Question 1 Options the Naturalistic Art of the Paleolithic Hunters Was Largely Replaced With

• Archive 1
• 2

This page is an annal of by discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new give-and-take or revive an one-time one, please exercise so on the current talk folio.

Stone Age

Shoud information technology murged? -- ChongDae 2 July 2005 xiii:59 (UTC)

Merged? No, because it as well includes Epipaleolithic etc. --Joy [shallot] 2 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

I'thousand not certain, but I call up putting the boundary between the middle and upper Paleolithic at twoscore,000 years ago rather than 30000 would be closer to the marker. --arkuat [[User_talk:Eric Forste|(talk)]] 06:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Commodity as of April 17 2006 (saying that the Paleolithic runs from 2,500,000 BCE - 10,000 BCE, approx) contains many assertions which would seem to be difficult to evidence and are not sourced, e.chiliad. paleolithic religious beliefs, mythology, social stuctures, technology, and herbalism. Please folks, either cite your sources for these or remove them. -- 201.51.166.124 04:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC) [respond]

Right on! I've added a few {{Fact}} tags, but non nearly every bit many equally are needed. --arkuat (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Just about anything apropos behavior or thoughts or social structures, etc., this far dorsum in history is necessarily speculation. I'm not sure that information technology belongs in an article that should be limiting itself to established facts. Agateller 23:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC) [respond]

I'd argue that "paleolithic religious beliefs, mythology, social stuctures, engineering science, and herbalism" are virtually unable to be proven, particularly the tripe near equality of the sexes. At present sexual equality is all fine and adept, only there is no evidence at all that such "enlightened" notions were gerenally or specifically held by any Paleolithic groups.

What's your bear witness that they weren't? Penfold 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC) [respond]

There'south no prove either way, and and so speculation on these details is unwarranted. Agateller 23:40, iii June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

That'southward fine but yous are assuming sexual inequality in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and in outcome your two comments are contradictory. Penfold 09:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

No, he's not saying he has evidence of sexual inequality, simply that there'southward none in support of sexual equality. And then the claim should be removed until someone tin bring proof. The brunt of proof is on the person making the claim.67.170.176.203 13:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Speaking of "Provable," who hither as any cold, hard, definite (non 'aproximate) proof that the 'paleolithic era' ever existed? I don't, and I don't know anyone who does. —The preceding unsigned annotate was added by Invmog (talk • contribs) 03:02, v May 2007 (UTC). [reply]

i have to hold that the use of the language in this article is less than appropriate. Commencement of all, every bit someone said earlier, yous can't say "at that place was equality among the sexes" because in that location is no scientific information that would proof this statement and information technology would also exist a valoration of a situation through today's morality. The only possible fashion of putting it out is that: according to comparative studies, it is very possible that the partition of the work would be that women would recolect and men would hunt". It'southward a probability, not a fact, since piece of work don't leave whatever trace behind, nor other types of social relations. In fact, comparative studies accept been critisized past many scholars lately. I also consider bold to say that they had some sort of organized religion, again, is a affair of giving certain values to something that might not have been. Like my prehistory professor said: "imagine x 1000 years from now, some archaeologists discover the sit of a WC, all round and white and decide that it's a necklace and that it's and then big considering they only used it for rituals". Same thing here. We can't be certain that they had whatsoever kind of organized religion,in fact, the cave paintings and the venus of Willendorf are the merely religion-related artifacs/art, the venus is from a very late period, and the caves have not been asigned to any culture. For all nosotros know, they could have been washed by Neanderthals, therefor, not man sapiens sapiens.

The herbs are quite documented, y'all only need to add that this wide noesis of herbs was confirmed with the finding of the Similaun Man or Ötzi the Iceman(wikis article uses this terminal term), in the Alps, the man was frozen and he had with him a bag with herbs. Nemi 00:58, ten August 2006 (UTC) [respond]

Its true that the archeological evidence proves that at that place was sexual equality in the Paleolithic (i take three sources to prove information technology[1][2][iii]]. In fact co-ordinate to the Museum of Antiquites web site the archeological testify indicates that women played as important roles in Paleolithic life and evidence from burials and art indicates a number of individual women had high status inside their bands. Also in addition the anthropologist Jared Diamond proposes in his essay the Worst mistake in the history of the human race that the status of women declined during the adoption of agriculture.--Fang 23 (talk) 16:xv, 23 Feb 2008 (UTC) [respond]

Done

During several automatic bot runs the post-obit external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact downwards and set or remove it in that instance!

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veljko_Milković
  • In Perpetual motion on Fri Jun 30 14:32:18 2006, Not-ASCII Characters in URL: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\u0107' in position 25: ordinal not in range(128)
  • In Paleolithic on Thu Jul 20 01:56:xiv 2006, Not-ASCII Characters in URL: 'ascii' codec can't encode grapheme u'\u0107' in position 25: ordinal non in range(128)

---

maru (talk) contribs 05:56, xx July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Are at that place any accounts of how ancient societies - the Greeks,Romans, etc. idea well-nigh about the Paleolithics? What they may take learned or valued? They certainly valued the work enough to not destroy it.

