Talk:Oldowan

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Origin of Oldowan ?

If "Nuts and bones are cracked by hitting them with hammer stones on a stone used as an anvil", then perhaps the first Oldowan stone tool, was an anvil stone accidentally fractured, during the attempted crushing of nuts or bones ? 24.143.92.97 (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Flint Jack?"

"The tools" - "Manufacture of the tools" makes reference to a British swindler named Edward Simpson or "Flint Jack". I can't find any other information about such a character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdz (talk • contribs) 11:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALLCAPS

Heading added MaxEnt (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO ONE USES THE SPELLING "OLDUWAN". EVERY ARCHAEOLOGISTS, TEXTBOOK, AND PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL USES OLDOWAN.with love, Pre-ski1888 03:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I changed the name to Olduwan as the primary name, even though you sometimes see the other spellings in older literature. The Leakey Foundation, which you can look up on the Internet, uses Olduwan. It makes sense: Olduvai/Olduwan, as opposed to Oldoway/Oldowan. It is better not to mix systems, I think. Agreed? To tell you the truth, I've never seen Oldawan, but I take the author's word that it was used.Botteville 02:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've never red Olduwan before and it sounds unusual, even if Leakey foundation uses it. Just check searching Olduwan and Oldowan with Google : you will get 691 results with the former and... more than 50 000 with the latter ! I20 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have notice that Louis Leakey used Oldowan (not Olduwan) in his first outstanding publication: Leakey, L. S. B. (1936): Stone Age in Africa. Oxford.
--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 12:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who the heck ever used OldAwan??? When did that variation get added. Poor Oldowan culture, always going back in time instead of forward.Levalley (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photos?

If anyone has some photographs, it would help distinguish this technology from other stone tools (e.g. Acheulean). Istvan 05:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ilustrations of tools

First, sorry for my very bad english, I am an spanish archaeologist and need to tell you about some mistakes. I hope you understand my language, characteristic of Tarzan.

Some lithic attribution of tools illustrated in the article are wrong. For instance:

Really is a typicall biface acheulean with retouches, but its support es a flake. For this reason no need more knapping. It is the law of minimum effort and maximum efectivity.

Your heart makes up for your English. Thanks for your pointers and pictures.Dave 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lithic core very evolved, never an arcaic artifact. This is not a tool, but a remainder of knapping with the objet of obtain flakes, probably near of the Levallois recurrent method. So, it is an Acheulean artifact, not a tool, but a trashed piece of raw material, after her profit.

If you need some really archaic tools, tell me and I look it for, as soon as possible.

sorry and thanks --Locutus Borg 16:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our dear Spanish poster is correct- those are not Olduwan tools.Levalley (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Chopper and Chopping tool with Oldowan

I strongly oppose these merges, one of which has already taken place, as my understanding is that choppers and chopper tools are not exclusively Oldowan artefacts but are also used to describe the tools made by homo erectus in Eastern Asia (Source: Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology). Also we have not previously conflated articles on early prehistoric cultures with their characteristic cultural material, ie Acheulean and handaxe. adamsan 09:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the same reasons as above - I can see no overwhelming arguement for these merges. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 09:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reverted the Chopper/Oldowan merge as it became clear that the editor was not aware that choppers are found in East Asia and not considered Oldowan. These tools are part of the East Asian Flake and Chopper Tradition (Scarre, C. The Human Past, Thames and Hudson, London, 2005, p86). The current Oldowan article implies that the East Asian sites belong to the industry which is not correct. The Zhoukoudian assemblage...probably represents a totally distinct, contemporaneous artefact tradition that was widespread in East Asia (ibid, p 100). These finds also post-date the Oldowan technology by quite some degree. adamsan 09:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to Adamsan: I don't think you're understanding the basic nature of the use of the term Oldowan. It's like saying that a computer is not an electric appliance and that "Electric appliance" was a term invented before computers and refers only to blenders and mixers. It's true that computers come along later, also true that that they can be used alongside blenders and mixers, but is also true that they're not usually called "electric appliances" in the ordinary use of the term, just as Oldowan tool culture continues to exist after new innovations come along. They are for different things. The phasing in and out of the two different two cultures (Oldowan and Acheulian) is of real importance in understanding prehistory. The fact is: NO one adopts the Acheulian without first having had...the Oldowan. The Acheulian is not invented, is not used, in places where there is no tradition at all of flintknapping at a more primitive level. Once it is invented, it can appear in sites where it's "new" because people migrate with their tools, but the fact remains, one came first - the Oldowan, it does not die out when the Acheulian arrives, the Acheulian is a distinctly different "appliance," Oldowan is exclusively for the kitchen, Acheulian does a lot of other things.Levalley (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding tool use, Olduwan

