Talk:Minoan civilization

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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): Amb2453.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HBarch.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pim3nt3l.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why all these dating hypotheses?
First of all we don't really know about the dates, these are all hypotheses. Secondly, "Subminoan" maybe means that the island was totally flooded by the Santorini event, therefore wiping out any civilisation on this island? Minoa going submarine, right? Just asking... --178.197.236.244 (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your "Santorini event" is also a hypothesis, and a bad one at that.--Atlan (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Egypt and Middle East
This article should have more to say about the influence of Egypt on this civilization. Any scholarly article or book you read about the subject, will start with the fact that Minoan Crete rose under Egyptian cultural influence. Whether it be in the arts, the architecture, their writing system, their government system and even its religion. They all show strong Egyptian influence. And this article should reflect that more than it does. I would appreciate it if someone could pick this up. Another thing is the fact that the Minoans had economic and diplomatic relations with Anatolia and Syria (and Egypt ofcourse). But none with Europe. Opening up with a line saying that Crete was 'the European missing link' misrepresents the reality back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)


 * Nonsense. Minoan Crete is European so who else would influence them more but other Europeans from mainland Europe. There was also influences from Anatolia. Egyptian influence on Minoan civilization was minimum at best. Evans over estimated Egyptian influence on Minoan civilization as the latest archeological and scientific studies proves this. Minoan Crete did not arise under Egyptian cultural influence, the two couldn't have been as different as night and day. Also Minoan civilization did not show strong Egyptian influences, from their architecture, writing system, government system and even its religion, they were different. From one Minoan was a "matriarchal culture", Egyptian and most Middle Eastern civilizations of that time were predominately patriarchal. Of course the Minoans had economic and diplomatic relations with Europeans, i.e. mainland Greece and other Balkan civilizations of Europe are who the Minoans would have had influences and contact with first and foremost over civilizations in other continents. Was there culture exchanges between Minoans and Egyptians and Middle Eastern civilizations going both ways? Of course there was. But to disregard the fact that the civilizations that would have influenced and from where Minoans would have grown out of were right there in their back yard in Europe is ridiculous. (Angar432 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC))


 * Although I agree with you that Minoans did not sire under Egyptian cultural influence, the statement "Minoan Crete is European" is relative. The civilization was on European soil (including the mainland Greece) yes, but it had little to share with the rest of Europe. Yes, ancestors of the Minoans spread in Europe and brought farming, but their origins were Anatolia. The "European Minoans" is a (deliberate?) misquotation/partion quotation by the media of Professor Stamatoyannopoulos comments of recent DNA research done on Minoans and modern inhabitants of the Lasithi plateau. Recently, the university of California released a new study showing the Anatolian origins http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/06/04/1320811111.abstract . Interestingly, within a month a Spanish group of researchers came to the same conclusion by doing mtDna tests http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004401 . Fkitselis (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup and I don't disagree with you. Most Neolithic Farmer migrations into Europe were via Southeast Europe en route from Anatolia. As for the test done on the Minoans: the majority of Minoans were classified in European haplogroups H (43.2%), T (18.9%), K (16.2%) and I (8.1%). The greatest percentage of shared Minoan haplotypes was observed with European populations, particularly with individuals from Northern and Western Europe (26.98% and 29.28%, respectively). A gradient was observed, with the lowest affinity for Minoans found with African populations and the percentage of haplotype sharing increasing when moved through the Middle East, Caucasus and the Mediterranean islands, southern Europe and mainland Europe. So yes saying the 'European Minoans' would be accurate, IMO. Like I stated before, no one has denied Anatolian Neolithic origins for many Europeans. BTW, thanks for posting those studies, very enlighting results. Always interested in new studies that come out with regards to Europe and Anatolia because the two regions and people are closely connected and related to one another given most migrations routes into Europe were via Asia Minor. (Angar432 (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC))

