Talk:Mousterian

Paleolithic
Middle Paleolithic leading into the Upper Paleolithic. - Denny 11.13.05

Trinkaus, et al
The argument for tool culture from adaptionist perspective was the result of Trinkaus, et al. It isn't necessarily correct Gautam Discuss 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Shanidar 1 picture
That picture looks really strange. I started to write, "What's that thing on the top of the head in the picture of the 'reconstruction of the head of the Shanidar 1 fossil?'" But I did a Google image search, and found a better picture of the same reconstruction, which answered my question.

Unfortunately, that one doesn't seem to be labeled for reuse. Still, it seems like we ought to be able to find a better picture, which doesn't look like he's got a second, smaller, semi-bald head sticking up out of the top of his head. How about this one? NCdave (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You've answered your own questions. We cannot use unfree images when we have free equivalents. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Say what?
Surely Wikipedia articles should be accessible to the non-specialist? Given this, what does the sentence, "Some assemblages, namely those from Pech de l’Aze, are exceptionally small Levallois and other prepared core types, causing some researchers to suggest that these flakes take advantage of greater grip strength possessed by Neanderthal physiology", actually mean? Davidelit (Talk) 08:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

dawn
not seeing any support for the early date of 600,000 BP given in box (including Reference 1, which doesn't appear to have anything to do with the early dating) and at bottom of page. text says 160,000 BP. does anyone have a citation supporting 600,000? TheNuszAbides (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced material
There is a bit in the Characteristics section that is not only unreferenced but also appears to be OR: It may be an example of acculturation of modern humans by Neanderthals because the culture after 130,000 years reached the Levant from Europe (the first Mousterian industry appears there 200,000 BP) and the modern Qafzeh type humans appear in the Levant another 100,000 years later. It was added at 22:40, 11 August 2009 by user 76.16.183.158. Zyxwv99 (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mousterian. 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/20120130060433/http://www3.hf.uio.no/sarc/iakh/lithic/MOUST/mousterian.html to http://www3.hf.uio.no/sarc/iakh/lithic/MOUST/mousterian.html

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) 21:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Bambata cave
Bambata cave in Zimbabwe is listed as a location where Mousterian tools were found. I believe this characterization is false. The citation listed is published in 1929. See page 45 and 46 in a more recent work (from 1949) about the same location: -- There was no cultural phase that could be identified as "Mousterian"

I'm removing the reference to Bambata cave from the article. Adlerschloß (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Clean up era "succession" mess
This is a confusing and possibly PoV-pushing mess: Aside from this being self-contradictory several times over, the very existence of the Châtelperronian is disputed.
 * Infobox: "Followed by:	Châtelperronian, Emiran, Baradostian, Aterian"
 * Lead: "The main following period is the Aurignacian (c. 43,000–28,000 BP) ..."
 * Success box nav template: "Succeeded by: Châtelperronian"
 * Body: nothing specific about this

And it gets worse:
 * Infobox: "Preceded by:	Acheulean, Micoquien, Clactonian"
 * Lead: "... its predecessor, known as Levallois or Levallois-Mousterian ..."
 * Succession box nav template: "Preceded by Micoquien".
 * Body: nothing specific about this

This kind of reader-confusing and even editor-confusing mess is not exclusive to this article. We really need to settle on a "Wikipedia-canoncial" series of these eras (the exact applicability of which varies regionally), along our typical system of following the scientific consensus (dominant view in high-quality, modern, relevant, reliable sources). And also settle on how much detail to go into in the lead, in the body, in templates. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My wiki experience with this kind of thing has been mostly limited to the pre-history of Florida and adjacent areas, but names and date-ranges of periods differ by author and by locality, and are not well-suited for succession boxes, except possibly for well-defined small areas. I see the same problem in North American prehistory, with the text in Archaic period (North America), Formative stage and Woodland period in discordance with the Template:Periods in North American history. In addition, marginal areas often do not fit at all well into standard definitions of periods. I prefer text discussion of time and geographic ranges of of cultural developments, as in Indigenous peoples of Florida and the following section. - Donald Albury 14:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * good catch. We need to get rid of all of this. Not just because the infobox should reflect the article text, but the fact that you just can't make a 'fits everywhere" statement. Shall we take this to Wikiproject Archaeology?