Jump to content

Talk:9th millennium BC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article9th millennium BC has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 18, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
June 9, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
July 23, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Trans-Atlantic contact

[edit]

This seems a bit far fetched to me - Trans-Atlantic trade in the 9th millennium BC? Is there a source for this?

There are some theories- Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact#Transatlantic_contact_during_the_Ice_Age. --Brunnock 20:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
From evidence of what appears to be tobacco leaves or residue found in ancient Egyption tombs. Of course this would push the earliest date of trade to about 3000 BC, not 8000 BC as stated in this article. In either case it's all highly speculative. --Jquarry 22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revamped palestine to knaan

[edit]

The name Palestine was coined only in the first century AD and meaningful only when referring to the periods the area was called that way.

If it was called the land of israel it would be misnamed for the period all the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.132.213 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one misnaming isn't better then the other. If you want to be super correct use the geological naming Palestine is a provincial naming of the area used by different colonial empires and adopted by the correct palestinians early in modern tmes, Israel was the ancient Kingdom of Israel in the second millenium bc and the modern state niether existed during 9k bc! or if you want to reffer to the actual naming of the regions I guess you might use Israel for all of its de facto controlled territories (autonomy or whatever) Palestine for whatever the palestinins claim and start a deayed edit war with anyone who reads this (remote) page which for my opinion is a good thing anyway (to build up articles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.84.175 (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update , It appears Two users seem keen in revamping this , ignoring the reasons I stated here. I can only say that if this sums up to this wikipedias integrity will fall even lower , I am not a casual editor in here but this ignorant authority abuse Is honestly unjust and what keeps people from even trying to contribute in talk pages. I hope that someone higher up will see this and warn them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.132.213 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think if you want to use Iraq and Iran, (even England, Turkey and China) to name the places where prehistoric events happened, then it is only correct to use Israel. The area is not called Palestine, as the user states above, the word Palestine wasn't even coined until 1st Century CE. The people who edit this are only trying to interfere and spread Palistinian dominance on the internet.
If you want to be completely impartial about it (for no reason other than racism - because really, there is only one reason why you refuse to recognise Israel as the name for the area), then according to the Dorling Kindersley World History Atlas the proper name for the area at 9th century BCE is Western Mesopotamia, not even Canaan as suggested. Colt .55 (talk) 22:41 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Maglemosian peoples - huge discrepancy!!

[edit]

In this article it is stated that Maglemosians were seen already from c. 8750 BC. However in the article about Maglemosian culture, it is stated that they dwelled about 7500-6000 BC. This is not good, as it means a difference of ~ 1200 years. Who is right? -andy 92.227.80.165 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. 177.105.94.73 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Domestication

[edit]

All sources I've ever found say that dogs were domesticated up to 100,000 years ago. At any rate, it is well known that they were domesticated before the 9th millennium BC.Punkrockrunner (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)punkrockrunner[reply]

Well known by whom? Do you have a source? 74.132.249.206 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About BC

[edit]

