Talk:Lithic technology

Merger is bad idea
Against this merger proposal, since each topic is distinct (even if related) and both topics are quite extensive in eventual content. Umbertoumm (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Lithic reduction" refers to techniques, "stone tools" to presumed objects and typology. Combining the two would be a bit like combining genotype and phenotype, at least if reduction is understood as a "chaîne opératoire" with a cultural rather than a purely mechanical raison d'être. Lithic reduction also produces artefacts that are not "tools" in themselves, such as cortex flakes, cores, core tablets, and trimming flakes. "Lithic reduction" should, of course, be mentioned in the entry on stone tools and provided with a link, as non-archaeologists will not usually be familiar with the term.--Death Bredon (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not about lithic reduction
This discussion is about lithic reduction. Nothing whatsoever is said of lithic reduction in this article nor does anything whatever imply that anything is going to be said or ought to be said. Lithic technology as stated according to terminology in the field is about the technocomplex, which is a typology. Stone tool covers that in conjunction with Stone age. No need to cover it yet once again here. But, what YOU are talking about is the techniques of reducing the stone to the type. Now, this topic is covered under stone age and quite a few other articles, which is not to say another good overview article would not be appropriate. However, this is not it. It seems to me you have either to merge this into stone tool, which can be easily done, since this article says next to nothing, or merge it into some one of the other articles really about lithic reduction, or make this one into a lithic reduction article, and I don't care which. Your choice, but let's not call lithic technology lithic reduction.

By the way this discussion is in the wrong place. The tag directs us to discuss under Stone tool, which I did, but no one was there to discuss. Furthermore, the above discussion treats the subject as closed. You voted, and that was that. Lithic reduction should not be merged; the only trouble is, this is not Lithic reduction. What you are going to do now I have NO idea. Technically speaking, since the matter was regarded as closed, the tags should have been removed. Are you interested in keeping antique issues alive or in good articles? I don't care what you do except useless tags seem to me to be unduly provocative and counterproductive. So if no one previously concerned (that was some time ago) is now interested I am at some point not too far away going to remove the tags, except for the request for references. You do need references, but first you need some subject matter and that seems to be the current issue.Dave (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Diagrams needed
The material discussed in this article would be MUCH clearer if accompanied by labeled diagrams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.5.76 (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)