Jump to content

Talk:Neolithic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Choirokoitia

Could it be possible to place in the chronology of the neolithic ages , the siite of Choirokoitia , in Cyprus Island . This site , for it seems to be the testimony of the expansion to the west of that neolithic civilization pre ceramic from Asia , has been inscripted to the " World Heritage " by the UNESCO as you can see following this link . http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=848

docaubrac@wanadoo.fr

Hi docaubrac. Do please write an article on Choirokoitia if you like, it is a very important site and deserves a page of its own. Then we can link to it from here. adamsan 22:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I have created an article Choirokoitia. It is just a beginning, with text translated from the German and Dutch wikipedia. Since I'm not an expert, this is all I could do. Feel free to add your knowledge! (and correct my errors since English is not my native language) NielsF 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Niels, I've made some minor copyedits to your additions. Needs further expansion.--cjllw | TALK 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Neolithic Religion

Should Neolithic Religion be moved to a seperate article? Ghelae 09:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Moved it ages ago, forgot to update. - Ghelaetalkcontribs 20:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

I've just uploaded some free content on Commons, so you can have a look here if you want to illustrate this article.

Regards. :-) Manchot 14:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks, Manchot, some of those imgs are now included in the article. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Artifact/Artefact

Hello - I couldn't help noticing a tension over the spelling of this word. The Concise Oxford Dictionary lists 'artefact' as the main entry, with 'artifact' as a 'variant'. As the word is actually derived from Latin (arte - the ablative form of ars), the 'e' form would appear to have greater logic. Is this any help? BTW - WP uses the reverse hierarchy, so there could be an argument for swapping the 'main' & 'rediect' pages? - Ballista 04:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

which epoch for Epipalaeolithic period?

paragraph 2 reads in part

The Neolithic era follows the terminal Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic and early Holocene Mesolithic periods

paragraph 1 of the entry for Epipalaeolithic reads

The Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic was a period in the development of human technology that precedes the Neolithic period of the Stone Age. It is preferred as an alternative to Mesolithic in areas with limited glacial impact. The period began at the end of the Pleistocene epoch around 10,000 years ago and ended with the introduction of farming around 8,000 years ago.

I don't know which is correct.

the Entry agrees with the graphic here, perhaps paragraph 2 should read something like

The Neolithic period is the second period of the Holocene epoch, following the Mesolithic or Epipalaeolithic period.

but for all I know, the Entry and graphic are wrong.

24.3.56.115 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

If introduced "periods" to this article with Neolithic 1, Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3. Look at http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/NeolithicLevant.html for more information.

Put the "dates" category under periods, and eventually one can merge other articles about PPNA, PPNB etc. It is more practical to have it in one article.

Following the Pre-Pottery cultures are the Halafian etc. The dates make a good chronological article if completed.

I've also made a reference out of the inventor of the term. It is not relevant to have such information at the start of a non-academic artickle. Unimportant information should have less emphezising. There fore a note reference is made. Those interested in the term "neolithic" may look there. To the general public the artickle should give a good overview over the period, with relevant resources for indepth research for those wanting to gain more knowledge. (User:85.165.17.218).

You're obviously a serious contributor: why not log in? --Wetman 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Tillage

I've always understood that a large part of the definition of the Neolithic had to do with the beginning of settled farming. Shouldn't that be part of the first few sentences in the article? Athana 17:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


"The domestication of animals, either as draught animals or as a food source... Animal labour (for example, oxen) could greatly improve the efficiency of land tillage."

I think the ground was cultivated by mattocks in the Stone Age. Arable instruments are metal usually. However I am not assured. The same in The Neolithic Revolution: "The animal’s ability as a worker (for example ploughing or towing)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.181.92 (talk) 28 Feb 2006

A good point anon, although forms of ploughs constructed purely of wood are attested. It still bears further examination, however.--cjllw | TALK 01:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
From a programme about Iran on BBC4 on 7 March 2006, apparently ploughs constructed purely of wood are still in use, but increasing access to new technology means that they now can use power drills rather than just hand tools in constructing the wooden plough. ...dave souza, talk 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are the PPNA and PPNB not hard dates?

It seems the dates for the PPNA, as an example, change depending on the article read. If you search for "Timeline of agriculture and food technology" on Wikipedia, they list PPNA as 9500BC. Is that accurate?. If you search for "Jericho", PPNA is dated as 8350 BC to 7370 BC. How come they are so exact for Jericho? (within +/- ten years). I am assuming the dates for PPNA change depending on the technology of the culture in question, but I don't know. Could someone write a bit to clarify this? Does the PPNA date change at different archeological sites? Are the same dates used at Jericho and Catalhuyuk, for instance? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray j (talk • contribs) 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ray. The antiquity is the key to the problem. Today we can say December 7 1941 at 8:00 AM with some accuracy and state that the new year begins on January 1 and that is standard for every nation observing this calendar. We have a Bureau of Weights and Measures to set standards and that is a huge leap in civilization. No such standards and no such dates are available for remote antiquity. All we have basically for thousands of years ago are radiocarbon dates but the parameters under which they are measured are numerous and vary at random. The dates depend on the samples and the methods of sampling. You can't get any better precision. Archaeologists either give you the dates and the tolerances (margins of error) of one or more samples or they give you an estimated time window within which. You can't do any better. So, they can't be standardized on Wikipedia. That would be a desirable goal not only on Wikipedia but anywhere but the state of the art does not allow it. The best you can do here is demand to know whose dates those are, which you can do by putting a {{Fact}} template on it. You can see how to do that by opening an edit on this code.Dave (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Typesetting style

Here are six different styles for displaying a bit of information found in this article:

±80 BC
± 80 BC
+/−80 BC
+/− 80 BC
+/-80 BC
+/- 80 BC

I find it easy to be confident that the last two can only be considered WRONG. A minus sign differs from a hyphen. If this were writing on mathematics, I would consider the third and fourth wrong unless one were typing on a keyboard with a limited alphabet and could do nothing else. However, this is a different subject. If one were to choose the second or fourth, I would make the space non-breakable (perhaps also the space between "80" and "BC". Are there reasons to consider others strictly incorrect besides the last two? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Africa & pdf on AMS dating

I just removed an edit about early crops in Africa. Not only was the reference simply a paper presented at a convention, and based on such unreliable sources as van Sertima, it was about work that has been shown (before the paper was written) to be clearly wrong. See this interesting paper on AMS dating [1]. dougweller (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Incas

To my knowledge the Incas advanced beyond the Neolithic especially in weaponry; I believe Conquistador accounts describe bronze spears. See the Military section of the Inca article here on Wikipedia. This should be included along with the copper axes of the Great Lakes region. If no one has a problem I'll go ahead and make this minor edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.35.147 (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Africa

Removed section (including the reference that was to a university's main page and said required a phone call) and rewrote with more up to date references. I added a fact tag although it may not have been necessary given my other references, to material found here [2]. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wild crops?

The current introduction says that a characteristic of neolithic is the use of wild or domestic crops. The word crop is linked to agriculture. This seems to be a contradiction. Agriculture concerns domesticated plants, not wild plants. --Etxrge 13:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a bad description in the article: The NL is characterized by the DOMESTICATION of plants and animals, not of their "use". —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJJHolm (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BC/BCE/BP?

Is there any reason why the dates in this article are in BC? To make them more user-friendly, can they be changed to BP (Before Present)? This makes it more clear, and avoids confusion over the fact that, for example, 8500 BC = 10500 years before the present. Or, can BC at least be changed to the more neutral BCE(Before Common Era)? Is there a Wikipedia policy on this? Tuckerma 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Tuckerma. The BC/BCE issue has been a big issue on Wikipedia as the choice still appears to be religion-related; that is, there is no subject standard. The current policy as I believe (stop me anyone if I err) is 1) It has to be consistent within one article 2) the first use determines which. I have seen, however, people not acquainted with the policy go ahead and change it to their flavor and once done and done consistently no one seems to want to change it back because that would be to admit to an interest in religious controversy and no one at all seems to want that. We had enough people raving about us westerners and us christians, what have you. The Jewish and moslem raves would be so like a keg of dynamite that no one at all seems to dare. People have enough sense not to deliberately step on a land mine. Now, this article is evidently a BC rather than a BCE one. Why not just leave it at that? As for the BP, I believe the field practice is that for very large dates where the tolerance of accuracy exceeds 2000 years one states BP. For within several thousand years BC or BCE is much more preferable and authors try to give it where possible because folk understand it better and it is more precise. Otherwise you have worry about and explain just what "present" is and typically in radiocarbon dating contexts it for sure is not 2008 but is staggered by about 1/2 century now from that. I hope this addresses your concerns and it is the view of only one editor. If any others care to have a view help the public out.Dave (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think there is another reason for the differences in dates: mixing uncalibrated radiocarbon dates with calibrated dates (as pointed out by an anonymous editor on Aug. 26). The term BP is used sometimes for the one, sometimes for the other--which is a good reason to stop using the BP term (besides the fact that it's based on the arbitrary date of 1950 AD!). I would like to find a good reference that gives the dates for the different periods in "real" BCE, not some sort of uncorrected thing. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This is one of the points. The other is that BP - as correctly pointed out above - needs additional informations to be unambiguous. Third, how long will geologists speak of 1950 as the "present"? And, why on earth do we have a common, clear, and unambiguous chronological system?? HJJHolm (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There are occasions when dates are only given in BP, so we have no choice. This discussion is an old one, by the way, about 18 months since the last post. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Periodization

I realize there is no exact answer, but is it possible to put approximate times on this period? For example, "from more than ??000 A.D. to around ?000 A.D."? It may give people a better sense of the time frame.


just wondering....does a neolithic period not exist in africa at all? theres no info on it??

Gregory Helton (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Gregory Helton Did the Neolithic really begin two thousand years BCE? No it did not. So why does this article say it does? This article would have us think that 2000 BCE is prior to 9500 BCE since Tell Qaramel pushed the date of the Neolithic period further back in time from 9500 BCE. If you read the footnote about Tell Qaramel, it is dated 10,700 – 9,500 BCE, not, as the article states, 2010 BCE. Here is the offending sentence: "New findings put the beginning of the Neolithic culture back to around 2009 to 2010 BCE in Tell Qaramel in northern Syria, 25km north of Aleppo.[3] Until those findings are adopted within archaeological community, the beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 9500 BCE." Gregory Helton (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

List of neolithic settlements

Put your comments here.Dave (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the so-called settlements in this list are not Neolithic at all and they should not be included in this list. They may be ancient settlements but have almost nothing to do with Neolithic history and I suspect are only in this list because of someone’s petty nationalism. Buncronan in Ireland, Star Carr in England, and The Spirit Caves in Thailand are certainly not Neolithic and shed no light, whatsoever, on the history of the Neolithic. There was Neolithic activity near these places, but that was long, long after the original settlements had been abandoned. Moreover, if you are going to play that game then Greeks nationalists could confuse things further by saying because Franchthi Cave in Greece was occupied from 20,000 years ago and then sporadically into the Neolithic, it should head the list of Neolithic settlements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.125 (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Start Date Wrong?

There seems to be an inconsistency with the starting date presented for the start of the Neolithic Age as described Prehistory#Major_Timline_Inconsistency. Niluop (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Gangetic Neolithic

I am removing the following paragraph from the South Asia section:

"One of the earliest Neolithic sites in north India is Lahuradewa, in the Middle Ganges region, C14 dated around 8th millennium BC.<ref>Fuller, Dorian 2006. "Agricultural Origins and Frontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis" in Journal of World Prehistory 20, p.42 [http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~tcrndfu/articles/JWP20.pdf "Ganges Neolithic"]</ref> Recently another site near the confluence of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers called Jhusi yielded a C14 dating of 7100 BC for its Neolithic levels.<ref>Tewari, Rakesh et al. 2006. "Second Preliminary Report of the excavations at Lahuradewa,District Sant Kabir Nagar, UP 2002–2003–2004 & 2005–06" in Pragdhara No. 16 [http://www.uparchaeology.org/archae.pdf"Electronic Version p.28"]</ref> A new 2009 report by archaeologist Rakesh Tewari on Lahuradewa shows new C14 datings that range between 8000 BC and 9000 BC associated with rice, making Lahuradewa the earliest Neolithic site in entire South Asia."

The paragraph contains claims that have not been vetted by the archeological community. Indeed, Dorian Fuller's survey article says,

"At present the earliest evidence for precursors to the well-developed Neolithic comes from the site of Lahuradewa. This site provides evidence for occupation on a lake edge back to the seventh millennium BC (Tewari et al., 2003, 2005; Saraswat & Pokharia, 2004a, 2005; Singh, 2005a, 2005b). Already in this period, or certainly by sometime in the end of the fifth millennium, ceramics had begun to be produced, and rice was part of the diet, and may even have been cultivated, although the very limited evidence available to date is inconclusive and is more suggestive of wild rice collecting. All the fauna thus far studied from that period were wild (Joglekar, 2004), and it is likely that occupation was intermittent (with hiatuses), or else highly seasonal to account long a timespan of 3000–3500 years for this lowest layer (less than 50 cm thick). ... Caution is warranted in considering early/mid-Holocene radiocarbon dates reported from this region. A few sites have reported dates in the 6th millennium BC, such as Koldihwa and Malhar (Sharma et al., 1980; Tewari, Srivastava, Saraswat, & Singh, 2000, 2003; Saraswat, 2004a, pp. 533–535). Both these sites have dates mainly of much later period (i.e. from the Second Millennium BC), and artifact assemblages consistent with the younger dates."

