Talk:Linear Pottery culture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bibliography not mentioned in the article[edit]

Specifically, these:

  • Mallory, J.P. (1997). "Linear Band Ware Culture". Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Fitzroy Dearborn.
  • Renfrew, Colin (1990). Archaeology and Language : The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-38675-6.

My issue is that the article does not claim that the LBK is in anyway related to the steppe pastoral people so either the references seem misleading or the article incomplete. Anyone care to comment? Dryfee (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why cite these long out (and up!)dated literature??? 2. In this respect the article is correct and not an "issue".2A02:8108:9640:AC3:20A1:2AE9:9C98:6FA6 (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I suggest all three articles be merged (someone has to do the editing) under a new heading, Linear Ware culture. The is the title used used by James P. Mallory in his article in the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. --FourthAve 04:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the name of the article[edit]

  • Google results to help inform any decision on this question:
    • "Linearbandkeramik": 3,770
Many of these results are not in English. Searching only English-language pages gives 651 pages, therefore, less than "Linear pottery culture". bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 11:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, having now had a look at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English), I guess we should discount the German options. adamsan 11:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Linearbandkeramic": 815
    • "Linear pottery culture": 756
    • LBK +archaeology: 521
    • "Linear ceramic culture": 220
    • "Linear band keramik": 43
    • "Linear ware culture": 12


The usual disclaimer about Google tests and academic terms applies but Linearbandkeramik seems overwhelmingly popular and is the term I am most familiar with myself. If there's a policy on translating foreign terms into English though then I'd go with FourthAve's suggestion. Otherwise let's fill in that redlink. adamsan 10:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know it exclusively under the name Linear Pottery Culture, this is how it is usually translated in Europe outside Germany. Linearbandkeramic is a linguistical non-sense; Linearbandkeramik is a German name, but there is no reason to use the German name here and archaeological cultures are always translated if they do not refer to a geographical name (which is not the case here)...Juro 16:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with using Linear Pottery Culture for several reasons. First, it is usually translated into English as Linear Pottery Culture, so "outside of Germany" it is translated to "Linear Pottery Culture" if English is being used, translated to Linearbandkeramik if German is being used, etc. Second, the pottery is not linear, and therefore Linear Pottery Culture is a poor translation. Perhaps the translation from the Hungarian is more useful: "Linear-banded Pottery". Third, few things are more imperialistic, colonizing and patronizing than going to someone else's country and telling them their single easily readable word is not good enough, so we will make an English version, even if the English version is a poor translation.

"...in Britain the term "Schnukeramik" is not used, ... but "Corded War". Complete consistency is impossible since it is commonplace for Anglophones to refer to the Linearbandkeramik [not in italics - note by Dammers], and the TRB, rather than their English translations." (Foutnote 24 on p. 24 of A. F. Harding, European Societies in the Bronze Age (Cambridge World Archaeology): http://assets.cambridge.org/052136/4779/sample/0521364779WSC00.pdf

and

Christensen (see below, under "No defense?", for citation) writes "Linear Pottery culture (LBK)..." in his first use and then uses "LBK." Kdammers 08:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we move along?[edit]

The Germans discovered the culture and named it with their name. Not matter how you look at only that name is going to suffice for them, no matter what the language. It seems obscure to English speakers so they have made it sound better in English. We need to move along here. If that is our decision then we need to go with an English name, overriding the native Germans who also speak English. Let's take 4th avenue's suggestion at the top of the page and get going, hey? There are so many other cultures to be done and conclusions asserted or denied. Thanks so much.Dave 13:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. We should stop shoving our poor translations down everyone else's throat. It won't hurt people to have "Linear Pottery Culture" redirect to the actual name of the group (Linearbandkeramik), as is accepted by everyone except the English.

I thought "Linearbandkeramik" was the proper English?

Just like we use "kindergarten" or "doppelganger" or "wunderkind" and so on ...

-Forever IP

112.198.98.31 (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

This has been a tough one. I have moved to Linear Band Ware culture simply because this is the name JP Mallory uses in EEIC. For those who contributed to the earlier articles, you are welcome to see what you can do with it. The Linearbandkeramic article was particularly good. --FourthAve 21:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LBW is the most common name in English afaik. why are we back at "Linear pottery culture"? dab (ᛏ) 21:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I might be biased by my years in a German university and as a practicing archaeologist dealing primarily with LBK, but I prefer 'LBK' or 'Linearbandkeramik.' I am unfamiliar with 'LBW' (or does Dachmann mean 'Linear Band Ware' by that?) In all my reading in various languages, I never, to the best of my memory, came across 'Linearbandkeramic,' yet this gets so many hits in Google. On the other hand, Amazon's search inside gives one Linearbandkeramik and two linear pottery culture hits in books written in English - and no hits for the others. Google scholar (much more appropriate than Google for this sort of topic) has Linearbandkeramic: 0, Linearbandkeramik (in English): about 54 (out of a total of about 76, LBK neolithic: 44, linear band ware: 0, Linear pottery culture: 44. I don't like 'Linear pottery culture' especially if it is in lower case, since it looks like a (vague) descriptive term that could apply to various styles. The free version of the EB has only the following: 1 hit for 'Linear Pottery culture' (in an article about Dutch neolithic); 2 hits for 'LBK' - one of which is the title article. At the moment, I do not have access to the full EB (book or electronic) nor other archaeological reference works, but I think we (i.e., some-one with a decent European archaeology library) should check these - they're much more meaningful here than what is written on the Internet.

