Talk:Neolithic/Archive 1

927:"At present the earliest evidence for precursors to the well-developed Neolithic comes from the site of Lahuradewa. This site provides evidence for occupation on a lake edge back to the seventh millennium BC (Tewari et al., 2003, 2005; Saraswat & Pokharia, 2004a, 2005; Singh, 2005a, 2005b). Already in this period, or certainly by sometime in the end of the fifth millennium, ceramics had begun to be produced, and rice was part of the diet, and may even have been cultivated, although the very limited evidence available to date is inconclusive and is more suggestive of wild rice collecting. All the fauna thus far studied from that period were wild (Joglekar, 2004), and it is likely that occupation was intermittent (with hiatuses), or else highly seasonal to account long a timespan of 3000–3500 years for this lowest layer (less than 50 cm thick). ... Caution is warranted in considering early/mid-Holocene radiocarbon dates reported from this region. A few sites have reported dates in the 6th millennium BC, such as Koldihwa and Malhar (Sharma et al., 1980; Tewari, Srivastava, Saraswat, & Singh, 2000, 2003; Saraswat, 2004a, pp. 533–535). Both these sites have dates mainly of much later period (i.e. from the Second Millennium BC), and artifact assemblages consistent with the younger dates." 2163:

Mehrgarh in Baluchistan (modern Pakistan) is the earliest Neolithic site in the north-west Indian subcontinent, dated as early as 8500 BCE. Neolithic domesticated crops in Mehrgarh include more than barley and a small amount of wheat. There is good evidence for the local domestication of barley and the zebu cattle at Mehrgarh, but the wheat varieties are suggested to be of Near-Eastern origin, as the modern distribution of wild varieties of wheat is limited to Northern Levant and Southern Turkey. A detailed satellite map study of a few archaeological sites in the Baluchistan and Khybar Pakhtunkhwa regions also suggests similarities in early phases of farming with sites in Western Asia. Pottery prepared by sequential slab construction, circular fire pits filled with burnt pebbles, and large granaries are common to both Mehrgarh and many Mesopotamian sites. The postures of the skeletal remains in graves at Mehrgarh bear strong resemblance to those at Ali Kosh in the Zagros Mountains of southern Iran. Despite their scarcity, the 14C and archaeological age determinations for early Neolithic sites in Southern Asia exhibit remarkable continuity across the vast region from the Near East to the Indian Subcontinent, consistent with a systematic eastward spread at a speed of about 0.65 km/yr."

696:

which. I have seen, however, people not acquainted with the policy go ahead and change it to their flavor and once done and done consistently no one seems to want to change it back because that would be to admit to an interest in religious controversy and no one at all seems to want that. We had enough people raving about us westerners and us christians, what have you. The Jewish and moslem raves would be so like a keg of dynamite that no one at all seems to dare. People have enough sense not to deliberately step on a land mine. Now, this article is evidently a BC rather than a BCE one. Why not just leave it at that? As for the BP, I believe the field practice is that for very large dates where the tolerance of accuracy exceeds 2000 years one states BP. For within several thousand years BC or BCE is much more preferable and authors try to give it where possible because folk understand it better and it is more precise. Otherwise you have worry about and explain just what "present" is and typically in radiocarbon dating contexts it for sure is not 2008 but is staggered by about 1/2 century now from that. I hope this addresses your concerns and it is the view of only one editor. If any others care to have a view help the public out.

3913:

domestication (llamas, dingos to a degree), advanced management, infrastructure(the pre-colonial empires of SA) and terraforming (fire-farming of the Australian Aboriginals) is at best an uninformed assumption and at worst a very presumptuous claim that these societies did not progress beyond the stone age in a meaningful way just because their societies were "undeveloped" in comparison to Old World nation-states. There are words for this kind of presumption. I have checked the sources and they are much less general than the statement being made here. What the sources support is that the idea that a very specific part of New Guinea has cultures that, at the time of contact and even today, appear to us as examples of "Neolithic horticulturalists". The claim about Oceania and America *in general* is not supported, but the reader is given a different — misleading — idea of the many societies that existed in Precolonial America and Oceania. I am highly in favour of removing the sentence.

977:

who used it you know are the Ainu, who were of course overrun by other Asians to form the Japanese people. The interesting thing about the Jomon is their pottery, which seems to have gone right back to the Mesolithic. So, there may not be a PPN in the Jomon. The PPN may not be universal. But, there is more. The Russians now are tracing the arrival of pottery in Europe now not from the nuclear region of the Middle East but across Siberia from the Far East and are making I believe a good case. Well of course I do not expect you to get all this into this article any time soon but if you want to work on it continuously those are some modernizations. We all appreciate the fine work of the British and American archaeologists on the Middle Eastern nuclear area but it stands to reason it would only be a matter of time before better things came along. I think WP should try to stay on the forefront.

3435:

view, where the Neolithic is seen as the start of agriculture. But Eastern-European archaeologist use the making of pottery as the start of the Neolithic, which in that part of the world precedes agriculture (as it also does in China and Japan). I don't expect Knowledge to settle this, but it would be good to address this point when talking about the Neolithic. For instance in Japan people were living in (sometimes large) villages and making fine pottery for many thousands of years before they started farming, it seems somewhat strange to say these people would still be living in the mesolithic. Personally I think a and/or approach would be the most logical thing to do (with living some kind of settled live also as an marker), since both innovations are clearly important markers of a change in society and the food resources available to it, but please let's shine some light on this.--

1084:

would only be the name of the culture so we can fit at least several regions across. Solution 1 should be implemented first. We began with only a few cultures. Now they are beginning to multiply as they should in an encyclopedia. We need this system to organize the increasing numbers of cultures. This will turn into a mini-encyclopedia of archaeological cultures. There would be a certain redundancy with the Neolithic box. I suggest we not use it to list cultures; there are too many. This is parallel to the zoological and botanical articles, where species lists are placed in the text when there are too many to go in the box. The box can list articles about topics. It can refer to reader to the table, as it does in the taxoboxes. In fact I like the idea of an archaeological taxobox. They can be imitated easily enough.

2169:"Domestication of sheep and goats reached Egypt from the Near East possibly as early as 6000 BC. Graeme Barker states "The first indisputable evidence for domestic plants and animals in the Nile valley is not until the early fifth millennium BC in northern Egypt and a thousand years later further south, in both cases as part of strategies that still relied heavily on fishing, hunting, and the gathering of wild plants" and suggests that these subsistence changes were not due to farmers migrating from the Near East but was an indigenous development, with cereals either indigenous or obtained through exchange. Other scholars argue that the primary stimulus for agriculture and domesticated animals (as well as mud-brick architecture and other Neolithic cultural features) in Egypt was from the Middle East." 793:) 18:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Gregory Helton Did the Neolithic really begin two thousand years BCE? No it did not. So why does this article say it does? This article would have us think that 2000 BCE is prior to 9500 BCE since Tell Qaramel pushed the date of the Neolithic period further back in time from 9500 BCE. If you read the footnote about Tell Qaramel, it is dated 10,700 – 9,500 BCE, not, as the article states, 2010 BCE. Here is the offending sentence: "New findings put the beginning of the Neolithic culture back to around 2009 to 2010 BCE in Tell Qaramel in northern Syria, 25km north of Aleppo. Until those findings are adopted within archaeological community, the beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 9500 BCE." 490:

huge leap in civilization. No such standards and no such dates are available for remote antiquity. All we have basically for thousands of years ago are radiocarbon dates but the parameters under which they are measured are numerous and vary at random. The dates depend on the samples and the methods of sampling. You can't get any better precision. Archaeologists either give you the dates and the tolerances (margins of error) of one or more samples or they give you an estimated time window within which. You can't do any better. So, they can't be standardized on Knowledge. That would be a desirable goal not only on Knowledge but anywhere but the state of the art does not allow it. The best you can do here is demand to know whose dates those are, which you can do by putting a

3932:

large parts of Europe and Asia became "civilized." To say that New World civilizations were comparable to the Neolithic stage of development in the Old World, is using only one of several factors related to civilization -- metal-working -- to judge the whole. That's a generalization implying that ancient American civilizations weren't really civilizations and that they should be judged by Old World classifications of what comprises development. Different they were, yes, but they successfully manipulated their environments for accomplishments in agriculture, monumental architecture, societal organization, and urbanization. You can't base a judgement of their development on the single factor of metal working.

997:

part looks good but we end in a fizzle. Typical. It appears as though I may have to take a hand here if no one is interested in doing this article and it just sits here like this. Tsk Tsk. I would have said the Neolithic is important. Now, as we are going over to a side box (I just decided) that side box may become too long. In that case I suggest we go to a bottom box. If you got any interest, be sure and place your comments here. I would say, the main planning phase is RIGHT NOW! We could have double-column lists on the side box. The width is adjustable you know. I put a width on if you want to see what it looks like. It's a parameter on the template call.

1340:

the same as jars and vats, they certainly qualify as pottery, and one must wonder what containers the quantities of grain and liquid they refer to were stored in if not in clay pots, so the schematizing of "pre-pottery" and "pottery" ages in this article is highly ethnocentric to the Middle East and plain outright wrong. Also, there should be at least some mention of the Sumerians' invention of the oldest attested writing system, which was a major feature of the Neolithic. I lack the expertise to write the required material, so I am calling on experts in the subject to do so.

4170: 2479:

already image congested-, 4,000 word-, textual beachfront. Don't you think that is a bit much? An encyclopedia is a tertiary source which aims to communicate in prose to a group of readers who are more varied than what is traditional for the content it summarizes. Among these readers are those who are visually impaired. It seems you are doing everything but adding text which summarizes. I will not revert anything for now, but I soon will if you continue your unconventional, not to mention insensitive, romp through the article. Best regards,

3803:

entirely possible that modern scholars don't really use the term or concept of neolithic / bronze age when discussing those civilizations, which means we shouldn't be making such sweeping declarative statements in the lead using them, either.) Again, if you think that this is so obviously true, it should be easy for you to find sources for it - just present the source that has you so solidly convinced - but we can't include it just because you

31: 2155:): "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Knowledge editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate" It is not my job to clean up after someone who has dumped 13K bytes of copied data. It is not my job to integrate recognizably scientific prose such as in the paragraph you have copied 957:. I keep promising that if there are any alternatives we will link to them. The first I've seen of any at all is the contents of the 2nd? note. This looks like a good article offhand but if you have any references on an alternative characterization - and why else would you put such a note in? perhaps you could make a small section "Alternative periodization" or some such thing giving us a brief summary with refs. Thanks. 1466:"The earliest Neolithic cultures of Northeast China: Recent discoveries and new perspectives on the beginning of agriculture" G Shelach - Journal of World Prehistory, 2000 - Springer: "In north China, the earliest ceramics found so far are from the Nanzhuangtou site of Hebei province. The oldest radiocarbon date for this site is 10,815 B.P. § 140 years (uncalibrated and with a half-life of 5730 years)". 1478:

11,000-1 ( 758; Morrill ct al. 2003). The pollen data from 12,00C many places of central China the steppe grasses may by broad-leaved forests, although xerophytic herbs we: During this period, the Central Plains witnessed the in villages. This is indicated by the earliest pottery, grinc domesticated pigs and dogs, and domestic features (discovered at Nanzhuangtou in Xushui (ca. 10,500-9,700 BP)

4069: 828:

Star Carr in England, and The Spirit Caves in Thailand are certainly not Neolithic and shed no light, whatsoever, on the history of the Neolithic. There was Neolithic activity near these places, but that was long, long after the original settlements had been abandoned. Moreover, if you are going to play that game then Greeks nationalists could confuse things further by saying because

3723: 2820:, which surprised me, as I remembered the capital in Sarnath to be smack in the middle of the main room of the museum, where no shadow in the immediate background would appear in a photograph, only to discover that the original Flickr uploader had taken a picture of the much smaller copy of the Sarnath capital in the National Museum in Delhi. (See 463:

exact for Jericho? (within +/- ten years). I am assuming the dates for PPNA change depending on the technology of the culture in question, but I don't know. Could someone write a bit to clarify this? Does the PPNA date change at different archeological sites? Are the same dates used at Jericho and Catalhuyuk, for instance? Thanks

3708: 3698: 1451:

culture, however the actual article on Göbekli Tepe states that it predates the neolithic culture, as it predated pottery, animal husbandry, and agriculture. This of course is untrue if Nanzhuangtou really did exist in 12600 BCE (neolithic culture did exist at this point even if it was not present in Göbekli Tepe).

