 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Maybe I am stating the obvious: the article of Neolithic Europe does not contain any actual/extensive information on Chalcolithic Europe so far, nor I can see any reason why it should. The topic of Ch. Eu. is quite abundant by itself, and deserves its own article. Omnipedian ( talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
=====================
As long as Chalcolithic refers to the article.. I would say don't change (It is distinguished from Neolithic as a later period)
greetzz Goodies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodies ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that the Chalcolithic is not considered part of the Neolithic at all, but a stage of the Bronze Age, and it is often difficult to distinguish it from the following periods, as pointed out in the linked article. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 05:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is the FREE encyclopedia! The lead section is probably only intelligible for people with special senses - i don't get it at all. But even better is the first section as it says: ....actually for the people of this period more important than the use of copper was the introduction of horses. The text just runs free from there. Learnt a lot about kurgans, though...very amused. ATB Wikirictor ( talk) 00:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The dates are way of, vinca is not even mentioned
This bad page should be merged with the high quality /info/en/?search=Metallurgy_during_the_Copper_Age_in_Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.46.1.100 ( talk) 07:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Maybe I am stating the obvious: the article of Neolithic Europe does not contain any actual/extensive information on Chalcolithic Europe so far, nor I can see any reason why it should. The topic of Ch. Eu. is quite abundant by itself, and deserves its own article. Omnipedian ( talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
=====================
As long as Chalcolithic refers to the article.. I would say don't change (It is distinguished from Neolithic as a later period)
greetzz Goodies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodies ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that the Chalcolithic is not considered part of the Neolithic at all, but a stage of the Bronze Age, and it is often difficult to distinguish it from the following periods, as pointed out in the linked article. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 05:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is the FREE encyclopedia! The lead section is probably only intelligible for people with special senses - i don't get it at all. But even better is the first section as it says: ....actually for the people of this period more important than the use of copper was the introduction of horses. The text just runs free from there. Learnt a lot about kurgans, though...very amused. ATB Wikirictor ( talk) 00:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The dates are way of, vinca is not even mentioned
This bad page should be merged with the high quality /info/en/?search=Metallurgy_during_the_Copper_Age_in_Europe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.46.1.100 ( talk) 07:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)