There is a lot of material in this article that espouses points of view that are controversial at worst, or at least not universally accepted.

There should be more cites, especially under The tool users section. Terms such as "In truth...", "...the seemingly self-evident, but fallacious, idea..." etc need to be properly attributed as they take a ridged stance, and this POV is not always one that everyone within the field would agree with.

You or someone must have taken out those horrible phrases. They really amount to vandalism so they should have been fixed right away. Your sentence "there is a lot in this article ..." gives me a bad feeling. Who is to say what is controversial and what not, you? If we start cutting out the non-universally accepted you can junk the whole article. The goal of anthropology is not universal acceptance. That is what gives me misgivings about you. Be that as it may, instead of junking the article, why don't you present other points of view? If there is an issue, present the issue! That is the right way to do it. What it smells like you are saying is, "I don't like something in anthropology." Put up or shut up.Dave 03:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, under the same section there is a fallacy that chimpanzees are sophisticated tool users. (in reality chimpanzees use very basic tools, and rely on individual to individual transmission of specific use rather that a wide culture transmission). Just because we can train a dog to catch a Frisbee, for example, does not indicate that the dog will then teach other dogs to catch frisbees. Chimpanzees tool use in general is much more nuanced then the section attributes, and should perhaps be removed completely from this article as is bears only tangentially to the topic at all.

Edgeways 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, edgeways, it is hard to read your last sentence as actual English. I mean, it is grammatical but its content seems to be missing. I suspected as much in your previous comment.Dave 03:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to work at this section. Someone needs to cite which Toth article is being talked about for the tool use. I don't have access to Pan the Toolmaker or its follow up article, so I can't tell which study the original editor was talking about. Also, I strongly suspect a good deal of this was "googlepedia" because various people don't have their names ascribed to them, as is common for articles edited from online materials that cite by initials. EG JWK Harris is Dr. John Harris of Rutgers etc.

There is more to do.

Stirling Newberry 07:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stirling I'm seeing some of your changes. You might have a tendency to go a little too far there. Social animals clearly outnumber solitary ones. Do you actually have any solitary mammals in mind? And what do mean, "lower anmimals" is obsolete? Since when, buddy? And what do YOU think replaced it? For the paucity of sources you are right, there are not enough of them. This was an earlier effort. But, it's an ongoing effort. I meant to get back to it and now I am. We can do it together, you and I. Do you contribute or just criticise? But for the time I don't plan to change any changes until the article takes more shape. One of my problems was, there was not too muuch anthropology on Wikipedia, but it is getting better. NOW there are some pictures, and I'm totally impressed with the hominin/hominid distinctions, which weren't there before. In all this however don't think I've accepted your quibbling "lower animal" trashing. Later.Dave 03:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your efforts on this. Of course, there is always more to do. I put in a few notes on your notes but I'm still building the subject Wikiwide. Oh, those who may have said that this or that person needs an article, go right ahead and do one. This is a self-help type of thing. Help yourself!Dave 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit and citation tags

There seems to be an issue over what goes in the tagged subsection. The other current main editor of it cannot agree and he seems to feel there is a question of attack ad hominem. As we are not able to work this out I recuse myself from the subsection. However, I feel that the article, which is slated for the CD at some point, should maintain as high standards as we can get. The paragraphs that have been inserted below the templates in that section need attention from an English point of view. They need to made grammatical, readable, and generally comprehensible, which currently they do not seem to be. Furthermore the current other editor keeps removing my efforts to organize and clean it up; moreover, he does not give any citations or references for the issues, debates and conclusions he cites. Therefore I am recusing my self fom that part of it and am suggesting that other Wikipedians with the required skills and knowledge pay attention to the section. Thank you very much.Dave 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I looked at it again today. I made more comments under headings at the bottom for less confusion as to chronology. I added 2 messsages, related to need to find an expert to help with the verification and references, and general cleanup. I also deleted the three pictures of young captive apes as being unrelated to the article. I wish I could spend the time to help but this isn't my area of primary interest/expertise and I don't have library access to the articles needed for wikiverification. Good luck.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

¿Acheulian equivocation?

