Talk:Pre-Pottery Neolithic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ancient Near East (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Age of PPN[edit]

I added a book that talks about a "PPNA" site that dates from 9.000 BC. Also, the Antiquity source says "11500 - 10500 cal BP". And a [http://neareast-prehistory.com/html/ppna.html website from an archaeologist dates its start at "from the Final Natufian at around 10,300-10,000bp". I have no idea of what "BP" means in archaeology. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: actually, those ages are only for PPN-A. The lead should have the dates from when PPN-A starts to when PPN-C ends. Dunno if it's around 6200 BC or so. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically, if you are going to use a source, you shouldn't change it this way - cal BP datesare calibrated radiocarbon dates, and if the authors had wanted to give calendar dates I'm sure they would have done so. I removed the dates because, as I said, they weren't sourced, I should have said the source was for something else, the PPN-A as Enric points out and the article is very clear about that. Right now the article contradicts itself and is wrong. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)