2537:, you have added "artwork to create POV-y history in a range of articles." You are giving short shrift to WP policy and guidelines, not only overburdening a page's depleted prose with twice the number of images the prose can sustain, but also uploading copyvio images, with false attribution, as you recently did on 2060:) has been copying here text and figures from PLOS-type journals that allow such copying. Knowledge does allow such copying as long there is an in-line acknowledgement; in other words, it does not require the authors to be acknowledged in-text (in the form "Authors X and Y state ...."). This editor has copied 2247:. We are actually lucky that academics provide their work for reuse under such free licenses. I tend to think that nothing beats the words of the experts, but I do get the concerns about the wording possibly being too technical or the details too intricate. I will do a rewrite when I have a bit more time. Best 3760:

didn't mention the Neolithic, the Bronze Age, European contact with the Americas or Oceania (or, in fact, anything at all regarding the Americas or Oceania), nor anything that could be remotely construed as supporting any part of this sentence; neither am I convinced, as the edit-summary restoring it

3434:

Anthony's excellent book "The horse, the wheel & language" made me aware that definition of the Neolithic is apparently different, depending on what part of the world you are working. This article doesn't really pick up on that, but seems to be written from the more traditional (western) point of

2115:

As I have already stated, this form of verbatim copying is indeed allowed on Knowledge. However, I am suggesting that copying of hi-res data (text and images) into a low-res (high-level) article written in summary style is not appropriate. The editor you have cited says nothing about this. Please be

2000:

The Halaf Period is traditionally dated to 5400 B.C. See its Knowledge page. In actuality its probably later then this 5100 B.C. (see Peter Akkerman). Dating it to 6400 B.C. is ridiculous. Also, while it may have included regions inside Lebanon and modern day Israel, including all of these places is

1302:

Here is something I finally found about the triangles, squares and circles in North Western Saudi Arabia. I was surfing the world using Google Earth, looking for nice images from all over the world, and was curious about what the scenery looked like in NW Saudi Arabia, then stumbled upon these shapes

1019:

If there are no signs of farming or animal domestication, does this count as a neolithic settlement. Surely this is a pre-neolithic hunter-gatherer settlement and calling it neolithic is a bit misleading? I think the article is currently a bit biased towards Qaramel being "the start" of the neolithic

827:

Many of the so-called settlements in this list are not Neolithic at all and they should not be included in this list. They may be ancient settlements but have almost nothing to do with Neolithic history and I suspect are only in this list because of someone’s petty nationalism. Buncronan in Ireland,

590:

To my knowledge the Incas advanced beyond the Neolithic especially in weaponry; I believe Conquistador accounts describe bronze spears. See the Military section of the Inca article here on Knowledge. This should be included along with the copper axes of the Great Lakes region. If no one has a problem

4277:

I'm happy with the term "Old World" which has the virtues of historical resonance, long-time usage, and common comprehension. I am appalled that a reason for replacing "Old World" is the existence of (ugh!) computer games with the same name. (Sorry, folks, a rant from one who remembers the days when

3802:

My quick search earlier suggests that the term "neolithic" and "bronze age" are rarely applied to them at all, but I'm not seeing anything useful for "stone age" either (though I feel we do need a source using the term "neolithic" if we're going to emphasize it in the lead of this page; I think it's

3193:

Both the Erlitou and Erligang cultures are accepted by virtually all archaeologists to be part of Bronze Age China. The cutoff should be around 2000 BC with the end of the Longshan culture. Erlitou showed a clear advancement in bronze metallurgy over previous cultures, while Erligang's (early Shang)

3018:

I don't like the idea of interpreting our sources. If the sources say BP that's what we should use, but hopefully if they are radio-carbon dated they will say whether the date is uncalibrated or not. Even a calibrated date isn't exact. If the source just uses BCE/BC, then changing to BP of course is

2844:

Your arguments are getting very thin indeed... As you might know, the free versions of the Creative Commons licenses allow for the free reuse of any image (or text), so cropping, reworking etc... is perfectly allowed as long as the original author is acknowledged. And Fowler&fowler, you are also

2811:

That is completely bizarre. You are copying and pasting images in the same careless manner you are text. Here is an image, which already exists on Knowledge. What do you do, instead of uploading a copy of the image, or a better version of the image, you copy the 1991 image onto the file name of a

2767:

is another example, in which you have "updated" an old black and white image of the Sarnath Capital with a supposed eight year old color image. How that image was created inside a museum, the one in Sarnath, in which photography has been banned for a long time, is anyone's guess. There are so many

2478:

Pardon my bluntness, but what is it that you do not understand about Knowledge commonsense? I thought you had publicly resolved to go back to traditional editing, but in one edit, with masterfully enigmatic edit summary, you have doubled the number of images from 14 to 30 on this article's meager-,

2132:

I trust that the information and images that have been provided are very relevant to the topic at hand and written in a style that is quite compatible with the rest of the article. I voluntarily did not include detailed technical stuff. If you think the wording has to be improved, why don't you edit

1339:

The one line on Southern Mespotamia desperately needs expansion. It totally fails to mention the Proto-Sumerian culture that arose around 8,000 BCE and was attestably using clay tokens representing quantities of grain, livestock and handcrafted items around that same time. While these tokens are not

1068:

Solution 1. A box for the Chalcolithic. It seems to me the Chalcolithic was put in the Neolithic, where it absolutely does not belong, for space considerations. I looked at the Bronze Age box where it does belong and there is no space for it there. So, I propose a new box, the Chalcolithic. There is

976:

I see you have sections on most of the nuclear areas. Most excellent, although they seem a bit scanty. There seems a bit of gap. We don't have the Jomon Culture in here, which is now classified as Neolithic and I believe one of the oldest in the world if not the oldest. The descendants of the people

710:

Unfortunately, I think there is another reason for the differences in dates: mixing uncalibrated radiocarbon dates with calibrated dates (as pointed out by an anonymous editor on Aug. 26). The term BP is used sometimes for the one, sometimes for the other--which is a good reason to stop using the BP

547:

I find it easy to be confident that the last two can only be considered WRONG. A minus sign differs from a hyphen. If this were writing on mathematics, I would consider the third and fourth wrong unless one were typing on a keyboard with a limited alphabet and could do nothing else. However, this

289:

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. The period began at the end of the Pleistocene epoch around 10,000 years ago

74:

Could it be possible to place in the chronology of the neolithic ages , the siite of Choirokoitia , in Cyprus Island . This site , for it seems to be the testimony of the expansion to the west of that neolithic civilization pre ceramic from Asia , has been inscripted to the " World Heritage " by the

4262:

Fine with that, though it has OW at the end of the first para. The trouble with Afro-Eurasia, especially when encountered the first time, is you have to do a relatively complex mental process to conclude that "Africa + (Europe + Asia) = Afro-Eurasia". I doubt it would come out well from readability

3927:

I agree that the sentence "Some other parts of the world (including Oceania and some regions of the Americas) remained broadly comparable to the Neolithic stage of development until first contact" should be deleted from the summary paragraphs. The primary reference for this sentence seems to be the

3878:

Of course sources don't use "neolithic" and "bronze age" about most of the world, though at the simplest level nearly all human populations reached the "neolithic" stage, meaning stone tools + farming. The Arctic & partly Australia are exceptions. I don't know why you bring "Bronze Age" into it

3640:

says that "The warmest 200-year-long interval was also centered on 6.5 ka and was 0.7 °C (0.3, 1.8) warmer than the 19th Century.". This means that between 4.530 BC and 4.330 BC was very warm globally for Holocene standards. Kaufman is the main source cited in the 6th report of the IPCC on climate

3051:: just add or subtract 1950, or 2000 if the date has been rounded to the nearest thousand. I don't think we should use uncalibrated dates at all, since it's not something the average reader will be able to interpret, but it would also be unusual for sources to use uncalibrated dates for this period. 462:

It seems the dates for the PPNA, as an example, change depending on the article read. If you search for "Timeline of agriculture and food technology" on Knowledge, they list PPNA as 9500BC. Is that accurate?. If you search for "Jericho", PPNA is dated as 8350 BC to 7370 BC. How come they are so

332:

I've also made a reference out of the inventor of the term. It is not relevant to have such information at the start of a non-academic artickle. Unimportant information should have less emphezising. There fore a note reference is made. Those interested in the term "neolithic" may look there. To the

4208:

I support a change. The great majority of hits on the first two pages of google are for computer games called Old World, and many people will not understand it in its traditional - and POV - sense. Afro-Euroasian is less well known, but it is unambiguous and even people who have not come across it

2635:

does not say that the image comes from Knowledge, it is only listing the Knowledge article for more information, which is a very standard practice on Wikimapia. That said, if you can actually show that this image is copyrighted (did you take it from a book or a museum display?), by all means we'll

2502:

you have also mass-deleted a large amount of normal edits including timeline, infobox, images and even the paragraph about Pre-Pottery Neolithic C, all of which had nothing to do with our discussion. I've been making a few edits to restore the unrelated content you had destroyed, without re-adding

2355:

As always, you are entitled to your own opinion, and I share the principle according to which "Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." However I have never seen on Knowledge any rules against

2615:

site. The picture was taken from the same WP version I wrote and in which I uploaded a Musee Guimet, Paris, image of J-F Jarrige under fair use. The image was later deleted as I state above. My edits here concern deterioration of this article, and—as this is the flagship article—other Neolithic

1840:

It would be good to check if Adhichanallur corresponds to Neolithic Period. As fas as I can see it starts around 1500 BC until 500 BC, this by thermoluminicense dating. This period corresponds to the begining of Megalithic/Iron age culture in South India. Recent research of archaeobotanist Dorian

996:

Well I see the list is still there despite the biting comments about it. Doesn't anyone dare to remove it? Quite right I agree. We don't need the Mesolithic list at all. Moreover we have a box for the Neolithic list so we don't need it at all. It should be organized by nuclear area. Hm. The first

684:

Is there any reason why the dates in this article are in BC? To make them more user-friendly, can they be changed to BP (Before Present)? This makes it more clear, and avoids confusion over the fact that, for example, 8500 BC = 10500 years before the present. Or, can BC at least be changed to the

567:

I just removed an edit about early crops in Africa. Not only was the reference simply a paper presented at a convention, and based on such unreliable sources as van Sertima, it was about work that has been shown (before the paper was written) to be clearly wrong. See this interesting paper on AMS

489:

Hello Ray. The antiquity is the key to the problem. Today we can say December 7 1941 at 8:00 AM with some accuracy and state that the new year begins on January 1 and that is standard for every nation observing this calendar. We have a Bureau of Weights and Measures to set standards and that is a

3990:

In the main text, the first paragraph of the Americas section and the Australian section are fine with me. The second para of the Americas section is internally contradictory. A solution would be to replace the present text with a couple of sentences on the evolution of the advanced cultures of

3931:

Moreover, the stone-to-metal progression as a way of describing societies in the Old World doesn't work in the New World. I don't think any authorities doubt that civilization as commonly defined existed in Peru and Mexico long before first contact with the Old World -- and long before people in

2446:

summarizing. You are copying sentence after sentence. Please also don't attempt to implicate "administrators" in your novel practise. They might have told you how to copy a sentence from a public domain source using an in-line citation, in accordance with WP guidelines. I'm sure they are not

