Talk:Stone Age

Template:Archaeology project

Contents

1 Page initiated 2 COTW 3 Cultures by region 4 Food and Drink 5 Images 6 A Supposed Misconsception and Beliefs of that Age 7 The Stone Age society 8 Nice info chart 9 Thanks 10 Template:seemain or Template:main? 11 Stone Age newslines 12 Moldova/Ukraine

Page initiated

In the first paragraph there is an incomplete sentence beginning by "but". -- Andres I think it's complete now, just read it. -k_dhillon

COTW

This article is certain to become COTW Sunday evening, and as this is a particularly interesting topic, it would be nice if everyone who voted for it contributed. Phoenix2 01:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cultures by region

I'm not familiar with the stone age but shouldn't their be a section on ceartain types of cultures by region. I would think their would be different culturual developments in the Northern Heimishphere, Africa, Europe etc. Or is their not much info on this. Falphin 01:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's certainly plenty of info, we have a few dedicated regional articles like Japanese Paleolithic but a lot is missing especially in the Americas. Structuring this article is going to be a task in itself, after all we are looking at a 2.5 million year time period spanning the whole world. Articles like Iron Age have broken things down by region but and could be model for this one. Category:Archaeology and the various sub categories give an idea of what we have already and some of this text could be summarised and worked in. adamsan 12:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do agree, really a challenging assignment for all, but interesting too...--Bhadani 15:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given the immense time-span, amount of major subdivisions and overlap between regions, I wonder whether it would be best to leave the discussion in chronological order, and start off each subdivision with a general introduction and then add details about regions of the world. So, for example:

The Epipalaeolithic

This period is characterised by microliths.

In the Near East it lasted from x to y and includes the important sites of ?.

In Europe it lasted from z to aa and is mostly known from site ??.

Does that make sense and do people think it's a good idea? --G Rutter 20:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Food and Drink

The Food and drink section currently being added by an anon is a cut and paste from the Anne Collins diet site. Also, the quote about wine is based on research on the neolithic eg the vines at Hambledon Hill, not palaeolithic This is a valid section but not as it stands. adamsan 17:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, anon has corrected some mistakes in spelling, the section was originally added by me and sourced to the sites. In case, mistakes are there, suitable changes may be made. In case, the texts are found not suitable, it can please be deleted. --Bhadani 17:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My concern is that the text is copyrighted though. adamsan 17:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello, perhaps, you are right, but I have tried to change the style. In case, if so required, a complete "rewrite" may be done. I feel this is an important section and issue, and requires to be dealt with in some form or the other.--Bhadani 18:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images

• Perhaps 2 / 3 images will do good. I donot have any impages.--Bhadani 02:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Supposed Misconsception and Beliefs of that Age

In the last section of the article, gentlemen, it is written, "There is an old misconsception...that human [being]s and dinosaurs existed at the same time during the Stone Age...There are...creationist theories...perpetrating this misconsception." It is unadviseable to call it a misconsception. There is a possibility that the carbon-dating system could be inaccurate. In addition, it is "against neutral policy." --Anglius 02:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it is a fact that humans and dinosaurs did not coexist. Stating so is no more "against neutral policy" than stating that Santa Clause is not real. --Osmodiar 13:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned, sir, it is possible that carbon-dating is inaccurate. --Anglius 18:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's more the laws of stratigraphy and various geological dating processes rather than C14 that separate us from the dinos but I take your point that the Creationist view probably contradicts much of this article's content. I have no idea how we er..'manage' that whole side of things. I did read an announcement somewhere that we are supposed to mention these ideas if only to immediately debunk them. What do the religious think about the Stone Age anyway? I know Father John MacEnery had a pretty difficult time of it. adamsan

19:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you had a particular religion in mind when you spoke of "the religious" above? There are, after all, many religiouns with varying viewpoints. Let us not create a false dichotomy. -- Osmodiar 19:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I meant all religions, forseeing them all casting their ideas into this general pool of prehistoric thought, hence the need to manage it all whilst keeping the article on track. Hang on though, I now see that Palaeontology hasn't got anything about how God put the fossils there to test our faith or any other alternate theories. What gives? adamsan 19:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've now rewritten this section anyway- and I've included a reference to the beliefs of those creationists who don't also accept archaeological results. I think that should be sufficient for this article. --G Rutter 20:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort, Mr. Adamsan and Mr. Rutter. --Anglius 21:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for "The Stone Age Society," there is no evidence that all men during that period were either nature-worshippers or pagans. What about Adam or Noah? --Anglius 02:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Stone Age society

