Talk:Neolithic

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.

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)

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.

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)

Revolution links

Shouldn't the "revolution links" go to "neolithic revolution? --Yak 14:36, 31 Jul 2004 (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 and 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. Philip Baird Shearer 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)

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)

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)

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. - Ghelae^talk_contribs 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)

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)

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)

Deleted external links

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)