Talk:Archaeology of New Zealand

Page idea
There are many pages in NZ history that cover prehistoric topics. This page talks about how this information was found. Be bold.

only East Polynesian archipelago

 * "It appears that New Zealand is the only East Polynesian archipelago not to communicate with the others.[37]"

Um, really? I'm not seeing evidence that either Hawaii or Easter Island had links either. (and if NZ qualifies as an archipelago, surely they do too). This may be well sourced but it's not something I can readily check, and if its just plain wrong regardless then it needs to be gone.-Snori (talk)
 * I would suggest removal of sentence Snori or changing to no evidence of trade just for NZ, not extended to all other Islands being in contact. Tried a rewrite but do not have time to do it right.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)).

Why is Eurasian labels are used to described New Zealand's pre-contact history?
"New Zealand's human prehistory is broadly divided into the periods of Archaic (~paleolithic then ~mesolithic after c. 1300 AD) and Classic (~neolithic)"

yet...

Eurasian labels do not perfectly fit as some level of horticulture was always present in northern New Zealand, even existing at the same time as megafauna."

Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic are all Eurasian labels keep in mind, so this contradicts what the bottom text says, and I used to even have those edited out for this reason, before it got added again. Thebeatles2020 (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what the squiggles are for. in fact "some level of horticulture" was often present even in paleolithic periods in Eurasia. "Archaic" and "Classic" are uninformative in themselves (not to mention confusing in terms of their use for different things elsewhere). Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)