One thousand.Conley Annandale, VA

This entry is and so lacking in credibility and readability, I suggest that all the content be deleted except for the last section linking to the three chief eras of the paleolithic. The hunter-gatherer entry is more thorough and covers the aforementioned basis.LC | Talk 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

This is the worst article, by far, I've seen on Wikipedia in 2 years of frequent use. I strongly second the deletion, for the same reasons given above--lack of credibility and readabilty. W.A. McCray, Portsmouth, NH

I agree. This article is not but a horrid case of writing and non-bias, but it is too in terrible shape. I suggest deletion of nigh of the content and replacement with a brusque summary and links to the eras. This article should also be watched for vandalism; I know there are probably a few religious people who would find information technology amusing to promote their own history to a scientific page. - Howryn 15:07, eighteen September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Me2ing vigorously. It's atrocious. I suggest, as a conditional solution, that everything independent in "Way of Life" exist deleted, given how poorly written and inaccurate it is, and how difficult information technology would exist to describe i "way of life" that spanned several about and human species. If no i objects in the next week or ii, I'm coming back and operating. sNkrSnee |t.p. 07:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

It probably tin can be cut back a fair amount. Discover the navbox for manufactures which comprehend other Paleolithic time periods; you might check in those articles for sections equivalent to ane which you're editing. For example, "Tools" could utilise the Lower Paleolithic mention of "Members of Human habilis used Olduwan tools and had learned to control burn to support the hunter-gatherer method of subsistence." and follow it with a version of the Upper Paleolithic mention of "Avant-garde darts and harpoons likewise appear in this menstruation, along with the fish claw, the oil lamp, rope, and the eyed needle." (SEWilco 19:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)) [respond]

Cheers, those seem like useful suggestions. I'grand still a dabbler, then I think I'll put a draft in a subfolder on my user folio (like CloudNine proposed below) for feedback before loading it upwardly here. I'll drop you a annotation once I get going, if you're interested. Meanwhile, other opinions are still most welcome! sNkrSnee |t.p. 17:44, x Oct 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'm currently rewriting the article here, utilising images and media from the Spanish FA. Feel free to leave any comments during its development. CloudNine 11:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

whats with the #due south on that timeline. shouldnt there exist a central to clarify the time scales?75.57.118.193 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I realise (can't run across any talk-page athenaeum) that this may not have been anyone else'due south choice but why is it Paleolithic equally opposed to Palaeolithic? Both are more often than not acceptable, why one over the other? Aye I'm a loser. Cheers, Rothery 13:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC). [reply]

When an commodity has no American or British (or other) focus and therefore preferred spelling, it is supposed to follow whatever the original creator used. That said, it's pretty likely that the spelling hither may have been changed dorsum and forth from time to time. Thanks Geologyguy 13:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [answer]

          i take to argee wthi thsi 2. i life ti alot thfank ioyu          —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.171.215 (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)                      [answer]                            

Nether the heading "Diet and Nutrition," the author writes, "there are no signs of malnutrition." This is simply not truthful! There are plenty of signs of malnutrition in Paleolithic hominids, including mod humans. While information technology is true that people suffered much more than malnutrition afterwards the advent of agriculture, those living earlier the Neolithic were frequently in pretty bad shape nutritionally, too. I think this should be removed from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Formida42 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Washed [respond]

This folio is an annal of past discussions. Do non edit the contents of this page. If you wish to outset a new discussion or revive an onetime i, please exercise so on the electric current talk page.

This source says that man societies stopped fighting during the Paleolithic because the population density was low and the development of intergroup relations of friendship, mutuality, sharing, and cooperation also helped forbid violent conflict, then this article said that these cooperative relations between groups compelled humans to emigrate out of Africa when resource became scarce rather than fighting over the scarce resource, Human being sapiens migrated out of Africa during the middle Paleolithic (c. 100,000 BCE), and so I can conclude from this article (even though it doesn't directly say it), that both heart and upper Paleolithic societies were devoid of warfare (and that lower Paleolithic humans presumably did fight) then please don't remove the statement "Similar the societies of our closest real relative the Bonobo[42] Centre and Upper Paleolithic societies were fundamentally egalitarian[43][44][29][39] and did not engage in organized violence between groups (i.eastward. war),[45]" as unsourced or unverifiable.--Fang 23 (talk) 23:16, ten March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I don't sympathise what this text from the Arrowhead image ways:

• "Humans may have partook in long altitude between bands for rare commodities and raw materials (such as stone needed for making tools) every bit early as 120,000 years ago in Eye Paleolithic."

--Phenylalanine (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

It means that humans traded for commodities such as raw materials to brand stone tools during the Centre Paleolithic (such equally the pointer head in the motion-picture show though the arrow caput in the picture isn't exactly from the Paleolithic era).--Fang 23 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [respond]

Thanks, but what does this hateful "partook in long distance between bands"? Is at that place a discussion missing in at that place or am I missing something? --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:43, xi March 2008 (UTC) [respond]

Oops I forgot to write long distance trade instead of long distance.--Fang 23 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

That's good. Bell Telephone's cost charges for teleconferencing were enormous in those days. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Does anyone think that the information "Both Centre and Upper Paleolithic cultures appear to have had meaning knowledge nigh plants and herbs and may accept, albeit very rarely, practiced rudimentary forms of horticulture.[fifty][51] Bananas and Tubers in paticular may take been cultivated as early on as 25,000 BP in Soulth East Asia.[51]" looks better/belongs in the Nutrient and diet secton rather then the technology section?--Fang 23 (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC) [respond]

I retrieve this data definitely belongs in the "Diet and Nutrition" section. --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Should I add actress sections almost the diffrent subdivisions of the paleolithic era (Upper Paleolithic, Middle Paleolithic Lower Paleolithic) in the Chronology section?--Fang 23 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

In my opinion, it'south not necessary. The fashion the commodity is now structured, these chronological subdivisions are already referred to in the different sections of the commodity, i.east. on evolution, society, nutrition, etc. If you chose to create new sections for these subdivisions, they would have to be very brief, like a one paragraph summary for each subdivision. --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:xl, 15 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

under no circumstances tin the clactonian be considered an contained culture! B1zki7 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