2162:

There is strong evidence for causal connections between the Near-Eastern Neolithic and that further east, up to the Indus Valley. There are several lines of evidence that support the idea of connection between the Neolithic in the Near East and in the Indian subcontinent. The prehistoric site of

1083:

Solution 2. A 2-way table for the Neolithic cultures. We have two schemes of division, one by region (the box) and one by relative chronology (the list). The way the textbooks handle this is a table, early middle and late top to bottom (or bottom to top) and region across. The content of one box

695:

Hello Mr. Tuckerma. The BC/BCE issue has been a big issue on Knowledge as the choice still appears to be religion-related; that is, there is no subject standard. The current policy as I believe (stop me anyone if I err) is 1) It has to be consistent within one article 2) the first use determines

4005:

Phoeey - if there is any "Eurocentric bias" you have increased it. The lead still begins by defining the Neolithic as an "an Old World archaeological period", and the sentence you have removed attempted to say why it only applies there. Just saying "The Neolithic is not a term commonly used to

3883:

and the articles linked there. So you won't find that term used, because it wasn't there. Of course coyness about the modern pejorative associations of "Stone Age" no doubt reduces usage of that term to refer to relatively recent times, but there is no doubt about the facts, & I think our

1390:

As the Iceman had a copper axe had been near a copper smelting furnace, why is he a Neolithic individual? The problem seems to be that his discovery has pushed the copper age earlier, to before (3300 BC), for central Europe, than older text books state was the start of the copper age in that

3912:

These sources are still not satisfactory for the claim. To say that the peoples of the New World and Oceania found themselves in conditions that resembled the Neolithic more than the post-neolithic conditions all populations find themselves in after the discovery of agriculture (maize, taro),

1477:

By Li Liu "The initial Neolithic period (ca. 9000-7000 11 in China is characterized by a gradual climatic transition and wet conditions. It is primarily caused by the strengthened East Asian Monsoon as the northernmost frontal zone of monsoon rainfall present arid and semi-arid regions around

1450:

This article asserts that the Nanzhuangtou Culture in China began around 8500 BCE. However the Nanzhuangtou Article states that the culture began 12600 BCE. If this is the case, isn't the Nanzhuangtou Culture the oldest culture in history? In addition, Göbekli Tepe is stated to be a neolithic

3713: 2690:

images are provided under CC 3.0). Since you claim that you are the one who (illegally) first uploaded this image from a copyrighted source a long time ago, you obviously know where the image comes from, and therefore you should be able to prove your point easily. I think we should have this

2401:

Ha ha, I'll try my best. I've never used this "editorial practice" before, but I found these extracts of 2 or 3 interesting academic studies licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 by PLOS, and foolishly thought it would be best to let the experts give the explanations in their words rather than

2027:

Following previous recommandations, I have started trying to improve the layouts; then I'm planning to check for updated chronology and additionnal references, and add some maps. Since I am new to wikipedia and english is not my native language I would appreciate all the advice, comments and

3054:

As for whether to use BP or BC, my personal rule of thumb is that BP (or the friendlier "years ago") is more intuitive for readers for things older than 10,000 BP or so, which puts the Neolithic right on the edge. Since BC is used more often in the article now, I'd just stick with that.

3884:

readers deserve to be told. The article's "broadly in the Neolithic stage of development" means there was farming and stone tools were normal. The bottom sections of the article cover Australia & the Americas, explaining that the term "neolithic" is generally not used for them.

3718: 2821: 2581:. This is all perfectly licit, as are my other contributions, which I trust have generally brought improvements to Knowledge articles. May I point out that you seem to be quite agressive and xenophobic in your interactions with others: following your notorious "Hindu carbage" post 3286:

Thanks. Yes, it's confusing to me, but I'm not necessarily representative of the reading public. I think it would be a good addition to restore the "period/era/age" on the first mention in this and in those other articles? Your oed link doesn't work for me (requires a sign-in?).

2192:

I agree with F&F. Frankly, using your methods you add so much content that checking probably takes longer than adding it. It tends to unbalance articles. Detailed stuff like this is better in lower-level articles, but your additions are nearly all to very high level articles.

725:

This is one of the points. The other is that BP - as correctly pointed out above - needs additional informations to be unambiguous. Third, how long will geologists speak of 1950 as the "present"? And, why on earth do we have a common, clear, and unambiguous chronological system??

1743: 2437:

are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Knowledge is to be a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

3703: 2872:

in WP is about the weakest argument I've ever heard for an edit. Our goal should be to improve the article, not just fill it up. I cannot see how all these together could possibly be defended as a single improvement. Some of these could be argued as an improvement,

2367:

article on Knowledge specifically describes warnings against using "impact factor" as a way to evaluate the quality of any given academic article. Frankly, the "High-level" Neolithic article is actually in a terrible state of neglect, and there is a lot of work to do.

3450:

Where food was sufficiently abundant (especially around water) there is nothing strange about mesolithic people being sedentary. I'm not sure some of your other statements are correct. The article does in fact touch on these issues, though no doubt more could said.

3314:

Articles names should not be unnecesarily long. The article on the Stone Age is called that because Stone on its own has a different meaning. Neolithic is unambiguous. Anyone who is confused can find out the meaning by reading the article, not by the article name.

617:

Removed section (including the reference that was to a university's main page and said required a phone call) and rewrote with more up to date references. I added a fact tag although it may not have been necessary given my other references, to material found here

2307:

is a high-level article. It is a level-4 vital article in Knowledge's scale. For such articles especially, "Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." (See

2877:, but simply adding a bunch of images without anything specific mentioned as to what is being improved appears to completely miss the point of our job here. Any attempt to defend this bulk of images together is inherently self-defeating. Open a discussion on 440:

From a programme about Iran on BBC4 on 7 March 2006, apparently ploughs constructed purely of wood are still in use, but increasing access to new technology means that they now can use power drills rather than just hand tools in constructing the wooden plough.

1413:

Quite simply: Only in the last decade it was generally accepted to divide the Middle-European Neolithic into a neolithic (proper) - the former older and middle neolithic - against a Chalcolithic or copper age - the former Middle-European younger/late/end NL.

2356:

using Academic material from PLOS publications, quite the contrary: numerous Knowledge articles already use them as reference (especially in the area of Medical Sciences and Genetics) and tens of thousands of their images are already provided on Commons

2503:

content from the sources you objected to (I wonder who is being insensitive here...). I trust the current state of things is fairly consistent with usual Knowledge practice, but if now you think there are too many images, we can of course remove some.

1479: 4223:

If there are computer games using a search term, it normally will get the top g-selections. But I find it significant that no one has launched a game called "Afro-Eurasia"! I pretty sure OW is the more familar and better understood term.

931:

The second, more recent, reference is a pre-print and hardly qualifies as a peer-reviewed publication. I have therefore removed the Gangetic valley claim. Mehrgarh, in Pakistan, still remains the earliest neolithic site in South Asia.

4292:

There is no denying that Old World has been in long-time usage. However, with its connotations, Old World is not suitable in the context of the Neolithic period. I suggest that it be replaced by either Afro-Eurasia or have it taken out.

2057: 640:

The current introduction says that a characteristic of neolithic is the use of wild or domestic crops. The word crop is linked to agriculture. This seems to be a contradiction. Agriculture concerns domesticated plants, not wild plants.

393:

I think the ground was cultivated by mattocks in the Stone Age. Arable instruments are metal usually. However I am not assured. The same in The Neolithic Revolution: "The animal’s ability as a worker (for example ploughing or towing)"

548:

is a different subject. If one were to choose the second or fourth, I would make the space non-breakable (perhaps also the space between "80" and "BC". Are there reasons to consider others strictly incorrect besides the last two?

2828:, which you have uploaded, except in the accurate Flickr uploader's information, is there any indication of the Delhi museum. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you are doing gross damage to Knowledge and will purse this at a wider forum. 108:. It is just a beginning, with text translated from the German and Dutch wikipedia. Since I'm not an expert, this is all I could do. Feel free to add your knowledge! (and correct my errors since English is not my native language) 3879:(the article doesn't). None of the Americas reached this (pre-contact), with metal usage almost totally restricted to ornamental use of copper and precious metals, plus some meteoric iron in the Andes and the far north. See 2442:: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight," Please note the key word "summarize." You are 2534: 2720:

Fair use has never been illegal. Fair use criteria however have changed. The image was in the article for seven years. As my original link above clearly states, it was attributed to Musee Guimet, Paris. (Again, see

3404:

To quote: "The image on the pot is one of the oldest well-dated representations of a four-wheeled vehicle in the world. It suggests the existence of wagons in Central Europe as early as in the late 4th millennium BC."

1767:

An IP deleted that bit you added the CN to. Interestingly, the anon didn't delete a number of other CNs at least back to 2015. Someone following you about? I restored and added a cite based upon your link above. Cheers

1359:"The clothing worn in the Neolithic Age might be similar to that worn by Ötzi the Iceman, although he was not British and not Neolithic (since he belonged to the later Copper age)." Not British? What does that matter? 3811:

to find sources verifying the text you've restored lies on you, not me; I've done a quick search and I'll search a bit more, but I'm going to swing back and remove it eventually if you haven't found a source by then.

778:

I realize there is no exact answer, but is it possible to put approximate times on this period? For example, "from more than ??000 A.D. to around ?000 A.D."? It may give people a better sense of the time frame.

3986:

Better a gaping hole than Eurocentric bias. Your problem can be easily resolved by adding a sentence to the summary paragraphs: "The Neolithic is not a term commonly used to describe cultures in the Americas and

3609:

The passage you cite was misinformation and it is significant that no page number is cited in the supposed source. The date of 13,000 BC is far too early and I have corrected it in the animal husbandry article.

711:

term (besides the fact that it's based on the arbitrary date of 1950 AD!). I would like to find a good reference that gives the dates for the different periods in "real" BCE, not some sort of uncorrected thing.

2850: 2802: 2754: 2700: 2641: 2602: 2508: 2412: 2373: 2252: 2138: 2106: 2051: 918:

A new 2009 report by archaeologist Rakesh Tewari on Lahuradewa shows new C14 datings that range between 8000 BC and 9000 BC associated with rice, making Lahuradewa the earliest Neolithic site in entire South

4006:

describe cultures in the Americas and Australia" begs the question in the reader's mind - "why not?". Better to just remove all non-Old World stuff now, and stick to the subject as now defined in the lead.

2080:. There is an added concern that such copying can come uncomfortably close to citation spamming. I have accordingly reverted the edits. In my view, the editor needs to paraphrase like the rest of us. 2335:

In other words, paraphrasing, whether doing it properly or perfunctorily reshuffling the words, of the same PLOS One articles, is neither appropriate, nor enough, in a high-level article. Best regards,

3465:

I'm pretty sure it's just Soviet/post-Soviet archaeology that defines the Neolithic by the appearance of pottery. Everywhere else it's agriculture. So worth noting, but not really making a big deal of.

3661: 2545:) You breezily make illicit changes across a swath of WP articles, and the rest of us have to spend months cleaning up. Continue in this fashion and, be warned, you are looking at being banned. 2846: 2798: 2750: 2696: 2686:

Wikimapia images are not provided with camera details. The burden of proof is actually on you, since my uploading of this Creative Commons 3.0 image is perfectly in line with Knowledge rules (all

2637: 2598: 2504: 2473: 2408: 2369: 2248: 2207: 2134: 2102: 2047: 3195: 1789:

Thanks. I wouldn't be surprised if someone is following me. I think there are linked articles that might need updating, but I hate working on a laptop or iPad so it will have to wait a few days.

378:

I've always understood that a large part of the definition of the Neolithic had to do with the beginning of settled farming. Shouldn't that be part of the first few sentences in the article?