Why Dave says «The pictures in the introduction to this article are mainly labeled Acheulian, but this is the now false Acheulian, which also includes Abbevilian.».

The pictures have been taken from several researches about the Acheulian in Spain. The investigated sites are definitively acheulians, not oldowayans neither abbevilians. I don't understand the expression false Acheulian. What means? The pre-acheulian sites in Spain are very unusual and the Abbevilian nature it is not proved in the Iberian peninsula (only, perhaps, an early Acheulian).

The lithic typology or technology can't be a chronological or cultural rule: that attitude only lead to mistakes. For instance, the choppers appears in Spain until the Middle Ages and the French prehistorian Pierre Biberson notice that the Moroccan fishers used choppers in 20th century for open shells.

I want say that it is scientifically demonstrated that the pictures of Spanish artifacs are really Acheulian, not Abbevilian. Abbevilian it is only an archaic style of knapping that can appear even in the Mousterian sites. I know that very well, I personally investigated about that, I am an specialist (not in English, obviously 8¬)). See, for instance:

Benito del Rey, Luis y Benito Álvarez, José Manuel (myself): "La Salamanca Paleolítica", in Congreso de Historia de Salamanca 1989, Tomo 1.- Gráficas Ortega, S. A., Salamanca, 1992.- ISBN 84-604-3130-4.
Benito Álvarez, José Manuel (2002), Aportaciones al conocimiento del Achelense en la Meseta Norte, University of Salamanca (Doctoral Thesis degree —maxima cum laude—, unpublished, sorry)
Benito del Rey, Luis y Benito Álvarez, José Manuel (myself), 2000: "Secuencias inferopaleolíticas en la cuenca del Duero", in SPAL n# 9 (Seville University), ISSN 1133-4525.
Etc.

Thanks--Locutus Borg File:Logo-Borg.gif, Talk to me 10:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone please change the name to Oldowan????

NO ONE USES THE SPELLING "OLDUWAN". EVERY ARCHAEOLOGISTS, TEXTBOOK, AND PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL USES OLDOWAN. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pre-ski18888 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Either one is acceptable and probably the least of this article's concerns. It is taught with both spellings at various universities around the U.S. The comprehension of this article should be the foremost priority. Every archeologist, textbook, and journal does not use the "Oldowan" spelling but thanks for the trivial concern... Stevenmitchell 06:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using correct terminology is not a trivial concern in an encyclopedia. While both spellings are indeed used, a simple search in google scholar will reveal that "Olduwan" is indeed the much rarer spelling. Yahewe 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that satire was permitted in Wikipedia

A quote from the article: "One should also remember that a neo-Oldowan, of a far different culture than the originals, has been created in educational circles." This seems like it is purely satirical in its nature. While I agree that in the US the educational community approaches the ossification of intellectual ability seen for tens of thousands of years in pre-human hominid cultures there is no place for satire in Wikipedia. If this isn't satire I'd like someone to point out one single reference to this that isn't a mirror site. I'm going to check back in a few days and delete the references to neo-Oldowan unless someone can prove it isn't a satirical fabrication. Regards Trilobitealive 21:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief revisit

Hi there everyone. By now everyone knows Dave worked on the original article. Then I got into it with Stirling Newberry and decided I should step back until I had more experience. What was happening is, I was not putting in the in-line citations because I believed they clutter the article. This happened to me on a few other articles and I see it happening to others as well.

Well, you should always put your citations in! Without any authority to back you up you invite everyone to make any sort of comment wise or foolish and to do so in the article itself! Shortly after the article becomes a target then a total mess and that seem to be what is happening here. It is my fault. I should have put the citations in and I have said this in other articles I have had to fix and I am saying this now. I'm a convinced man. Nothing recent of mine lacks citations, and I make sure they are in the right format; not only that, but I go around fixing the sloppy citations of others.