See give-and-take at User talk:Richardf630. --Phenylalanine (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC) [respond]

I replaced the picture show of the beans on the Paleolithic commodity with a new more relevant pic.--Fang 23 (talk) twenty:40, seven Apr 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Nice picture show! --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

There are lots of instances of "Paleolithic era" in the article. As a geologist, this actually grates on me - I realize that the Paleolithic is not strictly a geologic time flow, just is it really common among anthropologists to call information technology an era rather than "Paleolithic period" or Paleolithic time, or any? I didn't want to change information technology without discussion, but I feel that something other than "era" would be better. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I was thinking of changing era to flow but that wont help because the term period like the term era is also used to measure geologic time so i call up we should either change it to Paleolithic time or non change it at all.--Fang 23 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Someone reading the commodity might take trouble visualizing where in fourth dimension the Paleolithic is situated compared to other prehistoric epochs and ages. The post-obit list may exist useful:

          * Pleistocene epoch (highly glaciated climate)          o Paleolithic age (Stone Age) <-          yous are hither          * Holocene epoch (mod climate)          o Mesolithic or Epipaleolithic age (Rock Age)          o Neolithic age (Stone Age)          o Copper Age          o Statuary Age          o Fe Age    * Historical period (written record begins)        

--Phenylalanine (talk) 00:51, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC) [answer]

Peradventure we can add this table from the Three age system article at the bottom of this article.--Fang 23 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Age	Catamenia	Tools	Economy	Dwelling Sites	Society	Religion
Stone historic period	Paleolithic (you are here)	Handmade tools and objects found in nature – cudgel, club, sharpened rock, chopper, handaxe, scraper, spear, Bow and pointer, harpoon, needle, scratch awl	Hunting and gathering	Mobile lifestyle – caves, huts, tooth or skin hovels, by and large by rivers and lakes	A band of edible-plant gatherers and hunters (25-100 people)	Evidence for belief in the afterlife beginning appears in the Middle Paleolithic or Upper Palaeolithic, marked by the advent of burying rituals and antecedent worship. Priests and sanctuary servants appear in the prehistory.
	Mesolithic (other name epipalaeolithic)	Handmade tools and objects found in nature – bow and pointer, fish – basket, boats			Tribes and Bands
	Neolithic	Handmade tools and objects found in nature – chisel, hoe, turn, yoke, reaping-claw, grain pourer, barley, loom, earthenware (pottery) and weapons	Neolithic Revolution - transition to agriculture. Gathering, hunting, fishing and domestication	Farmsteads	Tribes and the formation of cheifdoms in some Neolithic societies at the terminate of this period'
Statuary Age		Copper and statuary tools, potter'due south bike	Agriculture – cattle – breeding, agronomics, craft, trade
Atomic number 26 Age		Iron tools		Formation of cities	Formation of States*

• Formation of States starts during the Early on Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia and during the Tardily Bronze Age first empires are founded.

I think both tables should go in the "Chronology" section in a higher place the list that's already there (the list I added would come first, and so yours). We'll meet what the GA reviewers will say. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:eleven, 10 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Maybe I should meliorate my table I am going to add and so it will also include the different subdivisions of the Paleolithic.--Fang 23 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think information technology'due south obligatory. The different subperiods of the Paleolithic are already indicated in the "Chronology" section. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:18, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Does this expect good? I added my tabular array below the prexisting listing on my testpage for this article.--Fang 23 (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Yep. What do y'all think of my proposed version on your user page? --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:43, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I think it is very proficient. Should i add together information technology to the main article now? (also your "Paleolithic Diet" userbox is a prissy userbox)--Fang 23 (talk) 02:54, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC) [respond]

Thanks. I remember you can add it. Cheers. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC) [answer]

Done --Fang 23 (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC) [answer]

I think the tabular array above should be removed from this article since it deals with the entire prehistory and non just the paleolithic. Mayhap we could remove the office well-nigh the Statuary Age and Iron Historic period and move information technology to the Stone Age article instead? MiCkE 12:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I hold that the "chronology" section needs some cleaning upwards now that the new "Paleolithic" template have been added. I am in favor of removing the "three-age system" table. --Phenylalanine (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I but found this PDF. It's an crawly source of data on the development of humans during the Paleolithic! I would definitely add it every bit a reference in the commodity.

• http://www.ablongman.com/html/productinfo/millerwood/MillerWood_c08.pdf

(the book at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Anthropology-Barbara-D-Miller/dp/0205320244) --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC) [answer]

Thank y'all very much I as well found a new source (though it has less information than your new source) Pre-History, Pre-Civilization, and Paleolithic People by Sue Rowland that gave some more information to add together to this article and gave me a new source to dorsum upwardly pre existing data.--Fang 23 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

New Free textbook chapter available in PDF format-Biological anthropology

I went hunting and gathering effectually on the aforementioned site you lot found the other good textbook (http://world wide web.ablongman.com/html/productinfo/millerwood/MillerWood_c08.pdf) for more than good references and if found another free textbook preview on that site that provides more additional useful data virtually the evolution of humans and culture during the Paleolithic and Paleolithic technology society and religion. I am going to use information technology as a reference for the Paleolithic commodity. --Fang 23 (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)the link to the affiliate I recently found another affiliate i recently found [respond]

Awesome! This is a great source of information. Likewise, the information presented is verified by specific sources, so you can use those instead of citing the whole textbook chapter (run across higher up comment by Geologyguy). Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [respond]

Hi Fang 23. You're definitely on the correct track. Do the following and I think the article will be ready for GA review (Wikipedia:Practiced article criteria):

• Add some more sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability).
• Make sure the paragraphs aren't likewise long or also short - 2 lines is probably too brusk and more than 15-twenty lines is maybe too long (Wikipedia:Layout).
• Make certain the lead briefly summarizes the nearly important points covered in an article (Wikipedia:Atomic number 82 section).