3765:. I actually searched a bit before removing it and found no mention of the Americas still being in the neolithic prior to European contact, say. We can only leave things uncited in the lead 3127:, I agree about calibrated BP - I think there are times, although maybe not for anything this recent, that we should use uncalibrated, and of course some sources will only use uncalibrated. 2725:). This discussion is not just about Mehrgarh but about the overburdening of WP Neolithic-related pages with quickly uploaded (and insufficiently verified) images you have been inserting. 1907: 259:), the 'e' form would appear to have greater logic. Is this any help? BTW - WP uses the reverse hierarchy, so there could be an argument for swapping the 'main' & 'rediect' pages? - 3730: 917:

Tewari, Rakesh et al. 2006. "Second Preliminary Report of the excavations at Lahuradewa,District Sant Kabir Nagar, UP 2002–2003–2004 & 2005–06" in Pragdhara No. 16 </ref: -->

1113:

Thanks Doug. I'm tardy on this. Will get back. I left it in only June. There is just so much to do here. One glaring deficit leads to a worse and then you get tied up in arguments.

3641:

change. Please help me double check if this is correct, the literature sometimes gets too technical and complex, and I have misread before abbreviations from the report.

2116:

warned that I've been around WP a very long time and understand the spirit of its rationales. Best not to respond facilely to my concerns, or attempt to Wikilawyer through.

2812:

hundred year old black and white image, of historical value. (Photography has been banned in the Sarnath museum for a very long time.) And, it is not just that, as is your

1509:

which is clearly reliable says 12600-11300 cal BP - we had the usual edito deciding they don't like BP and that BCE is the same. I've added the correct dates and fixed the

1184:

it should either have both BC and BP or at least conversion chart. Some of us aren't all that savvy. *points to herself* I've been trying to do the math for a while now.

2239:

OK guys, thanks for the feedback. Copying portions of academic texts licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 is perfectly allowed on Knowledge and approved by Administrators

3754:

Some other parts of the world (including Oceania and the northern regions of the Americas) remained broadly in the Neolithic stage of development until European contact.

390:"The domestication of animals, either as draught animals or as a food source... Animal labour (for example, oxen) could greatly improve the efficiency of land tillage." 4317:

You could always go with the longer "...archaeological period in Africa, Europe, and Asia..." I suppose. Joe's 'leave out the extents entirely" solution is also good.

2597:. May I suggest that you cool down a bit, so that we can cooperate productively. There is no need to be this agressive and condescending with other contributors. Best 2785: 1303:

all over in the land. Now I want to go there and get on the ground and see these places for real, or at least images of what they actually look like from the ground:

2746:), which was properly uploaded under a Creative Commons 3.0 license from Wikimapia, is in fact copyrighted, then please provide evidence (the link you are giving 1939: 1935: 1921: 1684: 1680: 1666: 333:

general public the artickle should give a good overview over the period, with relevant resources for indepth research for those wanting to gain more knowledge. (

1997:"Around 6400 BC the Halaf culture appeared in Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, and Northern Mesopotamia and subsisted on dryland agriculture." 3233:? Is that how archeologists use it? To the untrained reader, however, this is confusing and perhaps could be explained in this or another simliar article. — 2321: 1642: 752:

There are occasions when dates are only given in BP, so we have no choice. This discussion is an old one, by the way, about 18 months since the last post.

1210:

Unfortunately due to media culture assassination of Iran and also the fact that the discoveries are recent, very few people know about the discoveries at

326:

Put the "dates" category under periods, and eventually one can merge other articles about PPNA, PPNB etc. It is more practical to have it in one article.

1908:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160505105137/http://www.mitchellteachers.org/WorldHistory/MrMEarlyHumansProject/PDFs/PaleolithictoNeolithicDescriptions.pdf

3497:

Croucher KT (2018) Keeping the dead close: grief and bereavement in the treatment of skulls from the Neolithic Middle East. Mortality. 23(2): 103-120.

2825: 2742:

As far as I know, all my images are uploaded under proper licensing, and they are indeed sufficiently verified. If you happen to know that one image (

1562:

No surprise, why should a professor of politics be an expert be an expert on archaeology? And why should we use a quote from a non-expert. Added with

4152:: Afro-Eurasia would be most appropriate as Old World has a connotation to the Age of Discovery, which is quite a stretch from the Neolithic period. 3633:

Kaufman, D., McKay, N., Routson, C. et al. Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach. Sci Data 7, 201 (2020).

2214:

and F&F are absolutely correct. Even if it is allowed, simply copying and pasting is a poor editorial practice and makes for poor readability.

2001:

misleading. It should really be limited to saying Northern Mesopotamia and much of Syria. I may just delete the statement in question. ~~John Dee

4246:. All archaeological periods have a geographical limit, I don't see a compelling need to point this one out specifically in the first sentence. – 903:

Fuller, Dorian 2006. "Agricultural Origins and Frontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis" in Journal of World Prehistory 20, p.42 </ref: -->

1911: 1218:

has also omitted. I'm not an expert on the stone age or any era in the distant past, so I don't know which article this information could go to.

364:

standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --

1811:

I think that expert review of this article is desperately needed. The article seems patchy and not as informative as it should be.-Anonymous

3259:, and many subperiods thereof. I don't see any harm in clarifying "Neolithic period" on the first mention, if it's confusing... but is it? – 2985:

I note that articles covering the earlier ~lithic categories use BP notation rather than BC. Should this article be updated for consistency?

2667: 1155: 2421:

This is no laughing matter. Your practise, which if engaged in more than just occasionally, begins to violate key WP principles, including

2289:

the number of times an average published paper in the journal is cited in other scholarly publications) is typically low, somewhere between

3914: 3415: 2499:. Sorry to see this still doesn't seem to work for you. Are now images the problem? In your previous revert of academic material from PLOS 2008: 832:

in Greece was occupied from 20,000 years ago and then sporadically into the Neolithic, it should head the list of Neolithic settlements.

3880: 2845:

free to improve on a caption you deem insufficient any time you wish, that's what collaborative editing is about. Have a very nice day.

1191: 1050: 839: 4034:

No, you haven't. And btw, describing as "Eurocentic" an article mostly about Asia, the Middle East and Africa is a ... little strange.

3955:

The consensus seems to be that the sentence in question is not neutral, not referenced, and should be removed. I'll do the dirty work.

3665: 2784:

Your accusations really do not make any sense: as explained in the file, the color photograph in question is just a cropped version of

3199: 1288: 1262: 923:

The paragraph contains claims that have not been vetted by the archeological community. Indeed, Dorian Fuller's survey article says,

598: 401: 3972:

Oh, great! You've now left a gaping hole in the lead. Probably the Americas and Australia sections should be removed completely now.

2133:

in a collaborative manner as we all do? Mass deletion and edit-warring is certainly not the way to go, and I think you know it. Best

3596: 2816:

you spammed various images of Sarnath you have uploaded on WP, with less than accurate captions, on dozens of pages. Consider this

2447:

weighing in on the appropriateness of copying paragraph after paragraph from such sources. Please see the history section of the FA

1917:

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

1662:

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

1341: 1255:

Speaking of Iran, goat evidence for goat domestication is 10000 BC. That should qualify as an earlier beginning to the Neolithic.

2824:). But yet you have blithely, without a worry, captioned the picture as "Sarnath capital pillar of Ashoka." Nowhere on the file, 2792:. I used it to replace a poor quality black and white image I had uploaded earlier. And there are many photographs from inside the 1507: 651:

This is a bad description in the article: The NL is characterized by the DOMESTICATION of plants and animals, not of their "use".

3757: 1232:

I don’t think that the Jiroft civilization and the Zayandeh Rud Civilization should be mentioned in this article because they are

2650:

Where are the camera details? It is not my job to prove it is copyrighted. Please comb through the image deletion discussion.

2176:. Frankly I'm amazed that you have the nerve to defend your blatant copying, allowed though it might be in the current rules. 2526:

Please know that I am wise to your conceits. Feigning disingenuousness with polite sarcasm will get you nowhere with me. As

1626: 2909:

The "Human timeline" is near useless for something that commenced 10k years ago; the article would benefit from its removal.

1616: 1323: 3519:

The section title Southwest Asia contains a paragraph discussing sites in China. China is in East Asia, not Southwest Asia.

3047:

I think consistency is more important than following the sources in this case. Converting between (calibrated) BP and BC is

1897: 3788:

Try searching using "Stone Age". What age exactly do you think north America or Oceania were in at first European contact?

1606: 4360: 667: 1742:"The earliest occupation of Mehrgarh in Period 1 was found in mound MR3 and has been dated to between 6500 and 5500 BCE." 4189: 3738: 2963: 1982: 1727: 1652: 1643:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150211201745/http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/17022/?sequence=1

182: 2579: 2541:, a neolithic site in Pakistan. I know because I uploaded the same image as a fair use one, and it was deleted. (See 1887: 1467: 1223: 478: 3834:. But that I guess is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that cultures in North America are normally classified as: 301:

The Neolithic period is the second period of the Holocene epoch, following the Mesolithic or Epipalaeolithic period.

3769:

and this simply isn't - the body makes no mention of Oceania at all, while regarding the Americas it says only that

2064:

four paragraphs from such articles, and has done similar things with figures. It is my contention that high-level (

859:

There seems to be an inconsistency with the starting date presented for the start of the Neolithic Age as described

2834: 2774: 2731: 2676: 2656: 2622: 2551: 2485: 2461: 2342: 2269:

Firstly, you are copying from articles involving primary research, especially those published in journals with low

2182: 2122: 2086: 938: 329:

Following the Pre-Pottery cultures are the Halafian etc. The dates make a good chronological article if completed.

38: 3898:

Another editor has kindly added 2 refs, & I have added Britannica's "Stone Age", which gives a global survey.

2402:

deforming them (systematically giving credit all along, and having asked Admistrators how to do it properly first

4330:

That may be best, certainly it's the simplest. I think some geographical indication is needed in the first para.

1938:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1683:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1646: 4356: 3918: 3694:

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

2945: 2915: 2764: 2033: 1851: 1824: 1215: 3419: 2012: 1912:

http://www.mitchellteachers.org/WorldHistory/MrMEarlyHumansProject/PDFs/PaleolithictoNeolithicDescriptions.pdf

1841:

Fuller establishes that Neolithic in South India starts by 3000 BC in Karnataka, getting to Tamil Nadu later.

1485:

More can be found, but they seem to all agree on the dates, not surprisingly. They were changed with this edit

798: 790: 1195: 1054: 4182: 4075: 3734: 2743: 2563: 2274: 1973: 1879: 1718: 1598: 843: 602: 553: 3100: 1345: 89:

if you like, it is a very important site and deserves a page of its own. Then we can link to it from here.

4214: 3660:

This Knowledge help me did homework, thanks for made this page my work won't finish if I don't have this.

3615: 3539: 3371: 3337: 3320: 3288: 3234: 2264:

Copying or close paraphrasing is only one part of the issue with your edits. There are number of others:

1875: 1292: 1266: 1219: 716: 405: 794: 786: 569: 3862: 3568: 3524: 3141: 3133: 3025: 2932: 2633: 2612: 2309: 1957:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1945: 1795: 1751: 1702:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1690: 1572: 1028: 424: 334: 277:

The Neolithic era follows the terminal Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic and early Holocene Mesolithic periods

221: 136: 2829: 2769: 2726: 2671: 2651: 2617: 2616:

articles as a result of your edits. If you have complaints about my behavior, please take me to ANI.

2546: 2496: 2480: 2456: 2337: 2177: 2117: 2081: 1878:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1597:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 933: 308: 4348:

i dont have high enough level but the citation needed box i have a link for if anyone wants to add it

4283: 4025: 3996: 3960: 3937: 3411: 3244: 2173: 2004: 1518: 1493: 1311: 1284: 1258: 1187: 1140: 1118: 1104: 1089: 1074: 1002: 982: 962: 835: 817: 757: 701: 655: 626: 594: 576: 505: 474: 466: 446: 397: 3928:

Encyclopedia Britannica, and I don't believe the EB article supports the inclusion of this sentence.

