Jump to content

Talk:Upper Paleolithic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Should this page be used for a worldwide timeline?

NO Someone changed the 12th millennium BC article into a redirect to this page and deleted its only event (a reference to Hovenweep National Monument) in the process. I salvaged that link and added it here. However, is this really the way it shold be? This article does not apply to America, as the introduction says. Where should the Hovenweep entry be kept? — Sebastian (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

domestication of dogs

"11500 BC - 10000 BC: Wooden buildings in South America (Chile), first pottery vessels (Japan), dogs domesticated, bow and arrow appeared."

Domestication says otherwise, and seems to provide references. --euyyn 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Done

Image of Upper Paleolithic tent

It looks like a Paleolithic tent from that period, but I am not sure if tents like this really were built. --Snek01 21:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The tent is realistic. While in many places caves were used for dwelling and, in the Eastern steppes nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn


is that it is a lot easier to locate remains looking in caves, so these are much more known. But even where caves are aboundant, tents (open air camps) were used too.

I'm adding the image it's quite a good ilustration. --Sugaar 10:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a wigwam, which is pretty much what it is. --MacRusgail 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Leap Forward (evolution)

I created the above article before I knew about this one. I still think that there is room for the two articles as the article I created gets more into specifics of how Humans came into "consciousness" as some might call it. I have no problem if you feel that it should be merged with this article. I was planning to include some more fringe theories in my article such as the theory by Roger Penrose that humans at that time created consiousness from a quantum superposition of isolated electrons in the microtubules of brain cells. Bear with me as I am a layman but paleoanthropology is a subject I am interested in and would like to learn more about. Pocopocopocopoco 18:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

30000 BP: Gobustan Culture starts in Azerbaijan

I have removed 30000 BP: Gobustan Culture starts in Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan has not been a Country before 1918, please provide sufficient source as where it states that Azerbaijan exited in 30000 bp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavallee (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed Azerbaijan from *35000 BP: Zar, Yataghyeri, Damjili and Taghlar caves please provide sufficient source which will show that Azerbaijan existed in 35000 BP Flavallee:Talk 09:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

added template: limited geographic scope

Obviously UP is not just a European phenomenon. It would be great if it could be expanded. --Sugaar 10:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) I have managed to locate the paleolithic names and peoples they are still in use today. Try and work out where they are He! He!. Tahamadoon@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.244.221 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done a lot of reading on this period of time, but I'm really just a dilettante, and have poor referencing skills. At best, I could be a muse (from the POV of the Wikipedia goal). But anyway, I split the introductory section down a bit (it really was rather large, in comparison to others).
In the new section I split off, Overview, I noticed there were very few specific geographic references. Maybe a better editor would like to add something there? Xaxafrad 00:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

BP or BC?

I noticed an IP changed the dates from BP to BC. I don't think this is right, especially since he didn't change the dates to reflect the difference. Someone the Person (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Grotte Chauvet

Why is this find not included under "Events"? The timeline for Chauvet Cave is incorrect; it begins much earlier, circa 34,500 BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.106.0 (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's take out the 'Fiction' section

It is horribly arbitrary to have tens of thousands years of human history and then name a handful of random books that use a (pre)historical setting. Could we delete this please? 84.129.159.22 (talk)

I think a few fiction references is all right, but i agree in that it is kind of odd to have the first thing on the timeline be fiction, hence i didn't add my fictional contributions back on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.15.19 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Paucity of Sources

Article needs to be more detailed with more authoritative sources. For instance, the comment about the extinction of the Neanderthals is extremely contentious and there is no agreement whatsoever among scientists about what the cause of these people's disappearance was. Alot of online sites are referenced instead of published papers, books, etc. The article could be much improved. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmsFan

Date error

Article's introduction says no bone tools or art before 50,000 bp and yet refers to Blombos Cave, which has 75,000-80,000 year old bone tools and engraved pieces of ocre. Laetoli (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article is wrong, period. 89.152.106.107 (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Did the upper paleolithic only happen in Europe and North America???

Where is the data about India, China, and Australia... all important places...there is more to the development of humans than the development of art in Europe and the extinction of the Neanderthals....please fill in the rest of the world...or tell me where it can be found...or tell me that I didnt read the article closely enough.... Also, if this is true... "The Upper Paleolithic (or Upper Palaeolithic, and also in some contexts Late Stone Age) is the third and last subdivision of the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age as it is understood in Europe, Africa and Asia." then there should be no mention of north america... I just gave the article a better read, and see only cursory recognition of anything outside of Europe even though humans went south before they went north according to other articles....this article appears to be culturally and regionally biased, and would be much more complete with the other information and comparison between regions. 


