Talk:7th millennium BC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image copyright problem with Image:Neolithic mehrgarh.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Neolithic mehrgarh.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bible said this here Milinia aint never happen y'all and it aint ever gonna happen agin neether —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Ok, so the English channel was formed in 7000 BC and then again in 6000 BC?

Similarly it appears that the desertification of the Sahara desert started in 3500 BC, as well as 5600 BC. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Dubious source[edit]

I haven't been able to find a referent for the inline citation "(Horse & Man, Clutton-Brock)".

Sonata Green (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sonata Green: that would be Juliet Clutton-Brock and probably her book simply called Horse. But a proper citation is what we need, and preferably something a bit later than her work. Some think the Exmoor pony is actually a descendant of wild horse.
Just found "Evidence for the horse in the United Kingdom after the end of the seventh millennium BCE does not appear until much later, with a rash of dates between 1500 and 800 BCE (Bendrey 2012). A date for horse remains from Crimes Craves (2859-1630 cal BCE) {Clutton-Brock and Burleigh 1991b) has recently been shown to be too early (Higham er ai 2007; Bendrey 2012). Newly calibrated radiocarbon dates for this material place it at 55-384 CE. Because there is a long temporal gap, it is likely that the European wild horse (E.ferus) died oul completely in the United Kingdom and was only reintroduced as a domesticate much later. Ireland differs from the United Kingdom because it has been an island from about 14,000 BCE, when rising sea levels inundated the land bridge that connected it to Great Britain. Horses have been reported at Shandon Cave dating to 30,977-29.275 cal BCE (Hedges ct ai 1997: Woodman ct al. 1997). but not again until domestic ones finally appear. For decades, the first domestic horse was thought to be that found at Newgrange, dating to around 2000 BCE (Wijngaarden-Baker 1974). Recent radiocarbon dating of skeletal remains from the site resulted in a much younger age range of ca. 67 - 220 CE. meaning they date to the Iron Age rather than Bronze Age (Bendrey el al. 2013)." in a university press book dated 2016.[1] 10:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

c. 7000 BC: Rigveda culture in current-day India[edit]

IP171.60.209.86 added the following:

*c. 7000 BC: Evidence of agriculture in current-day India, Uttar Pradesh Ganges plains, Lahuradewa lake. "The study of rice phytoliths, pollen studies in the lake sediments and the presence of cultivated rice in Lahuradewa archaeological site also strongly indicate agricultural activity in the area since about 9000 years BP."[1]

*c. 7000 BC: Bhirrana in current-day India. "The antiquity of Bhirrana on the basis of radiometric dates goes back to the time bracket ranging in date between c. 7380 – 6201 BCE." [2]

*c. 7000 BC: Rigveda culture in current-day India. "It is shown that the above calendar originated in India in about 7000 BC." [3]


  1. ^ B. Thakur, A. Saxena and I. B. Singh (2018) Paddy cultivation during early Holocene: evidence from diatoms in Lahuradewa lake sediments, Ganga Plain. p. 2114. CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 114, NO. 10, 25 MAY 2018
  2. ^ Dikshit, K.N. (2013). Origin of Early Harappan Cultures in the Sarasvati Valley: Recent Archaeological Evidence and Radiometric Dates. p. 94. Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology No. 9, 2013.
  3. ^ Abhyankar, K.D. (1993). A SEARCH FOR THE EARLIEST VEDIC CALENDAR. p. 1. Indian Journal of History of Science, 28(1), 1993

witht his edit-summary:

(Undid revision 857133708 by RegentsPark (talk). Suggestion received: "per WP:BRD. Take it to the talk page please." Reason for suggestion to take it to "talk page" neither clear nor precise. Were any of the additions not well-referenced? If yes, which one and on what count?)

Regarding the Vedic culture, Abhyankar is definitely not WP:RS. Even when attributed, it's WP:UNDUE WP:FRINGE. Same old Indigenous Aryans WP:POV pushing; probably WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it not Eurocentric/racist to dismiss results by an author (Abhyankar, in this case) of a paper published in Indian Journal of History of Science as WP:RS, even worse, as WP:FRINGE? Argumentum ad populum, Ad Hominem, Hasty Generalization, Straw Man are some of the logical flaws in Joshua Jonathan's dismissal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not; it's a matter of mature judgement. There was no Vedic culture at 7000 BCE. See Indo-European migrations. Misplaced allegations of racism, though, are not appreciated here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Astronomers are not experts when it comes to ancient history, and a journal on the history of science will publish articles that contain egregious errors of fact in fields outside the history of science because it's a journal on the history of science, so their editors are science historians. Not ancient historians. For all they knew, there really was a Vedic culture back then, making calenders.
It's actually somewhat funny to see racism being thrown about here, because the people of 7000 BCE who were the ancestors of the Vedic culture were also the ancestors of Europeans.
I will note that accusing an editor of racism without plenty of evidence is a personal attack and further point out that it's also phenomenally stupid: You have no way of knowing that, for example, Joshua is not a Hindu using an appropriated "Western sounding" name. I doubt many people here would suspect that my real name is ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, MjolnirPants or even Thor. I may not even have any Norse ancestry. This is the internet, IP. No-one knows you're a dog. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

English Channel formation not supported by other articles[edit]

This article says "c. 7000 BC: English Channel formed" and gives a citation. But the linked article on the English Channel itself and a couple other Wikipedia pages says that the channel was formed much earlier than that (~180,000 years ago) but was bridged by ice until the end of the last glacial period, ending ~11,000 BC. So the trench itself was created much earlier and the open water was sill well before 7000 BC, according to these other sources. Someone with more knowledge than I may want to edit the sentence to clarify what -- if anything -- happened geologically with the English Channel in the 7th millennium BC. AristosM (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing unsourced entries[edit]

WP:VERIFY says, LOUD AND CLEAR, that "that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".

I have tried very hard to verify much of the content in the series from 10th millennium BC to 6th millennium BC and, frankly, much of it is completely unverifiable or is in the wrong place. I've lost count of the number of entries that have had to be revised and then moved into other millennia. This is taking far too much of my time and why should I waste my time searching for sources that other people have been too lazy to add, assuming they ever existed in the first place? Invariably, they didn't. I am therefore deleting all unsourced content from this article under the terms of WP:UNSOURCED which says that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". As the editors concerned can't be bothered or are guilty of "subtle vandalism", a very telling phrase I saw earlier today, the unsourced stuff is OUT.

I should add that I have my own sources, which are all reliable, and I will continue to improve these millennium articles. As a result, a few of the entries now being removed could end up being restored in one way or another, but with the proper level of citation as verifcation. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)