3501: 1159: 4294: 4177: 4153: 4113: 3817: 3778: 3564: 3505: 3171:

Joe has fixed. Does anybody know what irritating little rectangle at bottom right on this page is?

3096: 3074: 2941: 2910: 2882: 2529: 2072:

cannot be venues for such high-res text dumping. They need encyclopedic summation of knowledge in

2029: 1846: 1819: 1315: 1211: 1163: 3773:

Either way, if it's so clearly true, it should be easy to find sources saying it unambiguously. --

3345:

Now it has "The Neolithic period is the final division of the Stone Age" - what needs explaining?

3247:, yes, and most often used that way in both specialist and popular sources. The same goes for the 1548: 1432: 1360: 1241: 953:

I've been getting my eardrums broken from some quarters about the supposed inapplicability of the

4371: 4298: 4199: 4157: 4117: 3856:

doesn't exactly match that for North America and has a different take entirely on South America.

3827: 3675:

That's good news. Make sure you check out the sources, to make sure that the article is correct.

2971: 2900: 2430: 1456: 1319: 899: 549: 3073:

Agree generally, but "right on the edge" is a Middle East archy speaking; for Europe, let alone

1942:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1687:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1403:

approach is at best a generalisation and can be picked apart until the cows come home. I'm sure

1281:

The neolithic is marked by several different advances, and cannot be defined by a single site.

470: 3724:豬, 陶器，興隆窪文化，新石器時代, earthenware pig, Xinglongwa Culture, Early Neolithic period, IMG 4435 05.jpg 1958: 1703: 319:

If introduced "periods" to this article with Neolithic 1, Neolithic 2 and Neolithic 3. Look at

4335: 4268: 4252: 4229: 4210: 4139: 4039: 4011: 3977: 3903: 3889: 3853: 3793: 3611: 3593: 3535: 3472: 3456: 3350: 3331: 3316: 3305: 3265: 3176: 3161: 3109: 3082: 3061: 3038: 3009: 2198: 1773: 1552: 1436: 1419: 1364: 1245: 731: 712: 663: 198: 3194:

main center at Zhengzhou was massive (13 km^2) and had outer walls that were 20 meters tall.

1407:

will know what the current thinking is on dating the end of the Neolithic in Central Europe.

783:

just wondering....does a neolithic period not exist in africa at all? theres no info on it??

3857: 3808: 3646: 3558: 3520: 3490:

people preserved skulls of the dead, which were plastered with mud to make facial features."

3136: 3128: 3020: 3000:

No, I think not. The Neolithic is recent enough. Most good sources don't use BP, do they?

2990: 2927: 2388: 2219: 1790: 1762: 1746: 1567: 1400: 1022: 954: 868: 418: 215: 130: 4353: 3709:

Round stone hoe, Early Neolithic period, Manchurian Culture, 石錛, 圓形, 新石器時代, IMG 9769 18.jpg

2763:

It is not one image—other image addition and edits border on breaking WP regulations. The

1965: 1710: 1627:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131021222544/http://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1506

4279: 4021: 3992: 3956: 3933: 3440: 2294: 1617:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110512174808/http://www.kaogu.cn/en/detail.asp?ProductID=982

1514: 1489: 1136: 1114: 1100: 1085: 1070: 998: 978: 958: 813: 753: 697: 622: 619: 572: 501: 442: 282: 129:

Thanks Niels, I've made some minor copyedits to your additions. Needs further expansion.--

4243: 3336:

Perhaps it would be OK to explain it in the lede, but not change the aricle name, then? —

1898:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080315174222/http://www2.bc.edu/~mcdonadh/course/huyuk.html

520:

Here are six different styles for displaying a bit of information found in this article:

320: 1607:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131021213642/http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/neolithic.php

3813: 3774: 3699:

Big Stone Axe, Early Neolithic period, Manchurian Culture, 大石斧,新石器時代早期, IMG 4463 08.jpg

3230: 3048: 3001: 2813: 2793: 2325: 1924:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1669:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1304: 1158:

and others in this and related articles would be useful, what's the WP's take on this?

829: 417:

constructed purely of wood are attested. It still bears further examination, however.--

297:

the Entry agrees with the graphic here, perhaps paragraph 2 should read something like

47: 17: 3991:

Mexico and Peru, rather than, or in addition to, the present text about U.S. cultures.

3771:

in later periods cities of considerable size developed, and some metallurgy by 700 BC.

3155:

On a related note, the article currently mixes BC and BCE, which ought to be fixed. –

2749:

does not mean anything). I will be the first one to request a deletion of that image.

1964:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1709:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

76: 4195: 3704:

Red cup, Earthenware, Early Neolithic period, Xinglongwa Culture, 紅陶杯 IMG 3965 03.jpg

3690:

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

3225:, this article was called that, or at least included "age" and "era" in the lede. Is 2967: 2896: 2426: 2422: 2364: 2270: 2077: 1653:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080430200956/http://worldmuseumofman.org/neolithic1.htm

1452: 686: 494: 260: 2101:. You do not get to create your own personal rules on Knowledge... Have a nice day. 4331: 4264: 4247: 4225: 4149: 4135: 4131: 4105: 4035: 4007: 3973: 3899: 3885: 3831: 3789: 3488:

I found a citation for this line: "Burial findings suggest an ancestor cult where

3467: 3452: 3367: 3361: 3346: 3301: 3281: 3260: 3256: 3248: 3172: 3156: 3124: 3104: 3078: 3056: 3034: 3005: 2357: 2282: 2278: 2244:. Therefore inflammatory accusations of "Copyvio" etc... are totally inappropriate 2211: 2194: 2073: 1888:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080219152657/http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0156.htm

1784: 1769: 1630: 1415: 1408: 1012: 727: 659: 361: 214:

Hey thanks, Manchot, some of those imgs are now included in the article. Cheers, --

205: 105: 90: 86: 1620: 360:

as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail

3587: 1901: 4375: 4318: 3714:

Stone Axe, Neolithic period, Manchurian Culture, 石斧, 新石器時代, IMG 7iii50073 07.jpg

3676: 3642: 3554:

Under Origin, "By about 6900–6400 BC, it included domesticated cattle and pigs"

2986: 2384: 2317: 2312:) Had you paraphrased from a text-book, a review article from a journal such as 2215: 1931: 1676: 1610: 1535:

Let's look at the Knowledge article on early forms of writing in the Neolithic:

864: 642: 379: 365: 357: 342: 176: 166: 109: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

239:

Hello - I couldn't help noticing a tension over the spelling of this word. The

4382: 4364: 4339: 4325: 4302: 4287: 4272: 4257: 4233: 4218: 4203: 4161: 4143: 4121: 4043: 4029: 4015: 4000: 3981: 3964: 3941: 3922: 3907: 3893: 3865: 3821: 3797: 3782: 3742: 3683: 3669: 3650: 3619: 3572: 3543: 3528: 3509: 3477: 3460: 3444: 3436: 3423: 3374: 3354: 3340: 3324: 3309: 3291: 3270: 3252: 3237: 3203: 3180: 3166: 3144: 3114: 3086: 3066: 3042: 3028: 3013: 2994: 2975: 2949: 2935: 2920: 2904: 2885: 2854: 2839: 2806: 2779: 2758: 2736: 2704: 2681: 2661: 2645: 2627: 2606: 2556: 2512: 2490: 2466: 2416: 2392: 2377: 2363:

against this Open License, peer-reviewed, academic publisher. By the way, the

2347: 2256: 2223: 2202: 2187: 2142: 2127: 2110: 2091: 2037: 2016: 1987: 1930:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1856: 1829: 1798: 1777: 1754: 1732: 1675:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1575: 1556: 1522: 1497: 1460: 1440: 1423: 1368: 1349: 1327: 1296: 1270: 1249: 1233: 1227: 1199: 1167: 1144: 1122: 1108: 1093: 1078: 1058: 1035: 1006: 986: 966: 943: 891: 872: 860: 847: 821: 802: 761: 735: 720: 705: 689: 671: 645: 630: 606: 580: 557: 509: 482: 449: 431: 382: 368: 345: 311: 263: 228: 208: 187: 169: 143: 112: 93: 3401:

And consider including it in the "Europe" section of this Knowledge article.

2768:

near-violations that I will soon bring up your edits at a bigger WP forum.

2166:

with the prose of the rest of the article, which is more along the lines of:

1656: 1647:

http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/17022/?sequence=1

4127: 4101: 4079: 3634: 3391:

Broncice Pot in Central Poland as a sign of first wheel based transportation

3218: 3214: 2687: 2571: 2304: 2298: 2283:

2015 Newcastle Computational Genomics/Computational Archaeology Ph.D. thesis

2152: 2097:

Please cool down Fowler&fowler. This is perfectly allowed on Knowledge

2069: 1871: 1590: 1237: 1046: 3719:

Stone cup, Neolithic period, Manchurian Culture, 石杯, 新石器時代, IMG 6271 05.jpg

2383:

The question is whether your editorial practice would improve the article.

2290: 1891: 500:

template on it. You can see how to do that by opening an edit on this code.

1049:

are the best preserved rock paints. Thus it must be added in this article.

685:

more neutral BCE(Before Common Era)? Is there a Knowledge policy on this?

4238:

We could also sidestep the issue by reverting the lead sentence prior to

3033:

There is a problem if the article switches styles every sentence though.

2796: 2692: 2567: 2538: 1404: 1392: 1178: 1069:

room for that in the articles. The sequence must be changed accordingly.

2360: 1636: 1544: 3592:. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. 2584:, you have accused me of "dumping a usual Indian smoke and mirrors" 1020:

revolution, which it clearly wasn't cos there were no farmers there.

916:

yielded a C14 dating of 7100 BC for its Neolithic levels.<ref: -->

909: 905: 895: 414: 3484:

Periods by region, Southwest Asia, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B citation

3004:

could do with additions on when the normal crossover is, and why.

1379:"ended when metal tools came into widespread use in the Copper Age" 882:

I am removing the following paragraph from the South Asia section:

2452: 2448: 913: 887: 290:

and ended with the introduction of farming around 8,000 years ago.

2789: 1214:

and the potential discovery of the first sample of writing. The

1177:

Shouldn't the "revolution links" go to "neolithic revolution? --

4134:

is too little known - compare their views: 850 vs 550 per day.

3396: 1538: 4063: 3297: 25: 4020:

I've suggested a way to meet your concerns. Have a nice day.

2592:, and accused me several times of copyvio when there is none 2881:, where a given image may help, and then we can proceed. -- 251:

as a 'variant'. As the word is actually derived from Latin (

197:

I've just uploaded some free content on Commons, so you can

4104:

archaeological period...", should be changed to "... is an

4108:

archaeological period..." for higher comprehensibility as

1882:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1601:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

341:

You're obviously a serious contributor: why not log in? --

3019:

a mistake. Then we use BC/BCE, whichever is appropriate.

4354:

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Neolithic_Age

4239: 3222: 2817: 2747: 2722: 2595: 2593: 2590: 2588: 2585: 2582: 2542: 2500: 2405: 2403: 2297:

whose impact factor during the last ten years averages

2277:, for example, is a 2014 preliminary announcement in a 2245: 2242: 2240: 2098: 1594: 1563: 1486: 1431:"...although he was not British"???? (Double facepalm) 321:

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/NeolithicLevant.html

2455:, although journal articles exist by the thousands. 2303:

Secondly, and this is more important than the first:

356:

External link or links have recently been deleted by

305:

but for all I know, the Entry and graphic are wrong.