They were mostly influenced by the Cycladic culture and in ~ 2.500 BC they were trading with the Cycladic islands. No one can say that they did not trade with Europe, we can only say that we don't know. Scienceandhistorygreat1 (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Minoan civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006144100/http://www.uri.edu/endeavor/thera/EOS.pdf to http://www.uri.edu/endeavor/thera/EOS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Map Sandbox
I'd like to enhance the map with more minoan sites to quicklink to. As such, I'm going to build, view and test and beta version here before updating the mainpage. Let me know if this is not the purpose of Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remedia8 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Era designation
This article has used BCE since mid-March of 2013, with some minor instances of backing and forthing. The instances I saw, skimming the history, have been speedily reverted to BCE. Most recently, an editor put it back to BC, commenting "Original article style reinstated". WP:ERA says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." It says nothing about "original" style, and I will argue that three years of stylistic stability is enough to "establish" a style. This is not a Christian ecclesiastical topic, so BCE is perfectly appropriate. Your thoughts? Just plain Bill (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A quick look shows that you're right. I'll make the change. Neutralitytalk 00:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Do not change the established era style..." means just that - the original style - which is well-established practice throughout Wiki. If an article begins with BC, leave it that way, and vise-versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.210 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Warfare section
The current section on warfare is woefully inadequate. The article assumes that "Pax Minoica" refers only to a lack of violence whatsoever. No mention is made of the vastly superior Minoan navy that we know existed, since the Greeks invented an entirely new word for it (thalassocracy). I'm going to try to fix this section. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Modern humans were there 530 000 years ago?
Considering that the species is generally thought to have arisen som 200 000 years ago, I removed the few words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtdriver (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Keyboard spam at top of the article?
There appears to be a line of keyboard spam at the top of the article that isn't showing up in the editor, so I can't remove it. The fact that it doesn't show up in editor is making me a little worried, could this be underlying Wikipedia bug/vulnerability? Screenshots attached incase this is somehow a localized/isolated thing (I swear I'm not locally messing with the html, a friend of mine can see it too).

The page

Editor view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.76.221 (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like someone vandalized the template (or several) being used - I deleted it from the temp but it doesn't appear to have worked. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * appears to be fixed now - purge cache. :) Chrissymad  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

cheers :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.76.221 (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Minoan metal vessels
I've created a new subsection under Art for metal vessels and have put in a few sentences with the intention of putting in a detailed entry over the next couple of days. However, it's occurred to me that the other subsections under Art are extremely small and need a lot of expansion (and in fact there is a lot more that needs to be written on Minoan art to fill this out), so if I put in my 800-odd words on Minoan metal vessels, it will be well out of proportion with the other Art subsections. I see that under the Pottery subsection there is a link to a larger article on the topic. I'm looking for opinions on if I should just go ahead and add my piece to this article or if I should go and create a new article and link to it through here. (I'm new here)--Dina (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to go ahead and expand this subsection in the hope that it will encourage others to expand the rest of the Minoan art section. Minoan art is a huge field and really needs better representation here. --Dina (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work Dina. You are right that the section needs expansion. However, I wonder if the metal section would be better placed under the Minoan pottery article. For example, I included glass and metal sections in the Pottery of ancient Greece. Then a better, longer summary of the pottery article can be in this article. Need a good source on Minoan painting. Cake  (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Cake. I think Minoan specialists would regard metals as quite separate from the pottery and might get a bit upset about them being put together. Really, it would make sense to have an article dedicated to Minoan art which includes pottery, metals, painting and all the other media as sections.  I'm completely new to editing here and don't want to step on any toes, however. Dina (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe my edits to pottery in ancient Greece should be amended. I assumed the similarity of forms was enough to put them under the same heading. Say you got a silver amphora rather than a clay one. You are right about "Minoan art" as a sorely needed article. Cake  (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minoan civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305052142/http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/KingAHG-08-72-205.pdf to http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/KingAHG-08-72-205.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing Citation
The section Warfare and the "Minoan peace" is missing a citation. Acrodgers (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Map in infobox
There were several reasons I changed the image in the infobox and moved it:

- the map in the infobox is too small to be read, making it pretty much useless

- that map can be more usefully displayed by the geography section, which lists most of the places on the map

- the map currently by the geography section gives minimal information while taking up lots of screen space

- since this is the Minoan Civilization page, an image illustrating Minoan Civilization is at least as appropriate in the infobox, and I would say more appropiate, than a simple map

Though some WP articles on societies, histories, or civilizations have a map in the infobox, many do not: History of India, History of Japan, Inca society, and many others have landscapes, buildings, or cultural objects in the infobox.

