Talk:Neolithic

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2023

The first stanza, which reads "...is an Old World archaeological period...", should be changed to "... is an Afro-Eurasian archaeological period..." for higher comprehensibility as Old World is an ambiguous term. Diditman (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Old World is more old-fashioned than ambiguous, but Afro-Eurasia is too little known - compare their views: 850 vs 550 per day. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Afro-Eurasia would be most appropriate as Old World has a connotation to the Age of Discovery, which is quite a stretch from the Neolithic period. Diditman (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I support a change. The great majority of hits on the first two pages of google are for computer games called Old World, and many people will not understand it in its traditional - and POV - sense. Afro-Euroasian is less well known, but it is unambiguous and even people who have not come across it will understand it immediately. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

If there are computer games using a search term, it normally will get the top g-selections. But I find it significant that no one has launched a game called "Afro-Eurasia"! I pretty sure OW is the more familar and better understood term. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

We could also sidestep the issue by reverting the lead sentence prior to this edit by Asarlaí. All archaeological periods have a geographical limit, I don't see a compelling need to point this one out specifically in the first sentence. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Fine with that, though it has OW at the end of the first para. The trouble with Afro-Eurasia, especially when encountered the first time, is you have to do a relatively complex mental process to conclude that "Africa + (Europe + Asia) = Afro-Eurasia". I doubt it would come out well from readability tests. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with the term "Old World" which has the virtues of historical resonance, long-time usage, and common comprehension. I am appalled that a reason for replacing "Old World" is the existence of (ugh!) computer games with the same name. (Sorry, folks, a rant from one who remembers the days when a computer was a guy with an adding machine.) Smallchief (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no denying that Old World has been in long-time usage. However, with its connotations, Old World is not suitable in the context of the Neolithic period. I suggest that it be replaced by either Afro-Eurasia or have it taken out. Diditman (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You could always go with the longer "...archaeological period in Africa, Europe, and Asia..." I suppose. Joe's 'leave out the extents entirely" solution is also good.  Tewdar  18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That may be best, certainly it's the simplest. I think some geographical indication is needed in the first para. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

i dont have high enough level but the citation needed box i have a link for if anyone wants to add it

its https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Neolithic_Age Dollardollardollar3 (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Erm... we'll probably need a more reliable source than that, but thanks anyway.  Tewdar  16:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add this also

The Neolithic,or the New Stone Age, saw a lot of advancement in human revolution. Early humans began to understand the importance of farming and started moving towards a more settled life Sreenibro (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

Please remove "However, evidence of social inequality is still disputed, as settlements such as Çatalhöyük reveal a striking lack of difference in the size of homes and burial sites, suggesting a more egalitarian society with no evidence of the concept of capital, although some homes do appear slightly larger or more elaborately decorated than others." and ", which suggests that some influential individuals were able to organise and direct human labour – though non-hierarchical and voluntary work remain possibilities" these are conjecture with no citation. 137.22.48.159 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it right to remove the comment as it is generally accepted as fact. You are right that it needs citation and I do not have access to the sources cited in the Çatalhöyük article, so I have tagged the comment 'citation needed'. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Confused

I'm confused by this text in the article: "...farming communities had arisen in the Levant and spread to Asia Minor, North Africa and North Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is the site of the earliest developments of the Neolithic Revolution." If farming arose outside Mesopotamia (in the Levant, which I take to mean Syria or thereabouts), then how can its "earliest development" be in Mesopotamia? Some clarification is needed. Mcswell (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The basis of both statments is unclear as they are uncited, and I have removed the Mesopotamia comment to make the article less confusing. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact both parts are inaccurate. Farming appears at more or less the same time in the Levant, (Upper) Mesopotamia and other regions of Southwest Asia. – Joe (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)