![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
(From Wetman's Talk page: "Could you please provide a bit more explanation for your original statement, "There has been a tradition of reticence among archaeologists about any attempts to recapture the living culture of preliterate peoples who are known only through archaeology. All such connections are speculative, and archaeological speculation leads to controversy" in Old European culture? Although I've edited it in an attempt to make it less general (e.g. substituting 'ethnohistory' for 'living culture'), these two sentences still don't make much sense to me (as an archaeologist), and they seem a bit POV (notwithstanding many archaeologists would disagree with them, as many claim the point of archaeology is to first reconstruct, then explain, social and cultural history). I think I know what you're trying to say (e.g. that the weaving together of mythology and ideology to create a history for an archaeological culture is problematic?), so perhaps we could agree on a reworded verson?-- Rattus 16:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
There are 3 layers of European populations: (1) Oldest European -- the Paleolithic / Mesolithic indigs (2) Old European -- the Neolithic farmer "colonial invaders" (3) Aryan -- the Indo-European speaking Kurgans. When I listen to Marija Gimbutas, or Riane Eisler, I get the impression they confuse (1) & (2). According to Spencer Wells, Journey of Man, the Neoliths spoke a ~uniform "Mediterranean Language", which was neither the Aryan tongues of the later Steppe Nomads, nor the indigenous tongues of Europe. According to the History Channel documentary, Cannibalism Secrets Revealed, there is evidence of ferocious hatred, by the indig Mesoliths, of the invading Neoliths, on the boundary between their lands (in Yorkshire, c.3800 BC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 ( talk) 09:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The term "Old Europe" is, if I'm not mistaken, specifically assocatied with Gimbutas and her followers. This article can't seem to decide whether it is really about inhabitants of Europe before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans or whether it is specifically about Gimbutas' position -- which was never widely accepted and seems to be moribund now. For example, why does it say: "Ancient Greek writers called the "Old European" pre-Hellenic dwellers in Greece "Pelasgians" or "Leleges"." -- what does it add to use the phrase "Old European" here? The very fact that this article is called "Old European culture" rather than "pre-Indo-European culture in Europe" or some such seems to be POV. -- Macrakis 03:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I came to this article looking for a summary on Neolithic cultures. What I found instead was mostly theories of pre-Indo-European peoples and languages. Inasmuch as the Kurgan hypothesis holds that Indo-European languages were brought to Europe by Bronze Age immigrants, extended discussion of the Kurgan hypothesis and Marija Gimbutas is out of place in an article on Neolithic Europe. About the only Kurgan material that belongs here is a statement that Kurganists reject Renfrew's hypothesis. Similarly, I don't think one could plausibly rename the sections "Pre-Indo-European peoples" and "Pre-Indo-European languages" to "Neolithic peoples" and "Neolithic languages," and if not, these sections don't belong in this article either. I see that this material was moved from an previous article on "Old European culture." I'm not saying the off-topic material should be deleted; rather the article should be divided, with the off-topic material (most of the article) moved to a title like "Theories of pre-Indo-European culture." (In addition to being mis-titled the implicit assumption of most of the article that Neolithic Europe was pre-Indo-European betrays a POV that the Kurgan hypothesis is correct.) -- teb728 08:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
here is a good timeline we should aim at reproducing. dab (ᛏ) 06:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The Comb Ceramic Culture (Pit-Comb-Ceramic) of northern and north-eastern Europe marks the onset of neolithic in those areas. Should it be included in this article? Clarifer
I have edited the article's map (Europe in ca. 4000-3500 BC) adding the Comb Ceramic culture to the north-eastern corner. If the version is accepted I will proceed to add the culture to the other map as well. May I upload? Clarifer
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)
This article was originally created as a BC/AD article and should remain as such according to wikipedia policy. I'm not sure when it changed the dating system the the version didn't mention BCE nor CE. You can discus on my talk page if you like. Thank you, Chooserr
" 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))
The article commences by accepting scholarly disagreement as to the identity of the Indo-Europeans--are they the first Neolithic settlers, or are they Bronze Age invaders? The article then goes on to talk about pre-Indo-Europeans without ever making clear which of these two groups the "pre" precedes. Thus, in this passage, are we speaking of Neolithic genetic markers or Mesolithic genetic markers?
The answer, as those who have read Cavalli-Sforza know, is that the genetic markers are Mesolithic, since they represent the weaker principal components in Cavalli-Sforza's genetic cline maps, and they appear to occupy refugia and less desirable agricultural land. While one can make good inferences about which markers are associated with archeological stages such as the Neolithic (the population increases facilitated by agriculture, and the origin in Anatolia both help in making inferences), one can't make good inferences about which markers are associated with a particular linguistic group such as the Indo-Europeans.