I'd like to reinstitute my changes, but I will wait to see if anyone comments. The Uncle of History (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The map is not "pretty much useless", because, even as small as it is, the reader can easily click on it to see it at full size. The size you had it at in the "Geography" section was overly massive, in my view, since it took up more space on the computer screen than the actual text in that section. Using a map for the infobox image seems to be standard for "civilization" articles. The articles Mycenaean civilization, Classical Athens, Sparta, and Cycladic culture are just a few examples of this. Besides, it makes more sense to use a map because one of the first things a person reading about the Minoan civilization for the first time is going to want to know is where it was located. The map answers that question. The image you added, while undoubtedly a fine example of Minoan artwork, does not really tell the reader very much about the Minoan civilization as a whole and would be much more meaningful later in the article. I agree that the current map used in the "Geography" section is not the most useful map that could be placed there, since it only shows Knossos and Gortyn. It may be a good idea to try to find a better map with more locations marked on it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the image is a fine example of Minoan art, and that the map is more informative in the infobox. It might be even better for the infobox to show Crete’s placement in the Aegean. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Do we really need an Etymology section?
I suggest just removing the Etymology section. We can leave the statement in the first paragraph that Minoan comes from Minos. But I don't see any reason to have a whole section about where the term came from. It's not irrelevant, but it's a very minor scholarly quarrel that almost no general reader is going to have any interest in. The Uncle of History (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the "Etymology" section should be kept; if we delete it, people will automatically assume that "Minoan" was what the ancient Minoans actually called themselves. The section also provides valuable information about where the name comes from and it has numerous useful citations in it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the etymology section is valuable and should be kept. Dr.   K.  18:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Religion
It seems that whenever during an edit I click show preview, then click save changes, I do NOT get prompted for an explanation of the changes. Is this a bug, or am I doing something wrong? Anyway, that's why there is no explanation of my changes to the religion para. I've rephrased it and added cites which are actually meaningful, since the previous ones weren't, having no page numbers. I've also removed the term "matriarchal," not because I think it's necessarily wrong, but because as it stands now the cites don't verify the use of this term to describe Minoan religion by reliable sources. The Uncle of History (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Matriarchal society is verified by Sarah Iles Johnston on page 208. Dr.   K.  16:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed the reference to matriarchy again because it is still without a citation attached to this sentence. It's not clear to me from your comment what you mean by "Sarah Iles Johnston on page 208"  If you mean the book  Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide By Sarah Iles Johnston, page 208 of that book is part of an article by Nanno Marinatos and no mention of matriarchy is made on that page. (This exchange shows why it is so important to give complete bibliographic information and exact page numbers to a book cite, so that it can be verified.)  I have nothing against matriarchy, and if any reliable sources have argued that Minoan society was one, that can be put in the article. The Uncle of History (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't difficult. The full citation is in the article. Click on it and page 206 will pop up. Read the page and you will see the reference to "matriarchal society". Dr.   K.  17:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was already in the article but I added another copy of the same reference so that you can find it. In any case, instead of edit-warring, you can actually Google yourself using the keywords "Minoan matriarchal" and you will find many sources about the subject. Edit-warring is easy, but finding sources is more rewarding. Best. Dr.   K.  17:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Minoan civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100425083244/http://www.therafoundation.org/articles/economysociety/theislesofcretetheminoanthalassocracyrevisited to http://www.therafoundation.org/articles/economysociety/theislesofcretetheminoanthalassocracyrevisited
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508030100/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Early-Aegean-Warrior-5000%E2%80%931450-BC_9781780968582 to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Early-Aegean-Warrior-5000%E2%80%931450-BC_9781780968582

