Talk:Aegean civilization

I'm questioning the usefulness of this entry...we've come a long way in understanding the Myceneans since 1911, and I think all but the broadest outlines of this have changed. For that matter, I think we've even reversed the switch in nomenclature from "Mycenean civilization" to "Aegean civilization" touted in the first paragraph here. -- Paul Drye

I also question the usefulness of this entry (well, now these three entries). In fact I would say their usefulness is approximately zero, unless they are moved to an article describing the state of knowledge in 1911...but what would be the point of that? Someone needs to rewrite them...I could try, but I only have a very basic knowledge. Adam Bishop 20:38, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This article seems a mixture of Minoan civilization and Mycenaean Greece, the distinctiveness of these two cultures being obviated in the course. The earliest entry in the History of Greece series points here, when one would expect a greater discussion of the Minoans. I'll post this query to Talk:History of Greece as well, but I'm wondering, Why is this article needed? Is it a holdover from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica that has outlived its usefulness? Was it meant to serve as a broader discussion of Minoan [I]and[/I] Mycenaean civilizations? --RJC ^Talk 6 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

Under Evidence | Internal Evidence | Written Documents, the article mentions "legends written with pigment on pottery (rare)", and the word "legends" is linked to the Wikipedia article on 'legend'--an article that talks about legends as being "a narrative of human actions". Surely the "legends" on pottery are not this, but some kind of label, aren't they? You can't write an entire story in pigment on a pot, can you? Mcswell (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The start of the chronology section describes 1st Dynasty Egypt as being 4000BC - surely that should read 3000BC ? I'm not confident about the actual date these vases were from so will leave it for someone who is. Adamssimon 14:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

And indeed the dating of Khyan to 1900 BC and Dyn 11/12 to 2500 BC are inaccurate. However, these dates are used for the chronology of the Minoan civilization and not the Aegean-Myceanean culture. --JFK 13:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed a request from an IP user to merge this page with Minoan civilization. If there is to be an Aegean civilization article, it will have to cover the Minoan, Mycenaean, and Cycladic cultures. Since the current Aegean civilization article appears to be crap, I suggest deleting most of its content and replacing it with a very short description of how the Minoan, Mycenaean, and Cycladic civilizations relate to one another, with pointers to the appropriate main articles. Of course, there doesn't seem to be a Cycladic civilization article yet. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, no one seems to be all that interested in this article, but I thought I'd see if anyone objects to my intended direction: to eliminate most of the content of this article. Very little of it is worth retaining, except maybe the history of archaeological discovery at the end. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm interested - busy, but interested. I, for one, have no objections to your deleting the outdated information. --Jpbrenna 21:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

 

J. D. Redding 22:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This picture, to state it more professionally, creates a slight vacuum by drawing out the air from a small enclosed region. You can't even read it. With all the fine, lucid, attractive drawings and diagrams and maps that have been made on this topic why would anyone want to put this thing in? There seems to be somewhat of a lack of confidence in presenting Aegean civilization. I assure you this is all well known and standard in the field and has been for over a century.Dave (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have you got something against Middle Cycladic and Late Cycladic? Because, the standard classification is, E, M and L Helladic, Cycladic and Minoan. We don't need to switch to editorial commentary on MC and LC. Use the standard classification. Present your apologetics, if any, under those topics.Dave (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aegean civilizations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101104332/http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/index.html to http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/index.html

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).

• 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) 11:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I note the notes don't start until well down in the article, long after they should. I'm having a problem with the scope of the term "Aegean." The last I heard it did not include mainland Greece. From here it looks like WP editorialization. Please give me a reference or two to credible theoreticians; ideally, the origin of this application.Botteville (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so - all these use it in exactly the same sense: rather elderly book, recently reprinted, and [1] this chapter] in the The Oxford Illustrated History of Prehistoric Europe, edited by Barry W. Cunliffe, and just from the title: Troy, Crete, and Mycenae ; Three Aegean Civilizations, by Robert Byrne, Milliken Publishing Company, 1969.

Britannica has: "Aegean civilizations, the Stone and Bronze Age civilizations that arose and flourished in the area of the Aegean Sea in the periods, respectively, about 7000–3000 bc and about 3000–1000 bc. The area consists of Crete, the Cyclades and some other islands, and the Greek mainland, including the Peloponnese, central Greece, and Thessaly...." I think this has been the usual definition of the term for a long time, at least in English. Indeed, that it combines Helladic, Cycladic & Cretan/Minoan is rather the point of the term. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I believe that a special part of the article should be dedicated to two archeogenetic studies that have been made about this period and area. Can someone creat a place for Genetics ? (Because I do not know how) And I will add information (+ sources) Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply