Talk:Neolithic

"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)

i dont have high enough level but the citation needed box i have a link for if anyone wants to add it

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)

Please add this also

The Neolithic,or the New Stone Age, saw a lot of advancement in human revolution. Early humans began to understand the importance of farming and started moving towards a more settled life Sreenibro (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

Please remove "However, evidence of social inequality is still disputed, as settlements such as Çatalhöyük reveal a striking lack of difference in the size of homes and burial sites, suggesting a more egalitarian society with no evidence of the concept of capital, although some homes do appear slightly larger or more elaborately decorated than others." and ", which suggests that some influential individuals were able to organise and direct human labour – though non-hierarchical and voluntary work remain possibilities" these are conjecture with no citation. 137.22.48.159 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it right to remove the comment as it is generally accepted as fact. You are right that it needs citation and I do not have access to the sources cited in the Çatalhöyük article, so I have tagged the comment 'citation needed'. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Confused

I'm confused by this text in the article: "...farming communities had arisen in the Levant and spread to Asia Minor, North Africa and North Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is the site of the earliest developments of the Neolithic Revolution." If farming arose outside Mesopotamia (in the Levant, which I take to mean Syria or thereabouts), then how can its "earliest development" be in Mesopotamia? Some clarification is needed. Mcswell (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)