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

So the Minaons were not a Greek people according to the article..this has since been disproved
Interestingly those still on the island are their direct decendants. We know this thanks to a breakthrough study published by Nature. Before this there were theories on their origins. Evans suggested North African. Also Theories on where they went when the left. What we now now is that the Minoans originated from Crete and their descendants are modern Cretans. We also know that the Minoans were related to modern Greeks and to a lesser extent ancient Anatolians. Soo.. this is awkward... The proper term for this civilisation should be Proto Greek. Reaper7 (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless I am mistaken, I do not believe that the article ever directly states that the Minoans were not Greek; it just says that their origins are disputed. In any case, ancientorigins.net is definitely not a reliable source. Their articles are almost always of an extremely speculative and often esoteric nature, if they are not downright pseudohistorical. (They have published articles suggesting that extraterrestrials may have been responsible for the founding of ancient Sumer and other ancient civilizations, a notion that no reputable historian of antiquity would even take seriously.) I do not know if they are blacklisted, but, if they are not, they definitely should be.
 * Furthermore, even if Nature really did conduct this study, it does not necessarily prove anything, for several reasons. Firstly, a single genetic study cannot "prove" anything; you need dozens of studies all saying the same thing before you can really say that something has been "proven" and, even then, real scientists generally refrain from using such vocabulary and prefer to use phrases such as "Empirical evidence strongly indicates that..." or "Based on the data, it seems reasonable to conclude that...," which do not imply logical positivism. Secondly, national identity is not a real thing; it is just something we as humans have made up. Usually a person's nationality is determined by the language the person speaks and their cultural practices, not their genetics. If it were determined by genetics, then most Americans would belong to a variety of European nations, even though we all identify as Americans. Since we do not know what language the Minoans spoke, or even what language family it belonged to, we cannot make any assumptions about whether or not they were "Greek."
 * Finally, even if the Minoans did speak Greek, that would not be justification for changing the name of their civilization. The Mycenaeans have been known to have spoken Greek ever since Linear B was deciphered by Michael Ventris and John Chadwick between 1951 and 1953, but we still call them "Mycenaeans" or "Mycenaean Greeks." In any case, if the name were to change, it would not be our place to do so. Wikipedia uses the name that is commonly used by mainstream scholars. If mainstream scholars suddenly started calling the Minoans "Proto-Greeks," then we would change the name, but not on the basis of our own decision. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that ancient-origins is not an RS, but no worries: it links to the original article in Nature Communications, which is what we should be discussing.
 * Nature Communications is not Nature, but it is a serious, peer-reviewed international journal in the Nature family. Anyway, journals do not "conduct" studies, they just publish them. Yes, it will be nice to have multiple studies, with multiple samples and multiple methodologies, but this is a good start, and basically agrees with the previous consensus by modern scholars (Renfrew, Cavalli-Sforza, et al.) that the Minoans are descendants of Anatolian Neolithic farmers. Evans' century-old speculations about North African origins are obsolete and hardly worth mentioning.
 * It is not surprising that modern populations in Crete are related to the Minoans. That sort of geographical affinity is very common, except in cases like North America and Tasmania, where the original inhabitants were almost all killed or removed. Consider the modern population of Anatolia, which despite the Turkic invasions and the population exchange of 1923, still shows significant genetic similarity with modern Greeks.
 * However, genetics says nothing about culture, language, identity, or civilization. It would be ridiculous to call modern Tuscans "Etruscan" even if they have a high genetic similarity with Etruscans. It would be equally ridiculous to call modern Chicagoans non-American because they have almost zero genetic similarity with the pre-Columbian population.
 * The Etruscan civilization, like the Minoan civilization, certainly influenced later local civilizations, but it is distinct. And it is clear that the Etruscan and Minoan languages (as documented in Linear A) were very different from the later languages (and almost certainly not Indo-European in both cases). The Etruscans are not "Roman" or "Italic" or "Italian" and the Minoans are not "Greek" or "Hellenic".
 * That is the state of current scholarship. If Linear A is ever shown to be closely related to Greek (which seems impossible, given the structure of the language), then it will become reasonable to speak of "Minoan Greek" the way we speak of "Mycenean Greek". Or perhaps it will turn out that Linear A was only used by a foreign caste of accountants, and that on the farm they were speaking an early form of Greek. But I wonder how that could be demonstrated?
 * In the meantime, there is no reason to call the Minoans "Greeks". --Macrakis (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Macrakis can you please explain why cited information in this section should be removed as redundant? Actually this part offers essential information about the connection between Mycenaeans and Minoans. It would sound completely weird to hide this kind of info. By the way I can't see were it's written that Minoans are simply Bronze Age Greeks.Alexikoua (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * A high quality study on Minoan genetics is definitely something that enriches the article and should stay. There is absolutely no reason to remove it. To remove such an article on nothing more than...semantics is mind boggling. Archeogenetics is a rapidly growing field and will doubtless continue to shed light into ancient history in a way archeology cannot. Khirurg (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

