Talk:Aegean civilization

message: I'm questioning the usefulness of this entry...we've come a long way in understanding the Myceneans since 1911, and I think all but the broadest outlines of this have changed. For that matter, I think we've even reversed the switch in nomenclature from "Mycenean civilization" to "Aegean civilization" touted in the first paragraph here. -- Paul Drye
I also question the usefulness of this entry (well, now these three entries). In fact I would say their usefulness is approximately zero, unless they are moved to an article describing the state of knowledge in 1911...but what would be the point of that? Someone needs to rewrite them...I could try, but I only have a very basic knowledge. Adam Bishop 20:38, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: usefulness questioned

message: Under Evidence | Internal Evidence | Written Documents, the article mentions "legends written with pigment on pottery (rare)", and the word "legends" is linked to the Wikipedia article on 'legend'--an article that talks about legends as being "a narrative of human actions".  Surely the "legends" on pottery are not this, but some kind of label, aren't they?  You can't write an entire story in pigment on a pot, can you? Mcswell (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legends

message: The start of the chronology section describes 1st Dynasty Egypt as being 4000BC - surely that should read 3000BC ?  I'm not confident about the actual date these vases were from so will leave it for someone who is. Adamssimon 14:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate date ? 

message: I removed a request from an IP user to merge this page with Minoan civilization. If there is to be an Aegean civilization article, it will have to cover the Minoan, Mycenaean, and Cycladic cultures. Since the current Aegean civilization article appears to be crap, I suggest deleting most of its content and replacing it with a very short description of how the Minoan, Mycenaean, and Cycladic civilizations relate to one another, with pointers to the appropriate main articles. Of course, there doesn't seem to be a Cycladic civilization article yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge request removed

message: Ok, no one seems to be all that interested in this article, but I thought I'd see if anyone objects to my intended direction: to eliminate most of the content of this article. Very little of it is worth retaining, except maybe the history of archaeological discovery at the end. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested - busy, but interested.  I, for one, have no objections to your deleting the outdated information. --Jpbrenna 21:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revising the article

message: J. D. Redding 22:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This picture, to state it more professionally, creates a slight vacuum by drawing out the air from a small enclosed region. You can't even read it. With all the fine, lucid, attractive drawings and diagrams and maps that have been made on this topic why would anyone want to put this thing in? There seems to be somewhat of a lack of confidence in presenting Aegean civilization. I assure you this is all well known and standard in the field and has been for over a century.Dave (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aegean civilization 

message: Have you got something against Middle Cycladic and Late Cycladic? Because, the standard classification is, E, M and L Helladic, Cycladic and Minoan. We don't need to switch to editorial commentary on MC and LC. Use the standard classification. Present your apologetics, if any, under those topics.Dave (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cycladic periodization

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aegean civilizations. 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/20090101104332/http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/index.html to http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/index.html
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) 11:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe that a special part of the article should be dedicated to two archeogenetic studies that have been made about this period and area. Can someone creat a place for Genetics ? (Because I do not know how) And I will add information (+ sources) Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics