Talk:Bell Beaker culture

it's ok to have stuff on prehistoric Britain, no problem. As for the beaker culture, it does appear that the most finds by far are from Britain (we need a map), so Britain will have to be given some precedence on this article too. dab (ᛏ) 29 June 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Language

Is there a general consensus as to whether or not the Beaker people spoke an Indo-European language? They appear to be derived from Corded Ware, which was almost certainly I-E, at least in its later phases.--Rob117 20:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, historically all Beaker areas west of the Celtic uhreimat were been non-IE until the Celts arrived, so it could represent the spread of a material culture, but not a language.--Rob117 18:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As a far as I am aware there is nothing but speculation relating to the language of the 'beaker folk'. There are an obvious candidate for the origins of IE, but there are others that are just as valid and no evidence to distinguish between them. It is probably best just not to comment! (Thefuguestate 22:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

Recent addition about Egyptian beakers

I have reverted the recent addition by Kelvin Case over an Egyptian Beaker culture for the following reasons:

• The source he links appears to make no mention of Beaker culture influences (although I admit I only read the pottery section and intro) and I think the link may be Original Research
• Even if there is a mention I have missed, the linked source dates from the 1920s and archaeological thought has changed immeasurably since then
• The source mentions beakers as an artefact type not Beakers as a type find of the eponymous culture
• No modern source mentions this link.

adamsan 19:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I removed several sections of vandalism, although hilarious and satirical in nature, that do not contribute to this article related to defameing one David John Decoskey.

Beaker Origins

This article seems to be quite outdated in claiming the Rhine area as the origin for beaker pottery. It is now widely accepted that the oldest beakers can be found in Portugal, although eastern corded ware had a big stylistic influence on the beakers that were used in central Europe and Britain. I don't have any references to hand, but I will probably be back with to do an edit if no one else feels up to the task. Thefuguestate 13:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am very curious. To me it is to the contrary, that the previous claim of Iberia being the origin has been widely abandoned in favour of the lower Rhine area. In Wikipedia there is a lot of reference going on to obsolete publications and books. Say books on this subject of before the 1970 are in general not valid anymore. Also, recent publications don't shun the possibility of the Bell Beakers being IE at all. This would be a reversal of previous views, that already took Bell Beakers for being ancestral to Celtic-Italic and Ligurian languages a long time ago. 134.146.0.12 09:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that bell beakers originated in the lower Rhine area comes from stylistic work done by van der Waals in the early 1970s, which drew strong parallels between bell beakers and local corded ware. You are correct is saying that this replaced the old speculative theory of Iberian origins. However, more recently it has become apparent that the oldest C14 dates associated with bell beakers are indeed in Iberia and the argument has come full circle. This has gone unnoticed in some popular and general literature (for example the oxford illustrated prehistory of europe still sticks to the theory of Rhinish origins), but Iberian origins are now accepted by the academic community pending any further developments. Examples include Bradley 2007 (The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland:143) and Needham 2005 (Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society71:176).

If memory serves, a good english translation of the discussion of Iberian origins can be found in Nicolis, F. (2001) Bell Beakers Today: pottery, people, culture, symbols in prehistoric europe (2 volumes). Torento: Servizio Beni Culturali Ufficio Beni Archeologici. Thefuguestate 10:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

All C14 dates need to be calibrated. Besides, it is a well known problem to extract dates from biological material that is truely associated to some pottery. Outlandish C14 dates are very prone to bias. The oldest Bell Beaker pottery, even in Iberia, is confirmed to be of the All-Corded type, very similar to the protruding foot beaker pots - officially not Bell Beaker yet. It would be very interesting to have the Beaker phenomenon already started a few centuries earlier. However, I know of one Portugese sherd associated to a C14 measurement of 3000 BC, while simultaneously associated to a site that was inhabited from 2400 BC on. This kind of claims are not taken very serious. Unfortunately prehistoric Iberia does not have a local development towards corded pottery. Still I would be very interested to know to what sherds this Bradley and Needham are referring to. Rokus01 23:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly everything you say is true. Unfortunately I do not have the books to hand to offer specific examples at this time. If anyone is near a library and can get hold of Nicolis (2001) they might be able to verify the claims. As a side note though, I am 100% sure the c14 dates are properly calibrated and 85% sure that they represent a significant group of dates rather than a few outliers that are common with c14 dating. It is also worth pointing out that the idea of Rhinish origins rest on an evolutionary morphological sequence, a technique that is no more certain than c14 dating. Sorry I can't be any more help at the moment! Thefuguestate 18:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Massive survival advantage

Martijn Faassen, I am a bit puzzled by the explanation you supplied to your removal of the word "massive": let's just say "survival advantage". Clearly its not massive in random cultural contexts, as cultures with prevalent intolerance abound still. I mean, this description of the survival advantage of lactose tolerance being "massive" is sourced. Sure, the massive advantage of the gene diminished to the south (cow milk was hardly consumed in Italy, maybe wine was just as healthy?) and petered out further away. I suppose nowadays there is no advantage left at all. Still, the movement and mixture of people in such a short time, reflected by the rapid expanion of this particular gene, has been confirmed to be unprecedented and not equalled in any known historical context. Rokus01 23:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that it was sourced - I hadn't realized the cite just before it was being referenced there. It's a newspaper article though and quotes from interviews with the scientists, so some exaggaration might've taken place in the translation for a popular audience. My reasoning to remove the word is because the survival advantage depends on actually drinking milk, and because many cultures have thrived without being outcompeted by people with this supposedly massive advantage. I have put in "big", which is also in the source, and I moved the cite to just behind it. Ok? It'd be nice if we could find some more other sources on this, as it's certainly a fascinating development.Martijn Faassen 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Old source?

The line "AOO beakers are consistently older than the maritime (BB) ones" is referenced to a publication written in the 1970s, when chronologies were still based on metalwork sequences, many of which have proven false. I feel very dubious about leaving this claim in unless a newer source can be found for it backed up by c14 dating.

To the contrary, you restrain from removing sourced information and stop calling information disputed as long you don't make yourself clear or manage to gather significant sources that seriously challenge generally accepted statements. Even Susana Oliveira Jorge, that published an old Portuguese AOC sherd, recognize this type of pottery to be very old and on the bedrock basement below other Beaker pottery. No more breaches of WP policy here. Rokus01 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly will not contest that AOO pottery is very old (it is certainly among the very earliest forms of beakers), but I have a problem with it being claimed as being consistently older than BB. As I understood it these two forms had considerable chronological overlap. Perhaps I am being too punctilious about the issue, but I feel that to make such a strong statement requires it to be backed up by a source making use of the last 30 years of research. Thefuguestate (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say the word "consistently" represents the tentative character of the statement well enough, since it does not extrapolate on all A00 finds, most of which have not been dated at all. In Iberia a typological stratification is still missing altogether. All we know so far is they are consistently older than other beaker pottery whenever dated. I consider some kind of overlap very likely, especially where different beaker cultures meet geographically, like in Ireland, or Iberia. Other apparent "All over ornamented pottery"-like styles might in reality pertain to other beaker groups, I think there is a dispute going on of such an issue in the Baleares. However, I inserted the quote for clarity on the Lantink classification that is still leading and generally accepted. If you want to expand on the incertainties I urge on persuing clarity and significant sourced information.Rokus01 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I also have reservations about the section on Ireland. The claim that "the typical Beaker wristguards seem to have entered Ireland only after the Irish Beaker Folk had already settled there" is bizarre considering that not a single wrist-guard in Ireland has been recovered from an archaeological context and therefore cannot possibly be dated to before or after the beaker horizon! It also dredges up Clarke's 1960's ideas of intrusive groups having specific pottery, an explanation that I haven't seen repeated since the 70s. Thefuguestate (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First, the book I quoted is from 1998, not 1960, so here you have a source contradicting your statement, confirming this interpretation is all but obsolete. The wristguards found are many, most of them however not found in association with burials. This is NOT typical to English and Continental Beaker burials. Nobody ever claimed any of this many Irish finds don't belong to Beaker culture, where did you get this? The oldest wristguard was found in association with other Beaker objects in Corran, County Armagh, a site that relate to Wiltshire Beaker, not really recognized to be the oldest Beaker type. Please don't resort to bizarre WP:OR to make your point, whatever this would be. Rokus01 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The two Corran wrist-guards found in a box with some jet beads and gold sheet hardly make for good dating evidence. Other wrist-guards are poorly associated with other objects. One from Ballywholan, Tyrone was found in a dual court tomb, but that just gives a date of late neolithic/early bronze age. There is a 'metal working stone' from the beaker settlement at Newgrange that is loosely associated with a horizon containing a Killaha axe (~2200-1900BC) and could possibly be a broken wrist-guard. This is the sum of dating for Irish wrist-guards, so the Corran examples might be taken as the oldest dated examples, but they might equally be the youngest. Dateing the wrist-guard phenomenon in Ireland on the bases of 2 out of 111 objects is hardly a sound basis for the statement: "the typical Beaker wristguards seem to have entered Ireland only after the Irish Beaker Folk had already settled there"

Thefuguestate (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not so much the dating of bracers, it's the documented lack of association with beaker burials that is striking archeologists about the finds in Ireland. Somehow the wristguards did not belong to the "cultural beaker package" in the same way as they did in almost all other beaker contexts in England and at the Continent. It is reasonable to think of the beaker expansion as a process that involves both demic and material diffusion. Associated finds as wristguards that never made it to the Irish graves obviously reflect a material diffusion of cultural items, and less a demic diffusion and customs that travelled with migrating people. Consequently, such an accumulating "beaker package" of items not essentially entrenched into the local beaker ideology, including Irish wristguards, hardly could have been accompanied by any significant contemporary immigration. However, this does not invalidate ideas of a significant demic diffusion having happened already before. The idea of such a gradual accumulation of material items to the already existing beaker cultures is generally accepted and to my knowledge the wristguards are no well documented exception. In Ireland they are not. Rokus01 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My main problem is the specific quote I highlighted above. There just isn't enough evidence to support the statement that wrist-guards were introduced later than the first beaker pottery. The same can be said of flint arrowheads and tanged copper daggers which are also mentioned (indeed the oldest tanged copper daggers in Britain have chemical compositions that suggest they were imported from Ireland). I do not disagree with the notion that Ireland is particularly different from elsewhere in Europe with reference to how the beaker package was utilised, but this is not necessarily a chronological issue (which the article does at least mention in the last line of the first paragraph). Part of the confusion may result from the fact that much of the dating of Food Vessel burials was newly published at the time of the source's writing and perhaps not available. It was not until the mid-late 1990's that it was realised Food Vessels in Ireland were as ancient as the Beaker pottery, a fact which accounts for the extraordinary paucity of Beaker burials in Ireland. Until that point it had been assumed that Food Vessels followed the British pattern of replacing Beaker pottery, and therefore any item with strong associations with Food Vessel burials may have been seen as entering Ireland at a later date than Beakers. Thefuguestate (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My source clearly distinguish seven intrusive beaker groups and threee groups of purely insular character that evolved from them. The classification was based on style of beakers used. Indeed, separately it dedicates a whole chapter on the issue of Food Vessels, to conclude this concept should be discarded and be replaced by a concept of two different traditions that rely on typology : the bowl tradition and the vase tradition. The bowl tradition might have been the oldest as it has been found inserted in existing Neolithic (pre-beaker) tombs, both court tombs and passage tombs. You are right none of the existing beaker classification is incorporated here, though the rich ornaments definitely remind to A00 that, indeed, was never considered true Bell Beaker (like it is, strange enough, in Iberia). I read some bowls have been found in association with bronze bracelets, though nothing on wristguards. Considering this new evidence, even more I wonder why you have problems with wristguards being introduced only later by cultural diffusion. There is not any evidence of wristguards in the earliest finds. However, since it was rather the burial context I was referring to, maybe the quote could be improved a bit. I'll take a look. Rokus01 (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

'the people of Stonehenge'

moved from Talk:Celts.

