Talk:Venus of Dolní Věstonice

message: I added this article to :Category:Ceramics because that category's description states:
:Ceramics is the art form that uses ceramic materials to produce works of art; see also :Category:Ceramic materials. The Venus of Dolni Vestonice is the oldest known ceramic in the world.
I recently edited that description, but I didn't add the definition or the reference to this article. Melchoir 03:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With the note in the category it will hopefully be seen in proper context. Pavel Vozenilek 03:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then I'll re-add the category. Melchoir 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "Ceramic" is the preferred adjective in archaeology, as in "ceramic statuette".  In fact, a "pottery statuette" does not make sense, since pottery is a noun which generally refers to vessels of some sort or another.  While today "ceramic" includes all sorts of materials in addition to clay, in 50,000 BPE, clay was the only ceramic.  Madman 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Ceramics 

message: Hi. I am not sure why you revert the decription [of this figurine] as pottery. I agree the item is ceramic but this is a very large group of materials. Pottery is more specific: it is a subset of ceramics. Pottery is fired clay, with cermaics including many others such a silicon nitride, silicon carbide and alumina - hardly the type of material from which the Venus is made.  unsigned, by 81.153.70.31 
:"Ceramic" is the preferred adjective in archaeology, as in "ceramic statuette".  In fact, a "pottery statuette" does not make sense, since pottery is a noun which generally refers to vessels of some sort or another.  While today "ceramic" includes all sorts of materials in addition to clay, in 50,000 BPE, clay was the only ceramic.  Madman 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pottery vs Ceramic 

message: There is no reference as to how the piece was dated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.31.7.9 (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Venus of Dolní Věstonice. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070611112700/http://www.czech.cz/en/news/culture/mammoth-hunters-at-the-national-museum/ to http://www.czech.cz/en/news/culture/mammoth-hunters-at-the-national-museum/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the time the Venus was found, there was no independent Czech Republic. Would not be better to use the word Czechia instead? Czechia was a part of Czechoslovakia at that time. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already  explained in this sentence: "The palaeolithic settlement of Dolní Věstonice in Moravia, a part of Czechoslovakia at the time..." FromCzech (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @FromCzech@Martin Tauchman Just wikilink Moravia, no need to mention any actual countries as there were no countries in Paleolithic times. Moravia is described as a historical region. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The part I am talking about refers to the discovery of the figurine in the 20th century. Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

text: But in the first paragraph, it says: ‘It was found at the Paleolithic site Dolní Věstonice in the Moravian basin south of Brno, in the base of Děvín Mountain in the Czech Republic.’ Part you have cited is after the first paragraph. Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech Republic