Europe in the Neolithic : The Creation of New Worlds (Cambridge World Archaeology) (Paperback) by Alasdair W. R. Whittle uses LBK. Cunliffe's Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe has Linear Pottery culture (with LBK given in parentheses in the index). 211.225.34.182 01:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additions and Editing[edit]

Hi, folks. This has got the makings of a good article. First of all, I would like to say that all these names are most inappropriate, as the scholars point out every once in a while. The ware is not linear and does not feature any linear decoration. Neither is it primarily banded, though some of it contains bands. No, appropriateness lies elsewhere, and that is the reason for this extended discussion. But, tradition speaks with a loud voice, as we all fear our fathers. So, we modify tradition until it suits us. I'm totally happy with Linear pottery culture. At least the decoration is incised lines, even though curved or in rectangular shapes. Even the little punctures are often in a line, seen from the side. I would have liked LBK because of its brevity, but Linear Banded Ware Culture or Linearbandkeramikkultur sound totally weird and foreign and make incomprehensible something that ought not to be. We aren't trying to use a specialized lingo designed only for specialists. They don't need any encyclopedia. They have the journals and each other.

So, I'd like to go on from here. I notice the article is interesting but a bit sketchy. Also, there is a major player not on the field, Marija Gimbutas. She only died in person, not in scholarship (which lives forever). I happen to have some of the books so I am going to try to fill this out a bit if that is OK with you. You'll see my edits there.Botteville 00:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Obviously, the one to work on is Linear Pottery culture, as it is better English and a better structure.Botteville 00:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Balcanic? The first time I saw this, it took me a long time to realize "Balkan" was meant; this is the only place I've ever enountered the word. I've changed it to the instantly understandable "Balkan". --FourthAve 19:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replacing the Eastern Linear etc. section. It wasn't saying much and what it said was wrong. There was no way I could fit it into the Bukk Culture as portrayed by Gimbutas. I did add a description of the Bukk Culture.Botteville 02:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________

This page is written from the victor's point of view. We now know that the LBK DECIMATED the indiganous paleolithic population within 300 years. Check out all the stuff Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's team came up with. Seriously. These people were genocidal on a serious level. Given the the only know decendents of Europe's first peoples (the Baske) are STILL fighting this war, i think a less one-sided page is in order.

-jordan f 23 October 2005

Write it, man, write it. Do you have a broken hand?Botteville 04:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm revisiting this statement briefly. You can't credibly connect the Spanish Civil War, which is the source of any ideas of modern Basque conflicts, with events and circumstances of several thousand years ago in prehistory. An attempt to do so reveals a preoccupation with ethnic conflict. There is no evidence to connect the actual Basque culture with the LBK. Sorry. English itself is only several hundred years old as we understand it. Several thousand years gets us into the dim origin of the very language group. Imagine what a Basque parallel means. There is no conflict and no victor and no need to get excited. OK there were a few palisades and weapons-traumatized skeletons. To turn this into genocide or even any significant conflict at all is inflammatory. In fact as the modern sources cited in the article now have it, the LBK might be the Mesolithics. So, your entire model is totally off the wall. You can't pick out a few relatively short-term events of several thousand years ago about which next to nothing is known and turn them into genocide, invasion, ethnic hate and who knows what. Your sources certainly don't say what YOU say they say. Keep on studying.Dave 13:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No defense?[edit]

I'm not sure, but I think the LBK villages in the Leine valley had fencing around them (unless I'm mixing this up with Roessen culture). The nature of the fencing suggests "defense" against wild animals. On the other hand, Jonas Christensen (“Warfare in the European Neolithic,” Acta Archaeologica 75:142,144 ) discusses a number of enclosed LBK sites, including one that replaced a burned unenclosed site. He also mentions a site in Austria with a large number of skeletons with weapon-induced trauma (p. 136). I'm changing the text.

Great. Maybe you'd like to help 4th avenue get going on the clearing-house article so we can get this swamp back on a single track? The public prefers roads to swamps.Dave 13:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

