Talk:Neolithic Europe

message: here is a good timeline we should aim at reproducing. dab (ᛏ) 06:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: timeline, geographical complexes

message: I'd like to break out the Urbian material, if that is OK with everyone. It is very specific material and I want to refer to it elsewhere. I'm not diminishing the tentative nature of the reconstruction, only presenting it as a possibility. Paliga is certainly worth that. I'm sure there are others and this move will leave space for them when someone cognizant of them discovers Wikipedia or decides to participate. Under Urbian, we might decide to list Paliga's roots. Moreover, the comments of other scholars on each root would beef it up and make it worth looking at by savants. I'm not going to do it now, however. If you don't agree, just revert. If you don't, I'll assume this course is preferable.Botteville 14:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reserve comment on this hypothesis of Paliga's, but another item that may (or may not) support his theory is Uria, the name of a city in ancient Messapia. Alexander 007 08:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Urbian

message: " The Basques of the Pyrenees are thought to be a non-Indo-European remnant of a once more widespread Pre-Indo-European culture. Older theories considered the ancient Picts of what is now Scotland also to be Pre-Indo-European. It has also been suggested that in North-Eastern Europe, Uralic speaking peoples preceded Indo-European speakers [1]. "
I believe this statement to be false. Through my studies it seems that the Basques were pre-indo-european as apposed to non-indo-european.  For now I have left it, but I am continuing my studies and will try to update this in the future. 
(RG 21:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre-endo-european statement questionable 

message: It has been proposed that Pre-Indo-European be merged into Neolithic Europe.
* Merge the other way. I say that some of the content of Neolithic Europe should be merged into Pre-Indo-European. As I explained at length in the last paragraph under The term "Old Europe" above, most of the content of this article (at that time) was mis-titled. I see there has been improvement since then. Any remaining speculation about pre-Indo-European language and culture should be moved/merged. The content about European Neolithic archaeology should be retained under this title. --teb728 07:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: The text suggests that you can talk about Mesolithic people from something like 20.000 years BP, but the Mesolithic era only started roughly 10.000 years BP, at the end of the ice age. So that whole section is going to confuse the reader who isn't aware of that. Floris V 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Please take a look to see if the text is still confusing. --Anthon.Eff 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes more sense. Thanks. Floris V 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesolithic or Paleolithic people 

message: So in a very simplified summary. 
Europe was initially inhabited by "pre-Indo- Europeans". Then the proto-Indo-Europeans entered the scene , the extent to which is disputed. The main disagreement lies between
a) Kurgan hypothesis which speculated that the IEs entered in Bronze age, as 'overlords'. This is more supported by linguistic evidence and genetic (Haplo R1a)
vs
b) Anatolian hypothesis stating that they entered earlier (Neolithic), corresponding to new tachniques in agriculture, which better suited to establishing colonies and growing population compared to hunter-gathering. THis is more supported by archeological evidence. 
?
:The Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a is found in the Pontic steppes and Eastern Europe (plus eastwards into Iran, but not into Western Europe) and may well correspond to a dispersal similar to the hypothesized Kurgan dispersal. But what is the evidence that these peoples were the first speakers of Indo-European? No evidence--Indo-European could well have been in place long before R1a began to spread. Of course, one could also ask: What is the evidence that the Anatolian migrants were the first speakers of Indo-European? And again one must answer: No evidence. But Bellwood and Renfrew have been pretty convincing--from Cavalli-Sforza's work we can see that the main genetic gradient in Europe (not just one marker on the Y chromosome, but over 50 autosomal markers) runs from high frequencies in Anatolia to lower frequencies in the North and West; from the ethnographic evidence we can see that demic diffusion of agriculturalists is much more likely than diffusion of agricultural technology; and from similar patterns surrounding other agricultural hearth areas we can see that major language phyla are indeed likely to stem from the ursprache  of the original population to develop agriculture. --Anthon.Eff 04:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This is just an observation; the focus of this article (and of many of the comments on this talk page too) seems to dwell too much on language. 
But this is a much broader subject than that, there is already discussion of the spread of the Cultures, albeit with a rather language oriented theme, but it could also benefit from some information on geography and how that influenced the spread. Also the linguistic discussions will always be, by definition, informed guesswork. Whereas there are 'hard' archaeological records that get far less mention here; technologies & construction techniques, toolkits, burial rites, the ceramic record, etc. It could also benefit from a discussion of the archaeological record itself, it's completeness (or lack thereof) and how our understanding of this has changed over the years. EasyTarget 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Language in Neolithic Europe is guesswork at best, pseudoscience at worst. Let it go. Kortoso  (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on Language 