 Avram Primack (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Why "re" in "30,000 BC: Reinvention of the bow and arrow.[9]"??

I do not want to change things I don't understand. Does someone think bow and arrow were invented, forgotten and reinvented in 30K BCE?

Amir Rahat (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bow and arrow is used by Rama and flute is used by Krishna as per Indian history Bow and arrow invented first because Rama history is older than Krishna.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.119.68.197 (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

We depend upon archaeological data for dates for the bow and arrow, flute, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Image of Venus of Laussel is a Photo Negative

This image has inverted colours. Optikill (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale era change

We have guidelines for era changes at WP:ERA which make it clear such changes need discussion. Although I see no problem in archaeology articles with having BP dates - where they are the dates used by that source - included with either BC or BCE dates (but not both), I do have a problem with using only BP dates. That is not standard in archaeology where many dates cannot be expressed in BP as no carbon dating has been done, so is inappropriate. For those unfamiliar with BP dating, see Before Present. Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. BP is neither simple nor widely understood. "Years ago" can be useful, and BP is best used for specific objects or sites, qualified by the status as "cal" etc. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I am the editor who made the change. I apologize for violating the guidelines. I made the change because the dates that are mentioned DO NOT come from the sources that are referenced. In the history of the page it is seen that an anonymous editor made these changes in a series of edits all the way back in 2008
When doing this, they in many cases merely changed the notation, making the dating incorrect. Even so, all of the sources (insofar this article is sourced) mention dates in either BP or 'years ago', so I feel we should follow the sources.
Furthermore, articles such as paleolithic also have all their dates in either BP or 'years ago', so it is strange that the upper paleolithic should be different as there is no distinction between dating methods for middle and upper paleolithic finds.
I would therefore suggest this article to be changed to either BP or 'years ago' to be in line with both the sources and similar articles (and because it was apparently originally changed in violation of WP:ERA anyway). DragonCelery (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
in fact, at the moment this article and Paleolithic are in line as they use BP and BCE where appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller, please address my concerns. How is the use of BCE here 'appropriate' when the dates are in fact mostly established by carbon dating (even the unsourced ones, which is another problem with the article)? DragonCelery (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The change from BC to BCE in April 2012 was equally undiscussed [1], by an account with edits to 2 articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've just looked at that, BCE needs to be changed to BC. Even carbon dated dates are often expressed as BCE or BC, with I think BCE becoming more used than BC but I won't argue that here. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
?? crucial typo there! The British Museum (or most of it) still uses BC for Euro prehistory. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed. I was thinking of archaeological publications but that's just an impression and may be wrong. Dougweller (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Probably right. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fauna

The absence of a section dealing with non-human life is disappointing. There are sections on human life and climate change, but I'd love to know what else was running around with these people. In my opinion the absence of any information about this means readers will tend to assume that the fauna then was much the same as it is now, which I don't believe was the case.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Update

The Timeline needs to be updated. New finds are discovered at Göbekli Tepe that date back 12,000 to 15,000 years. -Yozer1 (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

What are they? Who has said they are Upper Paleolithic? Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Upper Paleolithic. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Upper Paleolithic. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Para 3, Sent 2 Clarification Request

Paragraph 3, sentence 2 starts out talking about some new technology which isn't specified, could someone specify? The previous sentence talks about bone artifacts but the bone page doesn't really help... I suppose that the bone artifacts are the supposed new technology but I would appreciate if someone had the time to research and find out a good way to clarify sentence 2 or expound on the bone artifacts just a hair. Thanks!, Alex the Nerd (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad source

We have two items referenced to an unreliable source, John Weinstock. "Sami Prehistory Revisited: transactions, admixture and assimilation in the phylogeographic picture of Scandinavia". This is from a doctoral thesis that's received only one cite.

The first text referenced reads as follows: "By 45,000 BP, humans lived at 61° north latitude in Europe.[3]" The 61 degrees is an error. The cited paper is referring to the famous archaeological site of Kostyonki (palaeolithic site) located in Kostyonki, Voronezh Oblast which is at 51°, 24 minutes.

The second text referenced: "At the end of the Upper Paleolithic, a group of humans crossed the Bering land bridge and quickly expanded throughout North and South America.[3]" I think there are plenty of reliable sources for this, so we don't need to use an unreliable one.

With regard to the first text, I think we should stick with Ust'-Ishim man (45,000 BP, Siberia, latitude 57.7°) since this is the only one reliably dated to 45,000 BP. The other early ones at relatively high latitudes are significantly more recent, e.g., Oase1 (41,640-37,580, Romania 45°), Kostenki14 (38,680-36,260, Russia, 51°). Zyxwv99 (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Upper_Paleolithic/Archive_1&oldid=1176650740"