3752:

This part of the lead didn't have a valid citation:

2868:

The fact that the images (in general, at least) are

1305:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.2111.pdf

3300:and age cover larger demarcations, like Stone Age. 2587:, have harassed me for having an Indian user name: 2023:

Improve Layouts, check chronology and add some maps

1934:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1679:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 77:

http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=848

2407:). I guess I'll go back to traditional editing... 3370:added that, in light of this conversation. OK. — 3296:I would think "period" is the only correct one - 1399:I think '...widespread use' is the key term; the 904:Recently another site near the confluence of the 1631:http://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1506 1621:http://www.kaogu.cn/en/detail.asp?ProductID=982 4278:a computer was a guy with an adding machine.) 3729:Participate in the deletion discussion at the 2940:Agree that it should be removed, good call. — 2293:. This is not an established journal such as 1920:This message was posted before February 2018. 1902:http://www2.bc.edu/~mcdonadh/course/huyuk.html 1665:This message was posted before February 2018. 886:"One of the earliest Neolithic sites in north 3748:"Some parts of the world..." bit in the lead. 3631: 2926:Agreed. Let's wait a day or so first though. 2786:File:Löwenkapitell im Sarnath Museum 1991.jpg 2151:four paragraphs from journals. Please note ( 1814:Yes this is exactly what is needed-Anonymous 1611:http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/neolithic.php 1566:edit, I hope the rest is better. Good catch. 1307:. Perhaps it is useful for future research. 8: 4060:Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2023 2322:Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 1335:Request for Expansion on Southern Mespotamia 85:Hi docaubrac. Do please write an article on 75:UNESCO as you can see following this link . 2691:discussion (if necessary at all...) on the 2451:, a high-level article: it almost entirely 2359:. There is no point in going on a personal 4130:is more old-fashioned than ambiguous, but 3589:Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory 3515:Periods by region - Southwest Asia - China 3409: 3209:Why not "Neolithic era" or "Neolithic age" 2002: 1657:http://worldmuseumofman.org/neolithic1.htm 3635:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0530-7 2826:File:Sarnath_pillar_capital_of_Ashoka.jpg 1870:I have just modified 3 external links on 1589:I have just modified 6 external links on 591:I'll go ahead and make this minor edit. 458:Why are the PPNA and PPNB not hard dates? 4100:The first stanza, which reads "...is an 2328:, it might have been a different matter. 1892:http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0156.htm 1446:Concerning Nanzhuangtou and Göbekli Tepe 1277:Use of Arbitrary definition of Neolithic 201:if you want to illustrate this article. 3662:2001:44C8:44CD:7160:E346:8991:7E09:4D4D 3578: 2099:as Administrators have been telling you 1863:External links modified (February 2018) 1045:I just readed that the painting of the 269:which epoch for Epipalaeolithic period? 174:Moved it ages ago, forgot to update. - 3770: 3762: 3753: 3397:https://en.wikipedia.org/Bronocice_pot 3196:2601:645:C101:3570:4D66:BDA8:F876:78B2 3077:(begins c. 4000 BC), it's well away. 1539:https://en.wikipedia.org/Proto-writing 861:Prehistory#Major_Timline_Inconsistency 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4374:source than that, but thanks anyway. 2578:under a Creative Commons 3.0 license 902:around 8th millennium BC.<ref: --> 413:A good point anon, although forms of 7: 3430:no clear definition of the Neolithic 3189:Incorrect Neolithic cutoff for China 1637:http://www.webcitation.org/5kyWqKoah 3881:Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America 3559:Animal_husbandry#Birth_of_husbandry 2879:what specifically needs to improved 1099:I haven't got the time, go for it. 3761:with no citation said, that it is 3213:Why are ages called by their age ( 2285:. The impact factor of PLOS One ( 1845:Signed for archive purposes only. 1818:Signed for archive purposes only. 1506:Checked the latest sources there, 24: 3807:it is true. And, ultimately, the 2570:article, was uploaded by me from 1874:. Please take a moment to review 1593:. Please take a moment to review 1135:The Final Neolithic is not there. 294:I don't know which is correct. 4209:will understand it immediately. 4168: 4067: 2043:PLOS citation and image spamming 1382:"Neolithic individuals included 165:be moved to a seperate article? 29: 3767:when they are cited in the body 3550:Citation for pig domestication? 2895:I assume it has been removed ? 1635:Corrected formatting/usage for 3395:Please see regarding article: 2632:Apparently the Wikimapia site 2574:, where it has been available 2326:impact factor between 8 and 9 563:Africa & pdf on AMS dating 1: 4370:Erm... we'll probably need a 4044:17:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC) 4030:19:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 4016:19:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 4001:18:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 3982:17:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 3965:13:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC) 3942:11:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC) 3923:09:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC) 3763:still true & needs saying 3181:18:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 3167:17:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 3145:19:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 3115:19:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 3087:18:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 3067:17:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 3043:17:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 3029:16:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 3014:15:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 2995:09:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 2976:14:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 2905:14:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 1988:00:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) 1799:20:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC) 1778:19:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC) 1755:12:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC) 1523:11:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC) 1498:11:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC) 1488:. The source is a newspaper. 1461:04:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC) 1441:19:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC) 1250:20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 1228:11:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 1168:19:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 808:List of neolithic settlements 721:22:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 646:13:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 631:19:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) 483:05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 383:17:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 281:paragraph 1 of the entry for 209:14:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 188:20:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 94:22:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC) 3651:16:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC) 3534:I have moved the paragraph. 2613:fine print on that Wikimapia 1576:20:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC) 1557:19:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC) 690:20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 581:10:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 346:20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 312:21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC) 170:09:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 144:01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 4094:to reactivate your request. 4082:has been answered. Set the 3204:04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC) 2950:20:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC) 2936:15:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC) 2921:04:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC) 2566:which you removed from the 2562:Please note that the image 2068:low-res) articles such as 1857:04:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC) 1830:04:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC) 1145:11:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC) 1123:11:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC) 848:03:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC) 558:17:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC) 113:22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 4399: 4340:03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC) 4326:18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 4303:18:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 4288:14:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 4273:14:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 4258:12:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 4234:14:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 4219:08:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 4204:00:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 4162:19:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 4144:16:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 4122:15:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 3908:14:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 3894:14:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 3866:09:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 3822:04:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 3798:03:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 3783:02:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 3620:22:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC) 3573:21:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC) 3375:11:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 3355:01:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 3341:00:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 1951:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1867:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1696:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1586:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1328:08:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 1200:16:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC) 873:01:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC) 822:11:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC) 706:15:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 510:11:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 273:paragraph 2 reads in part 264:04:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 104:I have created an article 3684:16:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC) 3670:13:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC) 3544:08:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC) 3529:05:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC) 3510:21:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC) 3325:22:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC) 3310:14:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC) 3292:14:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC) 3271:12:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC) 3238:20:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC) 2273:. One of your sources, 2038:20:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 2017:01:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC) 1836:The case of Adhichanallur 1513:ref, removed the others. 