As it now (Man. 2006) stands, the text takes Gimbutas's ideas as gospel. While she might have been right, we should not give the false impression that this is the fully accept3ed view. Let's add so weasle words!Kdammers 03:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are significant questions both views should be presented with as NPOV as possible. Your comment about "so weasel words" isn't too clear. Care to elaborate?Dave 13:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is presenting Gimbutas' oft-debunked speculation about the beliefs of a society that has left no written records as fact. Try reading every sentence and then immediately asking yourself "How do we know that from the archaeological record?" and I hope you'll see what I mean. Is this the same editor who wrote Neolithic religion? adamsan 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the passages which claim a 'universal neolithic religion' and present the "mother goddess" model as accepted fact are highly problematic, and seem to go even further than what Gimbutas proposed. I've commented these out for now, on the principle that 'tis better to stay silent than to mislead, at least until such time as a better-referenced and measured alternative can be found. By way of replacement I've inserted some more tentative statements, which hopefully do not stray too far the other way into weasel word territory. I'm sure a better precis of Gimbutas's ideas can be written (did she make any claims specific to LBK peoples? I don't know), as well as for her critics. Open to suggestions.
And no, the original contributor of the religion text here does not appear to be the same as the creator of the neolithic religion article, which has quite a few problems as is being discussed on its talk page. In the latter case, this seems more to be a matter of conflation with neopaganistic sources. I hasten to add that in neither case do I think the editors were acting in bad faith, but rather that their choice in respective source materials need to be a little more rounded.--cjllw | TALK 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm the universal neolithic religion guy. Let me say, up front, I like the compromise that has gotten there now. It's reasonable. We contruct mental models of the ancient religion. This ia a model, not the only possible one. As to whether the mother godess is an obscure model or Gimbutian fantasy or a fantasy based on a misinterpretation of Gimbutas or a Gimbutan invention or anything new or anything minor or anything in question by very many scholars, I dare say, it does not seem to me you have read very much. First we start with the traces of the mother in history and mythology, and that literature is vast. Then we move on to the archaeology illuminating the traditions of the mother, and that literature is vast. Then we start tracing that archaeology earlier and earlier until we get back into the Old Stone Age and that concept is very well published. And finally we get to the pages of Gimbutas, which practically talk about nothing but the mother and moreover all that talk was very well accepted and still is. Denials of the mother interpretation are rare and obscure. I hope I do not offend you. What did you think "The Language of the Godess" was all about? But I do like the few paragraphs in the article now. The interested reader can get into the material through the links and the other articles. It doesn't claim to be the only possible view or the only view. But if you think the mother goddess/matriarchy model is not the major model and has not been the major model, then, my dear sir or madame, you need to begin your reading in Neolithic archaeology. I respect your audacity and I am sure it is a guiding light leading you on to discovery. Affectionately, Dave 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken, Dave, and likewise, none was intended. My concern was to see that the text acknowledges such models cannot reasonably be held as certainties, that that particular model while certainly influential and notable has also its detractors and sceptics, and (as you note) other or variant models also exist. It was not my intention however to pour scorn upon Gimbutas or these concepts in general, or deny the validity, scholarship and influence of the model and its proponents. Re-reading my earlier commentary some words might have been better chosen, but their thrust was intended to highlight those particular concerns expressed supra, and not rubbish the whole idea. Indeed, I am in vehement agreement with the final sentence of the now-concealed text of yours: "Perhaps the beliefs of Europeans of any culture always were complex".
I make no representation as an expert in matters Neolithic, but from the materials I have read, it seemed to me that firstly that aspects of "mother-goddess" theory had been challenged in some academic quarters, and secondly that some of the statements in that section went further than what Gimbutas at least had maintained.
For example, Gimbutas's work does not assert a monotheistically-interpreted "omnipotent mother goddess" figure or the universal veneration of such a figure, as some of her supporters have made plain. Her view of Neolithic societies seem to encompass a little more variation, acknowledge and identify male deities as well, and prefer the description "matristic" or "matrifocal" rather than "matriarchal" (my own edit has sloppily introduced the latter term, this shall be corrected).
Gimbutas herself was certainly not a crank or fringe-dwelling loon, but of course a very well-regarded scholar. Nevertheless, aspects of her methodology and the basis for some of her conclusions have been called into question by others, as has been done by for her predecessors. In an interview she concedes "Maybe I made some mistakes in deciphering the symbols, but I was continually trying to understand more", and certainly her interpretations of ideograms stand sometimes on shaky ground. Her own entry on wikipedia records some notable dissenters.
However, much of this diverting discussion and content would be better continued for a more general article on the topic, such as the Neolithic religion article which has now been stripped of the out-of-place proto-linguistic conjectures, and awaits our encyclopaedic attentions. For the present article, what would be really handy is a source or three for theories specific to the LBK folk, and some descriptions of suchlike artefacts found in association with their sites. Would you happen to know of any? Regards, --cjllw | TALK 03:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Get Started[edit]

I did the Linear Pottery culture one hoping it would be a merger of the other two. Instead, it shows up as a third alternative. I was new here at the time, still am. I guess things do not just happen, we have to make them happen.

I notice 4th avenue has commanded some space at the top. His suggestion as I read it is to collect and unify all the material under a new name based on the British authority, Mallory. Someone has to do this work and then get rid of the old articles by deleting, I presume, everything but a redirect to the new article. Is that the way it works?

I suggest we get moving on this as there is a lot to say on early Europe and the fans can't say it because of this hold-up. Also, there is a comment above about some new evidence on the way the agriculturalists moved into Europe.