DNA research in 2019 showed that they were Greeks. Fortunately, modern science solved this mystery. Scienceandhistorygreat1 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments
According to this website, the catastrophe the ended the LMIB phase happened in 1490 BC. NOTE: Sonchis showed Solon the "Atlantis" enscriptions in 590 BC. Sonchis said they were 9,000 years old. But, we know that Atlantis was the Minoan Civilization. If, instead of 9,000 years, the enscriptions actually read, 900 years, then 1490 BC is again indicated. http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/26.html

Hate to burst the bubble but Atlantis isn't real. Any reputable historian does not take it seriously. It makes sense if one thinks logically. Allegedly (Atlantis) the most advanced civilisation on Earth disappears without a trace in a single day, and there are zero references to it in history and archeology, from ANY neighbouring civilization. Not a couple of references, not 1, but 0, for 9300 years. Until Plato comes along and says, "by the way, there was this place called Atlantis".

The Platonic dialogues Timaeus and Critias, where Atlantis is mentioned, are considered to be political commentary on the socioeconomic issues plaguing Greece at th time they were written. 77.250.197.189 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments and questions
1. "Although Evans' 1931 claim that the term was "unminted" before he used it was called a "brazen suggestion" by Karadimas and Momigliano, he coined its archaeological meaning."

The sentence does not flow well. I could be improved.

2. "Also mentioned are Cretan cities (such as Amnisos, Phaistos, Kydonia and Knossos) and toponyms reconstructed as in the Cyclades or the Greek mainland. If the values of these Egyptian names are accurate, the pharaoh did not value LMIII Knossos more than other states in the region."

I don't understand the meaning/function of the second instance of the word "as". Is the right word "states" or "cities"?

3. "After about a century of partial recovery, most Cretan cities and palaces declined during the 13th century BC (LHIIIB-LMIIIB). The last Linear A archives date to LMIIIA, contemporary with LHIIIA."

What does "LH" stand for? The Minoan chronology table does not explain it.

4. The list of major Minoan archeological sites lists Karfi and describes it as a "refuge site".

What does that mean?

5. "copper-containing Cyprus" or copper-producing Cyprus?

6. "The prevalence of edible molluscs in site material and artistic representations of marine fish and animals (including the distinctive LM IIIC "Octopus" stirrup jar), indicate appreciation and occasional use of fish by the economy."

What's the intention of the word "occasional" in the context of the sentence?

7. "In contrast to Egyptian frescoes, Crete had true frescoes. Probably the most famous fresco is the bull-leaping fresco."

What kind of frescoes are the Egyptian frescoes if they are not "true" frescos?

8. "Keith Branigan estimated that 95 percent of Minoan "weapons" had hafting (hilts or handles) which would have prevented their use as such."

Can somebody explain the meaning of weapons with handles that would have prevented their use. I don't understand.

9. "The researchers found that the Minoan skeletons were genetically very similar to modern-day Europeans" is followed by "They were very similar to Neolithic Europeans and very similar to present day-Cretans" in the same paragraph.

The use of "very similar" is repetitive.

