Talk:Funnelbeaker culture

Untitled

ok, comparing with Image:European Middle Neolithic.gif (which is supposed to represent 4000), this map (supposed to represent roughly 4500-4000) needs to be fixed. I am not sure I can do it. What is the relation of LBK with Lengyel? Can Ertebølle be considered part of TRB? Should the Ertebølle and this article maybe be merged? (Ertebølle is 5000-4000, and TRB 4500-2700. Around 4000 they would seem to be blending into each other, then?) dab (ᛏ) 07:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess the answer is that the map really shows the late 4h millennium situation. dab (ᛏ) 07:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been mulling over the same situation as well. It is not only here that cultures overlap in time, but it seems to be pretty common. It may have to do with uncertainties in dating, and not only with periods of coexistence. I will double-check the datings later today.--Wiglaf 08:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The start date of this culture varies apparently. According to this paper it starts ca 4200 BC-4000 BC, but Nationalencyklopedin sets the date at 3900 BC. It does not seem reasonable to set the final date of the Ertebölle culture to 4000 BC and the start date of the TRB to 4500 BC. I have written ca 4000 BC as a start date.--Wiglaf 22:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Why's it called Funnelbeaker?

This map is just plain wrong - e.g. Yamna is in no way contemporary with LBK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.45.210.21 (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems

I think this is another troubled article. The most obvious thing is the lack of citations for categories like migrations, settlements, religion and graves, and ethnicity and language. Overhaul may be needed here. Please let me know as there are some significant sources that have been completely left out.Geog1 (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Geog1

Please delete that map

The map titled File:Old Europe.png is very innaccurate and needs to be deleted immediately. The Vinča Culture shown on that map is completely wrong - it was actually only in a relatively small area in modern-day Serbia, and that map indicates that it took up half of Southeastern Europe! That is just one of the many errors in that map, and having it displayed in this article is just one more example why people feel that Wikipedia is not reliable. Delete it now, please. --Saukkomies ^talk 04:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The two maps are completely different. At least one of them must be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.39 (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Again and confirmed: The text is o.k., both maps are very poor and contradicting!!HJJHolm (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Eastalbingian

Not used much in English, seems to be an area.[3] Doug Weller talk 13:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Paper on the cause and timing of TBK in its northern part

[4] --Rainald62 (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Direction of flow

I noticed this kind of statement in this article and others:

"A sample of Corded Ware people from Germany has been modelled as approximately three-quarters Yamnaya, clear evidence of migration into the heartland of Europe from its eastern periphery."

This "clear evidence" is never shown. Since Corded Ware actually has dates earlier than Yamna, isn't it possible that it was Corded Ware that influenced Yamna (genetically, linguistically, and culturally)? Or that they were constantly influencing each other? Or that there was a third group that influenced both? At very least, the evidence should be presented!

"Since Corded Ware actually has dates earlier than Yamna ... " <- This is wrong. The transition from Repin to Jamnaja happened around 3500 calBC, while the CWC started in middle Europe around 3100 calBC. Nevertheless, a similarity alone would not prove a directon, if we hadn't, as here, the additional significant change in the admixture and aDNA picture. Thus, the evidence is in fact shown. Hans J. Holm.95.90.202.159 (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Genetics

A great thank you for the Genetics text. However, it was unnecessarily and highly redundant. E.g., it is unneccessary to list the papers after the authors, if they are at the same time in the refs. Thanks for meanwhile ordering it chronologically.95.90.202.159 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Presenting the author plus year of publication makes the info more accessible. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct. That was my intention.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:706E:77CA:3CFF:70F7 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

However, 50 % or 40 % are not "Funnelbeaker culture was mostly".2A02:8108:9640:AC3:706E:77CA:3CFF:70F7 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Funnelbeaker.jpg (discussion)
• Hunebedbouwers-1.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Reference to Olszanica longhouse

