Talk:Helladic chronology

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Greece High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science High‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Time High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. European history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Metalworking High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking 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.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IsabelYoung11.

Above undated message substituted from

What's difference between both helladic and hellenic? The latter seems to be coined by classical scholars... (who made it?) I knew they are all related with Hellas. Then helladic's original form is hellas? Plinio1 (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article seems to be biased by a fiercde anti-migrationist stand. This, however, leaves us with the in fact still unsettled question, when and from where the Greece (and other Balkan indo-Euroepean) language came and spread.HJJHolm (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed! This article is incredibly biassed. In the time span from early Helladic II to early Helladic III, respected scholars like

Anthony attribute the changes to the immigration of IE tribes.--Berig (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is a quote:

"[...] it has been accepted by many that the new changes in culture are most likely to be attributed to those intrusive Indo-Europeans who later emerge as the earliest Greeks." Mallory (1989:71) In Search of Indo-Europeans.

I am sure this article can be balanced to accommodate current theories on the the arrival of the Indo-Europeans in Greece.--Berig (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, article looks fine since archaeological facts from bronze-era Greece disprove and lend no support to both Mallory and Anthony.

"The Early Helladic II period ended at Lerna with the destruction of the House of the Tiles. Caskey’s idea that this destruction took place throughout the Peloponnese at all EH II sites and was the result of an invasion is no longer substantiated. There is no pattern of destruction consistent with an invasion or destructive migration, and the items that have been associated with EH III, such as apsidal houses..., tumuli..., terracotta "anchors," and shaft-hole axes, actually appeared at different times from EH II through the MH period as influence from many different areas." [D. Pullen, Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, 2008, page 36]

Case closed. Sub-Mycenae (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not "case closed", I am afraid. This is a rather strong ideological stance among certain archaeologists that you can read about in wikipedia article

WP:NPOV.--Berig (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Noted, but summoning the neutrality rule and Wikipedia itself doesn't count as counter-evidence. The up-to-date hard facts about Helladic culture entirely render pointless the inclusion of ideological positions that the facts no longer support (meaning that an article can't be neutral while simultaneously downplaying and denying hard facts in favor of ideological balance, see

WP:BESTSOURCES). To also argue (implicitly) that impartial Cambridge archaeologists stating hard facts are somehow biased is a red herring and also doesn't count as counter-evidence. Case closed. Sub-Mycenae (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I don't agree here. Moreover, "impartial" is a very usual word in academia. It is not a word many scholars would be as bold as to use about themselves, or others for that matter. I have given you a quote by another "impartial" scholar (Mallory) that I think contradicts what you have written.--Berig (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree or disagree, the up-to-date hard facts regarding Helladic culture won't disappear and will continue to directly nullify the insertion of obsolete and factually unsupported ideological positions per

WP:BESTSOURCES. Furthermore, your focus on the word impartial and how it's used in academia doesn't count as counter-evidence. As for Mallory, you have it backwards. It was Mallory's (partial) assertions from 1989 that have been "contradicted" (i.e., refuted) by recent archaeological discoveries and expert analyses since 2008, if not before. Sorry, but your counter-arguments are unsubstantial and therefore unconvincing. Case closed. Sub-Mycenae (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest we keep the tag until we've seen input from other editors. You seem to be wanting to push a single POV here very strongly. Your claim that decades of debate in an interpretative field such as archaeology suddenly can turn into a consensus view is not convincing.--Berig (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the tag for now, but reinstating it doesn't help your position since no one has interjected with any factual counter-evidence in over a week (not to mention that the tag misleadingly portrays up-to-date hard facts as biased). Also, supporting any article's factual integrity per the policies you're deliberately ignoring is NOT, in your words, "push[ing] a single POV here very strongly" (both a baseless accusation and a red herring). As for the discipline of archaeology, labelling it an "interpretive field" neither alters nor nullifies the up-to-date hard facts that archaeological specialists have accepted since the 2000s (if not before). So stating that my claim constitutes transforming facts into a consensus view is an illogically baseless straw man argument that neither serves as counter-evidence nor as a counter-argument. Case closed. Sub-Mycenae (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Berig, but the tag was removed because a month has passed and no editors have submitted any input (i.e., factual counter-evidence) whatsoever. Case closed. Sub-Mycenae (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sub-Mycenae (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of longterm banned user Deucalionite (talk · contribs). All the "anti-migrationist" content defended by this sock (and most likely inserted in the article by the same or earlier socks) should be removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock or not, content from Cambridge checks out & shouldn't be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.54.55.38 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the Thera eruption is definitely still under debate, and every chronology based on it or not has to declare this fact. Anything else is neither scholarly nor wiki standard.93.199.29.140 (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Etymology section does not discuss etymology. What's up with that? MarkinBoston (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems rather to be a note on terminology. Debouch (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/062/Ant0620234.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101104332/http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/index.html to http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304051959/http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum1(pdf)/Sampson.pdf to http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum1%28pdf%29/Sampson.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell is LMIIIB? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trygogaf (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that a field about Genetics should be added. I am familiar with at least two archeogenetic studies on this specific period. If an experienced user can help, please respond. Best Wishes Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]