Talk:Stone Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Stone Age was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
plan of the stonehenge site
Archaeology Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Stone Age was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on June 5, 2005.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
My concern is that the Anne Collins site is a diet site, not a scientific site, and doesn't cite sources. She says "Latest studies" and "Fossil evidence" but then doesn't offer support (such as studies in peer-reviewed journals). I would especially question the Omega6/Omega3 ratio; and the assertion that "nor did they eat high carbohydrate foods such as legumes or yeast-containing foods, or cereal grains", considering that those could be collected the same as any other plant food, and that yeast is naturally-occurring (that's where natural sourdough starter gets its yeast). Mbuhtz 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the statement that hunter gatherers ate mostly meat and very few plants or dairy products, in the Food and Drink section lines 4-5, blatantly false? In D.C. Heath's "World History", on page 20, it claims that gathering yielded most of a groups carbohydrates, and hunting was mainly important for the protein.--70.15.4.226 (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

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

[edit] 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)
Well, I would like to discuss a few points. Firstly, science usually deals in theories, not facts, the relevance of this will become clear in the following point. Secondly, the label dinosaur changes its meaning as the scientific theories behind it advance; lately the theory which classifies birds as dinosaurs has become quite accepted. Thirdly, even though the "dinosaurs" of pop culture were probably quite extinct (if they ever existed 8-D) by then, to consider this a fact (as in: directly measured in a lab, or some such) would imply the completeness of the fossil record. Apwith 08:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Birds are possibly descended from dinosaurs, not dinosaurs themselves. That is like saying that since humans are descended from chimpanzees (if they are) that humans chimpanzees, or that dogs are wolves, or elephants are mammoths. Classification changes with the time period, and while birds may be descended from dinosaurs, they did not live at the same time, and since dinosaurs are almost certainly extinct, birds fall under the classification of birds, not dinosaurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.4.226 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2007 (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)

Is there any evidence that Adam and/or Noah are men? There is ample evidence that they are mythological entities, but that does not necessarily imply that these myths are based on actual individual human beings. For instance, there is a day of the week called Wednesday, which is named after the mythological entity Woden. Was there ever an individual of this name who generated this myth? If you take your own myths as fact, or even as valid theories, then in order to preserve neutrality, you would have to grant the same validity to other mythologies. Apwith 08:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Stone Age society

I've removed the section entitled "The Stone Age society" which can be seen on this 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 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)

[edit] 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)
To maintain a NPOV, you should simply state that although the majority of scientists support this, some people do not support this view and instead may support Young Earth Creationism --70.15.4.226 (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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]. Phlebas 13:55, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

According to a abstract of a paper presented at the 3rd International Mammoth conference May 2003 (!) [2], 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)

[edit] Good Article assessment

I have noted this as a Good Article for a big concept. Some more references in the upper 2/3rds of the article would help improve the article. —Rob (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

--12.17.175.131 17:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Um, I'm removing the link at the bottom. it bears no relevance to the article and is basically hawking some guy's book.

[edit] End of stone age

I just made a change to the bit about cultures outside Eurasia/Africa that hadn't developed metal-smelting technology yet, to make it less condescending. But the time periods got me thinking. Stone tools came about 3 million years ago and metal tools a few thousand years ago. That's a ratio of about 1000:1. So, in terms of its total duration, the stone age ended pretty much just now. Also, most cultures that had the technology probably didn't invent it themselves, but learned it from others. I believe there was quite a bit of cultural exchange over long distances, so it may have taken just one person somewhere on this landmass to discover metal-smelting. After that, a few thosand years was plenty time to spread the knowledge. But not across some oceans. So maybe the text could be changed to something like this:

Metal-smelting technology spread through Eurasia/Africa a few thousand years ago, which is very recent in comparison with the 3 million years that stone tools were used. However, it was not developed independently outside that region, meaning that the stone age continued there a bit longer until the technology was introduced when European cultures spread throughout the world, just a few hundred years ago. There are even now still some peoples (eg in the Amazon basin) who have had little or no outside contact and effectively still live in the stone age.

However, I'm no expert on the subject, so I'll leave the actual edit to someone else. DirkvdM 08:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animals?

Should we do a section on what happened with animals in the Stone Age?

[edit] First paragraph?

I don't get the first paragraph:

"The period encompasses the first widespread use of technology in human evolution and the spread of humanity from the savannas of East Africa to the rest of the world. It ends with the development of agriculture, the domestication of certain animals and the smelting of copper ore to produce metal."

Shouldn't the period start with the utilization of stone tools? The paragraph talks about technology and the spreading of humanity, but nowhere it says it started when the first stone tools were made.

