Talk:Mesolithic

Confusion
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)

changed the taxobox. In Central Europe, the Mesolithic (Maglemose, Beuronien, Sauveterien) is not the same as the Epipalaeolithic (Hamburg, Ahrensburg). In some areas, like the Middle East, some authors use the expressions synonymously (Kebaran to Natufian). Should better be explained in page. Also, the dates given are confusing - they obviously refer to the levant, in Central Europe it would be 8.000-5500, in some areas of Scotland (Larnian) about 4000 BC cal. So I would suggest to leave them out of the box altogether. --Yak 07:33, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Still the same objection: dates of Mesolithic vary widely depending on area: the box pretends to a synchroneity that does not really exist --Yak 22:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You also need to add the broad spectrum revolution at least... If you feel up to it try getting into detail, this was a major event in the mesolithic period - Foxman

Proper use of the terms Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic
I am a non-expert in the field of archeology, although I do have extensive training in ancient languages and literatures, and I must tell you that I find the prevalence of the "Mesolithic/epipaleolithic" debate within this article to be highly confusing and unnecessary. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and not the proceedings of an academic conference. It is also poorly written, and refers to subjects and concepts that should be defined in a clear and general manner, instead of being used as jargon. I'm not qualified to edit the work here, but I hope someone with the proper understanding of the subject matter will consider eliminating this section, or edit it extensively and move it toward the end, and get on with the business at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.201.142.26 (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the term Mesolithic refers:
 * 1) Strictu sensu: to those transitional cultures between Paleolithic and Neolithic, like Natufian.
 * 2) Broad sense: to anything late Paleolithic, but this is more specifically described with the term epipaleolithic

Agains what the article claims, epipaleolithic does not refer to transitional cultures like Natufian but rather to non-transitional ones like Azilian or Sauveterrian.

The same confusion (inverted meaning) is present in the article Epipaleolithic. If nobody can present clear evidence that I'm wrong in this, I will proceed to correct both articles radically. --Sugaar (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No replies in a week or so. Yet people keep adding with the same confusion of meaning.
 * BTW, references: Archaeology Wordsmith: Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic, confirming my perception. --Sugaar (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Edited accordingly. I don't know who's that Mitten but he seems totally confused. Still I have kept his opinion and references.
 * As I expect a storm after the edition, and someone will surely ask who is that A. Moure and which are his credentials. Here is his C.V. (as per the book, published by a respectable History-oriented editorial company, Historia16): Doctor in History (Universidad Complutense), becary of the Spanish Institute of Prehistory and the Superior council of Scinetific Research (Spain), Profesor of Prehistory in the Complutense University, Professor of Prehistory and Ethnology in the University of Valladolid, Cathedratic of Prehistory in the University of Valladolid, in 1999 he was Cathdratic in the University of Cantabria. He used to be as well member of the XI Comission (Paleolithic Art) of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, advisor of several administraive bodies of arhaeological significance and was also Director of the National Anthropological Museum of Spain.
 * Anyhow, when the Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic distinction is made almost anywhere (I'm really puzzled at that Mitten's terminology) it's always in this sense: Meolithic = transitional, Epiplaeolithic = not transitional, as seen for instance in the Archaeology Wordsmith reference. True that many authors don't make any distinction and call all Mesolithic equally. --Sugaar (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the new version of this page. It finally made it clearer to me what Mesolithic means -- the older version was waaay too confusing. Please correct this phrase: "Additionally, some authors, seem to prefer..". There is no comma between the subject and the predicate... :^) --Fbs  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.130.189 (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ten years later: this edit by Sugaar in 2007 introduced the idea that Mesolithic cultures could also be Palaeolithic at the same time, which rather amazingly remained in the article unchallenged until just now! Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Problematic use of the term "mesolithic"
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)