It isn't established that there was an 'intrusive Bell Beaker culture'. The Britannica site, which I would definitely not see as a suitable source for this anyway (Timothy Champion is fine, I'd just think that this stuff always needs to be up to date, and it doesn't take into account the recent redating of Stonehenge), doesn't claim that, in fact it says "Both of these burial rites have been attributed to invading population groups. On the other hand, they may also be seen as a new expression of an ideology of social status, emphasizing control of resources rather than ancestral descent. Such an explanation fits better with a picture of slow internal development within European society." I agree with this in fact. The newspaper article just says a bit of Beaker pottery was found, right? --Doug Weller (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"The newspaper article just says a bit of Beaker pottery was found, right?"

If you really want to make a positive contribution, what I doubt, you should have yourself informed. Stonehenge is an expession of the Wessex culture. It is not a matter of a bit of Beaker pottery more or less. The Wessex culture IS Bell Beaker culture.Rokus01 (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

yes. Can we please stop discussing the Bronze Age on this page? The European Bronze Age is interesting. It has its own article (which is essentially a stub! why does everyone insist on cluttering the Celts page instead of working on the article for which they would actually have relevant material??). It is off-topic at this article. What we definitely do not want this article to do is perpetuate the fuzzy popular association of Celts with Stonehenge etc. dab (𒁳) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I'm right, the fuzz is about this quote:

... people of Stonehenge, recently identified however as part of the intrusive Bronze Age Bell Beaker culture. Recently the Iberian Celts were proposed to be descendents of this same culture.

First, I think the presumed Bell Beaker origin has historic as well as actual relevance to the Celtic issue. So, continuating on this - whether or not this has affinity to the Bronze Age article - I gather the criticism on the quote is centered on two academic issues:

• the intrusive character of Bell Beaker culture in England
• the association of Stonehenge with Bell Beaker culture

Concerning the first, I showed at least the intrusive character of Bell Beaker to England has been observed by notable sources. You are right, however, in the sense that no generally accepted view concerning the Bell Beakers as to their identity or the archeological phenomenon as a whole exists. Still, a cultural turnaround is generally accepted, much more than in any other possible later "Celtic" period, including Hallstatt or La Tene. Actually, archeological evidence on Hallstatt or La Tene intrusions in England are considered quite flimsy.
About the association of Stonehenge with Bell Beaker: I really can't believe you deny all references made recently to the Bell Beaker presence in the most important building stages of Stonehenge. Either I don't understand what recent redating of Stonehenge has to do with it. The base of Stonehenge already existed when the first Bell Beakers arrived, definitely, though even recent dating fits the later building stages perfectly well within the Bell Beaker phenomenon or, more accurately, the (Bell Beaker) Wessex culture, and all of this arguments do not justify at all mentioning Colin Burgess in this article to ridiculize the more recent and prominent Bronze Age proposals concerning this particular possibilty to the Celtic origin - that has been revived recently to explain the Iberian Celts.
I am sure we could dedicate a whole chapter to this issue, even more so since scholars seem to be quite shaky to pronounce themselves right now, facing continuing research and rapid progress in technological methods. However, since some "wikipedia opponents" to the Bell Beaker view don't seem to allow this, at least we should agree to a less POV representation of this view. Rokus01 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletion of OR

I've just deleted some apparent OR added by an IP editor. In doing so, I also deleted
Even though indications of their use of stream sediment copper instead, low in traces of lead and arsenic, and Beaker finds connected to mining and metalworking at Ross Island, County Kerry, provide an escape to such doubts, in general, the early Irish Beaker immigrants appear to be ignorant of the overall "Beaker package" of innovations that, already fully developed, swept Europe elsewhere. This Irish peculiarity could be due to the ancientness of Irish Beaker immigrations, to isolation and to influences and surviving traditions of autochthons I did this because it only seemed fair, as it is no more sourced than the edit I deleted. Why should it be restored without a source? Doug Weller (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole section on Ireland was sourced at first creation, and refers to "Ancient Ireland, Life before the Celts - Laurence Flanagan,Gil & MacMillan, 1998, ISBN 0-7171-2433-9" Rokus01 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It still needs a citation. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean to say: "Ok, I was wrong in my accusation that the text I deleted was unsourced. Instead, I would still appreciate a citation." Please don't become entrenched in your point of view beforehand, I have seen too many examples here and I don't want to start another pointless discussion like above on Stonehenge, where obviously you want to give prevalence to what you already knew. Sure, I'll look for the book again for what is fit to cite. Rokus01 (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dough is meaning to say, {{page number}}. After you've been caught repeatedly in blatant misrepresentation of your sources, you should not be surprised that "sourcing" entire paragraphs summarily to an entire monograph[1] rouses scepticism. --dab (𒁳) 12:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, don't abuse the talkpage for waging your personal wars, this is against the Talkpage guidelines. It is not my fault that you are a frustrated Kurganist that can't live with the demise of the "holy Kurgan theory" after FOUR hard years of tampering wikipedia as an administrator with your obsolete truths and misrepresentations. Or do you really think you did a good job in messing up articles on subjects you don't understand? [2]Rokus01 (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rokus01, please don't tell me what I meant to say. What I deleted was unsourced when I deleted it. If it had been sourced properly, as dab points out, I wouldn't have deleted it. Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't lie.Rokus01 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