--Phenylalanine (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I cant make the section on Paleolithic Religion or the other sections (such as the society and technology sections) smaller than 20 lines without getting rid of important information.--Fang 23 (talk) 02:xiv, vii March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The length of the sections looks fine. It's the length of the paragraphs in those sections that I'm talking well-nigh. Consider diving upward the very long paragraphs into smaller ones. It makes it easier to read through the sections. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Is information technology good enough now for review? i split many overly large paragraphs into smaller paragraphs of 2-15 lines that are grouped together based on the similarity of their content.--Fang 23 (talk) 02:07, eight March 2008 (UTC)Phenylalanine (talk) 23:37, eight March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The article already looks much amend, but to come across the "Proficient article criteria", information technology needs to provide references to all sources of data. Notation that all the references don't have to be in the form of "inline citations". You could rename the electric current "References" section "Footnotes" and create a new "References" section for sources like books and articles that requite good overviews of the subject and that provide references to all sources of information that aren't already covered by the inline citations. Besides, the pb doesn't briefly summarize the nearly important points covered in the article. Make certain at to the lowest degree every department of the article is briefly summarized in the lead. --Phenylalanine (talk) thirteen:fourteen, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

What exactly are the near of import points in this commodity? I need to know this so i can include them in the lead section of this article.--Fang 23 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The post-obit basic topics covered in the commodity should exist very briefly summarized in the lead - not more than one or two sentences per point (I struck the ones that are already covered in the lead):

• 1 Chronology
• 2.1 Human development during the Paleolithic
• three Climate
• 4.ane Technology
• 4.2.1 Social organization
• iv.ii.2 Paleolithic Art
• four.2.3 Faith and behavior
• iv.3 Diet and nutrition

--Phenylalanine (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Done i added all the bones information into the pb--Fang 23 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The sentences in the lead should be grouped together in two or 3 paragraphs (Wikipedia:Pb section). --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:37, viii March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I merged the paragraphs into two large paragraphs.--Fang 23 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) [answer]

Brand certain all statements are referenced (either by in-line citations or general references as indicated above), and this article will be gear up for GA review! Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:20, nine March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Almost all the information in this commodity is now verified by in line citations or full general references.--Fang 23 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Practiced Article Criteria 2(a) states that a "Good commodity" must provide references to all sources of information. An article will automatically fail whatsoever "Good article review" if information technology doesn't meet this criteria. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Most of the text is now verified by inline citations. If the references verify the rest of the information provided, the article is ready for GA review. Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Even though I added more sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability) (and added references to encompass the few pieces of information in the article that may be uncited), fabricated sure the paragraphs aren't too long or also short (Wikipedia:Layout) and fabricated sure the lead briefly summarizes the nearly important points covered in an article (Wikipedia:Lead section) I still take some other stuff I desire to add to the commodity before GA review like information on the evolution of Behavioral modernity.--Fang 23 (talk) xviii:57, v April 2008 (UTC) [respond]

Keep in mind that the article contains nigh 40KB of readable prose (excluding tables). As a general rule, commodity prose should be kept nether 50KB (Wikipedia:Commodity size). But given the enormous telescopic of the topic, 60KB would probably exist the upper limit. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC) [respond]

References: an observation

References one through half dozen (including 5a to 5j) are to tertiary sources such as Encarta, Encyclopedia Americana, Science and Engineering science in World History (a text, but more or less an encyclopedic compilation). Thanks Geologyguy (talk) 23:eighteen, 12 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

copying the post-obit from my talk page per Phenylalanine's request -

Hi - no, I don't know of a policy or guideline that really restricts third sources - reliability is paramount, every bit e'er. Just I've seen other editors (tin't signal to them, just I agree) that if primary sources are available they would be better than tertiary sources, which are basically about as reliable every bit Wikipedia itself - and we acknowledge our own lack in that area. In the Paleolithic discussion, I wasn't trying to exist obnoxious, just making that observation. I would really no sooner cite Encarta than I would Wikipedia. But I reckon in terms of actual editing/citing, information technology'due south pretty much up to each of the states. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:sixteen, v April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the tertiary sources used as in-line citations in the article should exist replaced with more specific sources where bachelor. Many of the tertiary sources used in the article have in-line citations, so these tin be used instead of the third sources themselves. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:24, 22 Apr 2008 (UTC) [reply]

"Similar almost contemporary hunter-gatherer societies Paleolithic humans obtained the majority of their food from gathering though there was almost certainly a significant amount of meat in their nutrition.[33][34]"

