A fact from Breitenbach (archaeological site) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 March 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Breitenbach, an archaeological site in Germany dated to the early Upper Palaeolithic, was discovered in 1925 by a local school teacher?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Done
I'm struggling a bit with "23.990±180 (OxA-11964) and 28.380±170 (OxA-11889)[10][11]. Using the calpal software, these dates translate into 26.883±401 to 30.824±338 calendar years." Elsewhere there are bits that imply that this site is older than 7,500 BCE and the Aurignacian era itself is more like 37,000 years ago. Would this be better as "23,990 BCE ±180 years (OxA-11964) and 28,380 BCE ±170 (OxA-11889)[10][11]. Using the calpal software, these dates translate into 26,883 BCE ±401 years to 30,824 ±338 calendar years? ϢereSpielChequers 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the comments. The Carbon dates refer to the age of the Palaeolithic (Aurignacian) settlement, whilst no Carbon :dates exists for Neolithic settlement, which based on stylistic systematics appears to belong to the linear pottery culture that is :generally dated between 7500-5000ka BP.The dates are listed in their respective sections i.e. "The Palaeolithic Settlement" and :"The Neolithic Settlement".Tmatt31 (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that the dates are from two different eras, and we certainly need to say how they were calculated and what the range is. But 23.990 is a thousand times more recent than 23,990. ϢereSpielChequers 08:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see - the old problem with decimal points vs commas. Let's use commas then. Returning to you initial comment on using BCE: since we are talking about calendar dates derived from 14C dates, they should also be expressed in BP and not BCE. Tmatt31 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes - I understand it better now. ϢereSpielChequers 08:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done
I'm struggling a bit with "23.990±180 (OxA-11964) and 28.380±170 (OxA-11889)[10][11]. Using the calpal software, these dates translate into 26.883±401 to 30.824±338 calendar years." Elsewhere there are bits that imply that this site is older than 7,500 BCE and the Aurignacian era itself is more like 37,000 years ago. Would this be better as "23,990 BCE ±180 years (OxA-11964) and 28,380 BCE ±170 (OxA-11889)[10][11]. Using the calpal software, these dates translate into 26,883 BCE ±401 years to 30,824 ±338 calendar years? ϢereSpielChequers 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)