as the diff I provide shows, Rokus had cited the monograph in question in a footnote to the section title. That's better than nothing, I suppose, but certainly not good enough. If we were forced to read an entire book for every one of Rokus' edits, we might as well take his word for stuff. Using amazon, it appears the page in question is 78f., although I cannot quite spot how the grand "the early Irish Beaker immigrants appear to be ignorant of the overall "Beaker package" of innovations that, already fully developed, swept Europe elsewhere" came about. --dab (𒁳) 12:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll check this paraphrasing of a whole book in one sentence out for you. Rokus01 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Section title? I've never seen a footnote for a section title before. Anyway, for books, we need page numbers, that's pretty much agreed for most circumstances. Inline citations within text is I believe what the guidelines call for. Doug Weller (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing you didn't say was "thank you for your efforts to supply information on Ireland, for it wasn't there at all before you decided to put your shoulders under it." Why didn't you? Good manners are no luxory and of public concern. Feel free to improve on content, be diligent in keeping track of inconsistencies but keep your bad behaviour to yourself and give me a break.Rokus01 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You're calling me a liar and lecturing me about good manners? (as well as expecting me to know you added the Ireland stuff). Doug Weller (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't lie about this either. I requested you not to lie. Is it so hard to admit a mistake? What if everybody starts hammering the other one just because they can't admit a mistake? Rokus01 (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I encourage people to check out Rokus' changes to other pages like Kurgan hypothesis, where his edits at the best are introducing contradictory material into the text and at the worst are misrepresenting sources (at the expense of the Kurgan hypothesis, as usual; I have no particular love or deep knowledge of this or other theories, but POV pushing of any type raises my hackles). If anyone has the Oxford source he is now using, I'd appreciate a full quote from it to check out the context. - Merzbow (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And Rokus' practice of "sourcing" long rambling sections of prose to entire books or monographs without page numbers is something he's done before. It makes it impossible to separate out what the sources are saying vs. what Rokus' opinion is. - Merzbow (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully now he knows that page numbers are expected, he will provide them. Doug Weller (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And he did. I've finally gotten around to doing some checking, and so far I've spotted several problems. Doug Weller (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You have to verify your findings about crouched unburned remains, since these are not so rare in the older Irish finds as you suggest. Rokus01 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That was from Flanagan, used correctly. Doug Weller (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you suggest that no more crouched and / or unburned remains are found in Ireland, while this is not the case to the bowl tradition. Maybe it would help if you tell me to what school you belong, in order I can evaluate the point of view you seek to represent? Like this your edits basically look like original research in making your private point of view. Rokus01 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk about ironic. How about you telling me what school you belong to? There is no original research in my edits. And I'm the one advocating using neutral language such as 'Beaker-using people'.

So, tell us about the sources for this sentence " The Irish Beaker period is characterized by the ancientness[38] of Beaker immigrations, by isolation[43] and by influences and surviving traditions of autochthons.[44]" Please give us the quotes from which you get those three characteristics. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Ancientness" isn't even a word. The noun corresponding to "ancient" is "antiquity". Unless you want to write in Early Modern English, where auncientnesse was in use. Rokus chiding Doug for presenting a "private point of view" is, of course, the wiki-irony of the day. "surviving traditions of autochthons" is bullshit. Checking p. 91 in the much-quoted Flanagan, the sentence this "paraphrases" is We are left with at least a suspicion that the wedge tombs are an indigenous invention. I've just about had it with Rokus' consistently dishonest doctoring of sources. --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ireland section

I'm not happy with the way it is written. Part of the problem is the way the main source, Flanagan, is used, part of the problem is the use of Flanagan. Flanagan is a fine archaeologist, but this is a fairly thin book. Cunliffe commented "For a reader wishing to have quick access to the tangible re- mains of Irish prehistory, this book is a useful introduc- tion: it can be used rather like an extended card index. But for someone who wants to be led into the debates that have so enriched the discipline in recent decades, Ancient Ireland is a disappointment. Better by far is John Waddell's The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland (Galway 1998). Both books were published in the same year by professional archaeologists, and they cover the same range of material, but they serve very different audiences. Ancient Ireland does from time to time warn readers that issues are contentious; the author, for example, dis- misses the intricate problems surrounding the origins of megalithic tombs with the phrase, "There is, inevitably, some controversy about which particular monuments were the first to be erected," yet introduces nothing of the debate." The book has no specific references, just a list of resources used for each chapter. I removed the first sentence and it was replaced with a comment about avoiding plagiarism, but I can't find where Flanagan actually says anything like what the first sentence says. 'Crouched burial' is referenced to pages 96 (where Flanagan says suggestive of Beaker practice) and 151, where there is no mention of Beakers, and John Waddell's (much better) The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland says that outside of a minority of wedged tombs where some Beaker fragments and cremated bones have been found, Beaker burials are rare, the Beaker deposits in those tombs may be secondary deposits, and it is the makers of Bowl tradition pottery (late 3rd millennium) who adopt the Beaker crouched unburnt burials.(pp118-119). Waddell also talks of 'Beaker-using people', rather than Beaker People or Beaker Folk, which I think is a much better way to write about Beaker users. Doug Weller (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy the way you try to invalidate an excellent and scholarly source. Just read the whole book and don't seek to violate WP:AGF by extrapolating the separate quotes you've happened to put your hands on. For instance, one quote not mentioning the word Beaker in a chapter exclusively about Beakers... Such kind of criticism arouses suspection of severe hypercritic bias and POV pushing. Such revision does not suffice to the quality of validation you pretend. However, I will take a look at the crouched burials by way of content dispute. Beaker people or "people using Beakers": here you shuffle away the sourced reference of this people also making the beakers. I gather you intend to push your point of view that no such thing as immigrating Beaker people ever existed? Again, of what school of thought did you derive your point of view in this particular context? Without mentioning sources you are risking WP:OR. Rokus01 (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Doug Weller, Flanagan's book is poor basis for discussing the beaker period in Ireland. His account is more in line with thinking from a decade or two before it was written. I did my masters on the Irish beaker period and dismissed the book entirely. Waddell on the other hand is an excellent starting point. Thefuguestate (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I keep looking at the copy of Waddell I've got out from the library and wonder what to do about the section. My thoughts are that it is so convoluted and difficult to read it needs to be replaced entirely. What do you think? Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid Thefuguestate's main reason to reject Flanagan is because it explicitly rejects any colonisation directly from Iberia.Rokus01 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the colonization from Iberia comes in to it? And in any case, I really don't mind an author having a different opinion to my own. I think Doug Weller is right and the section needs a complete rewrite to make it comprehensible. Reconsidering the situation, I think Bradley's 2007 The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland would make the best starting point. It would also be good to use it for writing the long overdue British entry. It's clearly written and as up to date as could be hoped for. I think one of the problems we have is that there are no clear guidelines for what should go in the national sections. They end up a mishmash of technical terms for pots, descriptions of random sites with no explanation as to why they are relevant, a bunch of random factoids and speculation on who introduced what and from where. I think what we need are some clear guidelines on what we want to say about the beaker phenomenon in each area. I will start a separate section below. Thefuguestate (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