4th avenue, why don't you start to follow through on your excellent idea? I'm coming back on archaeological topics but I want to finish up the climatic periods and the stages of the Baltic, as it may impact this article. Let me say this. If after I do that no one has started the clearing-house article, I will do it, and also change the other articles to redirects. Any comments?Dave 13:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the picture[edit]

Great picture, I love it. Does it belong in front? If it were going to be the only picture, I think so. However, I was hoping to find some pictures of the pottery to go in there. And then there are pictures of the country and the sites, if any can be found. No matter, the format can always be changed as need be, when the illustrations turn up. And, the Internet is ideal for illustrations. That is one of its strong points. Why not show off the fine lady in her best clothes? I assume what I see of this date is someone's working file, and that the double pic and the note next to the top pic will shortly disappear.

Name[edit]

The name issue has been already discussed thorouhly several months ago. The correct English (i.e. non-German) name is and has always been Linear (Band) Pottery culture. We know that Mallory uses a different name and it is nice that he is so creative, but he is not the only person in the world and no linguist. I know what I am talking about and come frequently across that name. See e.g. Google book search, where you get 12 results for "linear ware" (and no for linear ware culture), while you get above 500 results for linear pottery. Or see e.g. this, where the word "linear ware" does not even appear: [1] Juro 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well hello Mr. Juro. I see you had a comment way back there but nothing since. Just where have you been? Why wait until after I move it?
But no matter. For myself I do not care what it is called. I'm the one who created Linear Pottery culture originally to distinguish it from from Linear pottery culture, as the latter was a source file for merging and rewriting. Then there were three around for a while before some kind soul took all the notices off and kept basically what I and one or two others wrote. But I see this situation as reflective of the life of the name in general. Except, as you say, for Germany, where the name is frozen forever after and a day, it seems to change quite often. How long are we going to bat this around? There certainly is no authoritative English name and Google is a recent phenomenon in the history of modern scholarship. It is only good for telling us what people who use Google are looking up today. Tomorrow they will look something else up. It's a fad, you know? OK, fine, I'm willing to stay at Linear Pottery culture, but we need change the names in the article back and fix a few redirects. I don't mind doing that, but how many times am I going to have to do it?
A couple of moot points. I don't see what you would call a discussion months ago. I see some comments with no resolution. Those were there when there were two and then three tagged articles. Whew, I'm glad we got out of that stage. Then 4th avenue preempted some space so I responded to that. Did you assume some sort of issue was settled, and on what basis? Second, you seem to have some sort of NPOV about Mallory. I can always be sure that whenever Mallory, Renfrew or Gimbutas are mentioned, there is a whole lot of jumping up and down and screaming. I don't see it myself. Gimbutiene was good looking but the others aren't (joke). Mallory is authoritative and English and this is English. Why, I still remember Danubian and that looked pretty good until V. Gordon Childe insisted on jumping off a cliff. Danubian jumped along with him I guess. But you know, if Danubian was once all the rage, then what you say about the supposed English fixity of the name can't be true.
Is this IT now or am I going to be referencing a vanished article later on? This must be the spook of articles. I got more updates to make based on scholarship published on the internet, which isn't Mallory, Renfrew or Gimbutas, and tries to keep us posted on the latest research rather than be controversial.Dave 03:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing. I read the Internet article you referenced under (1)and it is even in one of my updates. Are you trying to say, this THE authority or the way Europeans do it now, or that the European way is THE WAY or that everything in that article is authoritative and true, or that reading the article endows you or anyone with some special secret knowledge of the way things are and ought to be? Because if you are, all I can say is, I don't believe you ought to think that. Yesterday it was all different and tomorrow it will be more different still. This is art rather than science.Dave 04:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1)I do not know where you have placed the warning that you want to move the article, I have not seen it, maybe because there is a permanent "redirecting chaos" around this article. (2) You have written too much above, so much that the idea you want to convey has got lost in some parts (3) I have not cited google, but google book search (i.e. major US libraries) and that is a huge difference! (4) The article treats the name variants, and does not mention "linear war". By the way, in terms of archaeological content, the website is wrong in several places, because the authors obviously have not read basic CEE literature on the corresponding cultures, but that's another issue. (5) The only correct (non-German) name is Linear Pottery culture (i.e. as a translation of the German LBK/Czech lineární keramika etc. ; Danubian and other totally different names are different concepts in terms of content and thus NOT the topic of THIS name issue), everybody who deals with that topic uses it and knows it. Only Mallory and probably some others, for whom – like for you - continental Europe seems to be an "exotic" region, seem to have decided to play poets and invent "slightly" different and better names (in a sphere where this is absolutely unnecessary). It is nice that he is so "creative", but the name that is really used is Linear Pottery (see my above comment) and an encyclopaedia must allow for that. And yes, this has nothing to do with history science or archaeology (again, I do not talk about the "danubian" and similar versions, and those names are completely marginal anyway), this is pure looking at the frequency of names in professional texts. And the frequency is very clear in this particular case, actually, all other names besides Linear Pottery and the German names are virtually non-existent when looking at the frequency. (6) I do not know why you consider one person, basically unknown elsewhere, the "authority" in a matter that is dealt with by thousands of experts all over the world. But I can guess why: because you have no other readily available recent book on the topic in England, so you derive the wrong conclusion that this is THE authoritative and new source. That's a wrong conclusion. And yes, the opposite of Mallory is the rest of the world (including what you call "the Europeans"). (7) There have been name changes neither in German, nor in any other language in question. Maybe there was a different name 50 years ago, I do not know, but it has not changed recently, is not changing currently and is not going to change in the near future and there is no reason to change it, because the design of the pottery has not changed ( :-) ). (7) Anyway, there are redirects. Juro 19:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever this article's ultimate resting place, would those who feel inspired to move it about mind also attending to the redirects. As things stand now, a bunch of double redirects I had repaired after the previous move have once again lost their way, and this talk page is no longer directly associated with the contents it discusses.--cjllw | TALK 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry old buddy. I'm going for Linear Pottery culture now. We batted this around enough I think. I can't seem to get the discussion back. Can I ask you to be patient a bit longer and do a little fixing? I didn't change that much. As for the religion it is a large topic after all, at least in the publications. There is also the matriarchy question. But the custom now is to base the inferences on archaeological studies, such as statistics of grave goods, etc. I don't mind sticking to that. I like the statistical/archaeological data approach myself though I do admire the more abstract and speculative theorists. They lead us pedantic types on.
I may say you have a lot of names on here. I hope I don't end up like some editors, taking everyhting off my user page and running from name to name or getting off and getting surreptitiously on again. Not that you are in that category. I took a lot of flak from hypersensitive persons when I first got on so I appreciate your not being one of them.Dave 15:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Dave, "Linear Pottery culture" will have to do, it seems. I've lodged a request at WP:RM to have this talk page moved also to talk:Linear Pottery culture, since a simple move can no longer be effected and it will require admin intervention to have the article and its associated talk page (ie this pg) re-aligned. I think the other double redirects can be corrected without too much trouble. Nice work btw in those recent expansions to the material, and agree discussion of the terminology question is a useful addition to the article itself. I am a tad confused by your last comment above; perhaps it is my missing something but it seems you might be under the impression I've edited under alternate names than my present moniker; I am not Juro and I've not edited under any other name than this one- Regards, --cjllw | TALK 12:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of some unsourced statements[edit]