I think that the article should drop most uses of the word "pre-Indo-European" and replace it with "Mesolithic." Anthon.Eff 17:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Anthon.Eff 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
this is great, but I would like to know more about if verbal communication (i.e. the languages) of the neolithic time was invented during this time, and if not when.
hi, im a bit confused as to when these languages where invented.
For it, we must consider the HORN theory.
1- The first western european mankind building [3], started 5000 adc, endend 3000 adc.
2- The last people reletad to that work, the Konii [4] and the B(V)as(Konii) Basque people.
AND, their english descendent, the cornovii tribe. This people came from Algarve - Portugal, to Cornwall (That means the shape of Cornwall -CORNO (horn), in Portuguese and in Konii language ). They migrated to Wroxeter, Shropshire, VIROCONIVM CORNOVIORVM, for the romans. VIRO-CONIUM CORNOVIORUM translated: HORN´S VIRILE KONII MEN.
So, the neolithic language appear in europe.
It has been proposed that Pre-Indo-European be merged into Neolithic Europe.
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)
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.
?
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sure, can do, soon. Hxseek ( talk) 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In the paragraph "Archaeology", the notion "believe" means fairytales and has to be replaced by facts or to be deleted! HJJHolm ( talk) 05:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
megalitsmo lusitani?os lusitanis nem tinham chegado ali ainda isso era iberídeo ou proto-íbero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.9.219 ( talk) 08:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like there may be evidence after all: [6]
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If ancient Cyprus was in Europe then perhaps it should be said that the Neolithic began there in the 9th millennia, around 8800–8600 BC [7], or even earlier [8].
There's a very large section of the text that is blanked out for some strange reason.
It starts after this sentence,
"Admixture rates varied geographically; in the late Neolithic, WHG ancestry in farmers in Hungary was at around 10%, in Germany around 25% and in Iberia as high as 50%."
and ends with this,
"This association was strengthened when King and Underhill (2002) found that there was a significant correlation between the distribution of Hg J2 and Neolithic painted pottery in European and Mediterranean sites. However, studies of the ancient Y-DNA from the earlier Neolithic cave burials of Cardium pottery culture shows they were mainly haplogroup G2a. [1] These 'Neolithic lineages' accounted for 22% of the total European Y chromosome gene pool, and were predominantly found in Mediterranean regions of Europe (Greece, Italy, southeastern Bulgaria, southeastern Iberia)."
Then the "Language" section begins.
Can somebody clarify the situation please? Y-barton ( talk) 15:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
(From Wetman's Talk page: "Could you please provide a bit more explanation for your original statement, "There has been a tradition of reticence among archaeologists about any attempts to recapture the living culture of preliterate peoples who are known only through archaeology. All such connections are speculative, and archaeological speculation leads to controversy" in Old European culture? Although I've edited it in an attempt to make it less general (e.g. substituting 'ethnohistory' for 'living culture'), these two sentences still don't make much sense to me (as an archaeologist), and they seem a bit POV (notwithstanding many archaeologists would disagree with them, as many claim the point of archaeology is to first reconstruct, then explain, social and cultural history). I think I know what you're trying to say (e.g. that the weaving together of mythology and ideology to create a history for an archaeological culture is problematic?), so perhaps we could agree on a reworded verson?-- Rattus 16:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)"
There are 3 layers of European populations: (1) Oldest European -- the Paleolithic / Mesolithic indigs (2) Old European -- the Neolithic farmer "colonial invaders" (3) Aryan -- the Indo-European speaking Kurgans. When I listen to Marija Gimbutas, or Riane Eisler, I get the impression they confuse (1) & (2). According to Spencer Wells, Journey of Man, the Neoliths spoke a ~uniform "Mediterranean Language", which was neither the Aryan tongues of the later Steppe Nomads, nor the indigenous tongues of Europe. According to the History Channel documentary, Cannibalism Secrets Revealed, there is evidence of ferocious hatred, by the indig Mesoliths, of the invading Neoliths, on the boundary between their lands (in Yorkshire, c.3800 BC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 ( talk) 09:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The term "Old Europe" is, if I'm not mistaken, specifically assocatied with Gimbutas and her followers. This article can't seem to decide whether it is really about inhabitants of Europe before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans or whether it is specifically about Gimbutas' position -- which was never widely accepted and seems to be moribund now. For example, why does it say: "Ancient Greek writers called the "Old European" pre-Hellenic dwellers in Greece "Pelasgians" or "Leleges"." -- what does it add to use the phrase "Old European" here? The very fact that this article is called "Old European culture" rather than "pre-Indo-European culture in Europe" or some such seems to be POV. -- Macrakis 03:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I came to this article looking for a summary on Neolithic cultures. What I found instead was mostly theories of pre-Indo-European peoples and languages. Inasmuch as the Kurgan hypothesis holds that Indo-European languages were brought to Europe by Bronze Age immigrants, extended