every article Rokus touches will become an unreadable mess suggestively discussing genes, the paleolithic, and the fallacies of the Kurgan hypothesis. This has got to stop. This is an article about the bleeding Beaker culture, its scope is the early European Bronze Age. I will insist that all material discussed here directly concerns the archaeological culture, as opposed to dreams about the deep paleolithic, Aryan genes or Kurgan warriors. dab (𒁳) 11:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Aryan dreams on Kurgan warriors are entirely yours. Now you puzzle me on your paleolithic nightmares as well, since none of this was included in the scope of this article. And, to contradict yourself, why did you delete my nuances on a clear Dutch physical anthropologic link?

On "size and robustness to be subject to environmental and cultural influences":

This has been confirmed also by studies on the Dutch that throughout time, though lately cited for being the largest people of the world, showed a remarkable variation in average length in comparison to other people. + The metric research on skeletal remains, once decisive in proving this migrationst theory, became subject to severe criticism. Subsequent to the discovery of cultural continuity and the location of the most likely origin in the Netherlands (J. P. Mallory,EIEC p. 53), new studies showed metrics like brachycephaly, size and robustness to be subject to environmental and cultural influences. Thus, surviving traits, like more than average length, robustness or high degree of brachycephaly, would be due to surviving favorable environmental conditions rather than genetics.

Rokus01 (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

because the brachycephaly, size and robustness of the Dutch people are of supreme irrelevance to this article on the Early Bronze Age archaeological culture. I'm not the one here going on about the Aryan Swiss, am I? Give it a rest. dab (𒁳) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Flint arrow-heads and tanged copper daggers, found in association with Beaker pottery in many other parts of Europe, have a 'post-Beaker' date in Ireland, that is, a date later than the initial phase of Beaker People activity". This is simply not true. The late dating of copper daggers in Ireland came from the fact that they were found with food vessel burials as oppose to beaker burials, and people assumed Irish food vessels were later than beakers. Carbon dates available since the mid 1990s make it quite apparent that irish food vessels are entirely contemporaneous with Irish beakers (Needham 1996). In fact, the oldest copper daggers in Britain are found with early style beakers and have a chemical and isotope signature that suggest with a level of certainty almost unparalleled in archaeology that they were made at Ross Island, SW Ireland (O’Brien 2004).Thefuguestate (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

All it says here that the items did not arrive before the Beaker period. It does not suggest any distinction between Beaker culture and food vessel traditions.Rokus01 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it says they have 'a date later than the initial phase of Beaker People activity'. If it was trying to impart that these objects arrive with the beaker package (as oppose to before), I have no problem, but it has to be reworded to make it clear. At the moment it implies that beakers and daggers arrived at the same time in most parts of europe, but daggers were relatively late in reaching Ireland. I only mentioned the food vessels to account for where this confusion might have arisen from in the literature of the 20th century. Thefuguestate (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "the relative scarcity of beakers, and Beaker-compatible material of any kind, in the south-west are regarded as an obstacle to any colonisation directly from Iberia, or even from France". I believe the oldest beaker material in Ireland is indeed from the SW, namely, Ross Ireland (O’Brien 2004). The huge disparity in densities of beaker finds between the SW and NE is better accounted for in terms of land use (Mount 1995), prolithic local antiquarian activity (Harbison 1969) and a strong 19th century antique trade (Simpson 1996). Thefuguestate (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are free to insert the results of more recent research, though on basis of clear references, not of what you think personally.Rokus01 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I will make some changes pending the response to my rewrite proposal. Thefuguestate (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Recently, the concept of this food vessels was discarded and replaced by a concept of two different traditions that rely on typology". This is untrue. Some authors have chosen to distinguish between food vessel bowls and food vessel vases (confusingly just calling them 'vessels') but this is by no means universal. Thefuguestate (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The main "recent" publications make the distinction and refer to traditions.Rokus01 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Recently, the concept of food vessels was contested in favour of splitting them into 'bowls' and 'vases.' Would this solution be acceptable? Thefuguestate (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Boats capable of transporting cattle by sea must have been available, possibly skin-covered, wood-framed vessels that so far have not been unearthed yet". Yes, it is true to say that hide vessels unknown to us may have been used, but there are two existing types of boat that we know about! Between the dates 2500-1700BC thirteen large logboats have been found in Ireland and fourteen in Britain (Lanting and Brindley 1996). There are also 5 large plank built boats dateing to the early bronze age in Britain (Wright 2001). Thefuguestate (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Logboats are not capable of transporting cattle by sea.Rokus01 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Lurgan and Carrownden logboats from Co. Galway were 15m long (large enough to carry adult cows, never mind calves) and had modifications interpreted as out-riggers for sea travel (Robinson et al 1999) - ethnographically speaking, the most common way to make a canoe sea worthy. Also, logboats have been recovered from the floor of the Baltic (Hale 1980, 121), so people definitely did use them at sea in some places. Thefuguestate (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The introduction of the horse by the same people using beakers must have facilitated land transport, in particular in the Later Bronze Age when appear a number of timber-built trackways". I am not aware of any evidence that horses were used for more than food in western Europe in the early bronze age, and why even mention the late bronze age? (This is a beaker period article). Thefuguestate (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Still this opinion is sourced, not yours. Later Bronze Age is a continuation of Beaker culture features and the trackways is cited to probably belong to this category.Rokus01 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the source is poor and erroneous in this context. I require an actual piece of evidence that horses were used as transport in this part of the world at this time. Opinion varies wildly as to when the horse was first ridden or used for traction, and I think the author is citing their opinion as fact for the sake of a non-academic audience. Thefuguestate (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• "The first mill-stones are attested in the Later Bronze Age". Again, why mention the later bronze age? Thefuguestate (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Again: the later bronze age is cited as a continuation of Beaker culture and as an indication of the impact it has on later developments. I really don't understand the fervor in removing sourced information since the object of Wikipedia is to supply information. Rokus01 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to supply clear and well present information to an uninformed audience. Digressions into the later bronze age clutter the article and make it unreadable. Sourced or not, it is irrelevant. Thefuguestate (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Beaker 'culture'

