Talk:Pre-Pottery Neolithic

Archaeology Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Age of PPN

I added a book that talks about a "PPNA" site that dates from 9.000 BC. Also, the Antiquity source says "11500 - 10500 cal BP". And a [http://neareast-prehistory.com/html/ppna.html website from an archaeologist dates its start at "from the Final Natufian at around 10,300-10,000bp". I have no idea of what "BP" means in archaeology. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.: actually, those ages are only for PPN-A. The lead should have the dates from when PPN-A starts to when PPN-C ends. Dunno if it's around 6200 BC or so. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, if you are going to use a source, you shouldn't change it this way - cal BP datesare calibrated radiocarbon dates, and if the authors had wanted to give calendar dates I'm sure they would have done so. I removed the dates because, as I said, they weren't sourced, I should have said the source was for something else, the PPN-A as Enric points out and the article is very clear about that. Right now the article contradicts itself and is wrong. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of the fact that, although pottery was not produced or used by people of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, they seem to have made containers out of stone (as the four photos in the article indicate). 173.88.246.138 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

False information

Why are the dna studies all before 2010 lol, early Europe farmers are clearly closer to sardina then anyone else in the world and all Europe is closer than the near east which any recent study after the single outdated cherry picked source here will tell you 68.1.191.4 (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolian Neolithic Farmers according to admixtools 2 Fst are closer to South Europeans, then Middle East and THEN North Euros. Claiming all Europeans are closer is very misleading. Itisme3248 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate genetic distance map due to bad sample quality "Genetic distance between PPNB farmers and modern populations"

Cypriots being the closer to Levant Neolithic than Levantines seemed very weird since Levantines have the highest Levant Neolithic ancestry + extra ancestry not so different to Levant neolithic, so i also ran fst for the same Neolithic Levantine samples (Jordan_PPNB) and they seem to score crazy high Fst distances to everyone, something is obviously wrong with the samples. That picture should be removed because its misleading.

Look at the Fst i ran. Jordan_PPNB has crazy high distances to everyone compared to Anatolian Neolithic Farmers (Barcin_N).

Admixtools 2 Fst			Admixtools 2 Fst
Genetic distance to Anatolian Neolithic Farmers	est	Standard Errors/ Deviation	Genetic distance to Jordan_PPNB	est	Standard Errors/ Deviation
Greece_BA_Mycenaean	1,26%	0,09%	Lebanon_MBA,SG	19,400%	0,421%
Minoan_All	1,28%	0,12%	Egyptian	20,800%	0,286%
Italian_South	1,83%	0,09%	Minoan_All	21,000%	0,378%
Sicilian	1,96%	0,06%	Greece_BA_Mycenaean	21,100%	0,336%
Italian_North	1,99%	0,05%	Cypriot	21,200%	0,327%
Sardinian	2,02%	0,05%	Jordanian	21,200%	0,304%
Cypriot	2,04%	0,08%	Lebanese	21,300%	0,310%
Albanian	2,07%	0,07%	Moroccan	21,300%	0,301%
Greek_Thessaloniki	2,12%	0,06%	Italian_South	21,400%	0,338%
Bulgarian	2,14%	0,06%	Saudi	21,400%	0,305%
Greek_Athens	2,19%	0,05%	Syrian	21,400%	0,309%
Spanish	2,24%	0,04%	Sicilian	21,600%	0,310%
Lebanon_MBA,SG	2,37%	0,19%	Anatolia_Neolithic	21,700%	0,318%
Lebanese	2,44%	0,06%	Albanian	21,800%	0,334%
Jordanian	2,53%	0,06%	Greek_Athens	21,800%	0,294%
Turkish_Istanbul	2,56%	0,06%	Greek_Thessaloniki	21,800%	0,307%
Armenian	2,58%	0,07%	Italian_North	21,800%	0,300%
French	2,61%	0,05%	Armenian	21,900%	0,307%
Egyptian	2,71%	0,06%	Iranian	22,000%	0,297%
Syrian	2,79%	0,07%	Turkish_Istanbul	22,000%	0,303%
Georgian	2,97%	0,06%	Bulgarian	22,100%	0,307%
Czech	2,98%	0,07%	Spanish	22,100%	0,294%
English	2,99%	0,07%	Georgian	22,300%	0,298%
Iranian	3,09%	0,06%	Sardinian	22,300%	0,306%
Saudi	3,21%	0,08%	French	22,400%	0,297%
Norwegian	3,22%	0,07%	Czech	22,600%	0,316%
Icelandic	3,36%	0,07%	English	22,600%	0,319%
Belarusian	3,40%	0,07%	Norwegian	22,900%	0,312%
Moroccan	3,53%	0,07%	Belarusian	23,000%	0,314%
Punjabi	6,71%	0,11%	Icelandic	23,200%	0,311%
Han	13,70%	0,14%	Israel_Natufian	24,300%	1,200%
Dinka,DG	16,00%	0,17%	Punjabi	24,700%	0,314%
Israel_Natufian	16,50%	0,60%	Han	30,900%	0,318%
Yoruba	16,60%	0,14%	Dinka,DG	31,300%	0,350%
Morocco_Iberomaurusian	19,20%	0,25%	Yoruba	31,700%	0,303%
Jordan_PPNB	21,80%	0,32%	Morocco_Iberomaurusian	33,900%	0,429%
Mbuti,DG	22,80%	0,17%	Mbuti,DG	37,600%	0,315%

Itisme3248 (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heading appears vertically across other lines

Why does the heading "Pre-Pottery Neolithic A" appear vertically (!!!) across the left side of the table & mixed with (laid over) its content on my cellphone display? Arminden (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]