1424:14:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) 1395:00:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) 1297:21:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 1271:21:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 1216:Zayandeh Rud Civilization 1181:14:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) 1109:05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 1094:05:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 1079:05:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 1059:22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 949:Alternative nomenclatures 803:18:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 762:15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC) 736:14:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC) 672:14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC) 450:02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 432:01:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 369:14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 247:as the main entry, with ' 241:Concise Oxford Dictionary 229:01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 4383:16:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 4365:15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 3743:03:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC) 2981:Time notation convention 2886:19:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2855:15:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2840:15:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2807:15:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2780:15:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2765:File:Sarnath_capital.jpg 2759:14:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2737:13:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2705:12:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2682:12:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2662:12:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2646:11:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2628:11:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2607:11:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2557:10:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC) 2513:14:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC) 2491:13:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC) 2467:16:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 2417:16:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 2393:15:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 2378:15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 2348:13:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 2257:18:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC) 2224:15:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC) 2203:13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC) 2188:13:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC) 2143:12:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC) 2128:12:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC) 2111:12:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC) 2092:12:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC) 1993:Halaf Period, 6400 B.C.? 1369:22:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 1350:23:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 1036:19:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1007:03:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC) 987:16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 967:15:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 944:12:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 607:21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 3478:15:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC) 3461:14:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC) 3445:14:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC) 3424:03:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC) 3217:) but periods are not ( 2744:File:Mehrgarh ruins.jpg 2564:File:Mehrgarh_ruins.jpg 1733:20:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 1582:External links modified 1064:Two suggested solutions 812:Put your comments here. 255:- the ablative form of 4112:is an ambiguous term. 3849:The Post-Classic stage 3830:has been described as 3638: 3557:This contradicts what 2497:User:Fowler&fowler 2314:Nature Review Genetics 2171: 2165: 929: 921: 352:Deleted external links 323:for more information. 303: 292: 279: 3101:Practically Yesterday 2453:sourced to text-books 2167: 2160: 1475:The Chinese Neolithic 925: 884: 299: 287: 275: 81:docaubrac@wanadoo.fr 42:of past discussions. 4180:for this alteration 3408:Thanks & Best! 2423:no original research 2076:and need to reflect 1932:regular verification 1677:regular verification 1543:Nope. nothing about 4357:Dollardollardollar3 4190:Edit semi-protected 4176:please establish a 3843:The Formative stage 3097:Prehistoric Ireland 3075:Prehistoric Ireland 2818:remarkable addition 2695:page by the way... 1922:After February 2018 1667:After February 2018 1206:Jiroft Civilization 3828:Old Copper Culture 3735:Community Tech bot 3561:has, which cites 2958:Table needs fixing 1976:InternetArchiveBot 1927:InternetArchiveBot 1721:InternetArchiveBot 1672:InternetArchiveBot 878:Gangetic Neolithic 335:User:85.165.17.218 172: 163:Neolithic Religion 156:Neolithic Religion 4256: 4174:Not done for now: 4098: 4097: 3854:Pre-Columbian era 3846:The Classic stage 3840:The Archaic stage 3625:Climate estimates 3586:Nelson, Sarah M. 3476: 3426: 3414:comment added by 3269: 3165: 3117: 3113: 3065: 2964:human settlements 2831:Fowler&fowler 2771:Fowler&fowler 2728:Fowler&fowler 2673:Fowler&fowler 2653:Fowler&fowler 2619:Fowler&fowler 2548:Fowler&fowler 2535:succinctly stated 2482:Fowler&fowler 2458:Fowler&fowler 2339:Fowler&fowler 2281:, PLOS One, of a 2179:Fowler&fowler 2119:Fowler&fowler 2083:Fowler&fowler 2019: 2007:comment added by 1952: 1697: 1331: 1314:comment added by 1287:comment added by 1261:comment added by 1220:Ardeshire Babakan 1190:comment added by 935:Fowler&fowler 855:Start Date Wrong? 838:comment added by 675: 658:comment added by 597:comment added by 516:Typesetting style 485: 469:comment added by 429: 409: 400:comment added by 235:Artifact/Artefact 226: 160: 141: 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4390: 4380: 4323: 4250: 4193: 4172: 4171: 4089: 4085: 4071: 4070: 4064: 3860: 3837:The Lithic stage 3681: 3603: 3602: 3583: 3470: 3365: 3335: 3285: 3263: 3159: 3139: 3131: 3107: 3093:Propose renaming 3091: 3059: 3023: 2930: 2918: 2913: 2912:William Harris • 2837: 2832: 2777: 2772: 2734: 2729: 2679: 2674: 2659: 2654: 2625: 2620: 2611:Please read the 2554: 2549: 2533: 2488: 2483: 2477: 2464: 2459: 2435:TERTIARY SOURCES 2345: 2340: 2318:impact factor 40 2185: 2180: 2147:You have copied 2125: 2120: 2089: 2084: 1986: 1977: 1950: 1949: 1928: 1854: 1849: 1848:William Harris • 1827: 1822: 1821:William Harris • 1793: 1788: 1766: 1749: 1731: 1722: 1695: 1694: 1673: 1570: 1531:Cursive writing? 1401:Three age system 1330: 1308: 1299: 1273: 1202: 1173:Revolution links 1034: 1031: 1025: 955:three-age system 941: 936: 894:, in the Middle 850: 674: 652: 609: 499: 493: 464: 425: 423: 395: 222: 220: 199:have a look here 185: 179: 137: 135: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4398: 4397: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4376: 4350: 4319: 4187: 4169: 4087: 4083: 4068: 4062: 3858: 3750: 3731:nomination page 3692: 3677: 3658: 3627: 3607: 3606: 3599: 3585: 3584: 3580: 3552: 3517: 3494:See page 6 of: 3486: 3432: 3393: 3359: 3329: 3279: 3211: 3191: 3137: 3129: 3049:straightforward 3021: 2983: 2960: 2928: 2916: 2911: 2893: 2891:Human timeline? 2835: 2830: 2790:User:Chrisi1964 2775: 2770: 2732: 2727: 2677: 2672: 2657: 2652: 2623: 2618: 2552: 2547: 2527: 2486: 2481: 2471: 2462: 2457: 2433:, which says, " 2343: 2338: 2295:Nature Genetics 2183: 2178: 2123: 2118: 2087: 2082: 2045: 2025: 1995: 1980: 1975: 1943: 1936:have permission 1926: 1880:this simple FaQ 1865: 1852: 1847: 1838: 1825: 1820: 1809: 1791: 1782: 1760: 1747: 1740: 1725: 1720: 1688: 1681:have permission 1671: 1599:this simple FaQ 1584: 1568: 1533: 1448: 1384:Ötzi the Iceman 1376: 1357: 1337: 1309: 1282: 1279: 1256: 1208: 1203: 1185: 1175: 1152: 1133: 1131:Final Neolithic 1066: 1043: 1029: 1023: 1021: 1017: 994: 974: 951: 939: 934: 880: 857: 833: 810: 776: 682: 653: 638: 615: 592: 588: 565: 518: 497: 491: 460: 421: 376: 354: 283:Epipalaeolithic 271: 237: 218: 195: 186: 181: 175: 158: 133: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4396: 4394: 4386: 4385: 4349: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4236: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4096: 4095: 4072: 4061: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 3988: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3929: 3915:62.101.195.234 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3850: 3847: 3844: 3841: 3838: 3835: 3749: 3746: 3727: 3726: 3721: 3716: 3711: 3706: 3701: 3691: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3657: 3654: 3626: 3623: 3605: 3604: 3597: 3577: 3576: 3551: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3516: 3513: 3485: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3463: 3431: 3428: 3416:198.252.91.105 3392: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3357: 3274: 3273: 3210: 3207: 3190: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3052: 3045: 3002:Before Present 2982: 2979: 2959: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2942:Henry chianski 2892: 2889: 2883:A D Monroe III 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2814:modus operandi 2794:Sarnath Museum 2788:, uploaded by 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2530:Ms Sarah Welch 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2429:. Please see 2396: 2395: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2310:WP:SCHOLARSHIP 2301: 2275:K Gangal et al 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2044: 2041: 2030:Nicolas B.G.Z. 2028:corrections - 2024: 2021: 2009:64.222.105.117 1994: 1991: 1970: 1969: 1962: 1915: 1914: 1906:Added archive 1904: 1896:Added archive 1894: 1886:Added archive 1864: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1837: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1808: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1739: 1736: 1715: 1714: 1707: 1660: 1659: 1651:Added archive 1649: 1641:Added archive 1639: 1633: 1625:Added archive 1623: 1615:Added archive 1613: 1605:Added archive 1583: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1501: 1500: 1482: 1481: 1471: 1470: 1447: 1444: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1388: 1387: 1380: 1375: 1372: 1356: 1353: 1336: 1333: 1278: 1275: 1254: 1207: 1204: 1183: 1174: 1171: 1151: 1150:Template usage 1148: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1065: 1062: 1042: 1039: 1016: 1010: 993: 992:List revisited 990: 973: 970: 950: 947: 912:rivers called 879: 876: 856: 853: 852: 851: 830:Franchthi Cave 809: 806: 795:Gregory Helton 787:Gregory Helton 782: 775: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 681: 678: 677: 676: 637: 634: 614: 611: 587: 584: 564: 561: 545: 544: 542: 539: 536: 533: 530: 527: 524: 517: 514: 513: 512: 459: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 435: 434: 387: 375: 372: 353: 350: 349: 348: 270: 267: 236: 233: 232: 231: 194: 191: 180: 173: 157: 154: 153: 152: 151: 150: 149: 148: 147: 146: 120: 119: 118: 117: 116: 115: 97: 96: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 18:Talk:Neolithic 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4395: 4384: 4381: 4379: 4373: 4372:more reliable 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4355: 4347: 4341: 4337: 4333: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4324: 4322: 4316: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4254: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4191: 4185: 4184: 4179: 4175: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4106:Afro-Eurasian 4103: 4093: 4090:parameter to 4081: 4077: 4073: 4066: 4065: 4059: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4004: 4003: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3989: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3930: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3882: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3867: 3864: 3861: 3855: 3851: 3848: 3845: 3842: 3839: 3836: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3810: 3806: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3759: 3758:previous cite 3755: 3747: 3745: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3725: 3722: 3720: 3717: 3715: 3712: 3710: 3707: 3705: 3702: 3700: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3689: 3685: 3682: 3680: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3655: 3653: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3637: 3636: 3630: 3629:This source, 3624: 3622: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3600: 3598:9781931707091 3595: 3591: 3590: 3582: 3579: 3575: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3560: 3555: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3514: 3512: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3498: 3495: 3493: 3491: 3483: 3479: 3474: 3469: 3464: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3429: 3427: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3406: 3402: 3399: 3398: 3390: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3366:: Looks like 3363: 3358: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3339: 3333: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3290: 3283: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3272: 3267: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3208: 3206: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3188: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3163: 3158: 3154: 3146: 3143: 3140: 3135: 3132: 3126: 3123: 3116: 3111: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3063: 3058: 3053: 3050: 3046: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3027: 3024: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2980: 2978: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2957: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2934: 2931: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2919: 2914: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2890: 2888: 2887: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2871: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2838: 2833: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2797: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2778: 2773: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2745: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2735: 2730: 2724: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2689: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2680: 2675: 2669: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2660: 2655: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2634: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2626: 2621: 2614: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2594: 