Talk:Mesolithic

I find the addition of the LBK confusing, as it is Neolithic, not Mesolithic --Yak 16:41, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Yak, you are quite correct, my mistake - I was applying western European chronology to central Europe. The link has been removed. adamsan 17:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

changed the taxobox. In Central Europe, the Mesolithic (Maglemose, Beuronien, Sauveterien) is not the same as the Epipalaeolithic (Hamburg, Ahrensburg). In some areas, like the Middle East, some authors use the expressions synonymously (Kebaran to Natufian). Should better be explained in page. Also, the dates given are confusing - they obviously refer to the levant, in Central Europe it would be 8.000-5500, in some areas of Scotland (Larnian) about 4000 BC cal. So I would suggest to leave them out of the box altogether. --Yak 07:33, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Still the same objection: dates of Mesolithic vary widely depending on area: the box pretends to a synchroneity that does not really exist --Yak 22:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You also need to add the broad spectrum revolution at least... If you feel up to it try getting into detail, this was a major event in the mesolithic period - Foxman

Proper use of the terms Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic

AFAIK the term Mesolithic refers:

1. Strictu sensu: to those transitional cultures between Paleolithic and Neolithic, like Natufian.
2. Broad sense: to anything late Paleolithic, but this is more specifically described with the term epipaleolithic

Agains what the article claims, epipaleolithic does not refer to transitional cultures like Natufian but rather to non-transitional ones like Azilian or Sauveterrian.

The same confusion (inverted meaning) is present in the article Epipaleolithic. If nobody can present clear evidence that I'm wrong in this, I will proceed to correct both articles radically. --Sugaar (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No replies in a week or so. Yet people keep adding with the same confusion of meaning.

BTW, references: Archaeology Wordsmith: Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic, confirming my perception. --Sugaar (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edited accordingly. I don't know who's that Mitten but he seems totally confused. Still I have kept his opinion and references.

As I expect a storm after the edition, and someone will surely ask who is that A. Moure and which are his credentials. Here is his C.V. (as per the book, published by a respectable History-oriented editorial company, Historia16): Doctor in History (Universidad Complutense), becary of the Spanish Institute of Prehistory and the Superior council of Scinetific Research (Spain), Profesor of Prehistory in the Complutense University, Professor of Prehistory and Ethnology in the University of Valladolid, Cathedratic of Prehistory in the University of Valladolid, in 1999 he was Cathdratic in the University of Cantabria. He used to be as well member of the XI Comission (Paleolithic Art) of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, advisor of several administraive bodies of arhaeological significance and was also Director of the National Anthropological Museum of Spain.

Anyhow, when the Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic distinction is made almost anywhere (I'm really puzzled at that Mitten's terminology) it's always in this sense: Meolithic = transitional, Epiplaeolithic = not transitional, as seen for instance in the Archaeology Wordsmith reference. True that many authors don't make any distinction and call all Mesolithic equally. --Sugaar (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the new version of this page. It finally made it clearer to me what Mesolithic means -- the older version was waaay too confusing. Please correct this phrase: "Additionally, some authors, seem to prefer..". There is no comma between the subject and the predicate...  :^) --Fbs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.130.189 (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Problematic use of the term "mesolithic"

The term "mesolithic" should, in my opinion, be used primarily to refer to societies in areas where the megafauna extintion forced new adaptations centered around hunting of small game, birds and fishing (much like Clark does 1962 in The Prehistory of Europe and South-west Asia). I.e from the time of the last ice age to the advent of agriculture in a specific area. In areas that wasn't much effected by the ice age (e.g. in Africa and the Levant), the term Epipaleolithic should be applied. Technologicaly the mesolithic is manifested in the production of microblades and microliths. This is almost exactly how the Encyclopædia Britannica uses the term in their article (Mesolithic Period. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online) and that could be a good starting point for this article. Note how Ofer Bar-Yosef avoids the term mesolithic and uses the term epi-paleolithic in this article conserning the Natufian culture:

• Ofer Bar-Yosef: The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture, in Evolutionary Anthropology, no 5 (1998).