Hmmm. According to Loren Cordain, nigh contemporary hunter-gatherer societies actually obtain the majority of their food from hunting and the proportions of brute v. plant foods in Paleolithic diets are uncertain: Cordain 50. Implications of Plio-Pleistocene Hominin Diets for Modern Humans. In: Early on Hominin Diets: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable. Ungar, P (Ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, pp 363-83. --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:xix, 10 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Co-ordinate to Science and Technology in Earth History: An Introduction past James Edward McClellan and Harold Dorn, Woman the Gatherer Past Frances Dahlberg and Gathering and Hominid Adaptation past Adrienne Fifty. Zihlman and Nancy Tanner the majority of hunter gatherer diets (roughly 80%) were equanimous of plants much equally Bonobo diets are and Nature's Magic: Synergy in Development and the Fate of Humankind By Peter A. Corning suggests that hunting and gathering contribute an equal corporeality of food to the nutrition of modernistic hunter-gatherer diets. Mayhap the sentence should be totally rewritten to say something like (some scientists such as Loren Cordain believe that Paleolithic humans and modernistic hunter gatherers consum(ed) by and large meat while others such every bit James Edward McClellan and Adrienne L. Zihlman believe early humans gained the majority of their nutrient from plants or (every bit the scientist Peter A. Corning proposes) that hunting and gathering contributed equally to hunter gatherer diets) and so it will present both points of view.--Fang 23 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Fang 23, I hold with your suggestion of presenting both points of view. It could also exist mentioned that, according to M. P. Richards, there is insufficient information to determine with any certainty the relative proportions of plant and fauna foods in the diets of Paleolithic humans (see Richards MP (2002 Dec). "A brief review of the archaeological evidence for Palaeolithic and Neolithic subsistence". Eur J Clin Nutr. 56 (12): 1270–1278. doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601646. PMID 12494313. ). Thanks a lot for your work on this article! --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:nineteen, xi February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Shouldn't the Hunting Hypothesis besides be mentioned after or before the statement regarding the ratio of beast v. plant foods in Paleolithic diets or in the human evolution and/or society section? - I recall it will make the article more interesting and informative.--Fang 23 (talk) 21:28, 12 Feb 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Definitely. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:20, xiii February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I added this info in the article. Edit it if it's not okay. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:xl, 16 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I am currently making a test version of the man evolution department of this article Here just talk to me here or contact me at my talk page if you lot have any suggestions or questions virtually the new (possible) version of the human evolution section of this commodity.--Fang 23 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Groovy! This article was actually in need of expansion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I might make a section on paleolithic tools--Fang 23 (talk) xv:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

First sentence in the Nutrition and Nutrition section

"The diet of the Paleolithic hunting and gathering peoples consisted primarily of beast mankind, fruits, and vegetables." The source given for this is an article by Bar-Yosef et al on the "wide spectrum revolution" during the "belatedly Upper Paleolithic" - meaning the very end of the paleolithic when the hominid diet was expanded dramatically every bit a sort of transition period to agriculture and the Neolithic. Bar-Yosef et al don't have much to say about typical diets for paleolithic hominids. can we find a better source?Richardf630 (talk) xv:12, xi April 2008 (UTC) [respond]

Expert betoken. Maybe this is a amend source: [4] Nosotros could mayhap employ the Bar-Yosef source somewhere else in the Nutrion department. --Phenylalanine (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I added this source that you suggested on the paleolithic talk page should be used in the article.--Fang 23 (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

"Constitute-based diet in full general"

There are some issues here concerning the sources for the statement: "competing theories propose that Paleolithic humans may have consumed a establish-based nutrition in general."

1. "Theory" is the wrong word. "Natural choice" or "evolution" is a theory. "Full general relativity" is a theory. To exist a theory, the formulation should fit with all available observations - and be then well established that no new evidence is likely to change it. The notion that paleolithic hominids may accept consumed a constitute-based nutrition is a "proposition," or perhaps (if we want to exist generous) a "hypothesis".

2. Christine Fielder'due south Sexual Paradox is presented as a source for the paleolithic "establish-based nutrition in general" argument. Her work concerns modern !Kung hunter-gatherer societies, non paleolithic hominids. This is an inappropriate source for the paleolithic "institute-based nutrition in general" statement.

iii. Sue Rowland's Pre-History, Pre-Culture, and Paleolithic People is presented every bit a source for the paleolithic "plant-based diet in general" statement. This is a spider web-but, otherwise unpublished article, using some irrelevant sources (sources that study the modern workplace, for example, non paleolithic hominids). One reliable source Rowland does cite is Dahlberg, an author already sourced as a reference for this statement. Sourcing Rowland and Dahlberg is essentially sourcing Dahlberg twice.

4. The text book Science and Technology in Earth History: An Introduction (James Edward McClellan, Harold Dorn) is presented as a source for the paleolithic "plant-based diet in general" statement. The text book contradicts the "plant-based diet in general" statement in the wikipedia entry - "paleolithic food collectors were nomadic, post-obit the migrations of animals and the seasonal growth of plants."

5. Gathering and Hominid Accommodation by Zihlman is presented every bit a source for the paleolithic "plant-based diet in general" argument. But Zihlman's enquiry contradicts the "plant based diet in general" statement. Essentially, Zihlman'due south enquiry focuses on the food-gathering roles of female paleolithic hominids. However, as Zihlman and Tanner asserted, "gathering" doesn't exclusively hateful "gathering plants." Co-ordinate to Zihlman the food being gathered wasn't merely (or even largely) constitute-based, merely instead included eggs, snakes, rodents and insects.

Five sources are given for this statement - "competing theories suggest that Paleolithic humans may have consumed a plant-based nutrition in full general" - merely but one of them, Dahlberg, really supports the statement.Richardf630 (talk) xiv:13, eleven April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Finding an appropriate source for the omnivore statement

In another note: Corning'southward Nature'southward Magic is given as the source for the statement that "hunting and gathering possibly contributed equally to their diet." But hither'due south what Corning has to say. Near 2 million years ago, the hominid "joined the ranks of peak carnivores." (Nature'due south Magic, page 215) In that location's no sense of animal/plant equality in what Corning writes - though Corning does acknowledge that while hominids "relied on meat" they did as well ingest an "array of constitute foods." Still, for Corning, paleolithic hominids are "carnivores" not omnivores, and the staple of their diet was meat.