The second, more recent, reference is a pre-print and hardly qualifies as a peer-reviewed publication. I have therefore removed the Gangetic valley claim. Mehrgarh, in Pakistan, still remains the earliest neolithic site in South Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternative nomenclatures

I've been getting my eardrums broken from some quarters about the supposed inapplicability of the three-age system. I keep promising that if there are any alternatives we will link to them. The first I've seen of any at all is the contents of the 2nd? note. This looks like a good article offhand but if you have any references on an alternative characterization - and why else would you put such a note in? perhaps you could make a small section "Alternative periodization" or some such thing giving us a brief summary with refs. Thanks.Dave (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Far East

I see you have sections on most of the nuclear areas. Most excellent, although they seem a bit scanty. There seems a bit of gap. We don't have the Jomon Culture in here, which is now classified as Neolithic and I believe one of the oldest in the world if not the oldest. The descendants of the people who used it you know are the Ainu, who were of course overrun by other Asians to form the Japanese people. The interesting thing about the Jomon is their pottery, which seems to have gone right back to the Mesolithic. So, there may not be a PPN in the Jomon. The PPN may not be universal. But, there is more. The Russians now are tracing the arrival of pottery in Europe now not from the nuclear region of the Middle East but across Siberia from the Far East and are making I believe a good case. Well of course I do not expect you to get all this into this article any time soon but if you want to work on it continuously those are some modernizations. We all appreciate the fine work of the British and American archaeologists on the Middle Eastern nuclear area but it stands to reason it would only be a matter of time before better things came along. I think WP should try to stay on the forefront.Dave (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

List revisited

Well I see the list is still there despite the biting comments about it. Doesn't anyone dare to remove it? Quite right I agree. We don't need the Mesolithic list at all. Moreover we have a box for the Neolithic list so we don't need it at all. It should be organized by nuclear area. Hm. The first part looks good but we end in a fizzle. Typical. It appears as though I may have to take a hand here if no one is interested in doing this article and it just sits here like this. Tsk Tsk. I would have said the Neolithic is important. Now, as we are going over to a side box (I just decided) that side box may become too long. In that case I suggest we go to a bottom box. If you got any interest, be sure and place your comments here. I would say, the main planning phase is RIGHT NOW! We could have double-column lists on the side box. The width is adjustable you know. I put a width on if you want to see what it looks like. It's a parameter on the template call.Dave (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tell Qaramel as Neolithic

If there are no signs of farming or animal domestication, does this count as a neolithic settlement. Surely this is a pre-neolithic hunter-gatherer settlement and calling it neolithic is a bit misleading? I think the article is currently a bit biased towards Qaramel being "the start" of the neolithic revolution, which it clearly wasn't cos there were no farmers there. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Laas Gaal

I just readed that the painting of the Laas Gaal are the best preserved rock paints. Thus it must be added in this article.87.209.93.198 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Two suggested solutions

Solution 1. A box for the Chalcolithic. It seems to me the Chalcolithic was put in the Neolithic, where it absolutely does not belong, for space considerations. I looked at the Bronze Age box where it does belong and there is no space for it there. So, I propose a new box, the Chalcolithic. There is room for that in the articles. The sequence must be changed accordingly.Dave (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Solution 2. A 2-way table for the Neolithic cultures. We have two schemes of division, one by region (the box) and one by relative chronology (the list). The way the textbooks handle this is a table, early middle and late top to bottom (or bottom to top) and region across. The content of one box would only be the name of the culture so we can fit at least several regions across. Solution 1 should be implemented first. We began with only a few cultures. Now they are beginning to multiply as they should in an encyclopedia. We need this system to organize the increasing numbers of cultures. This will turn into a mini-encyclopedia of archaeological cultures. There would be a certain redundancy with the Neolithic box. I suggest we not use it to list cultures; there are too many. This is parallel to the zoological and botanical articles, where species lists are placed in the text when there are too many to go in the box. The box can list articles about topics. It can refer to reader to the table, as it does in the taxoboxes. In fact I like the idea of an archaeological taxobox. They can be imitated easily enough.Dave (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got the time, go for it. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Doug. I'm tardy on this. Will get back. I left it in only June. There is just so much to do here. One glaring deficit leads to a worse and then you get tied up in arguments.Dave (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Final Neolithic

The Final Neolithic is not there.Dave (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Template usage

I guess such template and others in this and related articles would be useful, what's the WP's take on this? Yosef1987 (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "revolution links" go to "neolithic revolution? --Yak 14:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) 

it should either have both BC and BP or at least conversion chart. Some of us aren't all that savvy. *points to herself* I've been trying to do the math for a while now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.96.250 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Jiroft Civilization

Unfortunately due to media culture assassination of Iran and also the fact that the discoveries are recent, very few people know about the discoveries at Jiroft and the potential discovery of the first sample of writing. The Zayandeh Rud Civilization has also omitted. I'm not an expert on the stone age or any era in the distant past, so I don't know which article this information could go to.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think that the Jiroft civilization and the Zayandeh Rud Civilization should be mentioned in this article because they are Bronze Age and not Neolithic.--Fang 23 (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


Speaking of Iran, goat evidence for goat domestication is 10000 BC. That should qualify as an earlier beginning to the Neolithic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of Arbitrary definition of Neolithic

The neolithic is marked by several different advances, and cannot be defined by a single site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is something I finally found about the triangles, squares and circles in North Western Saudi Arabia. I was surfing the world using Google Earth, looking for nice images from all over the world, and was curious about what the scenery looked like in NW Saudi Arabia, then stumbled upon these shapes all over in the land. Now I want to go there and get on the ground and see these places for real, or at least images of what they actually look like from the ground: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.2111.pdf. Perhaps it is useful for future research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragnoxz (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Expansion on Southern Mespotamia

The one line on Southern Mespotamia desperately needs expansion. It totally fails to mention the Proto-Sumerian culture that arose around 8,000 BCE and was attestably using clay tokens representing quantities of grain, livestock and handcrafted items around that same time. While these tokens are not the same as jars and vats, they certainly qualify as pottery, and one must wonder what containers the quantities of grain and liquid they refer to were stored in if not in clay pots, so the schematizing of "pre-pottery" and "pottery" ages in this article is highly ethnocentric to the Middle East and plain outright wrong. Also, there should be at least some mention of the Sumerians' invention of the oldest attested writing system, which was a major feature of the Neolithic. I lack the expertise to write the required material, so I am calling on experts in the subject to do so. 70.29.29.92 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Clothing

"The clothing worn in the Neolithic Age might be similar to that worn by Ötzi the Iceman, although he was not British and not Neolithic (since he belonged to the later Copper age)." Not British? What does that matter? Kortoso (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Iceman

  • "ended when metal tools came into widespread use in the Copper Age"
  • "Neolithic individuals included Ötzi the Iceman."