2591: 2589: 2586: 2583: 2580: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2555: 2550: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2531: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2501: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2489: 2484: 2475: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2465: 2460: 2454: 2450: 2445: 2441: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2404: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2366: 2365:impact factor 2362: 2358: 2349: 2346: 2341: 2334: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2306: 2302: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2271:impact factor 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2243: 2241: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2186: 2181: 2175: 2174:WP:NOTJOURNAL 2170: 2164: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2126: 2121: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2090: 2085: 2079: 2075: 2074:summary style 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2056: 2053: 2049: 2042: 2040: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2022: 2020: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 1998: 1992: 1990: 1989: 1984: 1979: 1978: 1967: 1963: 1960: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1947: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1923: 1918: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1868: 1862: 1858: 1855: 1850: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1835: 1831: 1828: 1823: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1812: 1807:Expert Review 1806: 1800: 1797: 1794: 1786: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1764: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1753: 1750: 1744: 1737: 1735: 1734: 1729: 1724: 1723: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1692: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1668: 1663: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1638: 1634: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1587: 1581: 1577: 1574: 1571: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1541: 1540: 1536: 1530: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1483: 1480: 1476: 1473: 1472: 1469: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1445: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1394: 1385: 1381: 1378: 1377: 1373: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1354: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1334: 1332: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1306: 1300: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1276: 1274: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1252: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1192:75.164.96.250 1189: 1182: 1180: 1172: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1154:I guess such 1149: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1130: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1081: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1063: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051:87.209.93.198 1048: 1040: 1038: 1037: 1032: 1026: 1014: 1011: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 991: 989: 988: 984: 980: 971: 969: 968: 964: 960: 956: 948: 946: 945: 942: 937: 928: 924: 920: 915: 911: 907: 901: 897: 893: 889: 883: 877: 875: 874: 870: 866: 862: 854: 849: 845: 841: 840:94.193.61.125 837: 831: 826: 825: 824: 823: 819: 815: 807: 805: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 774:Periodization 773: 763: 759: 755: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 737: 733: 729: 724: 723: 722: 718: 714: 709: 708: 707: 703: 699: 694: 693: 692: 691: 688: 679: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 650: 649: 648: 647: 644: 635: 633: 632: 628: 624: 620: 612: 610: 608: 604: 600: 596: 585: 583: 582: 578: 574: 570: 562: 560: 559: 555: 551: 550:Michael Hardy 543: 540: 537: 534: 531: 528: 525: 523: 522: 521: 515: 511: 507: 503: 496: 488: 487: 486: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 457: 451: 448: 444: 439: 438: 437: 436: 433: 430: 428: 420: 416: 412: 411: 410: 408:) 28 Feb 2006 407: 403: 399: 391: 388: 385: 384: 381: 373: 371: 370: 367: 363: 359: 351: 347: 344: 340: 339: 338: 336: 330: 327: 324: 322: 317: 314: 313: 310: 306: 302: 298: 295: 291: 286: 284: 278: 274: 268: 266: 265: 262: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 234: 230: 227: 225: 217: 213: 212: 211: 210: 207: 204:Regards. :-) 202: 200: 192: 190: 189: 184: 178: 171: 168: 164: 155: 145: 142: 140: 132: 128: 127: 126: 125: 124: 123: 122: 121: 114: 111: 107: 103: 102: 101: 100: 99: 98: 95: 92: 88: 84: 83: 82: 79: 78: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4377: 4351: 4320: 4211:Dudley Miles 4181: 4173: 4132:Afro-Eurasia 4109: 4099: 4091: 4076:edit request 3954: 3832:Chalcolithic 3804: 3766: 3751: 3728: 3693: 3678: 3659: 3639: 3632: 3628: 3612:Dudley Miles 3608: 3588: 3581: 3563: 3556: 3553: 3536:Dudley Miles 3518: 3499: 3496: 3492: 3489: 3487: 3433: 3410:— Preceding 3407: 3403: 3400: 3394: 3372:GoldRingChip 3368:User:Joe Roe 3338:GoldRingChip 3332:Dudley Miles 3317:Dudley Miles 3289:GoldRingChip 3257:Chalcolithic 3249:Palaeolithic 3235:GoldRingChip 3226: 3223:October 2017 3212: 3192: 3092: 2984: 2961: 2908: 2894: 2878: 2875:individually 2874: 2869: 2867: 2719: 2576:for 13 years 2575: 2525: 2443: 2439: 2434: 2354: 2313: 2286: 2279:mega journal 2238: 2172:Please note 2168: 2161: 2156: 2148: 2065: 2061: 2054: 2046: 2026: 2003:— Preceding 1999: 1996: 1974: 1971: 1946:source check 1925: 1919: 1916: 1869: 1866: 1839: 1813: 1810: 1741: 1719: 1716: 1691:source check 1670: 1664: 1661: 1588: 1585: 1542: 1537: 1534: 1510: 1474: 1449: 1430: 1389: 1383: 1358: 1338: 1310:— Preceding 1301: 1289:209.16.113.3 1283:— Preceding 1280: 1263:209.16.113.3 1257:— Preceding 1253: 1231: 1209: 1186:— Preceding 1176: 1153: 1134: 1082: 1067: 1044: 1018: 1015:as Neolithic 1013:Tell Qaramel 995: 975: 952: 930: 926: 922: 885: 881: 858: 811: 785: 781: 777: 713:Eric Kvaalen 683: 639: 616: 599:96.48.35.147 589: 566: 546: 519: 461: 426: 402:84.19.181.92 392: 389: 386: 377: 355: 331: 328: 325: 318: 315: 307: 304: 300: 296: 293: 288: 280: 276: 272: 256: 252: 248: 244: 240: 238: 223: 203: 196: 162: 159: 138: 106:Choirokoitia 87:Choirokoitia 80: 73: 70:Choirokoitia 60: 43: 37: 3987:Australia." 3859:Doug Weller 3521:Rincewind42 3138:Doug Weller 3130:Doug Weller 3022:Doug Weller 2929:Doug Weller 2636:delete it. 2431:WP:TERTIARY 1792:Doug Weller 1763:Doug Weller 1748:Doug Weller 1569:Doug Weller 1342:70.29.29.92 1024:Paul Bedson 834:—Preceding 654:—Preceding 636:Wild crops? 593:—Preceding 465:—Preceding 396:—Preceding 358:User:Calton 309:24.3.56.115 36:This is an 4280:Smallchief 4194:template. 4186:using the 4084:|answered= 4022:Smallchief 3993:Smallchief 3957:Smallchief 3934:Smallchief 3253:Mesolithic 3221:). Until 2962:Neolithic 2847:पाटलिपुत्र 2799:पाटलिपुत्र 2751:पाटलिपुत्र 2697:पाटलिपुत्र 2638:पाटलिपुत्र 2599:पाटलिपुत्र 2505:पाटलिपुत्र 2474:पाटलिपुत्र 2427:due weight 2409:पाटलिपुत्र 2370:पाटलिपुत्र 2249:पाटलिपुत्र 2208:पाटलिपुत्र 2135:पाटलिपुत्र 2103:पाटलिपुत्र 2048:पाटलिपुत्र 1983:Report bug 1728:Report bug 1515:Dougweller 1490:Dougweller 1234:Bronze Age 1101:Dougweller 892:Lahuradewa 754:Dougweller 680:BC/BCE/BP? 623:Dougweller 573:dougweller 443:dave souza 4240:this edit 4178:consensus 4128:Old World 4110:Old World 4102:Old World 4080:Neolithic 3852:Although 3814:Aquillion 3809:WP:BURDEN 3775:Aquillion 3502:Kievalina 3227:Neolithic 3219:Neolithic 3215:Stone Age 2966:include: 2688:Wikimapia 2572:Wikimapia 2305:Neolithic 2153:MOS:QUOTE 2070:Neolithic 1966:this tool 1959:this tool 1872:Neolithic 1711:this tool 1704:this tool 1591:Neolithic 1547:scripts. 1511:Antiquity 1238:Neolithic 1160:Yosef1987 1047:Laas Gaal 1041:Laas Gaal 900:C14 dated 541:+/- 80 BC 535:+/− 80 BC 249:artifact' 245:artefact' 61:Archive 1 4295:Diditman 4196:M.Bitton 4154:Diditman 4114:Diditman 3565:Obachuka 3412:unsigned 2968:Renebach 2917:(talk) • 2897:Renebach 2693:Mehrgarh 2666:PS Note 2568:Mehrgarh 2539:Mehrgarh 2157:verbatim 2149:verbatim 2062:verbatim 2058:contribs 2005:unsigned 1972:Cheers.— 1853:(talk) • 1826:(talk) • 1738:Mehrgarh 1717:Cheers.— 1549:Kortoso 1468:pdf file 1453:Ace45954 1409:adamsan 1405:User:Yak 1391:region. 1355:Clothing 1324:contribs 1316:Dragnoxz 1312:unsigned 1285:unsigned 1259:unsigned 1236:and not 1188:unsigned 1156:template 972:Far East 898:region, 836:unsigned 687:Tuckerma 668:contribs 656:unsigned 595:unsigned 538:+/-80 BC 532:+/−80 BC 479:contribs 467:unsigned 398:unsigned 261:Ballista 183:contribs 4378:Tewdar 4332:Johnbod 4321:Tewdar 4265:Johnbod 4263:tests. 4244:Asarlaí 4226:Johnbod 4150:Johnbod 4136:Johnbod 4036:Johnbod 4008:Johnbod 3974:Johnbod 3900:Johnbod 3886:Johnbod 3790:Johnbod 3679:Tewdar 3453:Johnbod 3362:Johnbod 3347:Johnbod 3302:Johnbod 3282:Joe Roe 3173:Johnbod 3125:Joe Roe 3079:Johnbod 3035:Johnbod 3006:Johnbod 2870:allowed 2361:Crusade 2291:2 and 3 2212:Johnbod 2195:Johnbod 1876:my edit 1785:Jim1138 1770:Jim1138 1595:my edit 1545:cursive 1433:Kortoso 1416:HJJHolm 1361:Kortoso 1242:Fang 23 728:HJJHolm 660:HJJHolm 568:dating 529:± 80 BC 415:ploughs 374:Tillage 243:lists ' 206:Manchot 161:Should 91:adamsan 39:archive 4183:before 3643:Forich 3245:a noun 2987:Toby64 2836:«Talk» 2776:«Talk» 2733:«Talk» 2678:«Talk» 2658:«Talk» 2624:«Talk» 2553:«Talk» 2487:«Talk» 2463:«Talk» 2440:Policy 2385:Drmies 2344:«Talk» 2324:(with 2316:(with 2216:Drmies 2184:«Talk» 2124:«Talk» 2088:«Talk» 2078:WP:DUE 1745:p.111 1374:Iceman 1212:Jiroft 940:«Talk» 919:Asia." 910:Yamuna 906:Ganges 896:Ganges 865:Niluop 643:Etxrge 613:Africa 526:±80 BC 380:Athana 366:Wetman 343:Wetman 285:reads 193:Images 177:Ghelae 167:Ghelae 110:NielsF 4352:its 4088:|ans= 4074:This 3656:Nice. 3437:Codiv 3243:It's 2449:India 914:Jhusi 888:India 586:Incas 471:Ray j 419:cjllw 362:WP:EL 316:Hey! 216:cjllw 131:cjllw 16:< 4361:talk 4336:talk 4299:talk 4284:talk 4269:talk 4253:talk 4230:talk 4215:talk 4200:talk 4158:talk 4140:talk 4118:talk 4040:talk 4026:talk 4012:talk 3997:talk 3978:talk 3961:talk 3938:talk 3919:talk 3904:talk 3890:talk 3863:talk 3826:The 3818:talk 3805:feel 3794:talk 3779:talk 3756:The 3739:talk 3666:talk 3647:talk 3616:talk 3594:ISBN 3569:talk 3540:talk 3525:talk 3506:talk 3473:talk 3457:talk 3441:talk 3420:talk 3351:talk 3321:talk 3306:talk 3266:talk 3231:noun 3200:talk 3177:talk 3162:talk 3142:talk 3134:talk 3110:talk 3103:. – 3083:talk 3062:talk 3039:talk 3026:talk 3010:talk 2991:talk 2972:talk 2946:talk 2933:talk 2901:talk 2851:talk 2822:here 2803:talk 2755:talk 2723:here 2701:talk 2670:. 2668:this 2642:talk 2603:talk 2543:here 2509:talk 2425:and 2413:talk 2389:talk 2374:talk 2253:talk 2220:talk 2199:talk 2139:talk 2107:talk 2066:i.e. 2052:talk 2034:talk 2013:talk 1796:talk 1774:talk 1752:talk 1573:talk 1564:this 1553:talk 1519:talk 1494:talk 1457:talk 1437:talk 1420:talk 1365:talk 1346:talk 1320:talk 1293:talk 1267:talk 1246:talk 1224:talk 1196:talk 1164:talk 1141:talk 1137:Dave 1119:talk 1115:Dave 1105:talk 1090:talk 1086:Dave 1075:talk 1071:Dave 1055:talk 1030:talk 1003:talk 999:Dave 983:talk 979:Dave 963:talk 959:Dave 908:and 869:talk 844:talk 818:talk 814:Dave 799:talk 791:talk 758:talk 732:talk 717:talk 702:talk 698:Dave 664:talk 627:talk 603:talk 577:talk 554:talk 506:talk 502:Dave 495:Fact 475:talk 447:talk 427:TALK 406:talk 253:arte 224:TALK 139:TALK 4248:Joe 4242:by 4086:or 4078:to 3733:. — 3468:Joe 3298:era 3261:Joe 3157:Joe 3105:Joe 3057:Joe 2495:Hi 2444:not 2320:or 2287:i.e 1940:RfC 1910:to 1900:to 1890:to 1685:RfC 1655:to 1645:to 1629:to 1619:to 1609:to 1393:PBS 1240:.-- 1179:Yak 890:is 441:... 337:). 257:ars 4363:) 4338:) 4301:) 4286:) 4271:) 4232:) 4217:) 4202:) 4192:}} 4188:{{ 4160:) 4142:) 4120:) 4092:no 4042:) 4028:) 4014:) 3999:) 3980:) 3963:) 3940:) 3921:) 3906:) 3892:) 3820:) 3812:-- 3796:) 3781:) 3741:) 3668:) 3649:) 3618:) 3571:) 3542:) 3527:) 3508:) 3500:-- 3466:– 3459:) 3443:) 3422:) 3353:) 3323:) 3308:) 3255:, 3251:, 3229:a 3202:) 3179:) 3099:→ 3095:: 3085:) 3055:– 3041:) 3012:) 2993:) 2974:) 2948:) 2903:) 2853:) 2805:) 2757:) 2703:) 2644:) 2605:) 2511:) 2415:) 2391:) 2376:) 2299:30 2255:) 2222:) 2210:, 2201:) 2159:: 2141:) 2109:) 2036:) 2015:) 1953:. 1948:}} 1944:{{ 1776:) 1698:. 1693:}} 1689:{{ 1555:) 1521:) 1496:) 1459:) 1439:) 1422:) 1386:." 1367:) 1348:) 1326:) 1322:• 1295:) 1269:) 1248:) 1226:) 1198:) 1166:) 1143:) 1121:) 1107:) 1092:) 1077:) 1057:) 1005:) 985:) 965:) 871:) 863:. 846:) 820:) 801:) 760:) 734:) 719:) 704:) 670:) 666:• 641:-- 629:) 621:. 605:) 579:) 571:. 556:) 508:) 498:}} 492:{{ 481:) 477:• 445:, 422:| 219:| 134:| 4359:( 4334:( 4297:( 4282:( 4267:( 4255:) 4251:( 4228:( 4213:( 4198:( 4156:( 4148:@ 4138:( 4116:( 4038:( 4024:( 4010:( 3995:( 3976:( 3959:( 3936:( 3917:( 3902:( 3888:( 3816:( 3792:( 3777:( 3737:( 3664:( 3645:( 3614:( 3601:. 3567:( 3538:( 3523:( 3504:( 3475:) 3471:( 3455:( 3439:( 3418:( 3364:: 3360:@ 3349:( 3334:: 3330:@ 3319:( 3304:( 3287:— 3284:: 3280:@ 3268:) 3264:( 3198:( 3175:( 3164:) 3160:( 3112:) 3108:( 3081:( 3064:) 3060:( 3037:( 3008:( 2989:( 2970:( 2944:( 2899:( 2849:( 2801:( 2753:( 2699:( 2640:( 2601:( 2532:: 2528:@ 2507:( 2476:: 2472:@ 2411:( 2387:( 2372:( 2251:( 2218:( 2197:( 2137:( 2105:( 2055:· 2050:( 2032:( 2011:( 1985:) 1981:( 1968:. 1961:. 1787:: 1783:@ 1772:( 1765:: 1761:@ 1730:) 1726:( 1713:. 1706:. 1551:( 1517:( 1492:( 1455:( 1435:( 1418:( 1363:( 1344:( 1318:( 1291:( 1265:( 1244:( 1222:( 1194:( 1162:( 1139:( 1117:( 1103:( 1088:( 1073:( 1053:( 1033:❉ 1027:❉ 1001:( 981:( 961:( 867:( 842:( 816:( 797:( 789:( 756:( 730:( 715:( 700:( 662:( 625:( 601:( 575:( 552:( 504:( 473:( 404:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index