Talk:Lower Paleolithic

disclaimer
Who do I need to talk to about having a to this article?

This article pre-supposes the validity of an "evolutionary" timetable with dating methods that are in doubt.

Evolution is an unproven conjecture so having timelines should have a disclaimer. Neutrality of article is suspect in my opinion.

--Ed

This piece is annoying: Such an association should not imply that they necessarily evolved in Europe.

afaik there is hardly any indication such could even remotely be the case, you may as well see advanced homo erecti as what they are, advanced pre ice age or so. I actually see collateral evidence for the close connection between all succesive species of homo erectus.

Evolution
Yeah, someone from that era might decide to sue you...

1,000,000 BC article should be merged here
I feel that 1,000,000 BC should be merged here. We can't have information about the exact year of 1,000,000 BC, so the info should be worked into here. This article has the potential to be a lot more encompassing. --Czj 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Refs...H. hungary....3 million years...modified stones
As one who is a very fairly well versed non specialist of paleoanthropology, I'm curious about some of the non-cited references here:

What/which Homo species are older than 3 million years? I've never heard of anything beyond 2.5 or 2.6 million years being attributed to Homo (the dawn of stone tool making). In this case, the species would be H. habilis.

I think this article should specify and be clear that stone tool industries refer to modified stone tools. Stone tool use exists among many several species, esp. the great apes; the difference with the beginning of the paleolithic is the beggining of specially crafted stone tools. The article may be too vague to the novice reader to fully grasp this fact.

Finally, of all the references to early human species, what or who the heck is H. paleohungaricus?!? I've never heard of him, and even if he has some support, this particular species is not at all regarded seperately by the overall establishment.Neanderskull 20:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Early species
I find this sentence unclear: "Homo habilis remains, such as those from Olduvai Gorge, are much more recognizable as humans." Much more recognizable than what? --Smoggyrob | Talk 04:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Paleodiet ref removed
I removed the Paleo-diet external link.

Its connection to history has not been established, and thus doesn't have a demonstratable applicability here.

Zackzing (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction about hunter-gathering
In the Calabrian section, it says hunter-gatherer activities started in that stage (1.8m - 780,000 yrs ago), then in the transition to Middle Paleolithic section, it says the first instances of hunter-gatherer activities occurred in this period (~300,000 yrs ago). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoItAgain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Lower time limit
The finds of primitive stone tools last year, earlier than any previously known, are interesting, but has there actually been a *formal* back-dating of the time limit for the paleolithic? For a long time, scientific consensus has been that LP began around 2 milljon years ago when the first recognizable tools appeared, which ties in with the appearance of the genus Homo. Since the new finds probably imply that toolmaking preceded the Homo genus (not equal to "hominins") it's unclear if the find of older tools by itself could be said to establish a new incipit date for the Paleolithic.

And at any rate, the article should make it clear that up until at least last year, the beginning of the Paleolithic was set at around 2 million years ago. Essential for handling most textbook sources dealing with this phase. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)