Talk:Mesolithic

message: I find the addition of the LBK confusing, as it is Neolithic, not Mesolithic
--Yak 16:41, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
:Hi Yak, you are quite correct, my mistake - I was applying western European chronology to central Europe. The link has been removed. adamsan  17:36, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: The term "mesolithic" should, in my opinion, be used primarily to refer to societies in areas where the megafauna extintion forced new adaptations centered around hunting of small game, birds and fishing (much like Clark does 1962 in  The Prehistory of Europe and South-west Asia). I.e from the time of the last ice age to the advent of agriculture in a specific area. In areas that wasn't much effected by the ice age (e.g. in Africa and the Levant), the term Epipaleolithic should be applied.  Technologicaly the mesolithic is manifested in the production of microblades and microliths. This is almost exactly how the Encyclopædia Britannica uses the term in their article (Mesolithic Period. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online) and that could be a good starting point for this article. Note how Ofer Bar-Yosef avoids the term mesolithic and uses the term epi-paleolithic in this article conserning the Natufian culture:
* Ofer Bar-Yosef: The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture, in Evolutionary Anthropology, no 5 (1998).
To conclude I would like to leave you with this quote fronm Britannica (referensed as above)
:"There is no direct counterpart to the Mesolithic Period outside northwestern Europe, and the term is no longer used to reflect a hypothetical worldwide sequence of human cultural evolution." MiCkE 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic use of the term "mesolithic" 

message: an anon editor to the Klasies River Caves stated that 
- Paleolithic not used for Africa, MSA is catch all for time from ca. 200,000-30,000 years ago
- Paleolithic is a term that does not apply to Africa in general. Mesolithic is just wrong,<BR>
If this is this true, What terminology should be used?
Autodidactyl (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paleoloithic / mesolithic terminology in africa

message: I propose to change BC to BCE as being a more neutral and secular way of expressing the ages. See [Common Era]
David Hirst 13:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The present covention is to leave date format as found per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year numbering systems.--Charles (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCE 

message: It still isn't right. Lubbock didn't know a thing about the Mesolithic. This topic is now covered under Three-age system. This article needs updating. Will do at some point if no one else does.Dave (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mesolithic revisited

message: All right. I have a new intro ready to go and will be putting it in. This should help clarify things a bit. I can't help jumping around a little in these 3-age system articles. It really is a complex topic so don't feel bad if you may have missed any of this info. It is taking me a long time and it isn't just me, it is the subject.Dave (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's the subject. No problem. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New intro

message: I will get round to this at some point! Great job everyone but it really needs alot of work PatHadley (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: General update

message: The article states:
"By the time of Vere Gordon Childe's work, The Dawn of Europe (1947), which affirms the Mesolithic, sufficient data had been collected to determine that the Mesolithic was in fact necessary and was indeed a transition and intermediary between the Paleolithic and the Neolithic.
[...]
The type of tool remains the diagnostic factor. The Mesolithic featured composite devices manufactured with Mode V chipped stone tools. The Paleolithic had utilized Modes I-IV and the Neolithic mainly abandoned the modes in favor of polished, not chipped, stone tools."
Thus, logically enough, the development stage considered is indeed a later stage of the paleolithic, and there is no need for a Mesolithic. I mean, according to the article's own words; not according to current scientific data or the "reality of facts" (hum).
Denispir (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in Article 

message: What made it the "mesolythic"? Where the tools different? Did the technology shift? And if so, how? That is central to the article and should be briefly sketched in the opening paragraph, and of course then expanded on later in the article. Leaving it out of the opening makes the article vague, and a chore to read. 
This is a perfect example of how Wikipedia policy focuses entirely on verifiability and citations, but never on quality writing. 
69.171.160.20 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first observation surely is correct, the conclusion is not, because it has nothing to do with the observation. A correct intro would lead to the conclusion that the legend to the figure is extremely wrong and misleading, because the Mesolithic starts with the foresting starting with the begin of the Holocene, forcing people to change their hunting strategies. This was NOT in the late Pleistocene, better "Cold Period".HJJHolm (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You realize you are replying to a comment from 2011, when the article was probably rather different? Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Doesn't Clearly Define the Period in the Opening, Other than by Timeline

message: Nanzhuangtou is giving 12600-11300 BCE as its date rather than the much more recent date in this article. 67.6.98.101 (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanzhuangtou dating discrepancy 

message: The latest hint that archaeologists have completely misled us about the origins of civilization – and that their ‘house of history’ is built on foundations of sand -- comes from a team of marine scientists and geologists diving in the Sicily Channel in the Mediterranean. You can read the full report, and get a clearer view of the sea-floor scans and photographic record, here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15300535  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenorb (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that this monolith is man made, it could easily have moved from a different location. Also, what's with your hatred of archaeology. Qwed117 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A submerged monolith in the Sicilian Channel gives Evidence for Mesolithic human activity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mesolithic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312140701/http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/Mesolithic/index.htm to http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/Mesolithic/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Neolithic § Why not "Neolithic era" or "Neolithic age".   —GoldRingChip 14:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:Neolithic#Why not "Neolithic era" or "Neolithic age"|Talk:Neolithic §&nbsp;Why not "Neolithic era" or "Neolithic age"]]