Trilobite has got me back here by a clever ruse. He sent me a message saying he thought some insertions of mine were brilliant and I should take a look at his discussion on it. I get back here and he has provoking things to say about neo-Olduwan. He doesn't think I am brilliant at all! You lied, Trilobitealive! Are you trying to provoke me? But I forgive you. It is after all my fault.

But still, my dear man, you went to a lot of trouble to hook me back here. Why? Did you want to talk to me? Did you want me to fix the article? What did you step into the wilderness to see, anyway? What am I supposed to do? How did you hope I would react? Are you looking for approval or disapproval? Do you want my opinion? What?

Since I am back here I will give it. First of all the article needs to be worked through again this time putting in the in-line citations. Just because I left them out does not mean I made it up. And, the format is terrible at the moment. Right now it is a formidable task. Whoever does it must go through it line by line. And another thing, when I did this there were less than 1 mill articles on Wikipedia and almost no anthropology. Today I find a host of ready articles on every supporting concept I can think of so all I have to do is link. This article might be shortened by finding the new articles and putting in the links. There are over 2 mill articles now so more and more the job is getting to be clean-up and detailing rather than creation from scratch. Third, I see there are many concept questions. Should the name be Olduwan or Oldowan? Who is telling the truth, me who did not put in citations, or the fellow who is loudly demanding the name be changed now? I don't see anyone stepping up to change it! So issues like this need to be revisited. And, regarding the name, don't believe him when he says Olduwan is not is use at all. It is in use. That is why we need citations. I dare say since Google Books got going we now have access to books we couldn't even think about getting last year, thanks to the generosity, the total magnanimity and concern for the common good, of Harvard University, who is having Google photocopy their books for public access! And others are doing it too.

So that is what needs to be done, but who is going to do it? I would say, if you don't believe in footnotes and you don't enjoy research, don't even bother. We need a detailer. And, it is going to take you a while. It took me a while to get that much and I see now it is probably too much. Perhaps it should be broken up. As to whether I should do it - well, you can't get me right now. I don't feel like it. I'm going to reflect for a while and maybe do some simpler anthropology articles and then when I think I have a better feel take a good look, when the moment seems right. If I'm still the only working editor on it then I guess I will have to undertake it.

And now for you, Mr. trilobite. Is that satire? No I never meant it as satire and to tell you the truth I cannot see how you or anyone would interpret that as such. All across the country universities and experts by the hundreds are chipping out these tools. Are they Olduwan? What do we call them? In a few decades they are going to be mistaken for ancient ones, mark my words, perhaps already are. Forgers are getting so good now that forgeries often do not get discovered for decades and then only with difficulty. In this article I was pointing out the existence of such a class of art! It is not deliberate forgery but it is forgery and in the wrong hands can be sold as genuine. So it is not a satirical issue.

As for your sarcasm- for that is what it is - you must mean you think the statement is the opposite of brilliant. Well unless you change your mind we seem to be having a genuine disagreement. I still fail to see why you drag me back in to tell me that. You or any editor can change anything you like; you just have to make it stick. Is it my approval you want or my anger? I'm afraid you are on your own here. If you are a new editor you have to realize you are an agent, an active force, like the wind or the water. Edit like the wind, amigo!