Actually those were not at all meant to be 'scare quotes', I took that from the Encylopedia of Indo-European Culture [3]. Somehow the lead has to avoid suggesting that everyone agrees that there is something called a 'Beaker culture' - or Beaker folk, etc. Waddell talks about 'Beaker-using people'. And by the way, no where in the article could I find the phrase Beaker assemblage, did I miss it? Doug Weller (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

well, yes, the point is granted entirely, and should indeed be emphasized in the lead. WP:NAME still tells us to go with the established term, which is "(Bell-)Beaker culture". It's just a name. --dab (𒁳) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mister new here, say "Beaker package". And NOW be quiet and read a book on archeology.Rokus01 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else get the feeling that if Rokus keeps up the way he's been going he won't be long for this site? Just an observation... - Merzbow (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't know yet: "Beaker package" is the same as "Beaker assemblage". Sorry, I'm running out of patience: not because you don't know, but because you display this kind ignorance in waging stupid edit wars. Rokus01 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. For the reader's sake, we need to make sure that we use the phrases that archaeologists use, and although I agree they are the same, leaving out the one most used, "Beaker assemblage", from this article is leaving out something important. Doug Weller (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I even linked to WP:NAME. But yes, Rokus has been with us far too long already, and it's beginning to show. I have no problem with the designations "Beaker package" or "Beaker assemblage". I still maintain that the most common term for this "phenomenon" is "Beaker culture", whether we like it or not. The ratio of hits on google scholar for "culture", "assemblage" and "package", respectively, is 90:5:3. Enough said. dab (𒁳) 07:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Food vessels

Britannica: "In contrast, in the eastern half of the country a people in the single-burial tradition dominate. Their burial modes and distinctive pottery, known as food vessels, have strong roots in the Beaker tradition that dominates in many areas of western Europe. They may have reached Ireland via Britain from the lowland areas around the Rhine or farther north." Rokus01 (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please stick to sources from archaeologists for this. Flanagan doesn't explicitly link food vessels with his 'Beaker People'. Nor does Waddell. Encyclopedias are never a good source for archaeology in my experience. Doug Weller (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Rokus is making similar edits to Food Vessel, they should be checked also. - Merzbow (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? Rokus01 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors' contribution histories are public for a reason. Following an editor to unrelated pages is typically not allowed, but you're making almost the same edits to similar pages, even after having problems pointed out with them. - Merzbow (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Even Waddell distinguishes Vase and Bowl traditions (not cultures) and classify pottery of this traditions as Beaker Period: [4] Don't tell me you have a real book of Waddell that doesn't give you any clues? This is exactly the problem of untrained laymen that start reading advanced specialized literature: a lack of basic knowledge for understanding what the book is all about. Then, a smart reader would be inclined to step back and read a simple overview. For this purpose the Britannica is generally accepted as a valid authority, unless you can find new developments in journals that would point to the contrary. Just consider nationalist ideas of splendid isolation obsolete. Rokus01 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You mention untrained laymen, are you claiming to be an archaeologist? Doug Weller (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Immigration in Ireland section

This is a contentious issue.
The article has these two sentences: "in general, the early Irish Beaker immigrants appear to be ignorant[44] of the overall "Beaker package" of innovations that, once fully developed, swept Europe elsewhere, leaving Ireland behind.[45] The Irish Beaker period is characterized by the ancientness[41] of Beaker immigrations, by isolation[46] and by influences and surviving traditions of autochthons.[47]"
This is assuming something that is contentious. And I don't see how the source that is footnoted actually backs these sentences, which to me look like a synthesis of some statements by Flanagan rather than a report of what Flanagan actually says. It is not our job to do a synthesis but rather to report what reliable sources have actually said. I haven't removed them yet as I would like very much to be able to cooperate with Rokus, but I've already asked him to justify the second sentence and he ignored my request. Note that I complained about this sentence when I originally deleted it as OR, after which the references were added in a post hoc justification of the sentence. Doug Weller (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Talking of "Beaker immigrants" as if they were taken for granted isn't permissible, seeing how it is more likely that the "Beaker people" were something like travelling tinkers selling fashionable pottery. --dab (𒁳) 08:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange discussion, how did you know only real weirdos will scare me away from Wikipedia? lol.

"Beaker immigrants" are indeed not taken for granted with all the Beaker folk: just the first ones that met up with their megalithic predecessors and whose traces could be discerned between megalithic remains. Instead, the later Irish Beaker folk evolved in relative isolation. This should be clear from the text. I don't know of any sourced reference that considers Beaker culture a local Irish development that did not involve immigration. Rokus01 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not questioning that. What I am hoping is that you will show the cooperation you want, and that I am happy to give you, by explain how your sources above backs the two sentences I am questioning. I think that's a reasonable request and one that can lead to further cooperation. Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Below the sentences as copied from the current text.Rokus01 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence 1

In general, the early Irish Beaker intrusions don't attest the overall "Beaker package" of innovations that, once fully developed, swept Europe elsewhere, leaving Ireland behind.