As the Iceman had a copper axe had been near a copper smelting furnace, why is he a Neolithic individual? The problem seems to be that his discovery has pushed the copper age earlier, to before (3300 BC), for central Europe, than older text books state was the start of the copper age in that region. PBS 00:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think '...widespread use' is the key term; the Three age system approach is at best a generalisation and can be picked apart until the cows come home. I'm sure User:Yak will know what the current thinking is on dating the end of the Neolithic in Central Europe. adamsan
Quite simply: Only in the last decade it was generally accepted to divide the Middle-European Neolithic into a neolithic (proper) - the former older and middle neolithic - against a Chalcolithic or copper age - the former Middle-European younger/late/end NL. HJJHolm (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"...although he was not British"???? (Double facepalm) Kortoso (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Nanzhuangtou and Göbekli Tepe

This article asserts that the Nanzhuangtou Culture in China began around 8500 BCE. However the Nanzhuangtou Article states that the culture began 12600 BCE. If this is the case, isn't the Nanzhuangtou Culture the oldest culture in history? In addition, Göbekli Tepe is stated to be a neolithic culture, however the actual article on Göbekli Tepe states that it predates the neolithic culture, as it predated pottery, animal husbandry, and agriculture. This of course is untrue if Nanzhuangtou really did exist in 12600 BCE (neolithic culture did exist at this point even if it was not present in Göbekli Tepe). Ace45954 (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"The earliest Neolithic cultures of Northeast China: Recent discoveries and new perspectives on the beginning of agriculture" G Shelach - Journal of World Prehistory, 2000 - Springer: "In north China, the earliest ceramics found so far are from the Nanzhuangtou site of Hebei province. The oldest radiocarbon date for this site is 10,815 B.P. § 140 years (uncalibrated and with a half-life of 5730 years)".pdf file
The Chinese Neolithic By Li Liu "The initial Neolithic period (ca. 9000-7000 11 in China is characterized by a gradual climatic transition and wet conditions. It is primarily caused by the strengthened East Asian Monsoon as the northernmost frontal zone of monsoon rainfall present arid and semi-arid regions around 11,000-1 ( 758; Morrill ct al. 2003). The pollen data from 12,00C many places of central China the steppe grasses may by broad-leaved forests, although xerophytic herbs we: During this period, the Central Plains witnessed the in villages. This is indicated by the earliest pottery, grinc domesticated pigs and dogs, and domestic features (discovered at Nanzhuangtou in Xushui (ca. 10,500-9,700 BP)[3]
More can be found, but they seem to all agree on the dates, not surprisingly. They were changed with this edit[4]. The source is a newspaper. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Checked the latest sources there, [5] which is clearly reliable says 12600-11300 cal BP - we had the usual edito deciding they don't like BP and that BCE is the same. I've added the correct dates and fixed the Antiquity ref, removed the others. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Cursive writing?

Let's look at the Wikipedia article on early forms of writing in the Neolithic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-writing

Nope. nothing about cursive scripts. Kortoso (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No surprise, why should a professor of politics be an expert be an expert on archaeology? And why should we use a quote from a non-expert. Added with this edit, I hope the rest is better. Good catch. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Neolithic. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Mehrgarh

"The earliest occupation of Mehrgarh in Period 1 was found in mound MR3 and has been dated to between 6500 and 5500 BCE."[6] p.111 Doug Weller talk 12:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: An IP deleted that bit you added the CN to. Interestingly, the anon didn't delete a number of other CNs at least back to 2015. Someone following you about? I restored and added a cite based upon your link above. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jim1138: Thanks. I wouldn't be surprised if someone is following me. I think there are linked articles that might need updating, but I hate working on a laptop or iPad so it will have to wait a few days. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Expert Review

I think that expert review of this article is desperately needed. The article seems patchy and not as informative as it should be.-Anonymous

Yes this is exactly what is needed-Anonymous

Signed for archive purposes only. William Harris • (talk) • 04:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The case of Adhichanallur

It would be good to check if Adhichanallur corresponds to Neolithic Period. As fas as I can see it starts around 1500 BC until 500 BC, this by thermoluminicense dating. This period corresponds to the begining of Megalithic/Iron age culture in South India. Recent research of archaeobotanist Dorian Fuller establishes that Neolithic in South India starts by 3000 BC in Karnataka, getting to Tamil Nadu later.

Signed for archive purposes only. William Harris • (talk) • 04:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neolithic. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Halaf Period, 6400 B.C.?

"Around 6400 BC the Halaf culture appeared in Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, and Northern Mesopotamia and subsisted on dryland agriculture."

The Halaf Period is traditionally dated to 5400 B.C. See its Wikipedia page. In actuality its probably later then this 5100 B.C. (see Peter Akkerman). Dating it to 6400 B.C. is ridiculous. Also, while it may have included regions inside Lebanon and modern day Israel, including all of these places is misleading. It should really be limited to saying Northern Mesopotamia and much of Syria. I may just delete the statement in question. ~~John Dee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.105.117 (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Improve Layouts, check chronology and add some maps

Following previous recommandations, I have started trying to improve the layouts; then I'm planning to check for updated chronology and additionnal references, and add some maps. Since I am new to wikipedia and english is not my native language I would appreciate all the advice, comments and corrections - Nicolas B.G.Z. (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

PLOS citation and image spamming

पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs) has been copying here text and figures from PLOS-type journals that allow such copying. Wikipedia does allow such copying as long there is an in-line acknowledgement; in other words, it does not require the authors to be acknowledged in-text (in the form "Authors X and Y state ...."). This editor has copied verbatim four paragraphs from such articles, and has done similar things with figures. It is my contention that high-level (i.e. low-res) articles such as Neolithic cannot be venues for such high-res text dumping. They need encyclopedic summation of knowledge in summary style and need to reflect WP:DUE. There is an added concern that such copying can come uncomfortably close to citation spamming. I have accordingly reverted the edits. In my view, the editor needs to paraphrase like the rest of us. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please cool down Fowler&fowler. This is perfectly allowed on Wikipedia as Administrators have been telling you. You do not get to create your own personal rules on Wikipedia... Have a nice day. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
As I have already stated, this form of verbatim copying is indeed allowed on Wikipedia. However, I am suggesting that copying of hi-res data (text and images) into a low-res (high-level) article written in summary style is not appropriate. The editor you have cited says nothing about this. Please be warned that I've been around WP a very long time and understand the spirit of its rationales. Best not to respond facilely to my concerns, or attempt to Wikilawyer through. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I trust that the information and images that have been provided are very relevant to the topic at hand and written in a style that is quite compatible with the rest of the article. I voluntarily did not include detailed technical stuff. If you think the wording has to be improved, why don't you edit in a collaborative manner as we all do? Mass deletion and edit-warring is certainly not the way to go, and I think you know it. Best पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
You have copied verbatim four paragraphs from journals. Please note (MOS:QUOTE): "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate" It is not my job to clean up after someone who has dumped 13K bytes of copied data. It is not my job to integrate recognizably scientific prose such as in the paragraph you have copied verbatim:

