)
1350–1100 BC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	LMIIIB	Postpalatial (at Knossos; Final Palace Period)
;Fiddles needed:
Source:
::(third) Early Minoan III, Middle Minoan IA 	2300-1900 BCE 
::(third) Middle Minoan IIB, IIIA 	1750-1650 BCE
Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology table 

message: Before long YOU are going to be the expert. I see you have discovered the problem right away. Evans, of course, did the original chronology. He was assisted in that by his father John, one of the pioneers of the concept of the stone age. Blegen picked that up and extended it to the mainland to make it all consistent. Pendlebury did more analysis, and Hutchinson, and so on. The number of sites containing this material is now very large. Everyone who writes a book on it seems to have his own variation. Lately it has been getting more technical, with more carbon dates and tree ring analysis and what not. The question for us is, what version are we going to use? Yes, I put the original in. I think I got it from Hutchinson, I'm not sure now. It promptly began a long series of alterations by afficionados who had read this or that book. What was I to do, fight with them? Everyone thought he was right based on the scholars he had read. What to do now. You're working on it. Do whatever you want to do! I can only give some general thoughts.
* work from the latest publications
* search for articles on it. You use Google search, advanced search, and select a type of pdf. Recent theses are a good source. There are also some web sites published by universities that cover it.
* This last suggestion is to be emphasized: go to [British School at Athens] and read whatever they got. They are the one who handle the site now. It's their house up on the hill, that used to be Evans'. They are currently analyzing the data collected in a surface survey of the broader area and it bears a lot on the chronology.
* Don't neglect what the Greek archaeologists have to say. Often it is an alternative view, which you can and should work in.
Best of luck on this. Don't think Wikipedians are just going to GIVE it to you. These articles seem to be in stubborn hands who don't want to relinquish them. I've volunteered to redo Knossos based on the survey but I expect a full-scale war over it. The article is bad, but no one wants to let you fix it. I suppose it is THEIR beloved article. I've taken some time to write you this, but I'm not done finding pottery sources for you in Commons. The Museum at Heraklion has a lot of pictures. Athens is another source of museums. Got to go now. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greeks tend to view this through a dark prism of often toe-curling chauvinism. And it is a wildly diachronic chauvinism, which is that much more irrational then ordinary world-cup enthusiasm. 24.132.16.40 (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent work johnbod

message: Weblink to Daily Mail article about discovery of an ancient Greek boat, not attributed to Minoan Culture GirthSummit (blether) 17:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6305115/The-worlds-oldest-shipwreck-2-400-year-old-Odysseus-ship-bottom-Black-Sea.html 86.143.242.235 (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is an inherently unreliable source and can never be cited on Wikipedia as a reliable source for any reason. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about daily mail, but this is all over the news, not just daily mail  . It doesn't have anything to do with the Minoans though. Khirurg (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Mail 

message: "Minoan" is an English word. What did these people call themselves?
77.250.197.189 (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no reliable sources on the matter. See also Talk:Knossos#Minoan name of Knossos. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endonym 

message: Isn't the picture captioned "Elite Minoan Women" a detail of the one captioned "Ladies of the Minoan Court[...]"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.25.78 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twice the same picture? 

message: The section on Minoan women doesn't reflect academic writing, is inadequate in sourcing and sounds as if it was written originally as a high school essay. I don't know enough about the topic to fix it. But wanted to flag that something is off. 1967Norway (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very poor, & other bits are like it. I have replaced the art & costume sections, & may get round to that. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minoan Women 

message: I think they were.https://steemit.com/history/@oo7harv/the-proto-greeks-the-minoans-the-first-inhabitants-of-the-greek-world-c-3-000-1-450-bchttps://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals Reaper7 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is covered in the article, as far as it goes. See also the big section higher up this page. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Proto-Greek" is a linguistic, not a genetic term; Science does not mention the word "Proto-Greek" and does not discuss linguistics (WP:INTEGRITY); Steemit is a blogging website (WP:RS). --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

text: There's no evidence that Greece was settled by Minoans, so, no.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.210 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were minoans proto-Greeks? 

message: Before the Minoan domination in the Aegean, Cycladic culture and Neolithic Greece were in that area. Cycladic culture was included and today I added Neolithic Greece. I don't know why but a guy deleted both of them twice. Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cycladic culture did NOT "precede" the MC - they were contemporary, but different, with the Minoans starting rather earlier. Neolithic Greece has nothing to say about Crete, & Neolithic Crete is not just the same. I notice lots of your edits get reverted. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Let's see that first, before judging whether a link there is relevant to this article. An article on Neolithic Crete would probably better, as there seems to be not to much in common between that and Greece, other than what is also common to Anatolia etc. Whether the "problem was solved", well, time will tell ... Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see other people are busy cleaning up after you! Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Answering what?  You're the one who keeps popping up on my watchlist. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before Minoan domination 

message: He said that he "proposed to apply" - if we are going to split hairs as in "apply not invent" then we must also be honest and acknowledge that "I proposed to apply" means the same as "I suggested that we name it" and the sentence "Evans said that he applied it, not invented it." is best dropped from the article altogether. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C13E:33F5:2212:CD77 (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He may have been talking about the scope of the term, taking it as read among his readership that the term had already been established in the literature. 24.132.16.40 (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evans said that he applied it, not invented it. 

message: So there is a whole section for Minoan Women, but there is no mention of the apparent matriarchy in that entire section? Seems badly organized. 167.57.31.50 (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Women' section and matriarchy 

message: A week ago the article said the Minoans started at 3500 BCE. 2 days ago it said 2100 BCE, and then went back to 3500 BCE. Now it's back to 2100 BCE. What's happening to the origin date?
ADT's wiki account (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2100 BCE? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Vic020699Fo (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: THURSDAY - Spring 2024 HIST 401