Ok here? Rokus01 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I think your recent edit is an improvement. I don't think you mean the sentence that starts "Recently, the concept of this food vessels was discarded and replaced by a concept" to read the way it does, 'concept of this food vessels'? Doug Weller (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am happy for this. About the "Recently..", do you refer to stylistics or the way content is represented? Rokus01 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence 2

The Irish Beaker period is characterized by the ancientness of Beaker intrusions, by isolation and by influences and surviving traditions of autochthons

This are just plain observations. Ok here? Rokus01 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, 'ancientness' is a word I'm ok with -- minor problem is that I doubt many readers will know what 'autochthon' means, leaving it and explaining it in parentheses is probably a good idea, better than just replacing it. Again, thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Beaker People & NPOV

This phrase is not one unanimously used or accepted by archaeologists, yet it is used in the article as though it was. I believe we need to replace it by something more neutral. eg Beaker-using people. Doug Weller (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

the crux of the problem is that a "Beaker people" or a "Beaker culture" was assumed in Abercromby's day, and the name has stuck, even though it is perfectly clear today that this is better described as a "scattered cultural phenomenon". I am not sure how you can claim that "Beaker-using people" is a phrase in actual wide use. I get exactly six hits for "Beaker-using people" and 136 hits for "Beaker phenomenon" on google scholar, as opposed to 922 hits for "Beaker culture", 441 for "Beaker people" and 493 for "Beaker folk". This is just a matter of terminology, your caveats in terms of content are, of course, granted. --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it is widely used, simply that having found it in Waddell, and seeing Mallory use Beaker 'culture', I feel we need to so something about it. What Google won't show you is what the archaeologists who don't use the 3 phrases you searched for use. I still think we need to avoid using 'Beaker people' as a phrase as much as possible.

I don't know who here is aware of Mike Parker Pearson's project at Sheffield University:

The Beaker people: diet and mobility in Britain 2500-1700 BC

Since the 19th century antiquarians and archaeologists have argued whether the appearance in Britain of burials with pots known as Beakers marked the arrival of continental migrants around 2400-2200 BC. These people have been variously credited with introducing metalworking to Britain, spreading the Indo-European language group and building Stonehenge. In recent decades many prehistorians have argued that the changes in material culture were due to the introduction of a 'Beaker package' rather than a wave of immigration but isotope results from the skeleton of the Amesbury Archer, found near Stonehenge, indicate that he grew up in Europe. This new project is a major scientific research programme which is being carried out jointly by Sheffield and Bradford Universities with the British Geological Survey, the British Museum and the National Museum of Scotland, together with many of the local and regional museums across Britain with the aim of analysing up to 250 Beaker-period burials from England, Scotland and Wales for strontium, oxygen, lead, sulphur, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen isotopes in order to investigate their dietary and mobility histories. Accompanying studies of tooth wear and osteology should also yield important results on prehistoric health and lifestyle.

This might help clear stuff up a bit about Britain, but as the article suggests, not necessarily about Ireland. A bit only. as there would probably still be a question, if most or all of the burials showed a European source, whether we are talking about a relatively large number of people or only a small elite.--Doug Weller (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But we are doing something about it. We state it is a "scattered cultural phenomenon" right there in the lead. I am not sure what more you are asking for. I think it boils down to this:

• a peculiar kind of beakers appear all over western Europe in the 3rd millennium
• this has formerly been associated with an "invasion" or "immigration" of a "Beaker people"
• there has been a lot of debate on associated migrations (which would have left traces in the genetic record) vs. cultural diffusion (which would not). This is the "Beaker problem". Interest in the debate has been fuelled by the Bell-Beaker period corresponding to the earliest period for which presence of Indo-European speakers in Europe can reasonably be assumed.
• most archaeologists are highly sceptical of any migrating "Beaker people" today, and tend towards considering this fashion of "bell-beakers" as mostly transmitted by cultural contact. The "bell-beakers" are now mostly seen as a cultural "package" deriving from the late western Corded ware horizon.
• all of this is complicated by some people still enjoying to ramble on about "brachycephaly and robustness" and stuff. This has probably something to do with the greatness of the Dutch people, but we're not sure.

--dab (𒁳) 13:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC) lol. The incredible efforts that diehard Kurganists still invest in vain for proving migrations from the steppes that should have reached far into central and western Europe, are only superseded by their simultaneous efforts to deny the superfluous indications for migrations of Beaker people. I can just imagine how jealous they must be! Flanagan does not shun to mention Beaker People, invading groups and immigrants. To what "majority" among archeologist you refer to? Spanish archeologists? German? Dutch? Swiss? Or just one or two authors that are recommended lecture to the true Kurganist church? Here we are talking about the Irish situation! Rokus01 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Before I forget, talking about genes. Any Beaker migration to Ireland that would have originated from pre-Anglosaxon Britain, Iberia or Belgium, wouldn't pose the same huge problems as other migrationary routes. All the contrary since R1b-S116 is found all over the place. Even more challenging, the latest proposed age of S116 is now discussed to be about 4000-4700 year ago. Rokus01 (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Who has referred to a 'mayority', or even a 'majority', of archaeologists? And can we not bring the Kurganist debate into this? Doug Weller (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dab that "Beaker culture" is the term to use per WP naming conventions. Whether it corresponded to an ethnos or several is irrelevant here, since the article deals with an archaeological culture, which as a concept has little or nothing to do with ethnicity.--Berig (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the last "diehard Kurganist" died in 1994 (M. Gimbutas). I am completely agnostic as to the extent of population movements involved in the spread of these beakers to Ireland, or in the spread of IE languages to Europe. That some population movement must have been involved is obvious, since beakers don't have legs, and languages didn't travel by radio waves in those days. If these movements were of the order of 0.3%, 3% or 30% of the resident population is for the archaeogeneticists to determine. I would find 0.3% surprisingly little, 30% surprisingly much, and 3% perfectly plausible, but I am perfectly open to revising this view in the light of positive evidence. dab (𒁳) 15:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are right, because diehards build systems that thrive on circular thinking. The evidence is ever as thick as one is ready to accept and archeological signs of destruction that accompanied a cultural change, even the ones generally believed to be due to immigrants like in the Indus valley, have been challenged. No "believes" should be introduced, though the sourced indications of destruction like burning of Megalithic remains etc. can't be left out because of contrary believes. Sometimes, a dispute just exists and endures while data and facts remain inconclusive.