There is strong evidence for causal connections between the Near-Eastern Neolithic and that further east, up to the Indus Valley.[43] There are several lines of evidence that support the idea of connection between the Neolithic in the Near East and in the Indian subcontinent.[43] The prehistoric site of Mehrgarh in Baluchistan (modern Pakistan) is the earliest Neolithic site in the north-west Indian subcontinent, dated as early as 8500 BCE.[43] Neolithic domesticated crops in Mehrgarh include more than barley and a small amount of wheat. There is good evidence for the local domestication of barley and the zebu cattle at Mehrgarh, but the wheat varieties are suggested to be of Near-Eastern origin, as the modern distribution of wild varieties of wheat is limited to Northern Levant and Southern Turkey.[43] A detailed satellite map study of a few archaeological sites in the Baluchistan and Khybar Pakhtunkhwa regions also suggests similarities in early phases of farming with sites in Western Asia.[43] Pottery prepared by sequential slab construction, circular fire pits filled with burnt pebbles, and large granaries are common to both Mehrgarh and many Mesopotamian sites.[43] The postures of the skeletal remains in graves at Mehrgarh bear strong resemblance to those at Ali Kosh in the Zagros Mountains of southern Iran.[43] Despite their scarcity, the 14C and archaeological age determinations for early Neolithic sites in Southern Asia exhibit remarkable continuity across the vast region from the Near East to the Indian Subcontinent, consistent with a systematic eastward spread at a speed of about 0.65 km/yr.[43]"

with the prose of the rest of the article, which is more along the lines of:

"Domestication of sheep and goats reached Egypt from the Near East possibly as early as 6000 BC.[23][24][25] Graeme Barker states "The first indisputable evidence for domestic plants and animals in the Nile valley is not until the early fifth millennium BC in northern Egypt and a thousand years later further south, in both cases as part of strategies that still relied heavily on fishing, hunting, and the gathering of wild plants" and suggests that these subsistence changes were not due to farmers migrating from the Near East but was an indigenous development, with cereals either indigenous or obtained through exchange.[26] Other scholars argue that the primary stimulus for agriculture and domesticated animals (as well as mud-brick architecture and other Neolithic cultural features) in Egypt was from the Middle East."

Please note WP:NOTJOURNAL. Frankly I'm amazed that you have the nerve to defend your blatant copying, allowed though it might be in the current rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with F&F. Frankly, using your methods you add so much content that checking probably takes longer than adding it. It tends to unbalance articles. Detailed stuff like this is better in lower-level articles, but your additions are nearly all to very high level articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
पाटलिपुत्र, Johnbod and F&F are absolutely correct. Even if it is allowed, simply copying and pasting is a poor editorial practice and makes for poor readability. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