To conclude I would like to leave you with this quote fronm Britannica (referensed as above)

"There is no direct counterpart to the Mesolithic Period outside northwestern Europe, and the term is no longer used to reflect a hypothetical worldwide sequence of human cultural evolution." MiCkE 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Paleoloithic / mesolithic terminology in africa

an anon editor to the Klasies River Caves stated that
- Paleolithic not used for Africa, MSA is catch all for time from ca. 200,000-30,000 years ago
- Paleolithic is a term that does not apply to Africa in general. Mesolithic is just wrong,
If this is this true, What terminology should be used?
Autodidactyl (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jutta Paulina de Roever

A large portion of JP Roever's 2004 Ph.D. thesis (on pottery sherds found at Swifterbant) has been used as the sole source for 1/3 of this article. This work has not been published in a peer reviewed journal and is therefore not WP:RS. Apart from the summary, which does not support some of the sentences included here, it is in Dutch, not English. The material was copied and pasted by User:Rokus01 from the now deleted Broad Homeland hypothesis. If this material cannot be found elsewhere, it should not be included here, as it does not seem to be the point of view of mainstream archaeologists. Please use the WP:RS noticeboard to resolve this matter. Mathsci (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The same source was used by User:Rokus01 in Dnieper-Donets culture. Mathsci (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: JP de Roever obtained her Ph.D. at the age of 58. The introduction contains some autobiographical details. She had previously produced a pamphlet (in English) on Swifterbant pottery in 1979. Mathsci (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The source you mean is a university thesis, that use ample scientific references. The cited facts could be retrieved from the referenced sources as well. University theses are peer reviewed by definition: "Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field." If you have any problems with the content then please discuss this in a different way. Rokus01 (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This thesis remains unpublished and cannot be used as the sole basis for 1/3 of this article. Please supply other sources in peer-reviewed journals to back up what appears to be WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you insist this thesis is "unpublished". Of course it is published. The study is peer reviewed and should be considered representative to what is known of this period. Your accusation of OR is completely outrageous and not supported by any indication of contradiction to what is known from other sources. If you can find any, then please supply constructive edits. Like this, you indulge yourself to willful deletion of sourced information, that can be considered vandalism. At this moment the article on the Mesolithic is nothing more than a stub. The paragraph on Europe is near to nothing. You have to explain the world why you think the article should not be expanded with sourced information. This is contrary to the objective of Wikipedia to supply information. Rokus01 (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We should have good information. Are you really saying that that is the best source for information on the Mesolithic? And that some unknown PhD is enough to say something is consensus?

It's not good information if it is primarily sourced from an unknown scholar writing in a foreign language. Most editors can't read the original, and I find it hard to believe that there aren't better English language sources.

As it stands it is confusing even to someone who knows something about the subject. There must be stuff in, for instance, The Oxford illustrated history of prehistoric Europe By Barry Cunliffe, which is easily accessible. You've combined what I think is too much detail with a complete omission of, for instance, anything about the British mesolithic. I think we need to move back a bit and decide what should be in this section, and definitely use better sources. Doug Weller (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the best source I know that gives a comprehensive view of most participant Mesolithic cultures in some depth, for this is what this article should give. The focus of this published dissertation was pottery and why should you use a popular book to describe pottery techniques that have archeological importance? Cunliffe is good, though does not go into so much depth about this period. You have to consider the indicated difference of contemporary "ceramic Mesolithic" and "aceramic Neolithic". This definition excludes sedentary areas as well as the Mesolithic in Brittany where no pottery was found. To avoid confusion, this could be explained more in the edit. Rokus01 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's long-standing practice on Wikipedia to use information from PhD theses very sparingly and very carefully; sourcing so much from a single thesis (written in a language only a small minority of editors can even read) in a short article is not proper. - Merzbow (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the footnotes, I used this thesis most of all for general information and most of all for identifying aceramic Mesolithic cultures. The thesis is used both carefully and sparingly, having the quotes confined to a few pages. I don't think Dutch editors are a small minority in Wikipedia, still the Dutch quotes are confined to page 135 (giving an assessment on aceramic Mesolithic and a list of important scholars that wrote on this subject) and page 137 that just states that the Mesolitic people from all over Europe used the same pottery making techniques and must have had close contacts. Most other quotes involve dating, that might be retrieved from any other recent source. The quoted pages 162-163 are written in English and also concentrate on the most general notion of cultures being interconnected. In short: this thesis does not intend to come up with daring (or any other) deviations from Mesolithic mainstream and just do a great job to give a comprehensive overview. Yes, the article is short: I would say too short or a stub, especially on Europe. I don't think the European Mesolithic justifies a stub and I would plead for rather more information in order to comply to the Wikipedia objective to supply information. Rokus01 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)