Talk:Wessex culture

Deletion

Why was this phrase just deleted without comment?

"although it has now largely gone out of usage." Badagnani (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this sentence just deleted without comment?

"Active during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, knowledge of the Wessex people comes from their burial practices as no settlement evidence has yet been positively identified."

Badagnani (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this sentence just deleted without comment?

"It has been argued that they were an immigrant race, replacing and wiping out the earlier Beaker people." Badagnani (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani, I found this article badly sourced: the most recent source mentioned was of 1978. Claims that can't be substantiated using proper sourcing and are contradictory to more recent sourcing, are probably either obsolete or WP:OR. In fact, I first thought about nominating the article for outright deletion.

Obviously, the indication is not so largely out of use as to mention this in the header. Who said so? It is still used in recent publications, I assume not all agree to this. If you mean to refer to a more recent interpretation, I esteem the words on this spent in the last paragraph are most appropiate.
Your second sentence was not sourced. Dating of the Wessex culture complex would require more concise information on the definition. Do you mean CAL or C14? How do this dating relate to the most recent datings of Stonehenge, that would rather suggest the Wessex culture to be contemporaneous to early Bell Beaker? And what kind of settlements do you expect, considering the "most recent view" of dealing with a social stratum? This wrongly suggests they were some kind of nomads. Moreover, it does not contribute anything since settlement evidence is rare in all prehistoric cultures.
Sure they were immigrants, though it is questionable they ever wiped out anybody: not the authtochtons, that continued their Stonehenge traditions, nor the Bell Beaker people, of which the Wessex people were probably just another derivation. Again: who said so?

Rokus01 (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were not my statements. I was asking for all due deliberation, and use of explanation and this Discussion page, when removing areas of text, so that all editors know why such text has been removed--before the removal rather than after. If something doesn't seem right or is not sourced, "fact" tags are a good start. It's likely that the information did originally come from some source. Badagnani (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, very well: the changes are documented now and those having this page on their watchlist and feel obliged to bring back some information are invited to do this: well sourced and well represented into the right context. Cheers! Rokus01 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

amber

It is possible, that amber for working artefacts was not imported from Baltic area, but found at the shores of England and Scotland (This amber is Baltic Amber, too). (see: GRIMALDI: Amber - window to the past; New York 1996. Page 147). -- Hl1948 (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence

"The culture group, however, is named as one of the intrusive Beaker groups that appear in Ireland.[4]" It remains a riddle to the reader what now in fact the afore described Wessex culture or cultural layer has to do with Ireland.HJJHolm (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]