OK guys, thanks for the feedback. Copying portions of academic texts licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 is perfectly allowed on Wikipedia and approved by Administrators [7][8]. Therefore inflammatory accusations of "Copyvio" etc... are totally inappropriate [9]. We are actually lucky that academics provide their work for reuse under such free licenses. I tend to think that nothing beats the words of the experts, but I do get the concerns about the wording possibly being too technical or the details too intricate. I will do a rewrite when I have a bit more time. Best पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Copying or close paraphrasing is only one part of the issue with your edits. There are number of others:
In other words, paraphrasing, whether doing it properly or perfunctorily reshuffling the words, of the same PLOS One articles, is neither appropriate, nor enough, in a high-level article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As always, you are entitled to your own opinion, and I share the principle according to which "Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." However I have never seen on Wikipedia any rules against using Academic material from PLOS publications, quite the contrary: numerous Wikipedia articles already use them as reference (especially in the area of Medical Sciences and Genetics) and tens of thousands of their images are already provided on Commons [10]. There is no point in going on a personal Crusade against this Open License, peer-reviewed, academic publisher. By the way, the impact factor article on Wikipedia specifically describes warnings against using "impact factor" as a way to evaluate the quality of any given academic article. Frankly, the "High-level" Neolithic article is actually in a terrible state of neglect, and there is a lot of work to do. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha, I'll try my best. I've never used this "editorial practice" before, but I found these extracts of 2 or 3 interesting academic studies licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 by PLOS, and foolishly thought it would be best to let the experts give the explanations in their words rather than deforming them (systematically giving credit all along, and having asked Admistrators how to do it properly first [11][12]). I guess I'll go back to traditional editing... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This is no laughing matter. Your practise, which if engaged in more than just occasionally, begins to violate key WP principles, including no original research and due weight. Please see WP:TERTIARY, which says, "TERTIARY SOURCES are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is to be a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight," Please note the key word "summarize." You are not summarizing. You are copying sentence after sentence. Please also don't attempt to implicate "administrators" in your novel practise. They might have told you how to copy a sentence from a public domain source using an in-line citation, in accordance with WP guidelines. I'm sure they are not weighing in on the appropriateness of copying paragraph after paragraph from such sources. Please see the history section of the FA India, a high-level article: it almost entirely sourced to text-books, although journal articles exist by the thousands. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र: Pardon my bluntness, but what is it that you do not understand about Wikipedia commonsense? I thought you had publicly resolved to go back to traditional editing, but in one edit, with masterfully enigmatic edit summary, you have doubled the number of images from 14 to 30 on this article's meager-, already image congested-, 4,000 word-, textual beachfront. Don't you think that is a bit much? An encyclopedia is a tertiary source which aims to communicate in prose to a group of readers who are more varied than what is traditional for the content it summarizes. Among these readers are those who are visually impaired. It seems you are doing everything but adding text which summarizes. I will not revert anything for now, but I soon will if you continue your unconventional, not to mention insensitive, romp through the article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Fowler&fowler. Sorry to see this still doesn't seem to work for you. Are now images the problem? In your previous revert of academic material from PLOS [13] you have also mass-deleted a large amount of normal edits including timeline, infobox, images and even the paragraph about Pre-Pottery Neolithic C, all of which had nothing to do with our discussion. I've been making a few edits to restore the unrelated content you had destroyed, without re-adding content from the sources you objected to (I wonder who is being insensitive here...). I trust the current state of things is fairly consistent with usual Wikipedia practice, but if now you think there are too many images, we can of course remove some. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please know that I am wise to your conceits. Feigning disingenuousness with polite sarcasm will get you nowhere with me. As @Ms Sarah Welch: succinctly stated, you have added "artwork to create POV-y history in a range of articles." You are giving short shrift to WP policy and guidelines, not only overburdening a page's depleted prose with twice the number of images the prose can sustain, but also uploading copyvio images, with false attribution, as you recently did on Mehrgarh, a neolithic site in Pakistan. I know because I uploaded the same image as a fair use one, and it was deleted. (See here) You breezily make illicit changes across a swath of WP articles, and the rest of us have to spend months cleaning up. Continue in this fashion and, be warned, you are looking at being banned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the image File:Mehrgarh_ruins.jpg which you removed from the Mehrgarh article, was uploaded by me from Wikimapia, where it has been available for 13 years under a Creative Commons 3.0 license [14]. This is all perfectly licit, as are my other contributions, which I trust have generally brought improvements to Wikipedia articles. May I point out that you seem to be quite agressive and xenophobic in your interactions with others: following your notorious "Hindu carbage" post [15], you have accused me of "dumping a usual Indian smoke and mirrors" [16], have harassed me for having an Indian user name: [17][18], and accused me several times of copyvio when there is none [19][20]. May I suggest that you cool down a bit, so that we can cooperate productively. There is no need to be this agressive and condescending with other contributors. Best पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Please read the fine print on that Wikimapia site. The picture was taken from the same WP version I wrote and in which I uploaded a Musee Guimet, Paris, image of J-F Jarrige under fair use. The image was later deleted as I state above. My edits here concern deterioration of this article, and—as this is the flagship article—other Neolithic articles as a result of your edits. If you have complaints about my behavior, please take me to ANI. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Apparently the Wikimapia site [21] does not say that the image comes from Wikipedia, it is only listing the Wikipedia article for more information, which is a very standard practice on Wikimapia. That said, if you can actually show that this image is copyrighted (did you take it from a book or a museum display?), by all means we'll delete it. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Where are the camera details? It is not my job to prove it is copyrighted. Please comb through the image deletion discussion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
PS Note this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikimapia images are not provided with camera details. The burden of proof is actually on you, since my uploading of this Creative Commons 3.0 image is perfectly in line with Wikipedia rules (all Wikimapia images are provided under CC 3.0). Since you claim that you are the one who (illegally) first uploaded this image from a copyrighted source a long time ago, you obviously know where the image comes from, and therefore you should be able to prove your point easily. I think we should have this discussion (if necessary at all...) on the Mehrgarh page by the way... पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair use has never been illegal. Fair use criteria however have changed. The image was in the article for seven years. As my original link above clearly states, it was attributed to Musee Guimet, Paris. (Again, see here). This discussion is not just about Mehrgarh but about the overburdening of WP Neolithic-related pages with quickly uploaded (and insufficiently verified) images you have been inserting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, all my images are uploaded under proper licensing, and they are indeed sufficiently verified. If you happen to know that one image (File:Mehrgarh ruins.jpg), which was properly uploaded under a Creative Commons 3.0 license from Wikimapia, is in fact copyrighted, then please provide evidence (the link you are giving [22] does not mean anything). I will be the first one to request a deletion of that image. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not one image—other image addition and edits border on breaking WP regulations. The File:Sarnath_capital.jpg is another example, in which you have "updated" an old black and white image of the Sarnath Capital with a supposed eight year old color image. How that image was created inside a museum, the one in Sarnath, in which photography has been banned for a long time, is anyone's guess. There are so many near-violations that I will soon bring up your edits at a bigger WP forum. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Your accusations really do not make any sense: as explained in the file, the color photograph in question is just a cropped version of File:Löwenkapitell im Sarnath Museum 1991.jpg, uploaded by User:Chrisi1964. I used it to replace a poor quality black and white image I had uploaded earlier. And there are many photographs from inside the Sarnath Museum [23] पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
That is completely bizarre. You are copying and pasting images in the same careless manner you are text. Here is an image, which already exists on Wikipedia. What do you do, instead of uploading a copy of the image, or a better version of the image, you copy the 1991 image onto the file name of a hundred year old black and white image, of historical value. (Photography has been banned in the Sarnath museum for a very long time.) And, it is not just that, as is your modus operandi you spammed various images of Sarnath you have uploaded on WP, with less than accurate captions, on dozens of pages. Consider this remarkable addition, which surprised me, as I remembered the capital in Sarnath to be smack in the middle of the main room of the museum, where no shadow in the immediate background would appear in a photograph, only to discover that the original Flickr uploader had taken a picture of the much smaller copy of the Sarnath capital in the National Museum in Delhi. (See here). But yet you have blithely, without a worry, captioned the picture as "Sarnath capital pillar of Ashoka." Nowhere on the file, File:Sarnath_pillar_capital_of_Ashoka.jpg, which you have uploaded, except in the accurate Flickr uploader's information, is there any indication of the Delhi museum. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you are doing gross damage to Wikipedia and will purse this at a wider forum. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Your arguments are getting very thin indeed... As you might know, the free versions of the Creative Commons licenses allow for the free reuse of any image (or text), so cropping, reworking etc... is perfectly allowed as long as the original author is acknowledged. And Fowler&fowler, you are also free to improve on a caption you deem insufficient any time you wish, that's what collaborative editing is about. Have a very nice day. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the images (in general, at least) are allowed in WP is about the weakest argument I've ever heard for an edit. Our goal should be to improve the article, not just fill it up. I cannot see how all these together could possibly be defended as a single improvement. Some of these could be argued as an improvement, individually, but simply adding a bunch of images without anything specific mentioned as to what is being improved appears to completely miss the point of our job here. Any attempt to defend this bulk of images together is inherently self-defeating. Open a discussion on what specifically needs to improved, where a given image may help, and then we can proceed. --A D Monroe III(talk) 19:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Human timeline?

I assume it has been removed ? Renebach (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The "Human timeline" is near useless for something that commenced 10k years ago; the article would benefit from its removal. William Harris • (talk) • 04:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's wait a day or so first though. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree that it should be removed, good call. — Henry chianski (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Table needs fixing

Neolithic human settlements include: Renebach (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Time notation convention

I note that articles covering the earlier ~lithic categories use BP notation rather than BC. Should this article be updated for consistency? Toby64 (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I think not. The Neolithic is recent enough. Most good sources don't use BP, do they? Before Present could do with additions on when the normal crossover is, and why. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of interpreting our sources. If the sources say BP that's what we should use, but hopefully if they are radio-carbon dated they will say whether the date is uncalibrated or not. Even a calibrated date isn't exact. If the source just uses BCE/BC, then changing to BP of course is a mistake. Then we use BC/BCE, whichever is appropriate. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
There is a problem if the article switches styles every sentence though. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I think consistency is more important than following the sources in this case. Converting between (calibrated) BP and BC is straightforward: just add or subtract 1950, or 2000 if the date has been rounded to the nearest thousand. I don't think we should use uncalibrated dates at all, since it's not something the average reader will be able to interpret, but it would also be unusual for sources to use uncalibrated dates for this period.
As for whether to use BP or BC, my personal rule of thumb is that BP (or the friendlier "years ago") is more intuitive for readers for things older than 10,000 BP or so, which puts the Neolithic right on the edge. Since BC is used more often in the article now, I'd just stick with that. – Joe (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree generally, but "right on the edge" is a Middle East archy speaking; for Europe, let alone Prehistoric Ireland (begins c. 4000 BC), it's well away. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Propose renaming: Prehistoric Ireland → Practically Yesterday. – Joe (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Joe Roe, I agree about calibrated BP - I think there are times, although maybe not for anything this recent, that we should use uncalibrated, and of course some sources will only use uncalibrated. Doug Weller talk Doug Weller talk 19:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
On a related note, the article currently mixes BC and BCE, which ought to be fixed. – Joe (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Joe has fixed. Does anybody know what irritating little rectangle at bottom right on this page is? Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Neolithic cutoff for China