Actually, Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction (James Edward McClellan, Harold Dorn), is a better source for the omnivore statement - they say "paleolithic food collectors were nomadic, following the migrations of animals and the seasonal growth of plants."Richardf630 (talk) 14:54, eleven April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Hunter-Gatherer vs. Meat/Plant

We should avoid further defoliation virtually the hunter-gatherer distinction. "Gathering" does not mean "gathering plants" anymore than it ways "gathering eggs" or "gathering insects" or "gathering rodents." Gathering was a means of collecting an adequate source of protein, and often that would exist more often than not (or exclusively) fauna poly peptide.Richardf630 (talk) 14:54, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC) [respond]

Richards

Re-read Richards and as I suspected, the meaning of Richards' findings are not properly summarized past the statement in the commodity - "There is insufficient information to determine with any certainty the relative proportions of plant and animal foods in the diets of Paleolithic humans."

Substantially, Richards' reviews studies using modern chemical technology which examine paleolithic remains (bones and teeth) and determine - through the presence and prevalence of carbon and nitrogen isotopes - the diet of the source of these bones. The technology demonstrates that for the v sets of Neanderthal basic from Europe (130,000 - 30,000 BP) that were tested, there is direct evidence that these folks were "top-level carnivores" getting the overwhelming majority of food energy and protein from animals.

I am not aware of whatsoever criticism of this applied science, or reason to believe that this directly evidence is anything less than compelling.

The problem, every bit Richards concedes, is that the technology only provides direct testify of what Neanderthals ate in Europe between 130k-30k BP. The experiments and then far don't tell united states what was eaten at other times in other places past other paleolithic hominids.

Then Richards article is far more direct and directive, yet also far less generally applicable, than the wiki statement suggests.Richardf630 (talk) sixteen:26, x Apr 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Yous're right, the statement is inaccurate. Basically, Richards is saying that our noesis of the relative proportions of animal and plant foods in the diets of Paleolithic humans is incomplete, not that cognition of the proportions of meat v. plants is totally lacking considering, as Richards indicates, we do take direct evidence of the relative amounts of meat consumed by Paleolithic humans on ii sites in northern europe and eurasia. My fault stems from a confusion between "Paleolithic diets" and "the Paleolithic diet", which is defined every bit one that corresponds to what was available in any of the ecological niches of Paleolithic humans. And then, while nosotros do have a good idea of the amount of meat consumed by some Northern Paleolithic hunter-gatherer groups, the question remains whether these northern dietary patterns are typical of the other Paleolithic human groups. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Ok I will remove all these sources except Dahlberg's book and peradventure Sue Rowland's article, also Sue Rowland's article Pre-History, Pre-Civilisation, and Paleolithic People doesn't cite irrelevant sources such equally manufactures about the modern workplace for her Paleolithic article the books in her bibliography that are not nearly the Paleolithic are for her other articles the commodity Pre-History, Pre-Civilization, and Paleolithic People is not the only article on her website and the her bibliography is a list of cited books used for all of the manufactures on her website considering all her manufactures are part of i series. I originally added these sources because they said (or I thought they said) that the nutrition of about gimmicky hunter-gatherers consists mostly of plants and forgot to remove them when the statement was changed from "Like virtually contemporary hunter-gatherer societies Paleolithic humans obtained the majority of their food from gathering though at that place was nigh certainly a meaning amount of meat in their diet.[33][34]" to "In that location is insufficient data to determine with any certainty the relative proportions of constitute and animal foods in the diets of Paleolithic humans." because I was busy working on other parts of this article.--Fang 23 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Done --Fang 23 (talk) 23:54, xi April 2008 (UTC) [respond]

Looks good. Cheers. Richardf630 (talk) twenty:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC) [respond]

In the table nether the column tools, in the Atomic number 26 and Bronze rows it says "Atomic number 26 tools" and "Bronze tools". Not very informative. 89.139.18.138 (talk) xviii:x, 20 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I run into someone has somehow edited the beginning of the commodity with the words "my dick in your rima oris". COuld someone remove this? Nyghtwynd (talk) 04:09, 12 Jan 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Pitiful that took so long ..the edit was on a template.Has been removed!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:17, 12 Jan 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Recent finds placed hominid tools-making and hunting to 3.4 mya. 67.243.seven.245 (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Sounds interesting yous have a reference for this???Moxy (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Many of these are not properly referenced with citation formats. If they are I volition stay with what you got. If non I will selection a format. There are a few things I see that are wrong. The policy calls for page numbers. Many of these notes only state the book and refer everything to the book without folio numbers. I mode of achieving folio numbers is to use Harvard refs in footnotes. The policy says information technology has to be washed all footnotes or all parentheses and since the article is using footnotes that appears to be the way to become. This method requires establishment of a Bibliography containing the book titles. Equally we are using "References" for external links I volition accept to sandwich any Bibliography in betwixt notes and references. 1 more than thing. The policy advises against overkill on notes and chains of notes. Both of those abound here so I will be attacking those. If you have i good ref on the topic yous don't need chains of refs to every encyclopedia that mentions it. I bring all these things upward considering I do not wish to be too arbitrary. The policy favors the original way it was done unless that is against policy or wrong. If y'all have other ideas or do not like my corrections by all means speak upward or jump correct in. If I really think something y'all insist on is wrong and discussion does not resolve it I will put a template on information technology for wider discussion and resolution.Dave (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The timelines here make no sense. "The primeval Paleolithic stone tool industry, the Olduwan, was developed [...] effectually 2.6 1000000 years agone.[25] It independent tools such as choppers, burins and awls. It was completely replaced around 250,000 years ago past the more than complex Acheulean manufacture, which was first conceived past Human being ergaster around 1.8 or 1.65 million years ago.[26] The most recent Lower Paleolithic (Acheulean) implements completely vanished from the archeological tape around 100,000 years ago ..."

