Talk:Venus of Dolní Věstonice

Category Ceramics

I added this article to Category:Ceramics because that category's description states:

Ceramics is the art form that uses ceramic materials to produce works of art; see also Category:Ceramic materials. The Venus of Dolni Vestonice is the oldest known ceramic in the world.

I recently edited that description, but I didn't add the definition or the reference to this article. Melchoir 03:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

With the note in the category it will hopefully be seen in proper context. Pavel Vozenilek 03:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll re-add the category. Melchoir 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

More information worth of addition[1]. pabouk 15:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Pottery vs Ceramic

Hi. I am not sure why you revert the decription [of this figurine] as pottery. I agree the item is ceramic but this is a very large group of materials. Pottery is more specific: it is a subset of ceramics. Pottery is fired clay, with cermaics including many others such a silicon nitride, silicon carbide and alumina - hardly the type of material from which the Venus is made. unsigned, by 81.153.70.31

"Ceramic" is the preferred adjective in archaeology, as in "ceramic statuette". In fact, a "pottery statuette" does not make sense, since pottery is a noun which generally refers to vessels of some sort or another. While today "ceramic" includes all sorts of materials in addition to clay, in 50,000 BPE, clay was the only ceramic. Madman 16:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the figurine should be described as Ceramic and not pottery 81.153.70.31 has now reverted the description to pottery 4 times. Teapotgeorge 20:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A few points>

• "clay was the only ceramic." Clay is not a ceramic material. It never has been, even 50,000 BPE. Clay is a common raw material for ceramics, but it is onlyt after firing to high temperature that it becomes a ceramic material.
• "Pottery statuette" does make sense. Pottery is a commonly used term for a group of materials. Other example sinclude pottery
• The early description of pottery, ie fired clay, is correct. Archaeologists do not have sole rights to deciding what is pottery.
• The article should include reference that many people do consider the figurine to be pottery.

Dating

There is no reference as to how the piece was dated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.31.7.9 (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Venus of Dolní Věstonice. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070611112700/http://www.czech.cz/en/news/culture/mammoth-hunters-at-the-national-museum/ to http://www.czech.cz/en/news/culture/mammoth-hunters-at-the-national-museum/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Czech Republic

At the time the Venus was found, there was no independent Czech Republic. Would not be better to use the word Czechia instead? Czechia was a part of Czechoslovakia at that time. --Martin Tauchman (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It is already explained in this sentence: "The palaeolithic settlement of Dolní Věstonice in Moravia, a part of Czechoslovakia at the time..." FromCzech (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@FromCzech@Martin Tauchman Just wikilink Moravia, no need to mention any actual countries as there were no countries in Paleolithic times. Moravia is described as a historical region. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The part I am talking about refers to the discovery of the figurine in the 20th century. Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

But in the first paragraph, it says: ‘It was found at the Paleolithic site Dolní Věstonice in the Moravian basin south of Brno, in the base of Děvín Mountain in the Czech Republic.’ Part you have cited is after the first paragraph. Martin Tauchman (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)