Both the Erlitou and Erligang cultures are accepted by virtually all archaeologists to be part of Bronze Age China. The cutoff should be around 2000 BC with the end of the Longshan culture. Erlitou showed a clear advancement in bronze metallurgy over previous cultures, while Erligang's (early Shang) main center at Zhengzhou was massive (13 km^2) and had outer walls that were 20 meters tall. 2601:645:C101:3570:4D66:BDA8:F876:78B2 (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not "Neolithic era" or "Neolithic age"

Why are ages called by their age (Stone Age) but periods are not (Neolithic). Until October 2017, this article was called that, or at least included "age" and "era" in the lede. Is Neolithic a noun? Is that how archeologists use it? To the untrained reader, however, this is confusing and perhaps could be explained in this or another simliar article. —GoldRingChip 20:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a noun, yes, and most often used that way in both specialist and popular sources. The same goes for the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, Chalcolithic, and many subperiods thereof. I don't see any harm in clarifying "Neolithic period" on the first mention, if it's confusing... but is it? – Joe (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Thanks. Yes, it's confusing to me, but I'm not necessarily representative of the reading public. I think it would be a good addition to restore the "period/era/age" on the first mention in this and in those other articles? Your oed link doesn't work for me (requires a sign-in?). —GoldRingChip 14:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I would think "period" is the only correct one - era and age cover larger demarcations, like Stone Age. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Articles names should not be unnecesarily long. The article on the Stone Age is called that because Stone on its own has a different meaning. Neolithic is unambiguous. Anyone who is confused can find out the meaning by reading the article, not by the article name. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Perhaps it would be OK to explain it in the lede, but not change the aricle name, then? —GoldRingChip 00:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Now it has "The Neolithic period is the final division of the Stone Age" - what needs explaining? Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod:: Looks like User:Joe Roe added that, in light of this conversation. OK. —GoldRingChip 11:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Broncice Pot in Central Poland as a sign of first wheel based transportation

Please see regarding article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronocice_pot

And consider including it in the "Europe" section of this Wikipedia article.

To quote: "The image on the pot is one of the oldest well-dated representations of a four-wheeled vehicle in the world.[1][5] It suggests the existence of wagons in Central Europe as early as in the late 4th millennium BC."

Thanks & Best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.91.105 (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

no clear definition of the Neolithic

Anthony's excellent book "The horse, the wheel & language" made me aware that definition of the Neolithic is apparently different, depending on what part of the world you are working. This article doesn't really pick up on that, but seems to be written from the more traditional (western) point of view, where the Neolithic is seen as the start of agriculture. But Eastern-European archaeologist use the making of pottery as the start of the Neolithic, which in that part of the world precedes agriculture (as it also does in China and Japan). I don't expect Wikipedia to settle this, but it would be good to address this point when talking about the Neolithic. For instance in Japan people were living in (sometimes large) villages and making fine pottery for many thousands of years before they started farming, it seems somewhat strange to say these people would still be living in the mesolithic. Personally I think a and/or approach would be the most logical thing to do (with living some kind of settled live also as an marker), since both innovations are clearly important markers of a change in society and the food resources available to it, but please let's shine some light on this.--Codiv (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Where food was sufficiently abundant (especially around water) there is nothing strange about mesolithic people being sedentary. I'm not sure some of your other statements are correct. The article does in fact touch on these issues, though no doubt more could said. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's just Soviet/post-Soviet archaeology that defines the Neolithic by the appearance of pottery. Everywhere else it's agriculture. So worth noting, but not really making a big deal of. – Joe (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Periods by region, Southwest Asia, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B citation

I found a citation for this line: "Burial findings suggest an ancestor cult where people preserved skulls of the dead, which were plastered with mud to make facial features." See page 6 of:

Croucher KT (2018) Keeping the dead close: grief and bereavement in the treatment of skulls from the Neolithic Middle East. Mortality. 23(2): 103-120.

--Kievalina (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Periods by region - Southwest Asia - China

The section title Southwest Asia contains a paragraph discussing sites in China. China is in East Asia, not Southwest Asia. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Citation for pig domestication?

Under Origin, "By about 6900–6400 BC, it included domesticated cattle and pigs"

This contradicts what Animal_husbandry#Birth_of_husbandry has, which cites [1]

Obachuka (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Nelson, Sarah M. Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. ISBN 9781931707091.

The passage you cite was misinformation and it is significant that no page number is cited in the supposed source. The date of 13,000 BC is far too early and I have corrected it in the animal husbandry article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Climate estimates

This source,

Kaufman, D., McKay, N., Routson, C. et al. Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach. Sci Data 7, 201 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0530-7

says that "The warmest 200-year-long interval was also centered on 6.5 ka and was 0.7 °C (0.3, 1.8) warmer than the 19th Century.". This means that between 4.530 BC and 4.330 BC was very warm globally for Holocene standards. Kaufman is the main source cited in the 6th report of the IPCC on climate change. Please help me double check if this is correct, the literature sometimes gets too technical and complex, and I have misread before abbreviations from the report. Forich (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice.

This Wikipedia help me did homework, thanks for made this page my work won't finish if I don't have this. 2001:44C8:44CD:7160:E346:8991:7E09:4D4D (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That's good news. Make sure you check out the sources, to make sure that the article is correct.  Tewdar  16:11, 18 June 2022 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Some parts of the world..." bit in the lead.