Bringing in some sourced information on the disappearance of a Linear Pottery physical type and Linear Pottery genetic features, I removed the following statements for being confusing, unsourced and maybe irrelevant:

The explanation of the researchers is that the LBK population was never a very large one, and that they settled in a mosaic pattern, assimilating larger numbers of Mesolithics. They were, so to speak, the heralds of a new way of life adopted by the general population of Europe.
Demographic analysis of the human remains, however, indicate a 20-30% rise in the number of 5-19-year-olds in the cemeteries, an event termed the Neolithic Demographic Transition (NDT). It is thought to represent in increase in birth rate. If the genetic evidence is being accurately interpreted, the population that increased cannot have been primarily immigrant.

While the first phrase is according to archeological facts, I consider it wrong and OR to forward such findings as an explanation to the previously raised questions of extinction without proper sourcing. The second phrase seems pretty confused and irrelevant to me, but worse, it seems to supply another unsourced explanation. To relate NDT to new immigrants is not consistent with a continuation of older cultures. Rokus01 17:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were right to remove the unsourced statements. My problem with this article, even though it was judged better than the previous, is that I did NOT source the statements. Just a few modifications therefore could interrupt the line of thought making the whole thing confusing. In a sense I shot myself in the foot. I'm revisiting the thing now correcting the cause of the problem and trying straighten the whole thing out. We have a photo of the pottery now and in the last year some good articles have come out. I can probably find the articles from which the above statements come but they were intended as evidence that the population was local and not mainly immigrant. I don't really need them now so I am making the critics happier (nothing will ever make THEM happy) by putting in their articles and there is not going to be room for extensive evidence on the local nature of the population. I agree they come from the Palaeolithic rather than the Neolithic. So thanks for your concern and you did right even though the action took out the core of my argument rendering the whole thing incomprehensible. It is my fault. I should have tied it to the sources. I hope you find this better when I get it done.Dave 11:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit[edit]

Now that I have more Wikisavvy I think I will revisit this article as it seems stable. I see it made class B. Why not shoot for Class A! Excelsior.Dave 23:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later. Getting into this article I see that it has been tampered with badly. The underlying fault is mine. I did not use proper templates or put citations in, opening the article up to disguised vandalism. I'm fixing that.Dave 12:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I see that someone has been trying to offload material into other new articles. That is just what I would have done. I will go on with this process.Dave 12:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandia Cave[edit]

Here are some sandia cave biblio items I removed:

  • Wesley Bliss, A Chronological Problem Presented by Sandia Cave, New Mexico. American Antiquity, 1940a 5(3):200-201. Ref. Sandia Cave. Correspondence in American Antiquity, 1940b 6(1):77-78.
  • The Mystery of Sandia Cave. New Yorker, 71(16):66-83

As far as I can see the cave has nothing whatever to do with this article. It is not mentioned in the article. This looks like irrelevant spam to me.Dave 12:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hibben allegation[edit]

Someone put a "warning" that Hibben made up data on his biblio item. Check out Hibben at [2] and elsewhere. As far as I am concerned this allegation is libel. Unless you can back that up with a reference, leave it alone, will you? If in fact anyone finds a reference the best thing to do is take Hibben out. Otherwise I'm not going take him out on YOUR say-so, whoever you are. Since Hibben worked primarily in New Mexico I suspect whoever put the Sandia Cave biblio items in here also concerned himself with Hibben. You know, some Wikipedia articles call some authors of the past prevaricators and fabricators and they have a string of investigations and references to back them up. You have nothing, as far as I can see. Libel is a serious matter. Get out and stay out.Dave 12:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To 71.195.73.153[edit]

Listen, buddy, your peevish comments meritorious or not are not the way we do things. I don't want to be too tough on you because you might shortly become a newcomer and then I would want to welcome you. First of all let me say this. When I did this article I did not put in the footnotes and citations. This would call for a template saying, "this article does not cite references" or some such thing. I'm totally amazed no one has done that. I'm fixing the citation omission currently but it will take a few days.