I still haven't understood what mesolithic means. The article lacks a proper definition, and it should definitely not be buried somewhere within the paragraph of the history of the term. A definition/explanation belongs ABOVE, after the lead in sentence (In other words: there's no quick reference for a quick reader). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.32.60 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Paleoloithic / mesolithic terminology in africa
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, If this is this true, What terminology should be used? Autodidactyl (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Their should be no confusion in translating "Mesolithic" as "Middle Stone Age". If my understanding of "Paleolithic" as derived from Greek: παλαιός, palaios, "old"; and λίθος, lithos, "stone", meaning "old age of the stone" or "Old Stone Age," is correct, then the Lower Paleolithic would be replaced by "Early Old Stone Age," Middle Paleolithic by "Middle Old Stone Age" and Upper Paleolithic by "Later Old Stone Age". This is strongly supported by the german translation of Paleolithic with "Altsteinzeit" (Old Stone Age)( DTV Atlas)SamiAEH (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Jutta Paulina de Roever
A large portion of JP Roever's 2004 Ph.D. thesis (on pottery sherds found at Swifterbant) has been used as the sole source for 1/3 of this article. This work has not been published in a peer reviewed journal and is therefore not WP:RS. Apart from the summary, which does not support some of the sentences included here, it is in Dutch, not English. The material was copied and pasted by User:Rokus01 from the now deleted Broad Homeland hypothesis. If this material cannot be found elsewhere, it should not be included here, as it does not seem to be the point of view of mainstream archaeologists. Please use the WP:RS noticeboard to resolve this matter. Mathsci (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The same source was used by User:Rokus01 in Dnieper-Donets culture. Mathsci (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: JP de Roever obtained her Ph.D. at the age of 58. The introduction contains some autobiographical details. She had previously produced a pamphlet (in English) on Swifterbant pottery in 1979. Mathsci (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The source you mean is a university thesis, that use ample scientific references. The cited facts could be retrieved from the referenced sources as well. University theses are peer reviewed by definition: "Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field." If you have any problems with the content then please discuss this in a different way. Rokus01 (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This thesis remains unpublished and cannot be used as the sole basis for 1/3 of this article. Please supply other sources in peer-reviewed journals to back up what appears to be WP:OR. Mathsci (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you insist this thesis is "unpublished". Of course it is published. The study is peer reviewed and should be considered representative to what is known of this period. Your accusation of OR is completely outrageous and not supported by any indication of contradiction to what is known from other sources. If you can find any, then please supply constructive edits. Like this, you indulge yourself to willful deletion of sourced information, that can be considered vandalism. At this moment the article on the Mesolithic is nothing more than a stub. The paragraph on Europe is near to nothing. You have to explain the world why you think the article should not be expanded with sourced information. This is contrary to the objective of Wikipedia to supply information. Rokus01 (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We should have good information. Are you really saying that that is the best source for information on the Mesolithic? And that some unknown PhD is enough to say something is consensus?
 * It's not good information if it is primarily sourced from an unknown scholar writing in a foreign language. Most editors can't read the original, and I find it hard to believe that there aren't better English language sources.
 * As it stands it is confusing even to someone who knows something about the subject. There must be stuff in, for instance, The Oxford illustrated history of prehistoric Europe By Barry Cunliffe, which is easily accessible. You've combined what I think is too much detail with a complete omission of, for instance, anything about the British mesolithic. I think we need to move back a bit and decide what should be in this section, and definitely use better sources. Doug Weller (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is the best source I know that gives a comprehensive view of most participant Mesolithic cultures in some depth, for this is what this article should give. The focus of this published dissertation was pottery and why should you use a popular book to describe pottery techniques that have archeological importance? Cunliffe is good, though does not go into so much depth about this period. You have to consider the indicated difference of contemporary "ceramic Mesolithic" and "aceramic Neolithic". This definition excludes sedentary areas as well as the Mesolithic in Brittany where no pottery was found. To avoid confusion, this could be explained more in the edit. Rokus01 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, it's long-standing practice on Wikipedia to use information from PhD theses very sparingly and very carefully; sourcing so much from a single thesis (written in a language only a small minority of editors can even read) in a short article is not proper. - Merzbow (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the footnotes, I used this thesis most of all for general information and most of all for identifying aceramic Mesolithic cultures. The thesis is used both carefully and sparingly, having the quotes confined to a few pages. I don't think Dutch editors are a small minority in Wikipedia, still the Dutch quotes are confined to page 135 (giving an assessment on aceramic Mesolithic and a list of important scholars that wrote on this subject) and page 137 that just states that the Mesolitic people from all over Europe used the same pottery making techniques and must have had close contacts. Most other quotes involve dating, that might be retrieved from any other recent source. The quoted pages 162-163 are written in English and also concentrate on the most general notion of cultures being interconnected. In short: this thesis does not intend to come up with daring (or any other) deviations from Mesolithic mainstream and just do a great job to give a comprehensive overview. Yes, the article is short: I would say too short or a stub, especially on Europe. I don't think the European Mesolithic justifies a stub and I would plead for rather more information in order to comply to the Wikipedia objective to supply information. Rokus01 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference
An useful reference for Danube area http://www.arheologie.ro/doc/sp3/3-Boroneant_Dinu.pdf

BCE
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicpricing (talk • contribs)
 * The present covention is to leave date format as found per Manual of Style (dates and numbers).--Charles (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mesolithic revisited
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)

New intro
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)
 * Yes, it's the subject. No problem. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

General update
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)

Contradiction in Article
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).

I don't understand the drama surrounding this article. "Mesolithic" is a term that some archaeologists have been found useful as a shorthand for "a cultural stage transitional between the Upper Paleolithic and the Neolithic". No, there is no absolute, objective need for it. No, it cannot be use to indicate absolute chronology. Using it is a comment on a culture's relative stage of development. People who don't want to use it do not use it. People who prefer "Epipaleolithic" use "Epipaleolithic". I do not understand how "after the development of radiocarbon dating the arbitrary nature of its definition has become apparent", as radiocarbon dating (absolute chronology) has nothing to do with the topic. --dab (𒁳) 16:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Doesn't Clearly Define the Period in the Opening, Other than by Timeline
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).
 * 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)
 * 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)

Nanzhuangtou dating discrepancy
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)

A submerged monolith in the Sicilian Channel gives Evidence for Mesolithic human activity
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)

Highlights from that study:


 * A submerged, 12 m long monolith has been discovered at a water depth of 40 m, in a shallow bank of the Sicilian Channel.
 * Morphological evidence, underwater observations, and results of petrographic analysis testify that the monolith is man-made.
 * This monolith suggests a significant human activity in the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank, a former island of the Sicilian Channel.
 * Seawater inundated the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank at 9350 ± 200 yr B.P., presumably forcing inhabitants to migrate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenorb (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

External links modified (January 2018)
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)

Discussion at Talk:Neolithic § Why not "Neolithic era" or "Neolithic age"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Neolithic § Why not "Neolithic era" or "Neolithic age". —GoldRingChip 14:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)