Reference to Olszanica longhouse should be removed from Characteristics > Settlements section. It is just misleading. Olszanica longhouse is a LBK building and about 700 y older than the onset of Funnelbeaker (TBK). Compare with parallel German wikipedia entry for a more detailed approach on buildings from Funnelbeaker period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akopads (talk • contribs) 11:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR

"It has been suggested that the Funnelbeaker culture was the origin of the gene allowing adults of Northern European descent to digest lactose. It was claimed that in the area formerly inhabited by this culture, prevalence of the gene is virtually universal. A paper published in 2007 by Burger et al. indicated that the genetic variant that causes lactase persistence in most Europeans (–13,910*T) was rare or absent in early farmers from central Europe. A study published by Yuval Itan and colleagues in 2010 clearly shows this. A study published in 2009, also by Itan et al., suggests that the Linear Pottery culture (also known as Linearbandkeramik or LBK), which preceded the TRB culture by some 1,500 years, was the culture in which this trait started to co-evolve with the culture of dairying."

Fails to verify. None of the sources appear to link Funnelbeaker to lactose tolerance or even mention them, and the one that mentions Linear Pottery does so only in passing as part of an inferred hypothesis. Note that most more recent sources based on aDNA studies seem to favor the Steppe origin hypothesis.[5] [6] [7] Hunan201p (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

References

"Genetics" or "A chronological overview of genetic research about the Funnelbeaker culture"?

The Genetics section sucks. It's a indiscriminate chronological ammassment of existing sources. User:Wikiuser1314's addition of the new Allentoft paper is of course a good thing, but maybe we can use that paper as a starting point to summarize the key findings of the past 10+ years in a more digestible way? Yo @Tewdar, godfather of dechronologification, maybe you're up to the job? Austronesier (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I made a userbox especially, and I'll take a look as soon as I'm sober (probably at some point tomorrow) 😁  Tewdar  21:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

So, the article currently says: The striking diversity of the maternal lineages suggested that maternal kinship was of little importance in Funnelbeaker society, while the only relevant part of the source (Malmström 2015) I can find says: As eight distinct haplotypes were found among nine individuals from two different Megalithic burial structures, a close maternal kinship among several of the individuals can be ruled out. I don't think we can say that 'maternal kinship was of little importance' based on this, unless I'm missing something, which is very possible, since I'm doing several things at the same time today.  Tewdar  17:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, is there a text-based source for Malmström et al. 2020 found that [...] Among Funnelbeakers in Scandinavia, hunter-gatherer ancestry was estimated to be at about 50%, while in Central Europe it was at about 40%, or were these values arrived at by counting pixels?  Tewdar  13:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

(Ansarve individuals in Sánchez-Quinto et al. 2019) were found to be mostly of Early European Farmer (EEF) descent, but with significant hunter-gatherer ancestry, which appeared to be primarily male-derived [my emph.] - that doesn't appear to be a reasonable summary of the source.  Tewdar  14:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to take a short break from that I think. The current state of the dechronologification can be seen at User:Tewdar/sandbox/Funnelbeaker if anybody has any comments.  Tewdar  16:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Certainly paternal kinship was considered more important. I personally would interpret these findings to mean that maternal kinship wasn't important because it seems traditionally only one side of the family "counted" when it came to determining descent and relatedness; the other side was effectively ignored. When it wasn't, it was probably still second banana to the preferred side. The short version is this Neolithic farming culture wasn't matriarchal. Somebody was probably just trying to make this clear. OTOH the scientists seem to be more reluctant to say this outright. Hse643 (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

If the authors of the sources don't say it (or something similar that can be reasonably paraphrased) then we should not be saying it either. The draft is at User:Tewdar/sandbox/Funnelbeaker, where I have summarized what I think the authors actually say about this. If you think my summary misses out information, or you have other (genetics) sources that can be added, I'm happy to take another look 😊.  Tewdar  07:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)