Second, once that is done, if you know of other opinions then you can either bring it up on the discussion page or else try reworking it melding the new information with what was there before, or else rewriting and giving your reasons in the discussion. Your own personal opinion does not belong here. That would be original research, which Wikipedia does not publish.

I notice you did put in a few citations. That obliges me to consider that information. I just have not got to it yet. Meanwhile, if you want to be a serious editor, stop with the extraneous "warning" and personal opinions. I'm spending this time because you look as though you might turn into a serious editor. You would want to get yourself a user page. Don't identify yourself but put something of your qualifications and interests. Look at a bunch of user pages. Then you would leave me a message saying, thank you very much for your kind advice, Dave. Then I would say, welcome to Wikipedia. That would entitle you to be taken seriously by me and probably others also.

The encyclopedia pages are an encyclopedia not a personal forum. We have a forum on the discussion pages, like this one. If by chance you continue after this well-meant advice then I and others will have no choice to treat you like a vandal. I'm not an administrator but you will probably attract the attention of one and he/she might block you from Wikipedia depending on the severity of your vandalism.

My guess is we will shortly be seeing your user page. There is a handbook and a tutorial.Dave 14:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This article is one huge mess. The Eastern Linear Pottery Culture (for those understanding Slavic see e.g. sk:kultúra s východnou lineárnou keramikou) is not the same as Bükk Culture (sk:bukovohorská kultúra), the Bükk Culture follows after the Eastern Linear Pottery Culture and is a clearly distinct culture.

You can sign your comments by entering four tilde. As soon as you get yourself a user name those will invoke the user name and give a link to your user page. As far as the article being a mess goes, right now you are right. That is why I am working on it; however, such work does not guarantee it will not be made a mess again. As far as what you are saying is concerned, that is no worse than what many with user names say. In fact it is mild. Indeed there is no reason to sneak around about it. We say such things to each other openly. If you get too personally insulting there might be some administrative repercussions. I've seen some pretty insulting things.
Once again it is a matter of protocol. The encyclopedia page is not the place for outrage. No one is automatically going to make it read and look the way you think it ought just because you are outraged. Instead it will just be even more of a mess. Follow the protocol. You'll be treated like any other editor.
We aren't the Slavic Wikipedia. We don't think like, talk like or act like slavs except insofar as we are all human and opinion on the English side may vary quite a bit from opinion on the slavic side. So you may have to try to work things out and if it does not go your way choke down your rage just like everyone else. Or, just work on the Slavic Wikipedia.
No I do not agree based on what I have read that the Eastern Linear Pottery Culture is not the Bukk. What I have read is Gimbutas and she takes the view that it is. She did not always agree with her Slavic colleagues or they with her. Whether she agreed about this I do not know but in 1991, her last work, the Bukk is the eastern Linear. I cited her. However if you read the two articles by Max Baldia you will see that he does not mention the Bukk at all. Instead he mentions the Alfold and makes it contemporaneous with the western in such a context that it is clear it is the eastern. He does not use eastern. I'm adding a couple of good articles to the list that take other points of view. A lot depends on what dates you use. They all have a pool of dates and each pool has a different spread. Gimbutas make the Bukk early; others make it late.
No matter how you cut it the Bukk in the mountains and the Alfold on the plain are in the range and time window of the eastern linear and the pottery IS linear. There are some other more local cultures as well; you can read the articles after I get them in. So the view I am going to take is the the Eastern is mainly the Alfold and the Bukk and they are mainly contemporaneous depending on whose date you use, with the Bukk possibly later than the Alfold. But I still have to sudy the articles.
As far as expecting agreement among scholars or schools is concerned that is just plain not going to happen so we have to work around it as best we can. As far as you and I agreeing on every point is concerned, that is not going to happen either. As far as you agreeing with everything in the final form of the article is concerned, that also is not going to happen. I will be glad to listen to you as long as you behave like an adult Wikipedian and not like a juvenile or the ethnic enemy of all English-speakers. What I need are some articles I can access and read expressing the point of view YOU have learned. We all learn from others. We might be able to say, Prof Jones says this but Prof Smith says that. If you are saying it, forget it. We don't care what YOU say.
Now I find I am getting hung up in confrontation. So you prepare your material and I will finish my clean-up and then we can work it out, possibly getting some help from other Wikipedians. Making the article even more of a mess is not an adult solution.Dave 02:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to understand the seriousness of this error (And I am not surprised because you do not even seem to understand the meaning of the word "Slavic", as laughable as this might be given that you are trying to write about arch. cultures): This is not a question of two articles/view, these are elementary things. I have read hundreds of articles and books on this and basically live in the territory. What you call Alfold is the Hungarian name for the Eastern Linear Pottery and Bukk is simply another culture (irrespective of dating) which arose from two groups of the ELP. If someone calls both cultures ELP (as you claim above) than it is his personal misinterpretation/error and maybe worth mentioning as a footnote. Finally a personal hint: Obviously, the best sources about any arch. culture are almost always those of local archaelogists and any texts you read in English are just superficial summaries of those sources. The excavations have not been conducted by Americans, people from the UK or any other English speaking country, but by local archaeologists (This is no Egypt or Mesopotamia). So, not only should not you say "this is not the Slavic wikipedia" , but if you want to learn about the culture at hand, you should learn Hungarian and Slovak (in this case), otherwise you will never be able to get at least a basic picture of the matter at hand.
You can indent by leading off with colons. Do you play chess, buddy? If you play with a group the better players will not play with you because they want to be challenged and grow. I've given you enough hints to start growing. I got to go on now. I am going to finish cleaning the article, at which point it will be clear who thought what. For you, I think you need to face what you expect to get or accomplish on Wikipedia. If you become a new user, then welcome. Goodbye.Dave 04:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained that this article is completely wrong. If I wanted to become an editor, I would become one. That is all. The rest is up to editors able to write an encyclopaedia and not arguing using terms like playing, grow and other non-sense, which I would expect at best from a poet. I really wonder what kind of people are allowed to edit here, this is really a shame.


