From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Reson for term unclear[edit]

"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." ---- Why? What does "glacial impact", limited or otherwise, have to do with it? -- 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The impact in Northwestern europe (which is where this terminology originates) was much more severe than in the mediterranean region. For one the latter was not periodically covered in ice or tundra, which dramatically affects flora and fauna on which hunter gatherers depend. Therefore there's a clear period (the Mesolithic) where glaciers had a direct or indirect effect in northwest europe, but not in more southerly regions where there's no clear boundary. The Paleolithic cultures just keep on developing. Kleuske (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See discussion about this term[edit]

At talk:Mesolithic. MiCkE 13:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no merge per Brucealarkey. -- Salix (talk): 06:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be turned into a redirect, with the Mesolithic article discussing the Epipaleolithic also. Doug Weller (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont. See above why. However, both are tied to different regions for good reason. Kleuske (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I could give you quite a few reliable sources that don't agree. I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't match what I've read. Doug Weller (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Two years later...Dondegroovily (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Epipalaeolithic is routinely used in published literature and does not necessarily equate to the Mesolithic, therefore I think a short entry on the epipalaeolithic 'term' improves clarity (BruceMalarkey (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)).

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

You misunderstood "merging". This does not mean the terms need to be synonyms. It means that we do not have enough material to warrant two articles, and that the two terms are best discussed together, as one serves to elucidate the other. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Range of problems still noticeable in 2016[edit]

To Dougweller, Dbachmann, BruceMalarkey, Salix alba and Kleuske: Hi! I just tried to improve this article without being able to do research or follow-up due to real-life limitations, and I'm sorry all I can do is post my observations on what I cannot do and hope someone else can work with them:

  1. This article should NOT be Start class, but Stub class. The info is too thin and confusing, even after I made headers, and the info isn't really tied into other articles well. I did not come away totally confident in my understanding of how and when the term is used.
  2. Because of this term's very confusing relationship with one of the MAJOR terms of the field, mesolithic, this info/article should be a high priority.
  3. I think having a section in Mesolithic (the article, hence the change in capitalization) that shows these terms' relationships almost in a Venn-diagrammatic manner would be easiest to understand. And it would mean the term "epipaleolithic" would have "an entry" in WP: a title that redirects to the appropriate section.
  4. Even if the terms are kept in separate articles, we don't need sections in this article on hunter-gatherers, etc., with such details on food. That's already in the other article, or it should be. Anything about human activity in the epipaleolithic period that is different from such activity connected to related terms belongs here, with links to articles' sections about what is the same. If there's little to no difference, please re-consider merging.

Thanks, and I hope this is useful! --Geekdiva (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I last concerned myself with this subject. AFAIK, the confusion is due to the fact that the mesolithic (originally) was defined in terms of glaciation and and interglacial periods. The term suggests a distinct archeological horizon, which makes sense for area's affected by glaciation. However, in area's not affected, the term is misleading, since there's no distinct horizon, no clear separation, but rather a continuum between the upper paleolithic and the mesolithic. The term "mesolithic" applies well to (northern) Europe, but fails in (for instance) the Middle East and Mediterranean cultures. Hence for those areas the term "epipaleolitic" is preferred. The distinction, therefore, is mainly geographical, instead of cultural.
I have no problems with a merger and no specific opinion on the "class" of the article. Kleuske (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
On second thought... I'll stick to my guns concerning a merger, since various sources use the term to mean different things, as shown above. If you want. I'll dig up a few more sources. Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)