ICE77 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Continued: How "intelligent" must one be to write such self-contradicting sentences like, "The Early Bronze Age (3500 to 2100 BC) has been described as indicating a "promise of greatness" in light of later developments on the island.[18] The Bronze Age began on Crete around 3200 BC.[19]." It is unbelievable! 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:CC3E:3442:2B02:CFCF (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, give or take 300 years it is not all that inconsistent. And it is the two sentences that are somewhat out of whack with each other; each on its own is not self-contradictory. I do agree that indicating a "promise of greatness" in light of later developments, if not self-contradictory, seems to be limping on two opinions: if the promise was definitely there in contemporary evidence, we do not need the light of later times -- or it could be that only in that light we can discern the germs of what was to come (I suspect the latter, but you never know with authors of such flowery circumlocutions). 24.132.16.40 (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Chronology table
This isp edit in April 2017 changed the table of dates that had been here for ages, unsourced, to one sourced & referenced from a book of 1965. Unfortunately, this puts us well out of whack with the much larger, and multi-source referenced table at Minoan chronology. In particular the current table here begins EM1 at 2600 BC, surely a view no one today holds? It was 3650 BC before (although the old table ended LM at 1450, also unsustainable). At Minoan pottery, before seeing the old table, I added the table with changed dates taken from here (also linked to by other academic websites), which is close to both the old table here, and the one at Minoan chronology (EM1 begins 3500). In the MM they actually match up at points. Minor fiddling was needed where 2 periods are run together in the source - I just split the difference. Notoriously no one source agrees with another, but this revised table fits much better with other recent sources, & if no one objects I will copy it here. Or let me know queries. User:Botteville I think did the big table, back in 2006. This is my revised table:

Source:
 * Fiddles needed:
 * (third) Early Minoan III, Middle Minoan IA 	2300-1900 BCE
 * (third) Middle Minoan IIB, IIIA 	1750-1650 BCE

Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * See below: I'll do this then. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent work johnbod
Before long YOU are going to be the expert. I see you have discovered the problem right away. Evans, of course, did the original chronology. He was assisted in that by his father John, one of the pioneers of the concept of the stone age. Blegen picked that up and extended it to the mainland to make it all consistent. Pendlebury did more analysis, and Hutchinson, and so on. The number of sites containing this material is now very large. Everyone who writes a book on it seems to have his own variation. Lately it has been getting more technical, with more carbon dates and tree ring analysis and what not. The question for us is, what version are we going to use? Yes, I put the original in. I think I got it from Hutchinson, I'm not sure now. It promptly began a long series of alterations by afficionados who had read this or that book. What was I to do, fight with them? Everyone thought he was right based on the scholars he had read. What to do now. You're working on it. Do whatever you want to do! I can only give some general thoughts.
 * work from the latest publications
 * search for articles on it. You use Google search, advanced search, and select a type of pdf. Recent theses are a good source. There are also some web sites published by universities that cover it.
 * This last suggestion is to be emphasized: go to [British School at Athens] and read whatever they got. They are the one who handle the site now. It's their house up on the hill, that used to be Evans'. They are currently analyzing the data collected in a surface survey of the broader area and it bears a lot on the chronology.
 * Don't neglect what the Greek archaeologists have to say. Often it is an alternative view, which you can and should work in.