The article is better now, but it still holds that Alfoldi C. is simply the Hungarian name for what the Germans, Slovaks and Czechs call the Eastern L. Pottery. And the primary, secondary or whichever author of this article does not seem to understand this.

Revisit finished[edit]

I finished revisitng. Everything, I believe, is cited. Any attempts to change it without reason or without citation or discussion will be reverted by me as vandalism. Formerly I found my words, which were paraphrasing some source, altered to make them say something else, adding total confusion to the article. You can't do that now, or if you do, you better make sure they say what the source says, unless you are going to discard it, in which case I would expect to see your reasoning. I plan to keep my eye on this article every minute.

As to my critics, I say this. Gosh I know that the very best person to write this article would have been a quadruple major in geology, biology, physics and archaeology. He (or she) would have at least one PhD and many years of experience as a field archaeologist, as well as being a published author. Furthermore, he (or she or it) ought to be fluent in Hungarian and all the west Slavic languages as well as in German. He must have read hundreds of books and articles specifically about the LBK.

But let's go a little further. Such an expert must have an audience suitable to his talent. We should all learn Hungarian so we can read all the Hungarian sources. In fact we should all become polyglots so we can assume whatever ethnic identity is convenient at the time. What we need here is a nation of Jason Bournes. English - bah. That is for children and infidels.

Moreover, Wikipedia must start being very careful about who they let edit. I suggest an application process where you are nominated by your congressman and then have to pass a Wiki exam to make sure you are a bona fide expert. Then the president may appoint you to Wikipedia so that you may perform great things for the world, especially for the enemies of English-speakers everywhere, who must be compensated for the fact that we exist.

Until we get this ideal system set up it looks as though we might have to use people like me on a contingency basis and endure the ordinary English-speaking oaf who might need some information, even though he belongs to an inferior culture and is no doubt an inferior person. I apologize to you superiors for the inconvenience of it all. I hope you will not be turned off by Wikipedia and get out of our hair but will hang around just to set us all straight!Dave 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading images[edit]

I have removed the following misleading and/or anachronistic images from the article:

  • File:BreakingFlax.jpeg -- depicts 20th century culture and provides little useful illustration of what flax is or how it was processed circa 5000 BC
  • File:Heckrund3.JPG -- it is misleading to show a 20th century breed of cow and simply label it 'Cow'. It probably looks very different to the kind of animals kept in 5000 BC.

Ycdkwm (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the history and aim of the Heck cattle breed shown in the picture File:Heckrund3.JPG I consider it to be at the moment the best educated guess at what the cattle of the time may have looked like. I must admit though there are not too many clues found yet to exactly proove this reconstruction breed really resembles the cattle of the time beyound any doubt. --T.woelk (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milk drinkers[edit]

Interesting article here[3]: Linear Pottery culture first to drink milk. Also this article needs a map. Jagdfeld (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cleanup tag[edit]

The tag has been on since 2010. It isn't discussed anywhere. The article looks pretty clean to me and has a ton of references. I note some relatively minor changes have been made. I conclude that whatever cleanup issues the placer of the tag had have been fixed, so I am taking off the tag. If you see more cleanup issues, please tag or fix specific locations. I do not think the overall tag is relevant.

Past heated editorial discussion (way too heated, and very insulting, not to be tolerated today) leads me to think the placer of the tag may not have had cleanup in mind, but was really having problems with some of the content. That does NOT take a cleanup tag. It would take clarification requests, or some statement saying I had relied too much on one author, or was confusing, or it was unbalanced, or my sources were improper. You need to direct your criticisms at the problem, not put on general tags that have nothing to do with what you think the problem is. State the problem. This time, please discuss the problem.

