Talk:Stone Age

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2014

Hi Dougweller, unfortunately, the phrase has not been translated in its exactly original meaning. Therefore the phrase: "Without any doubt, they represent the product of a Culture that captured the irradiation center of absolute positive energy in the Universe." must be read, as in Italian version: "Without any doubt, they represent the product of a Culture that identified the Universe as the centre of irradiation of absolute positive energy." As for the rest of the paragraph, around "a unified culture", I think, actually, that it is a "Unified culture", which adapted in region, in the wake of the Neolithic "megalithic missionaries" suggested by V.Gordon Childe on "The Prehistory of European Society". Thanks. 151.74.32.53 (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Dougweller:. Stickee (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Also, you seem to want help from a specific editor in which I see there has been discussion above. I'm sure that Doug would be happy to help you once a consensus has been achieved. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. "Megalithic missionaries is an obsolete concept. Eg [1] "While no professional archaeologist today thinks in terms of “megalithic missionaries’* or embraces diffusionist beliefs, most are in agreement that the remarkable phenomenon of the megalithic burial tradition rests heavily on the networks of exchange and communication that facilitated the spread of ideas." (Barry Cunliffe ). Radio-carbon dating put paid to Childe's idea. The other bit, a centre of irradiation etc still doesn't make much sense to me and looks positively New Age - what other archaeologists argur for this?. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stone Age. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504082225/http://anthropology.si.edu/archaeobio/Ohalo%20II%20Nature.pdf to http://anthropology.si.edu/archaeobio/Ohalo%20II%20Nature.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Abductive approach to dating human activity.

Professor Lorenzo Mangani of the University of Pavia, Italy encourages the use of Abductive reasoning, especially in cases where direct evidence is lacking. In the case of early examples of stone tools and worked artifacts, finds by Sonia Harmand of Duke University, USA, have pushed back the date for 'first' use of tools by humans to over 3 Mya. Following Professor Magani's method and many examples of non-stone tools from cultures from contemporary and earlier epochs, it is clear that non-stone 'tools' and implements should be included as evidence of human activty; fibres, skins, wood, bone, leather used for implements, clothing baskets, ropes, twine, thongs, fish traps, dams, tethers, sling-shots, etc. Abductively, we can be sure that these preceded the relatively sophisticated flaked flint implements of later epochs. How far - in terms of centuries, decades or millennia, non-stone implements preceded stone and flint we cannot be sure; evidence for these, no doubt equally sophisticated, implements is lost through the organic nature of their composition. Ethnology demonstrates their continuing use and long history. Taking non-stone implements and materials into account via abductive reasoning may thus increase the probable time span conventionally accorded to human activity by at least several million years.DeQuinceyMalden (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 The Abductive Structure of Scientific Creativity - 2017 Magnani, Lorenzo. 

www.springer.com/gb/book/9783319592558

 Dangerous Mind - On the Origin of Pseudo Species (book) C.A.Malden ISBN 978-1438242637
 Femina Sapiens - Origins of Sexual Psyche        (  " ) "    "     ISBN-13: 978-1541279247

2nd stone age

Is the 2nd Stone Age above or below the equator?

IDK.--79.77.219.61 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2020

The cultures of the Old Stone Age (Paleolithic Age 2 million to 8000 BCE) and the New Stone Age (Neolithic Age 8000 BCE to 3000 BCE)were quite different . 6 aspects of their cultures to consider include Food Supply, Occupations, Population/Settlement, Resources, Shetler, and finally, Technology. In the New Stone Age, these factors developed such that life became less tedious and survival rates increased.

One aspect of life during the two Stone Ages is the Food Supply. In the Old Stone Age, people did not have a stable food supply. Hunter-gatherers had to pick plants and hunt for wild animals to survive. Their jobs were tiring and inefficient. They had to move around often to find more food. In the New Stone Age, people began to farm. They domesticated animals, and got wool and milk from goats and sheep. They finally had a stable food supply and didn’t have to move around to find food. Another consideration is occupations. In the Old Stone Age, people had to find food to survive. That was mainly the only survival task that people did. In the New Stone Age, jobs developed, and people specialized in specific skills. They didn’t just search for food. Some people did the farming and tended to animals while others may have been artisans weaving cloth and making pottery, for example.

Other aspect of life include Population/Settlements and Shelter. In the Old Stone Age, people had temporary homes. They had to move around often because of their unsteady food supply. Usually groups 40 to 60 people moved together. They took shelter in caves or tents made of bones and animal hides that could be moved easily. In the New Stone Age, people learned to farm. They didn’t have to move often because now they had a reliable food source. As an outcome, people made permanent houses out of mud bricks. Stones and branches instead of temporary tents or cave shelters. The population of these settlements grew, and some were populated by at least a few thousand.

Another aspect of life is Resources. In the Old Stone Age, people only had a small variety of materials to make crafts. In the New Stone Age, people began to trade. They could get better materials from different villages with better resources. For example, a town could be situated by a river. Those inhabitants may trade shells (good for making jewelry) for other desired resources from a nearby settlement/village. Another aspect of life is Technology. In the Old Stone Age, people weren’t skilled enough to really carve stone into sharp and even pieces. In the New Stone Age, people became more skilled at carving stone and made sharper, cleaner cuts. They also eventually - near the end of the New Stone Age - started using metal, such as copper, which was sharper than stone. In the New Stone Age, they also learned how to breed plants and animals to make them more useful to humans. (This process is called domestication.) This domestication led to agriculture/farming. Also, while people in the Old Stone Age learned to control fire, people in the new Stone Age learned how to start a fire. Finally, weaving and other textile technologies developed in the New Stone Age.

In conclusion, The New and Old Stone Ages were very different. Many aspects of life improved greatly from the Old Stone Age to the New Stone Age. Food, occupations, settlement, recourses, shelter and technology advanced in such a way that survival rates increased and culture developed. People started to have more time to specialise in various areas, and could spend more time with activities not directly related to survival. Tnkrueckergreen (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Tnkrueckergreen, could you add inline citations to reliable sources to your text? The sources would need to directly make this comparison. Please then re-open this request. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Americas

How about the Americas? e.g. Olmecs - Francis Tyers · 01:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021 (2)

Please, someone could insert this link in the external link, it refers to the description of the dolmen of Monte Bubbonia, mentioned in the article: https://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=28073 151.0.254.136 (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) 151.0.254.136 (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think that's an appropriate external link, dolmens are a very small part of this article, which deals with a lot of aspects of the stone age. Volteer1 (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)