It seems obvious that the smaller time references (250,000 & 100,000) are relative, but it is unclear. Equally written, all time references appear to relate to the present, which simply doesn't parse. Could someone knowledgeable about this please clarify? Uberhill twenty:47, three Apr 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned annotate added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

Well written and researched article, thank you guys. Could something be included on what they wore? no mention of this so far. 115.seventy.85.100 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Judit [respond]

I don't believe the last comment addresses the objection. While I sympathise the need to exist positive and supportive at the aforementioned fourth dimension the fine points of the writing could stand considerable comeback. This is not rated as a "proficient commodity" by any means. I remember Digital Equipment Corporation used to take a standard question in their interviews: "If you have done the all-time you tin can, how can you lot practice it improve?" Well in that spirit, allow me say, this wonderful, excellent, well-written, well-thought-out, accurate, perfect article might be made even better in some areas, especially in the implications.Dave (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC) [respond]

These aren't references. They are not referenced in the text. But, the policy says this type of section name shouldn't be changed, presumably without consensus. I would put these nether external links. Meanwhile, none of them seem to have a commendation format. I call up I am justified in putting them over to "cite web" or other. If you lot had a preference or have a preference I will stay with that. I notice you accept summaries of the text. I volition exit those in after the citation unless they announced to be wrong.

Where does policy say that? Modify the section heading to Further reading, move the external links to an external link section. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks Doug. I volition but you know me, I move rather slow sometimes. I'm on it though. Past the way information technology does say that - ane sentence - but now that you discussing it is irrelevant.Dave (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

"The Paleolithic (or Palaeolithic) Age, Era or Menstruum..." is disruptive for casual readers, since age, era and period are differentiated on some other wiki page: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_%28geology%29#Terminology> From that information, it would announced that removing "Era or Menstruation" would exist more advisable. Brittlebrain (talk) eighteen:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC) [answer]

It's non quite that easy. For one affair there has always been a bit of confusion between geologic and archaeological terminology. Moreover, the very all-time archaeologists and geologists do it. Second, the field offers no standard. I've virtually often seen catamenia, but and then it has a different geologic significant. In add-on, these words do non capture the unabridged gamut. My own preference would be not to call anything except the Paleolithic. Only it seems to me y'all have raised an issue that need to exist discussed. Since we have the public ear, hash out, public! Dave (talk) xx:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

This commodity does not conform to the XKCD #903 dominion. Please consider rewording to ensure compliance.68.94.88.57 (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

This article states that the Paleolithic ends around 10,000 BP and is followed by the Mesolithic period. But the Mesolithic Wikipedia article states that the Mesolithic begins around 22,000 BP (xx,000 BC). This is a discrepancy of more than 10,000 years and can't be deemed for by the statement in this article that refers to regional variations of "several thousand years". Ross Fraser (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

"The Paleolithic era is suggested by some to be followed past the Mesolithic. " This to my listen is like saying "2 plus ii is suggested past some to equal a number somewhere between 3 and 5." Is that a joke, timelord? Looking at some of your edits I suspect probably so ... --Matt Westwood 06:30, fourteen January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

• The Mesolithic is ignored by some and continues in a straight sequence from Paleolithic into the Neolithic. Some insert the Epipaleolithic hither too, but these periods are now obsolete to some in mod usage due to the continued extension backwards of the dating range of the Neolithic. Thank you for your interest in the Time State of war, I sometimes demand an assistant. Alien cultures are invading the timeline that need to exist defeated, if nosotros can merely be a bit clever I am sure we will win at the end of the episode. Just watch out for Daleks. A Timelord (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [respond]

Sentinelese of Andaman & Nicobar Islands are only surviving man race belonging to Paleolithic age.They are sixty in numbers and Inhabits Sentenel Island of Andaman & Nicibar Islands. They have shunned all type of human contact so far and live their life equally hunter gatherer. They still brand paleolithic tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.xvi.29 (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC) [answer]

Overall, Paleolithic peoples experienced less famine and malnutrition than the Neolithic farming tribes that followed them

I can't notice this in the cited sources. Ketil (talk) ten:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I call back the cloth on lunar calendars should be removed since it is disputed and a minority stance. This idea was showtime popularized past Alexander Marshack merely information technology never had a lot of support.

Dr. Carl Schuster believed these were scarification marks, made with a walking burin (chisel), which makes much more than sense. The "lunar" shape is probably caused by walking the chisel, one side at a fourth dimension. You lot can try it yourself by placing the end of a ruler on a flat surface and walking it up by lifting 1 side at a time. As you lift, the other side will create a crescent shape. This was a common fashion of scarifying flesh, or objects meant to represent humans (ancestors). In that respect, these objects were probably similar churingas. Stone objects found in the New World are sometimes marked in the same way. The number of marks (24) is probably related to finger joints, meant to represent ancestors. Finger amputation was practiced in Paleolithic times and every bit recently as 1960 in New Guinea. One joint equals one antecedent. They were removed in mourning. (I think this idea comes from an analogy with institute life.) Lastly, the marks on these objects are very tiny and had to be magnified to be seen clearly. Not very practical equally a guidance system. I think all calendars are Neolithic and reverberate values unknown to hunter-gathers, who lived by their wits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siegeltuch (talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 Baronial 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Someone stuck this in (its peanut butter jelly time sexxxxx)afterward the second paragraph of the section "Paleolithic and Climate". I tried to remove it merely it does not show up on the edit page. I hope someone with more experience than me tin can fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momplaysbass (talk • contribs) 01:31, one October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Cluebot fixed it. Vsmith (talk) 02:35, i October 2012 (UTC) [respond]

The get-go sentence in the second paragraph does non brand sense to me. "During the Pliocene, continents continued to migrate from mayhap as far as 250 km from their present locations to positions only 70 km from their current location."