I'm going now, but I have spoken on this article. Trouble me no further with it. Work it out among yourselves, do the research, add the citations, use your talents, do what you're good at. When I come back whenever that is, when the feeling is right, if you still have done nothing with it, and I have to rework it, then I will do so authoritatively with the full critical apparatus and will not permit any more of this nonsense to go on outside of Wikipedia channels.Dave 04:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It wasn't sarcasm. If the references to neo-olduwan had been a satire they would have been brilliant, though still not appropriate. I would classify neologism as 'original research' or 'unsubstantiated opinion' so will delete it. Regards.Trilobitealive 03:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I have mistaken you I am sorry. I'm still gunshy from my encounter with Homo sapiens, which classified man as a great ape without references and not only ignored the uproar but arbitrarily deleted any attempts to flag or fix it. The deleters used their authority as being on the committee for the topic. In that case thank you for calling me brilliant. Flattery will get you everywhere. I never thought about whether it was original but then I was not thinking about line-by-line documentation. I can see why you are deleting it. I am sure that careful research can turn up that opinion in someone else's writing but as I am not working on this article now it will have to wait. My thinking on the article was simply definition. How did the concept originate, what are the tools, where and when were they manufactured, who used them and why? So even if someone proposed to delete the whole article as unsourced the next article would have to include the same topics and deal with the same issues and probably would end up saying about the same thing. Why bother? We have collected the opinions and critiques of others on this article. Why reinvent the wheel and ask them to do it again? But I have certain areas I want to cover and I keep changing areas so right now I am on other neglected things. If you like anthropology and want to see a nice, informative article, I suggest you take a hand at improvement. The critical apparatus is now critical. All through Wikipedia I see wonderful articles without line-item notes being tagged for that. You can find book- and journal-citing templates in the Wikipedia help under templates. I keep a few links to the help at my site. There is cite book, cite journal, cite web Citation and the like which once you can remember the parameters prove very useful and achieve a standard format. I grow windy but give me the freedom to discuss above all. Good luck.Dave 11:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just stumbled on it. I don't edit much since I had a major run-in with a predatory editor of another subject who seeks to establish her fringe POV as NPOV on a key issue of political importance. Sorry about the edit but I would have saved it if I could have found any other reference which wasn't self referential.Trilobitealive 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyroculture is a neologism

Word appears in this article. Appears to be a very rare word. No other occurrence in Wikipedia. Just 29 hits on Google, most of these involve Oregon, and the author of those pages confesses he coined pyroculture as a neologism. MaxEnt (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty compelling reason to change to a more transparent word. I changed the wording to make the article easier for general readers to understand. RegardsTrilobitealive (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute chimp photos

The photos of young chimpanzees are cute, especially the one playing with the manual typewriter. (HE kind of reminds me of my 9th grade English teacher.) The group photo from the wildlife sanctuary is rather pitiful once you realize it is a pack of babies orphaned by poachers. But what do they have to do with the subject matter of the article? Chimps can learn to mimic very simple tool use (nut cracking and termite fishing come to mind) but you don't see them setting up Oldowan chopper factories. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm going to recommend that three pictures be removed as not related to the subject. These are the photo of the baby chimp playing with the typewriter, the row of zoo baboons and the group of rescued baby chimps.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the photos today. They are not related to the subject and detract from the article.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and expert help needed

I don't have time to do a cleanup of this article at this time as it would involve a good bit of rewriting and chasing down references. What I see as its problems are that it doesn't have sufficient references for most of its statements of fact, has unsubstantiated opinion, some sections are written in the style of an undergraduate term paper and the reflist is full of what appears to be just continuation of the article. Probably it is best to find someone who's conversant in both the style of wikipedia writing and expert in the subject.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European sites

Some of the sites listed in Europe are now thought by the majority of practitioners not to represent residues of human activities, but to consist mostly of geofacts selected from river gravels. This is for example the case with the early artefacts from Karlich, Prezletice, Stranska Skala and Le Vallonet. For other sites, the dates have been revised upwards. Dates of 5 mya. are simply not tenable. All the sites that are said to date to this time on the page should actually be dated to the early Pleistocene, so they are all certainly younger than 2 mya. The dating of the french sites is also incorrect. The date of Abbeville is far too old, as far as I know it is from the Middle Pleistocene, so younger than 700.000 years old.

I suggest that at least the German and Chzechoslovakian sites are removed from this page. The section on French sites might be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keilmesser (talk • --Keilmesser (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)contribs) 12:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See for a discussion on these sites: Roebroeks, W./T. van Kolfschoten, 1994: The earliest occupation of Europe: A short chronology, Antiquity, 68: 489-503--Keilmesser (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup: removed this section pending citations

As this disagrees with the citations I have on hand, I'd like to see the citation for this sentence: Oldowan tools are not necessarily cores, pebbles, or bifaces, and comprise more than hand-axes; moreover, those terms could apply equally to Acheulean tools, whereas "Oldowan" is more specific.