For the genetic evidence, the "required" intrusive DNA for any language expansion theory will only make sense by comparing what we know from history. In the light of history, how many cultures ever changed their language with the few genetic input you mention? Certainly this did not happen in both the Americas, where even indigenous populations became affected by intrusive DNA, almost everywhere. Compared to what didn't happened in Africa or Asia, at least in relation to European languages - and to Northern Africa in relation to Arab - you'll have to recognize there are virtually NO examples of true cultural diffusion that led to a change of the mother tongue, at least not within a period of 500 years. Don't let this be the modern myth that render the archeological gaps in our knowledge to mere wishful thinking. Rokus01 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

National Entries: Some guidelines?

I think the national entries are a horrible and unhelpful mishmash of facts and data. I was thinking that a set of guidelines as to what we are actually trying to say about beaker users in each locality might help keep the sections focused and legible. Input is most welcome. In the ones below I was mostly thinking about Ireland and possibly Britain, but they should be applicable to most areas. Additons and alterations welcome. Thefuguestate (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Things to know:

• When did beakers arrive in the area and when did they fall out of use?
• Was the adoption a major event (archaeologically speaking), or are they few and far between?
• If burial traditions changed, what did they go from and to?
• Is there any major detectable change in subsistence patterns?
• Are there any 'stand-out' sites, such as Ross Island or Stonehenge, that people might be interested in and help archaeologists shed an unusual amount of light on the period?
• Are there any major developments in this period that go on to influence other areas? E.g. the irish halberd, which became a common weapon in Europe until the development of the sword.
• Are there any stand-out idiosyncrasies with the beaker package in the rest of europe? E.g. the irish aversion to using beakers as funerary vessels, or the irish/british love for stone wrist-guards
• Does the area have a raw resource that was being traded to the rest of europe (perhaps for the first time?), such as irish copper, cornish tin, baltic amber, itialian jadite or iberian gold?

What we don't need to know:

• The various classifications of pottery in the area. I.e. No W/MR, AOC or N1-N4. This is supposed to be for casual readers and these technical details are an esoteric turn off. Besides, we cannot possibly do justice to all the classifications by all the many commentators in the last 40 years.
• A site description, unless it is to explain why a particular aspect of society is thought to be one way rather than the other. E.g. don't write 'at JOE BLOGS SITE many cattle and a few sheep bones were found along with beaker sherds'. Do write, 'in the beaker period cattle were thought to have become more important than sheep, as at may sites, such as JOE BLOGS SITE and IAN VANDAAL SITE, the number of cattle bones vastly out weighs the number of sheep (/source)'

Thanks! This gets to the heart of the problems with the article. We certainly are not aiming this as specialists but at the moment it is just off-putting and confusing for the casual reader. And the idea of guidelines so that the different geographical areas cover as much as possible the same ground would greatly improve the article. I presume you mean 'subsistence patterns' where you wrote 'substance patterns'? Doug Weller (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

He he, yeah, subsistence patterns is what I meant (darn spell checkers) Thefuguestate (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since no objection has been raised, I have made some major edits. It has much less information, but hopefully is easier to read. I may do something similar with the other national entries over the next few weeks. I realise I have missed out subsistence practice. I think the paragraph from the previous version of may be useful and relevant, but it isn't clear whether some of the statements are intended to apply to the whole of Ireland or just the specific sites mentioned and I don't have Flanagan to hand. It is also difficult to read in its current format:

"Cattle was presumingly imported in significant numbers from Britain. The most abundant remains of cattle come from the Beaker settlement at Newgrange. Here, pigs were the second most important animal in the stock list. Excavations on Knockadoon Hill (County Limerick) show evidence that pig and -in second place- cattle husbandry formed the basis of the economy. The ageing data suggest that a greater proportion of cattle than pigs reached full adulthood and may have been exploited for secondary products. Horses lived to a greater age than the majority of the food species, suggesting their primary value may have laid in their use as mounts, pack animals or perhaps items of status. Some evidence of cereal production was also recovered. Sheep and goats were poorly represented. Medium sized dogs often survived to a fairly advanced age, suggesting their use as pets. The introduction of the horse by the same people using beakers must have facilitated land transport, in particular in the Later Bronze Age when appear a number of timber-built trackways. Agriculture of wheat and emmer was already practiced by the megalithic autochthons and maybe extended by the Beaker people, as indicated by the introduction on new varieties of cereal."

If no one else feels up to it, I will have a go at reintegrating this paragraph at a later date, but for now I am all edited out Thefuguestate (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please give a full quote to prove this is what Case actually said?"

The earliest Irish beakers are similar to those from Iberia (Case 2001), but later pottery is most similar to British examples (Case 1993).

I don't agree with your removal of sourced information. You impose your point of view that the Bell Beakers are actually from Iberia. A coincidence that you removed Flanagan, who oposed to such a view?

I don't mind the Irish section to be slimmed down, even though I can't respect the argument that Wikipedia should be for casual readers only. Remember the superfluous footnoting, that indeed makes the chapter more difficult to read, was especially requested for purposes of verification.

I really don't know. I am not happy with your obvious Spano-Portuguese nationalism. Also, I don't want to delete your efforts. Maybe it would be best to remove some lines that I consider arguable interpretations of the original text and possibly nationalistically biased/POV. Also, I would like a full account and justication of your removal of sourced and verified information. Rokus01 (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)