This part of the lead didn't have a valid citation: Some other parts of the world (including Oceania and the northern regions of the Americas) remained broadly in the Neolithic stage of development until European contact. The previous cite didn't mention the Neolithic, the Bronze Age, European contact with the Americas or Oceania (or, in fact, anything at all regarding the Americas or Oceania), nor anything that could be remotely construed as supporting any part of this sentence; neither am I convinced, as the edit-summary restoring it with no citation said, that it is still true & needs saying. I actually searched a bit before removing it and found no mention of the Americas still being in the neolithic prior to European contact, say. We can only leave things uncited in the lead when they are cited in the body and this simply isn't - the body makes no mention of Oceania at all, while regarding the Americas it says only that in later periods cities of considerable size developed, and some metallurgy by 700 BC. Either way, if it's so clearly true, it should be easy to find sources saying it unambiguously. --Aquillion (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Try searching using "Stone Age". What age exactly do you think north America or Oceania were in at first European contact? Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
My quick search earlier suggests that the term "neolithic" and "bronze age" are rarely applied to them at all, but I'm not seeing anything useful for "stone age" either (though I feel we do need a source using the term "neolithic" if we're going to emphasize it in the lead of this page; I think it's entirely possible that modern scholars don't really use the term or concept of neolithic / bronze age when discussing those civilizations, which means we shouldn't be making such sweeping declarative statements in the lead using them, either.) Again, if you think that this is so obviously true, it should be easy for you to find sources for it - just present the source that has you so solidly convinced - but we can't include it just because you feel it is true. And, ultimately, the WP:BURDEN to find sources verifying the text you've restored lies on you, not me; I've done a quick search and I'll search a bit more, but I'm going to swing back and remove it eventually if you haven't found a source by then. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The Old Copper Culture has been described as Chalcolithic. But that I guess is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that cultures in North America are normally classified as:
The Lithic stage
The Archaic stage
The Formative stage
The Classic stage
The Post-Classic stage
Although Pre-Columbian era doesn't exactly match that for North America and has a different take entirely on South America. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Of course sources don't use "neolithic" and "bronze age" about most of the world, though at the simplest level nearly all human populations reached the "neolithic" stage, meaning stone tools + farming. The Arctic & partly Australia are exceptions. I don't know why you bring "Bronze Age" into it (the article doesn't). None of the Americas reached this (pre-contact), with metal usage almost totally restricted to ornamental use of copper and precious metals, plus some meteoric iron in the Andes and the far north. See Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America and the articles linked there. So you won't find that term used, because it wasn't there. Of course coyness about the modern pejorative associations of "Stone Age" no doubt reduces usage of that term to refer to relatively recent times, but there is no doubt about the facts, & I think our readers deserve to be told. The article's "broadly in the Neolithic stage of development" means there was farming and stone tools were normal. The bottom sections of the article cover Australia & the Americas, explaining that the term "neolithic" is generally not used for them. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Another editor has kindly added 2 refs, & I have added Britannica's "Stone Age", which gives a global survey. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
        • These sources are still not satisfactory for the claim. To say that the peoples of the New World and Oceania found themselves in conditions that resembled the Neolithic more than the post-neolithic conditions all populations find themselves in after the discovery of agriculture (maize, taro), domestication (llamas, dingos to a degree), advanced management, infrastructure(the pre-colonial empires of SA) and terraforming (fire-farming of the Australian Aboriginals) is at best an uninformed assumption and at worst a very presumptuous claim that these societies did not progress beyond the stone age in a meaningful way just because their societies were "undeveloped" in comparison to Old World nation-states. There are words for this kind of presumption. I have checked the sources and they are much less general than the statement being made here. What the sources support is that the idea that a very specific part of New Guinea has cultures that, at the time of contact and even today, appear to us as examples of "Neolithic horticulturalists". The claim about Oceania and America *in general* is not supported, but the reader is given a different — misleading — idea of the many societies that existed in Precolonial America and Oceania. I am highly in favour of removing the sentence. 62.101.195.234 (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
          • I agree that the sentence "Some other parts of the world (including Oceania and some regions of the Americas) remained broadly comparable to the Neolithic stage of development until first contact" should be deleted from the summary paragraphs. The primary reference for this sentence seems to be the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I don't believe the EB article supports the inclusion of this sentence.
          • Moreover, the stone-to-metal progression as a way of describing societies in the Old World doesn't work in the New World. I don't think any authorities doubt that civilization as commonly defined existed in Peru and Mexico long before first contact with the Old World -- and long before people in large parts of Europe and Asia became "civilized." To say that New World civilizations were comparable to the Neolithic stage of development in the Old World, is using only one of several factors related to civilization -- metal-working -- to judge the whole. That's a generalization implying that ancient American civilizations weren't really civilizations and that they should be judged by Old World classifications of what comprises development. Different they were, yes, but they successfully manipulated their environments for accomplishments in agriculture, monumental architecture, societal organization, and urbanization. You can't base a judgement of their development on the single factor of metal working. Smallchief (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that the sentence in question is not neutral, not referenced, and should be removed. I'll do the dirty work.Smallchief (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, great! You've now left a gaping hole in the lead. Probably the Americas and Australia sections should be removed completely now. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Better a gaping hole than Eurocentric bias. Your problem can be easily resolved by adding a sentence to the summary paragraphs: "The Neolithic is not a term commonly used to describe cultures in the Americas and Australia."
In the main text, the first paragraph of the Americas section and the Australian section are fine with me. The second para of the Americas section is internally contradictory. A solution would be to replace the present text with a couple of sentences on the evolution of the advanced cultures of Mexico and Peru, rather than, or in addition to, the present text about U.S. cultures.Smallchief (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Phoeey - if there is any "Eurocentric bias" you have increased it. The lead still begins by defining the Neolithic as an "an Old World archaeological period", and the sentence you have removed attempted to say why it only applies there. Just saying "The Neolithic is not a term commonly used to describe cultures in the Americas and Australia" begs the question in the reader's mind - "why not?". Better to just remove all non-Old World stuff now, and stick to the subject as now defined in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I've suggested a way to meet your concerns. Have a nice day. Smallchief (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
No, you haven't. And btw, describing as "Eurocentic" an article mostly about Asia, the Middle East and Africa is a ... little strange. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2023

The first stanza, which reads "...is an Old World archaeological period...", should be changed to "... is an Afro-Eurasian archaeological period..." for higher comprehensibility as Old World is an ambiguous term. Diditman (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Old World is more old-fashioned than ambiguous, but Afro-Eurasia is too little known - compare their views: 850 vs 550 per day. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Afro-Eurasia would be most appropriate as Old World has a connotation to the Age of Discovery, which is quite a stretch from the Neolithic period. Diditman (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I support a change. The great majority of hits on the first two pages of google are for computer games called Old World, and many people will not understand it in its traditional - and POV - sense. Afro-Euroasian is less well known, but it is unambiguous and even people who have not come across it will understand it immediately. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
If there are computer games using a search term, it normally will get the top g-selections. But I find it significant that no one has launched a game called "Afro-Eurasia"! I pretty sure OW is the more familar and better understood term. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
We could also sidestep the issue by reverting the lead sentence prior to this edit by Asarlaí. All archaeological periods have a geographical limit, I don't see a compelling need to point this one out specifically in the first sentence. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Fine with that, though it has OW at the end of the first para. The trouble with Afro-Eurasia, especially when encountered the first time, is you have to do a relatively complex mental process to conclude that "Africa + (Europe + Asia) = Afro-Eurasia". I doubt it would come out well from readability tests. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy with the term "Old World" which has the virtues of historical resonance, long-time usage, and common comprehension. I am appalled that a reason for replacing "Old World" is the existence of (ugh!) computer games with the same name. (Sorry, folks, a rant from one who remembers the days when a computer was a guy with an adding machine.) Smallchief (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no denying that Old World has been in long-time usage. However, with its connotations, Old World is not suitable in the context of the Neolithic period. I suggest that it be replaced by either Afro-Eurasia or have it taken out. Diditman (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
You could always go with the longer "...archaeological period in Africa, Europe, and Asia..." I suppose. Joe's 'leave out the extents entirely" solution is also good.  Tewdar  18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
That may be best, certainly it's the simplest. I think some geographical indication is needed in the first para. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

its https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Neolithic_Age Dollardollardollar3 (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Erm... we'll probably need a more reliable source than that, but thanks anyway.  Tewdar  16:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neolithic/Archive_1&oldid=1234260362"