The terms are still in use (Johanson, who is on a lecture tour with 13 other biological anthropologists) still uses them. I've never heard anyone suggest that there were handaxes in the Olduwan toolkit (and most textbooks still spell it OldUwan, since it's named after OldUvai Gorge).Levalley (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to have serious errors

I teach a class on this topic, and keep up with the field. The citations I have on hand and the recent articles on finds in Ethiopia seem to contradict much of what this article says. Tool use for australopithecines? I want to see the cites. I'm off to investigate this (may have a chance to ask some people who are prominent in the field, next week), but it seems to me that articles like this one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031105065322.htm flatly contradict what is said in this article (insofar as no australopiths are mentioned.). Either say the toolmaker is unknown (there were no fossil bones found nearby) or go with what most people say in their texts: Homo habilis is the toolmaker. Also, clear up what's actually in this toolkit and give a better rationale for the spelling change.Levalley (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious mis-referencing of the Clark et al. article. It does NOT say that Oldowan tools were used by Homo erectus (or egaster), but that in the lower levels of a cite that in the upper levels contained H.E. bones, Oldowan tools were found. (As expected). No bones of any hominid species were clearly associated at that Awash cite with the Oldowan tools. Read the article, it's quite clear. That's why the article is titled Oldowan AND Homo tools. There are two different groups of tools found. The "homo" set of tools is distinct from the Oldowan. The current article also misses another major point, which is that, when the Acheulian arrived, people didn't just give up their basic tools. To get into the whole thing about Mode One of the Acheulian (further technical nomenclature) before resolving the simplest issues about the toolkit is to put hte cart before the horse. I'd like to see that there is plain understanding of what the Oldowan is, as it is usually described. Levalley (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldowan vs. Olduwan. A cursory exploration of JSTOR reveals both in use. I found lots of citations from 1960s through 1990s using OldUwan.Levalley (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation: Use various articles from the 80s through 00s reassessing what Olduwan/Oldowan means, and the general importance of the term in archaeology. Avoid overly specific articles on detailed excavations of the Olduwan at one archaeological site. Go for an overview.Levalley (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it ain't too good. I did some minimal work on it, of which I am not too proud. But, it has never been in good shape. There's never been a unified and accurate article here. I didn't have the patience so I just left it, but there have been a few developments since then. First of all, more people have turned their hand to the stone age on WP and second of all there has been a run of good books from the last few years, which there was not before, which are mainly accessible between Google and Amazon. Or, you can get them in the library systems. Here is what I propose. Except for the founders of the concepts, I propose we junk everything from the '70's and '80's and before. Most of it has been outdated. The issues are not the issues of today. I would not trust any books before , say, 1996, except, as I say, the founding fathers of the main concepts. It needs a major rewrite with proper references to the current books. YOU are the most qualified to do that. I know, this is where you back off. You don't have the time. I don't either. Moreover, the constant carping turns off people who might have the time. I do have a little time, but I've changed my mode. Instead of going for the scatter gun I'm going to aim at one article at a time. I'm not on this right now but I probably will be. Don't wait for me. Dig in. The discussion is right, someone in the field and cognizant of WP structures should do it, but where are they to be found? If you're in the field you don't have time or patience for this, and if you're on WP you don't know your front from your back and are only interested in stable articles written by administrators. Oh by the way, you are right, there are far too many sites for the complex for this article to consider them all. That was my idea, but it was ill-advised. I didn't know what to do so I left it. My tendency now would be to include only sites of major evidence and offload those with "main." Thank you for your evaluation. I got a certain toleration for nagging if you care to involve yourself further. I evaluate your credibility by the maturity of what you say. OK so far. I've had screaming, confrontational administrators at the teen-age level claiming to be PhD's and how dare, how DARE I question that. What can I say. Nothing further I guess. So don't wave your credentials around, wave your knowledge around. I look forward to being corrected by you if and when it happens as I plan.Dave (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acheulian equivocation

I am a reasonably educated person, and the old paragraph was thoroughly confusing. I think that the few sentences I copied from the article on Abbevillain are all that are needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werseuch (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]