I'm not a Christian, and 'BC' refers to something that is only belived by Christians. It is wrong that wikipedia should use BC. 'BCE' is the recognised universal terminology. this page name should be changed. Colt .55 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your arbitrary era change. The use of BCE/CE vs BC/AD has been a contentious issue on Wikipedia for years. No consensus was reached so the present guideline at WP:ERA is "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used ... It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a a substantive reason; the Monual of Style fovors neither system over the other." If you wish to revive the discussion, please do so on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Some archived discussions of this debate are in Wikipedia talk:Eras, Wikipedia talk:Eras/Compromise proposal, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. At least one editor was banned from making any era change, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2, in his case from BCE/CE to BC/AD thousands of times. I agree that in some articles, such as those on Judaism, that BCE/CE is preferred, which I stated on Talk:Hebrew calendar/BCE vs BC. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, my friend, don't say too much about this. 177.105.94.73 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:9th millennium BC/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 14:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
Good point. Have added RD.
Agreed. Done.
I've reworded because the Levant covers a much wider area than was implied.
Yes, that was a bit too much detail as there is a link to Greenlandian. Have removed the GSSP/NGICP.
  • What does p.a. stand for?
per annum.
  • It would be good to put down how they came about those population estimates. If I remember right, they assumed the population density of a city then was the same as the population density of a typical city in the same region today, so they multiplied that by the estimated total size of the city to get some debatably over/underestimated value   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think, as with Greenlandian above, that would be going into too much detail. There is a link to World population estimates and this goes some way towards explaining the concept and method.
Yes, there is an earlier one somewhere. I remember reading about it. Have removed the earliest known clause and substituted c. 8500 BC as the estimated date for Cramond.
I think it was later, no earlier than the 8th millennium, but I'm by no means sure. Our article on Prehistoric India says 7000 BC but that doesn't rule out an earlier start. If you have a source for the 9th millennium, do please include it in the article.
Not important, just something mentioned in the source. The important point is its ease of scattering. I've taken out the chromosome piece.
  • "The Natufians took full advantage of these genetic improvements and learned how to harvest the new wheat, grind it into flour and make bread. The early bread was unleavened, with the dough allowed to dry on hot stones." how do we know this?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They can't have known there had been genetic improvements so I've simplified the sentence to the basic facts. The whole of this paragraph is sourced to Bronowski in 1973. I'd be happy to use more recent sources if they can be found but I think his views on these developments still hold good.
There's a particular emphasis on goat remains by Melinda Zeder, one of the principal archaeologists at Ganj Derah, in the source. Ganj Derah dates from c.8500 BC but it seems to have been towards 8000 BC for the goats. I've reworded the sentence but do please alter this wording if you wish.
  • You seem to really gloss over the Americas and skip Africa and Australia entirely. You don't mention the Clovis people, the transition to the Folsom, or the Fell and Los Toldos cultures which inhabited the tip of South America during this millenium, or the Chan Hol woman from the Yucutan. You don't mention the isolation of Tasmania or the invention of the boomerang in Australia. You mention that pottery was invented in China 18,000 years ago but you skip that it was in use in the Sahara and Sahel by the 10th millenium. Also, the earliest (contested, I think) massacres date to around this time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Clovis culture was earlier and would be out of scope here. I don't know much about the Folsom tradition but I notice the article includes a statement that the Folsom Complex dates to between 9000 BC and 8000 BC and is thought to have derived from the earlier Clovis culture. That would be fine for this article but there is no source. I've tagged the other article accordingly.
Sorry, I must go for now. Will come back to you on Chan Hol as I know of it but need to read about it again. I think the boomerang was much, much earlier than this but will check. Tasmania may have been 10th millennium – I remember a Tasmanian I knew telling me it separated at the end of the last ice age so I'll need to check this too.
The Clovis culture appears to have ended in the 9th millennium, Tasmania was isolated at the end of the last ice age so the 9th millennium is within that range (and the Tasmania article also uses the date 10,000 years ago), boomerangs were invented earlier in Poland but were invented by the Australians 10,000 years ago   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dunkleosteus77, for starting the review. I'm rather short of time today but I've given answers to most of the points raised above. I should have more time tomorrow. By the way, you don't need to sign each point individually. It's usual to add a summary at the end of the list and just sign that. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments

[edit]

Hello again, Dunkleosteus77. I've made a few amendments to this article as well as enhancing 10th millennium BC with some new information. A few comments about my findings:

  • Encyclopaedia Britannica gives us a source for the Folsom complex so I've added that to the article now. I found a piece in Cueva Fell about the Fell's Tradition with a good source to confirm the dating. I've heard of a Los Toldos tradition but can't find a source that confirms its dating (plenty about Eva Peron, of course), so I'll need your help with that – do you have a book or journal source we could use?
[1] if you can read Portuguese   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract there doesn't mention any timeframe so it isn't usable, unless you are meaning one of the many links off that page. Do you have another source? No Great Shaker (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The dates aren't in the abstract, you'll need to actually read it. The title literally translates to "New dates for Los Toldos rock art"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The language is Spanish and "nuevos datos" translates as new data, not new dates. New dates is "nuevas fechas". Also, the source is a subscription site so I can't read it apart from the abstract. However, it's certainly a reputable journal so I'll take it on your approval and use it to include a mention of Los Toldos. Thanks.
  • I've mentioned the Ounjougou finds as an example of independent innovation. There isn't much to be said about pottery in this millennium apart from reference to Kathleen Kenyon's classification, so the section is really just an overview of where pottery was at, with the intention of a continued thread through the various millennia articles. I haven't found any sources for pottery finds explicitly dated to this millennium but, if there are any out there, they can be added later.
  • It seems that Tasmania is held to have completed its separation from Australia by the end of the Last Glacial Period (c.9700 BC). Bass Strait was a plain gradually inundated over several centuries – for example, see Separation of Tasmania at the Australian National Museum site, based on research by Iain Davidson and David Roberts. I've actually added this to 10th millennium BC as new information.
  • I'm inclined to think the boomerang is too tenuous for inclusion. According to the NMA, the device is believed to have been used by Aboriginals around 20,000 years ago, although the oldest ones actually found (not invented) are from perhaps 8000 BC. I'll let you decide on whether to include that but personally I think 8th millennium BC would be the more appropriate venue. The NMA page is this one.
  • I ran a search on early massacres and found the Smithsonian article about Nataruk. Quite an eye-opener. Probably a battle between two tribes who fell out over hunting in the same place.

Anyway, do take a look and see what you think. I should have more availability for the next couple of days and happy to answer further queries. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9th_millennium_BC&oldid=1226137566"