Talk:Cardium pottery

Article Title

Even though I added this article to the Category:Pottery - I have reservations. Most of the article deals with the culture that produced this neolithic pottery. I think the culture would be more appropriate for the title with a redirect for the pottery style. Of course, more material on both subjects could make the article go either way. Opinions? WBardwin 05:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is definitely primarily about the culture, but such cultures are superficially characterized by the pottery, a convenient tag. Six of one half-dozen of the other. The issue is more work than the article.Dave (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

When ?

I dno't recall reading when the culture first appears in Eastern Adriatic fringe ? Hxseek (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Genetics section

I see someone removed reference to "E3b" (more recently known as E1b1b1a) but they inserted a reference to Y haplogroup J being common in Catalonia. Sorry, but it is common in Asturias, but not Catalonia. The biggest survey is Adams et al.. So I have removed it. E1b1b1a has been associated with the Cardial in Italy, see Battaglia et al., so maybe it could be discussed in this more specific way (not referring to Catalonia). Otherwise the section is now effectively empty and meaningless and needs to be removed. The only connection I know of ever being suggested between IBERIAN Y Haplogroups and a possible Cardium connection is in a review I wrote, and the haplogroup was E1b1b1c (E-M123), which is found in unusual levels and types in Portugal and Galicia. See http://www.jogg.info/51/ . I leave to others to decide whether this is a relevant reference for this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Further: I corrected a typo of the village to correct "Kargadur", and smoothed somewhat the style.HJJHolm (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Lousy article

This article discusses only the origin of this culture, but it says nothing about the characteristics (other than the pottery), the predecessors, the successors, etc. It does not even say when the culture ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.33.113.252 (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it has been some time since anyone spent time on this article and in a way probably most editors who have worked on it have only made quick efforts. It is clear this is an important subject that deserves better discussion. Someone just has to do it. Are you able to help?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree! such an article costs a lot of time and deserves all respect instead of a critque in such form. It cost me alone one hour to update two sentences to make them better understandable. So do it!HJJHolm (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)