message: One of most wide-known activities of Western-European neolithic people was building megalithic constructions (dolmens, menhirs, henges etc.). This should be reflected here. Raoul NK (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megaliths 

message: The maps on this page are confusing. The first two show a Cardium Pottery Culture on the Mediterranean. The third shows a Linear Ceramic Culture in the same place. Which is correct? If they are both correct, it should be explained. 67.168.59.171 (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite see what you mean. To me it looks like there are four maps, the second and third showing a Cardium Pottery Culture centered on Italy. The fourth map doesn't show any culture centered on Italy. According to the captions, the difference among the maps is mainly time period.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing Maps

message: This part is simplistic. Only some geneticists feel that there is a minimal neolithic biological contribution, whilst others suggest as much as an 80% contribution. The section needs to be updated. Hxseek (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the first paragraph of the genetics section is not correct (except for the far north and west of Europe, and the Alps). If you have the correct information readily available, it would be great if you would be willing to add it. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics section

message: The journal Antiquity reports that archaeologists have found evidence of mass cannibalism at a 7,000-year-old human burial site in south-west Germany.
The authors say their findings provide rare evidence of cannibalism in Europe's early Neolithic period. Up to 500 human remains unearthed near the village of Herxheim may have been cannibalised. Researchers say the "intentionally mutilated" remains included children and even unborn babies. Antiquity Journal
Here are some new stories about the finds
BBC story
Guardian  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.137.198 (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass cannibalism event in Neolithic times 

message: The map titled File:Old Europe.png is very innaccurate and needs to be deleted immediately. The Vinča Culture shown on that map is completely wrong - it was actually only in a relatively small area in modern-day Serbia, and that map indicates that it took up half of Southeastern Europe! That is just one of the many errors in that map, and having it displayed in this article is just one more example why people feel that Wikipedia is not reliable. Delete it now, please. --Saukkomies talk  04:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Active discussion at Talk:Vinča_culture#Please delete that map.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Please delete that map

message: I need someone to help me out - I got carried away and added a bunch of links to the list of Neolithic cultures, not realizing (until too late) that I was still on the Neolithic EUROPE page. I need to revert this article back to before I started editing it today (7 Feb 2010), could someone help? I don't know how to do it... --Saukkomies talk  19:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Several ways to do it. Go to history, compare the latest edit (this only works if it's yours) to the one just before your earliest, then on the left hand side of the page you should see at the top 'Revert to this version' or something like that, click on it. Or go to your latest diff and do a rollback (I use Twinkle which allows me to do an AGF (Assume good faith) rollback.) Put something in the edit summary explaining why. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that Dougweller. I have problems for some reason with my old klunky laptop when it comes to the DIFF program - my computer says it doesn't have the plugin or software to view a DIFF page, and when I go to try to find something to use for it, it never seems to work. I'll have to check out Twinkle. Thanks again, though, for doing this. :) --Saukkomies talk  22:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert page

message: There is some contradictions between the dating of the culture in the text of the articles and the dates of the maps European_Late_Neolithic.gif (3500 BC according to the author) and European_Middle_Neolithic.gif (4500-4000 BC according to the author). For example, Lengyel should be 5000-4000 BC, Rössen (4600- 4300 BC), Karanowo III-IV (5500-4950 BC) and the Lineary Pottery Culture (5500-4500 BC),. Probably, the dates given for the maps are not corrected. I would suggest changing the date of the maps to 4300 BC and 5000 BC. Do you have any better suggestions to solve these contradiction?
Second, Europe_Old.png really does not seem to be reliable. Yamna, Lengyel and LBK are not contemporary. LBK should not extend until the adriatic coast. I think it should be deleted.TKostolany (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating of the maps 

message: Ancient Y-DNA has shown that the Cardium pottery people are predominantly G2a Y-DNA haplogroup (the only others so far found are a small minority of E3b and I2) - no J2 yet detected. I think on the basis of this new hard-evidence, we should not be including statements associating the Cardium pottery people with the J2 Y-DNA haplogroup.Jembana (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardium and J2 ? More like G2a 

message: Looks like there may be evidence after all:
: Kortoso  (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broomcorn millet in Europe 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Neolithic Europe. 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://archive.is/20131030095411/http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/063/Ant0630379.htm to http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/063/Ant0630379.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080405085514/http://www.continuitas.com/intro.html to http://www.continuitas.com/intro.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) 12:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Ancient North Eurasian genetic event is only mentioned in a parenthesis, but the genetic data, and possibly the origin of Kerberos or even a Proto-Indo-European connection, suggest that this event was impactful enough to warrant a bit more mention than that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient North Eurasian