Talk:Prehistoric Iberia

message: ::The following was moved from "Talk:Pre-Roman Portugal".
This article states the following:
:The myth of a Phoenician foundation of the city as far back as 1300 BC, under the name Alis Ubbo ("Safe Harbour") is unreal.
However, the wiki article on Lisbon states:
:Archeological findings show that a Phoenician trading post existed in the place that, since 1200 B.C., has occupied the centre of the city. The magnificent natural harbour provided by the estuary of the river Tagus made it the ideal spot for a settlement to provide foodstuffs to Phoenician ships travelling to the tin islands (modern Isles of Scilly) and Cornwall. The new city was named Alis Ubbo or "safe harbor" in Phoenician.
Olavius 13:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the reputed Portuguese historian José Mattoso (vide Mattoso, José (dir.), História de Portugal. Primeiro Volume: Antes de Portugal, Lisboa, Círculo de Leitores, 1992 - in Portuguese) there were no Phoenician colonies, settlements or trading post in Portugal, other than the one in Algarve (namely in Tavira). So I believed the story about the Phoenician foundation of Lisbon should be regarded as myth. Even if the Phoenicians did maintain comercial activities with the rest of the modern Portuguese territory (other than the Algarve), and that is why one can find Phoenician pottery and such. At best Lisbon was an ancient autocthonous settlement (what the Romans called an Oppidum) that maintained comercial relations with the Phoenicians. I'll correct the article on Lisbon. Thank you. The Ogre 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no such thing as Phoenician genes. FilipeS (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Phoenician foundation of Lisbon?

message: As not promised in the previous section (look above), I have started to revamp the article. I've begun with Neolithic and Chalcolithic (take a look and make constructive criticisms, please) but it's yet a first version. I know I have to add references and maybe polish some corners... it won't be done in a single day, that's for sure. 
Next will be Bronze Age, that can be improved a lot. --Sugaar (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert on such technicalities, but... have you indicated the end of the footnote with </ref>? The Ogre (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The initial named footnote with all the details is the only one that still stands. It was the repeated references which made a vast fraction of the article to be displaced as footnote. Surely I'm doing something wrong and I will see to fix it later. --Sugaar (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... now it does perfectly. :/ --Sugaar (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hear! Hear! Jɪmp 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamping in progress 

message: I'm having a technical problem with footnotes: when I added (every 2-3 paragraphs) , I got half of the page displaced to the footnotes section. I have no idea why this can be. By the moment I have deleted the footnotes but this is not a good solution. --Sugaar (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert on such technicalities, but... have you indicated the end of the footnote with </ref>? The Ogre (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The initial named footnote with all the details is the only one that still stands. It was the repeated references which made a vast fraction of the article to be displaced as footnote. Surely I'm doing something wrong and I will see to fix it later. --Sugaar (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... now it does perfectly. :/ --Sugaar (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical problem

message: I think that Upper Paleolithic, Epipaleolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age sections are now more or less correct. 
What remains to be done? 
*Iron Age (some is valid, some can be improved)
*Archaeogenetics: looks totally amateurish but it's more difficult to adress properly
*Lower and Middle Paleolithic: too generic maybe but not substantially erroneous, I think (this part I'm not going to touch in any case). --Sugaar (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advancing

message: The section "Portuguese Iron Age" is written in an anachronistic tone. Portugal did yet not exist in this period of history. The article should reference the names of cultures of this time, not of political entities which would only come into existence millennia afterwards. FilipeS (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear! Hear! Jɪmp 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Portuguese Iron Age"

message: There was an absurd sentance that said "In this period it's noticeable the increase of bovine cattle accompanied by some decrease of ovine and caprine types".  I've changed these to cattle, sheep and goat, although the sentance still looks bad gramatically, and I'm not quite sure what it is actually refering to.  Is it talking about numbers of breeds or species, or the number of animals?  (Based on the previous sentance, and the fact that "bovine cattle" linked to oxen it could even be refering to their use as draft animals, but as I've never heard of anyone using sheep to pull a plough, that can probably be discounted). Wardog (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In paleontology, there are valid reasons for describing bones as bovid, ovine or caprid, since the actual species may be unknown or different from modern forms. At any rate, it's not good English grammar. Kortoso (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bovines, ovines and caprines 

message: I've been updating this page for the past few days. Prehistoric Iberia#Paleolithic should have its own separate article, it is already too long and there is much content that can be further expanded. I've copied its contents to Draft:Paleolithic Iberia (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting Paleolithic Iberia