What is the departure betwixt "present locations" and "current location"?

Suggestion: "During the Pliocene, continents continued to migrate from peradventure as far equally 250 km from their locations at the beginning of the epoch to positions merely 70 km from their current locations." aip (talk) 10:32, iii November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Africa seems to be under-represented; see, for instance:[UNESCO Earth Heritage Center] ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

THE CAVEMEN OF THIS TIME LEFT PORN ON THE WALLS FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS TO Meet XD --68.103.31.159 (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

In that location are some irrelevant words ("a drum is a micsus ") at the beginning of the article that I tin can't get rid of. Philip Sutton (talk) 00:05, fifteen April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

A recent edit removed the second "sapiens." But recent papers include it, e.g., in Science 2011 ^[1] and Quaternary International 2013 ^[two]. So I take reverted the action. Kdammers (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The article says "It is likewise unlikely that Paleolithic hunter-gatherers were affected by modernistic diseases of affluence [...] because the average lifespan was shorter than the age of common-onset of these conditions"

The boilerplate lifespan is dominated by baby mortality, even a few percentage points increase in babe mortality tin can dramatically lower the average lifespan. So a low average lifespan would non necessarily, past itself, make belatedly onset diseases much less likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.74.56.eighty (talk) fourteen:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

This edit request to Paleolithic has been answered. Set up the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your asking.

Please change the word "hominid" to "hominin" throughout this fantabulous article considering the author is using the term to refer only to humans and their ancestors, due east.chiliad. australopithecus, after the split from the chimpanzee, whereas the proper noun "hominid" at present refers to the much larger group which contains ALL great apes, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, humans, australopithecus, etc.

For example, consider the statement "At the beginning of the Paleolithic, hominids were establish primarily in eastern Africa, east of the Great Rift Valley". This statement is non right because hominids are found throughout Africa too as southeast Asia. This statement would exist correct if the proper name hominin were used.

The definition of both hominid and hominin can be found past searching Wikipedia for these ii terms. In the past, the proper name hominid was used to refer to the human being beginnings following the split with panini but the term has since been redefined and so that information technology now includes all dandy apes.

Thank you EarlSmith11@gmail.com

73.181.18.151 (talk) 18:33, four March 2015 (UTC) [answer]

Non washed: delight found a consensus for this amending earlier using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. And then, despite the fact that all hominin are hominid, so this is technically still right, you desire to change it anyways? Y'all'll demand to establish a consensus for the change, I don't see it as clarifying or benign to the article, although there may be others that hold with you lot. — {{U|Technical thirteen}} (e • t • c) eighteen:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC) [answer]

This edit asking to Paleolithic has been answered. Prepare the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your asking.

Please change "2.six one thousand thousand years ago" to "2.v million years agone", because this will meliorate consistency with other wikipedia pages. 96.28.76.188 (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Non done for now: Practise you have a reliable source that indicates the paleolithic period began 2.five million years agone? /wiae /tlk 14:41, 8 Jan 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The prototype captioned "Early 20th century illustration of the Paleolithic landscape" shows pterosaurs, which went extinct long earlier the Paleolithic. The paradigm file is chosen "Platonic Landscape of Paleolithic Historic period", but checking the bodily source indicates the image was originally titled "Ideal Landscape of a Prehistoric Historic period", and illustrates a chapter most early life on world (so the error is Wikipedia's, not the original document's). Regardless, the epitome is irrelevant to an article about the Palaeolithic, and then should be removed or replaced. Iapetus (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC) [answer]

@Wardog: I asked for the file to be renamed - that took if non seconds a minute or so, amazingly fast. I've removed information technology. I've institute a possible substitute which might practice. Come across [5] - what practice you think? Doug Weller talk 14:x, 23 September 2016 (UTC) [answer]

Isn't that an oxymoron?--Grondilu (talk) 12:08, iii September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The phrasing of the paragraph seems awkward. 90.199.193.176 (talk) 22:57, 17 Apr 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I take just modified v external links on Paleolithic. Delight accept a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this uncomplicated FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.annal.org/web/20080527230019/http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/people/faculty/marlowe_pubs/hunter-gatherers%20and%20human%20evolution.pdf to http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/people/faculty/marlowe_pubs/hunter-gatherers%20and%20human%20evolution.pdf
• Added archive https://web.annal.org/web/20050519215539/http://anthropology.tamu.edu/faculty/alvard/anth630/reading/Calendar week%208%20Diet%20tubers/Wrangham%20and%20Conklin-Brittain%202003.pdf to http://anthropology.tamu.edu/faculty/alvard/anth630/reading/Week%208%20Diet%20tubers/Wrangham%20and%20Conklin-Brittain%202003.pdf
• Added archive https://web.annal.org/web/20071121095952/http://museums.ncl.air conditioning.united kingdom/flintstone/miscon.html to http://museums.ncl.air conditioning.uk/flintstone/miscon.html
• Added archive https://spider web.annal.org/spider web/20080527230019/http://www.originsnet.org/chimpspiritdatabase.pdf to http://www.originsnet.org/chimpspiritdatabase.pdf
• Added archive https://web.annal.org/spider web/20080227122833/http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/2006_Oxford.pdf to http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/2006_Oxford.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. Afterward February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored past InternetArchiveBot . No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the annal tool instructions beneath. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-ataxia talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source bank check}} (last update: xviii January 2022).

• If you lot take discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can written report them with this tool.
• If you establish an fault with any archives or the URLs themselves, y'all can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC) [answer]

1. ^ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/453.short
2. ^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618213001730

merrittoleemanded54.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paleolithic/Archive_1

Share this post