Talk:Clactonian

[Untitled]
De facto, the Clactonian culture pioneered "prepared core" techniques, since they flaked off scrapers around the edge of the core, which then became a chopper. Ergo, the Clactonians took the first step towards the subsequent Levallois technique, characterizing the Mousterian culture, associated with the Neanderthals (of Europe & North Africa). And, an innovation appearing in Britain, in northwestern Europe, c.400Kya, plausibly explains the emergence of Neanderthals, as a European branch, of the hominid family, c.300Kya. Prima facie, Mousterian Neanderthals had expanded across North Africa by c.100Kya, when the Mousteroid "imitation Mousterian" culture appeared in Africa, associated with modern humans. 24.143.92.97 (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Neanderthals diverged from humans circa half a million years ago -- coinciding closely with the emergence, and spread, of Clactonian culture from Britain. Thus, the late-type homo erectus, possessing Achulean technology, who spread across Africa, and then across Europe, was plausibly the homo heidelburgensis Last Common Ancestor of Neanderthals & humans. "Achuleans" in Britain developed prepared core flint-knapping techniques, and evolved into "Clactonian / Mousterian" Neanderthals, gradually spreading across Europe, and then across North Africa (perhaps implying that they crossed Gibraltar on rafts?). Meanwhile, "Achuleans" in Africa eventually developed bone & antler tools, before encountering & imitating Neanderthal technology, before combining the best of both into the Upper Paleolithic Revolution ? 24.143.92.97 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

=Discrepancies=

Clactonian tools were made by Homo erectus 400,000 years ago? At this age it would surely have been Homo Heidelbergensis that made these tools?

This statement needs clarification: "Within the banks of the Nile River, at the 100 foot terrace, excavations located Egyptian version of Clactonian.[1]"

"In the 1990s it was argued [1] that the difference between Clactonian and Acheulean may be a false distinction" - reference [1] is dated 1972? How can a statement from the 1990s be from a 1972 reference! Michaelwild (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With regard to the first issue (erectus vs. heidelbergensis), this seems to be an issue with the general nomenclature in reference to archaic types of humans, not something that is specific to this article. With regard to the last issue (1990s vs. 1972), that had to do with a garbled footnote format. I have tried to improve it. Alfons Åberg (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Replace picture?
The current image of Homo erectus looks about a million years too old. This image is of unknown provenance in that we don't know the intent of the artist, e.g., which fossil type was used as a model. I think Tautavel man would be an improvement, having lived in Europe an estimated 400,000 years ago. If you search Google Images for "Tautavel" and filter for "Labeled for noncommercial reuse" you will find a number of images of Tautavel man that are already on Wikimedia Commons (just scroll down a bit and there are quite a few). Zyxwv99 (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I found such an image on Commons, File:Le musée de préhistoire (Tautavel) (14498190867).jpg. If you don't think it reflects inaccurate assumptions, feel free to substitute it, or else let me know, and I will do it. If the image proportions are too wide for the allotted space, then perhaps File:Homme de Tautavel 02-08.jpg would do.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I deleted the image without noticing these posts as it is of erectus, and the Clactonian is heidelbergensis. I think the Tautavel image is far too fanciful. The infobox skull in the Homo heidelbergensis article would be suitable. There is another image in that article File:Homo heidelbergensis (10233446).jpg, which might be suitable, but it does not indicate any provenance so it is difficult to tell whether it is accurate. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Since this article is about an industry, the stone tool image is sufficient, and an image of the presumed tool creator isn't really called for.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * All of the images suggested thus far are much better than what we had before. However, I would be reluctant to include an image that shows the tool-makers wearing clothing of the sort worn to keep warm (as opposed to clothing for adornment) as clothing for warmth seems to be a far more recent innovation. My first pick would be either the stone or the H. heidelbergensis, second pick the statue from Tauavel, least favorite the Tautavel picture showing them wearing clothes. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)