Best of luck on this. Don't think Wikipedians are just going to GIVE it to you. These articles seem to be in stubborn hands who don't want to relinquish them. I've volunteered to redo Knossos based on the survey but I expect a full-scale war over it. The article is bad, but no one wants to let you fix it. I suppose it is THEIR beloved article. I've taken some time to write you this, but I'm not done finding pottery sources for you in Commons. The Museum at Heraklion has a lot of pictures. Athens is another source of museums. Got to go now. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The Greeks tend to view this through a dark prism of often toe-curling chauvinism. And it is a wildly diachronic chauvinism, which is that much more irrational then ordinary world-cup enthusiasm. 24.132.16.40 (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Daily Mail
Weblink to Daily Mail article about discovery of an ancient Greek boat, not attributed to Minoan Culture Girth Summit  (blether)  17:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6305115/The-worlds-oldest-shipwreck-2-400-year-old-Odysseus-ship-bottom-Black-Sea.html 86.143.242.235 (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is an inherently unreliable source and can never be cited on Wikipedia as a reliable source for any reason. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right about daily mail, but this is all over the news, not just daily mail . It doesn't have anything to do with the Minoans though. Khirurg (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Endonym
"Minoan" is an English word. What did these people call themselves? 77.250.197.189 (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources on the matter. See also Talk:Knossos. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Twice the same picture?
Isn't the picture captioned "Elite Minoan Women" a detail of the one captioned "Ladies of the Minoan Court[...]"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.25.78 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Minoan Women
The section on Minoan women doesn't reflect academic writing, is inadequate in sourcing and sounds as if it was written originally as a high school essay. I don't know enough about the topic to fix it. But wanted to flag that something is off. 1967Norway (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, very poor, & other bits are like it. I have replaced the art & costume sections, & may get round to that. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Were minoans proto-Greeks?
I think they were. Reaper7 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This is covered in the article, as far as it goes. See also the big section higher up this page. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "Proto-Greek" is a linguistic, not a genetic term; Science does not mention the word "Proto-Greek" and does not discuss linguistics (WP:INTEGRITY); Steemit is a blogging website (WP:RS). --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that Greece was settled by Minoans, so, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.210 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Proto Greeks" were in Epirus, according to both ancient and modern sources. Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Before Minoan domination
Before the Minoan domination in the Aegean, Cycladic culture and Neolithic Greece were in that area. Cycladic culture was included and today I added Neolithic Greece. I don't know why but a guy deleted both of them twice. Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cycladic culture did NOT "precede" the MC - they were contemporary, but different, with the Minoans starting rather earlier. Neolithic Greece has nothing to say about Crete, & Neolithic Crete is not just the same. I notice lots of your edits get reverted. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Neolithic Greece includes the entire Greece, Crete has several Neolithic sites. "I notice a lot of your edits get reverted" A lot of my early edits were getting reverted because I did not know how to edit the sources but the problem was solved. Now let me write only about Neolithic Greece and not Cycladic culture, I can understand and I accept your opinion about Cycladic culture but the Neolithic Greece refusal is simply ridiculous. And I am going to add info about Crete in Neolithic Greece... Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's see that first, before judging whether a link there is relevant to this article. An article on Neolithic Crete would probably better, as there seems to be not to much in common between that and Greece, other than what is also common to Anatolia etc. Whether the "problem was solved", well, time will tell ... Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Neolithic Greece is general and it is about Neolithic areas within modern day Greek borders. I personally added info about Neolithic Crete. Neolithic Greece includes a variety of sites from caves to highly developed settlements with fortifications. Yes, the problem was solved. Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see other people are busy cleaning up after you! Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You see other people but you don't see yourself. Instead of answering about this topic you focus on me in other topics. Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Answering what? You're the one who keeps popping up on my watchlist. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

About Neolithic Greece Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Evans said that he applied it, not invented it.
He said that he "proposed to apply" - if we are going to split hairs as in "apply not invent" then we must also be honest and acknowledge that "I proposed to apply" means the same as "I suggested that we name it" and the sentence "Evans said that he applied it, not invented it." is best dropped from the article altogether. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C13E:33F5:2212:CD77 (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He may have been talking about the scope of the term, taking it as read among his readership that the term had already been established in the literature. 24.132.16.40 (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

'Women' section and matriarchy
So there is a whole section for Minoan Women, but there is no mention of the apparent matriarchy in that entire section? Seems badly organized. 167.57.31.50 (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

2100 BCE?
A week ago the article said the Minoans started at 3500 BCE. 2 days ago it said 2100 BCE, and then went back to 3500 BCE. Now it's back to 2100 BCE. What's happening to the origin date?

ADT&#39;s wiki account (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Unable to find statement in source
"From the Early Bronze Age (3500 BC to 2600 BC), the Minoan civilization on Crete showed a promise of greatness." I have referenced the source and was unable to find this fact in the source. Furthermore the date range has changed without explanation, and quotations were added around promise of greatness (suggesting it is from a text), while the source remains the same. A) what source did this fact originally come from and B) did the person who edited the statement do so because it was incorrect or out of fradulent editing? 149.125.108.125 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * If verification of the aforementioned content failed, as you say, then please go ahead and rephrase the sentence per the reference. For the record, i am sharing the relevant diffs, showing the evolution of that sentence over the years.
 * Edit on 16 February 2010 by User:WellsSouth (indefinitely blocked due to copyright violations)
 * Edit on 26 April 2016 by 131.111.5.57
 * Edit on 29 July 2016 by User:Freeknowledgecreator (suspected sockpuppet of User:Skoojal)
 * Edit on 5 April 2017 by User:Miniapolis
 * Edit on 16 June 2018 by User:Johnbod
 * Edit on 15 January 2019 by User:Palindromedairy
 * Demetrios1993 (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: THURSDAY - Spring 2024 HIST 401
— Assignment last updated by Vic020699Fo (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)