discussion of the Kurgan hypothesis and Marija Gimbutas is out of place in an article on Neolithic Europe. About the only Kurgan material that belongs here is a statement that Kurganists reject Renfrew's hypothesis. Similarly, I don't think one could plausibly rename the sections "Pre-Indo-European peoples" and "Pre-Indo-European languages" to "Neolithic peoples" and "Neolithic languages," and if not, these sections don't belong in this article either. I see that this material was moved from an previous article on "Old European culture." I'm not saying the off-topic material should be deleted; rather the article should be divided, with the off-topic material (most of the article) moved to a title like "Theories of pre-Indo-European culture." (In addition to being mis-titled the implicit assumption of most of the article that Neolithic Europe was pre-Indo-European betrays a POV that the Kurgan hypothesis is correct.) -- teb728 08:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
here is a good timeline we should aim at reproducing. dab (ᛏ) 06:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The Comb Ceramic Culture (Pit-Comb-Ceramic) of northern and north-eastern Europe marks the onset of neolithic in those areas. Should it be included in this article? Clarifer
I have edited the article's map (Europe in ca. 4000-3500 BC) adding the Comb Ceramic culture to the north-eastern corner. If the version is accepted I will proceed to add the culture to the other map as well. May I upload? Clarifer
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)
This article was originally created as a BC/AD article and should remain as such according to wikipedia policy. I'm not sure when it changed the dating system the the version didn't mention BCE nor CE. You can discus on my talk page if you like. Thank you, Chooserr
" 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))
The article commences by accepting scholarly disagreement as to the identity of the Indo-Europeans--are they the first Neolithic settlers, or are they Bronze Age invaders? The article then goes on to talk about pre-Indo-Europeans without ever making clear which of these two groups the "pre" precedes. Thus, in this passage, are we speaking of Neolithic genetic markers or Mesolithic genetic markers?
The answer, as those who have read Cavalli-Sforza know, is that the genetic markers are Mesolithic, since they represent the weaker principal components in Cavalli-Sforza's genetic cline maps, and they appear to occupy refugia and less desirable agricultural land. While one can make good inferences about which markers are associated with archeological stages such as the Neolithic (the population increases facilitated by agriculture, and the origin in Anatolia both help in making inferences), one can't make good inferences about which markers are associated with a particular linguistic group such as the Indo-Europeans.
I think that the article should drop most uses of the word "pre-Indo-European" and replace it with "Mesolithic." Anthon.Eff 17:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Anthon.Eff 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
this is great, but I would like to know more about if verbal communication (i.e. the languages) of the neolithic time was invented during this time, and if not when.
hi, im a bit confused as to when these languages where invented.
For it, we must consider the HORN theory.
1- The first western european mankind building [3], started 5000 adc, endend 3000 adc.
2- The last people reletad to that work, the Konii [4] and the B(V)as(Konii) Basque people.
AND, their english descendent, the cornovii tribe. This people came from Algarve - Portugal, to Cornwall (That means the shape of Cornwall -CORNO (horn), in Portuguese and in Konii language ). They migrated to Wroxeter, Shropshire, VIROCONIVM CORNOVIORVM, for the romans. VIRO-CONIUM CORNOVIORUM translated: HORN´S VIRILE KONII MEN.
So, the neolithic language appear in europe.
It has been proposed that Pre-Indo-European be merged into Neolithic Europe.
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)
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.
?
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sure, can do, soon. Hxseek ( talk) 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In the paragraph "Archaeology", the notion "believe" means fairytales and has to be replaced by facts or to be deleted! HJJHolm ( talk) 05:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
megalitsmo lusitani?os lusitanis nem tinham chegado ali ainda isso era iberídeo ou proto-íbero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.9.219 ( talk) 08:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like there may be evidence after all: [6]
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If ancient Cyprus was in Europe then perhaps it should be said that the Neolithic began there in the 9th millennia, around 8800–8600 BC [7], or even earlier [8].
There's a very large section of the text that is blanked out for some strange reason.
It starts after this sentence,
"Admixture rates varied geographically; in the late Neolithic, WHG ancestry in farmers in Hungary was at around 10%, in Germany around 25% and in Iberia as high as 50%."
and ends with this,
"This association was strengthened when King and Underhill (2002) found that there was a significant correlation between the distribution of Hg J2 and Neolithic painted pottery in European and Mediterranean sites. However, studies of the ancient Y-DNA from the earlier Neolithic cave burials of Cardium pottery culture shows they were mainly haplogroup G2a. [1] These 'Neolithic lineages' accounted for 22% of the total European Y chromosome gene pool, and were predominantly found in Mediterranean regions of Europe (Greece, Italy, southeastern Bulgaria, southeastern Iberia)."
Then the "Language" section begins.
Can somebody clarify the situation please? Y-barton ( talk) 15:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
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)