I've removed the section entitled "The Stone Age society" which can be seen on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stone_Age&oldid=14874432) old revision for a number of reasons. First, it only deals with parts of the Stone Age- there were lots of different social structures in 2.5 million years! Also, a lot of it is unverifiable and seems to come from this (http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch00.htm) rather dubious source. Obviously it's important that we discuss the societies of the Stone Age, but I think that can be better done in the "Human development in the Stone Age" section, as we can then discuss how the societies changed. --G Rutter 13:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had misgivings about this text too. I especially noted the the fact that it contradicts itself about mobility and settlements more than once. I suspect it is trying to overgeneralize and compress too many variations into too small a text. Rmhermen 14:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Nice info chart

I think a chart à la Human evolution-style (Human "family tree".) would be really cool. By continent/region, all the periods, ages (or how are these called; Mousterian, etc.). Should have different scales for Paleolithic and Neolithic probably. Any tech-savvy archaeologists in the house? Phlebas 16:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

That would be contradicting 'Creationism' and, therefore, would be "against the neutrality-policy," "Phlebas." --Anglius 18:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no it wouldn't. As virtually everybody who studies these things (bar a minority) does not accept the view put forward by Young Earth creationists, etc. a fair representation of their views is expressly called for by NPOV, which requires it to be given the most space in this article. Besides, evolutionary creationists (such as myself) accept the long time spans, human evolution, etc., so please don't lump all creationists together!

I apologise, sir, for my apparent error, but I would prefer not to argue at the present. --Anglius 21:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phlebas- I like the idea, but although I'm a reasonably "tech-savy archaeologist" I'm not sure I'm up to it! I'll try and have a play, but if anyone more competant than me can have a go, please do! --G Rutter 20:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I have edited/will further edit the article. I am not an expert on the subject, and please feel free to correct/re-edit my edits. I also thank each one of you for correcting my earlier edits. We all are working with a common aim - to make this article great! --Bhadani 02:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In contents (sections), both 'The Stone Age' and 'Stone Age' have been used. I feel either of the one would look better.--Bhadani 14:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not sure-both appears ok.--Bhadani 17:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:seemain or Template:main?

It's my impression Main should be used when fleshing out an article in its subarticles (when those are newly created). This is not the case here, we're trying to integrate all articles better into this one (which was a mess to start with). Or should Template:Seesubarticle be used? Phlebas 18:27, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Stone Age newslines

What do other people think about this section? Personally, I wonder whether it would be better to have these links with the other external links at the bottom of the article. What do other people think? --G Rutter 20:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless they directly apply to the very general points we're making in the article I say lose 'em. adamsan 21:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Mr. Adamsan, for they are relevant, and some people would enjoy reading them. --Anglius 21:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Stone Age related findings and studies shall continue, and in future, apart from physical and material aspects of the Stone Age, social, mental and psychic aspects shall get predominance: a set of newslines, from sources like BBC, are indications towards that development. Moreover, for an article dealing with pre-historic period, any fresh insight may be valuable. As I have placed the Newslines, I would not comment further on the issue. Keeping or removing is a matter of choice – keeping would be fine, if consensus is to remove them, ok, that would also be fine.--Bhadani 13:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moldova/Ukraine

The "Shelters and habitats" section says: "A hut made of mammoth bones was discovered at Moldova, Ukraine." But Moldova and Ukraine are to different countries. Probably only the country where the hut has really been discovered should be referenced. Conscious 16:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear User:Conscious thank you, you are really so conscious that I envy you! Corrections have been done. Thanks. Mistake had arisen due to older references when USSR was in existence, and Moldova and Ukraine both were parts of the USSR.--Bhadani 18:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Conscious 06:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moldova is possibly also a village in the Ukraine. This site uses Moldova, Ukraine: [1] (http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/habitat/). Phlebas 13:55, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

According to a abstract of a paper presented at the 3rd International Mammoth conference May 2003 (!) [2] (http://www.yukonmuseums.ca/mammoth/abstrmot-p.htm#59), mammoth bone huts were found "especially in the Dniepr river valley of Ukraine but also in Moravia (Czech Republic) and Southern Poland." I've changed the article to reflect this info. --G Rutter 15:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)