Shouldn't it end with the first utilization of metal tools? The Yanomami had a perfectly viable slash-and-burn agricultural system and yet only used stone tools by late 20th Century; likewise the Maori used stone tools by 17th Century, but yet they knew agriculture for 10,000 years already. Isn't it correct to say that both groups were in Stone Age (something akin to Neolithic) as they only used stone tools?

In the same way, by 8000BC mankind had domesticated cows, goats, sheep and pigs, but yet it would be 4,000 years (or 6,000 years more, depending on the region) before the same groups moved out of the stone age. Which "certain animals" are those that define if a group moved out of the stone age?

Also, the phrase "first widespread use of technology" is terribly vague. Which of the several definitions of technology is this phrase based upon? What about knowledge about plants, animals, techniques and practices that early hominids probably learned to pass from generation to generation? They certainly had such knowledge and probably could teach them to offsprings, as it is improbable that the very first practice that produces hard artifacts (stone tools) was exactly the first one that young hominids could learn from their parents. Therefore, depending on how you defined "technology", stone tools were not the first technology from one view, or were not technology at all from other points of view.

Finally, did the article forget about the Paleolithic? The Paleolithic covers 99.996% of the Stone Age, yet the first period the article talks about is the Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic (a denomination that some archaeologists dropped completely as it is very poorly defined).

Best regards, Fbs.

I am brand new to this, so I do not know how to add my comment. It is a simple one. I note that under palaeolithic/mesolithic the end of the lats ice age is given as 10,000 to 6,000 years ago, while under the heading concerning food and drink, it is given as 15,000 to 9 years ago. Is the 9 supposed to be 9,000? Neither corresponds with the information presented earlier. I suggest a clarification of the intended period and a verification of the dates given, with any corrections needed. Thank you. JdF 14:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time periods

Article needs to give the approximate time periods associated with each age. Norm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.91.155 (talk) 20:57, December 3, 2006

[edit] Vandalized

Hey everyone. The last sentance under "Refrences" reads: "the stone age people are gay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I tried to edit the page to remove it, but I can't find the offending text in the edit view. (Shouldn't be easy to miss with all those !'s). Maybe someone who knows what they're doing wants to take it out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.195.193.191 (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Use of "Stone Age" to describe living tribes

The article states twice that anthropologists warn against using "stone age" or "primitive" to describe modern-day people, but without suggesting an alternative. Maybe someone with the required knowledge could suggest an alternative in the article?Tt 225 11:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed / Dubious claim

This sentence appears in an image caption: "Japanese Jomon pottery is the 2nd oldest in the world. Recent pottery finds in Hunterdon county, Musconetcong River area, NW NJ have been dated to be over 12,000 years old." I did a pretty good Internet search, but could not find any evidence for the existence of a recent find of 12,000 y.o. pottery in New Jersey. Can an expert either delete this claim (and restore Jomon pottery to its "oldest" status), or provide a citation to supporting evidence? 198.62.10.11 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultures by region 2

As suggested in 2005 (see thread above), I think it would be a good idea to have a short description of the cultures in for example Europe during the different periods. I believe many readers, like myself, are mostly interested in the cultures in a specific part of the world. As far as I know, there does not exist any such overview articles, making it very hard for an uninformed reader to find the more detailed articles about specific cultures. Some of the articles, such as Funnelbeaker culture, has some information about contemporary cultures. There are also efforts such as the Nordic Stone Age to describe the cultures in a specific area. But I still believe a high level overview, starting from this article should exist. Unfortunately I do not have the knowledge to contribute to this work. Labongo 15:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems as nobody is interested in doing this work, so I will give it a try myself. I was thinking about organizing this information as follows. First, the cultures are divided into tables for each continent. Each table then has columns for the different time periods, and rows for sub-regions within each continent (such as the Nordic countries). Any comments?Labongo 16:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Delisting

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of December 24,

2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.
Several issues with this article, but the two most pressing are broadness of coverage and referencing. For the former, I feel like an entire era deserves more justice than has been done to it in this article. The large headings are little more than a selection of scattered facts in most cases, and the summaries of the era articles are wholly inadequate. I'm sure that more has been written on the Stone Age as a whole than is being done justice to in this article. Stemming from that is my second concern, the amount of referencing and inline citations in this article. The entire referencing structure for this article consists of three references and two books under the "notes" section. Aside from the citation needed tag, large paragraphs remain uncited and even the direct quote under "Food and drink" is not properly (just vaguely) attributed. The article will need significant work with expansion and referencing before it can be listed as a Good Article again. Cheers, CP 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the stone age

the story needs more details on how they used there tools —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.213.19 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)