I remind you that referenced material generally stays unless you are criticising the validity of the references. You can't just take out referenced material because you personally do not agree with the idea. If there are other ideas, put them in! Or, suggest that someone put them in. Discussion, discussion, always discussion. As far as the attacks ad hominem are concerned, I will have no more of those. Previously I responded with sarcasm, but, that is not WP policy, either. WP requires civility and so does good manners. I think you will find me responsive. I go by the sources. You are required to go by them also. If that means there are alternative referenced points of view, by all means let's put them in. It isn't up to us to decide what is right or wrong in the field, only to present what has been decided. I must say, you were attacking the wrong man. You really want to attack the authors, but you must do that with additional sources or show that I was not following the source.

In summary, then, polite discussion please. Tags must be discussed, please. Please place relevant tags at the proper locations. If you want to grade the article, you can do that is discussion. I would appreciate your telling us how to improve it (politely). I see we are up to a class B here. At some point I will probably be back. The goal is to get to a class A. I welcome collaboration.Dave (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pastoral or arable?[edit]

Hi. I guess "event" is a little vague. However, pastoralism is not agriculture. They don't have the same date. Pastorals were wandering around feeding their animals on wild grasses long before they were able to grow any grasses on their own. So, pastoralism can't be an agricultural event. I'm taking the sentence out, though, for its vagueness. Also, if I have to explain it, it does not belong in the intro, which only introduces topics explained later. But, the topic is adequately covered later, so I wouldn't go out of my way to ensure exactly that sentence got in there. Economy of method.Dave (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, pastoralism is a form of agriculture and couldn't exist before the first domestication of animals, which happened around the same time and place as the first domestication of plants. But I don't understand why the tag was there either. joe•roet•c 18:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to the Philippines?[edit]

On the wiki for Filipino inventions, it states pottery was first invented in the Philippines. That would mean pottery is only about 30 year old?112.198.98.31 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Linear Pottery culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Linear Pottery culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Linear Pottery culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Linear Pottery culture. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Linear Pottery culture. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[[AVK (aka Alföld culture, ALV, ALP) is the Eastern linear pottery culture

The article currently repeatedly refers to "AVK". Is that another name for this culture? I get that impression, but it is never made clear in the article. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a ref next to the first mention of the term; I looked it up and found:
"The Middle Neolithic Alföld Linear Pottery Culture (AVK)

The Middle Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain is known by a variety of different names and acronyms in the literature – Alföld Linear Pottery Culture (ALP, or ALPC) in English, Alföldi Vonaldíszes Kerámia (AVK) in Hungarian (see Figure 3). All of these terms attempt to differentiate this Linear Pottery Culture from its Central and Northern European successors, the Linienbandkeramik (LBK) and Stichbandkeramik (SBK)."

In English, it's "Alföld Linear-Decorated Pottery" - AVK). And here is yet another culture from the article: "DVK (Dunatúl Vonaldiszes Kerámia, or Transdanubian Linear Pottery)"--Quisqualis (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investigating this! I will edit the article as soon as I have more time. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Errors[edit]

"Long houses were gathered into villages of five to eight houses, spaced about 20 m (66 ft) apart, occupying 300–1,250 acres (120–510 ha)." "Excavations at Oslonki in Poland revealed a large, fortified settlement (dating to 4300 BC, i.e., Late LBK), covering an area of 4,000 km2 (1,500 sq mi)." These figures must surely be wrong, but I have no idea what they should be corrected to. Andjamin (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of neolithic Culture[edit]

The drawing is wrong. In the outskirts of Vienna (Brunn am Gebirge/Wolfholz) a neolithic pre-LBK ('formative phase of LBK, Starcevo culture) settlement has been found by Peter Stadler. After about 200 years it changed to LBK. The settlement was dated 5500 BC.

https://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/peter_stadler

https://www.academia.edu/4626907/Kotova_Nadezhda_Stadler_Peter_2012_2009_-_2_._The_formative_phase_of_the_Linear_Pottery_Culture_and_the_settlement_Brunn_2_in_Lower_Austria._St.Petersburg_Conference_Proceeding_of_the_Russian_Academy_276-282

Goetz48 (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading genetics[edit]

"... Comparison of the N1a HVSI sequences..." The link is cruelly misleading, because suggesting that this could only be an mtDNA which is wrong. Very bad sentence. I will not edit that because I am tired to work for nothing than being reverted by stupid beginners.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:C582:78E2:E07E:65F1 (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading chronology[edit]

" is a major archaeological horizon of the European Neolithic, flourishing c. 5500–4500 BC" - this is cruelly misleading. Checked?2A02:8108:9640:AC3:80B0:AF32:7658:C53A (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desiderata[edit]

Regrettably, here of all, a "genetics" paragraph is missing.In contrast, the misnomed map "Linear Pottery" is extremely misleading, confusing everything, in particular pottery in general with Neolithic in contrast to LBK.HJJHolm (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linear_Pottery_culture&oldid=1208189560"