Template talk:Stone Age
| WikiProject Archaeology | (Rated Template-class) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
Contents
Names in box[edit]
I notice the names in the box are often not the names of the articles. I suppose the intent was to abbreviate. But, the box is not accurately stating what the articles are. The tradeoff is abbreviation for accuracy. What do you think about that? Please note, there is a width parameter on the box, which can be set for each instance of the box.Dave (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Chalcolithic[edit]
Chalcolithic is usually lumped with the Bronze Age and not the Stone Age. The box for the BA is organized regionally rather than by relative chronology so Chalcolithic does not fit that box as well. It would be more work to change it. A second possibility would be to assign two titles to this box, say Stone Age and Copper Age. Even more work would be to have another box inserted in the sequence, Copper Age. The term "Age of metals" is in frequent use nowadays, which definitely includes copper age. I think you should ponder alternatives and render your opinions here. "Stone age" does have a section on the chalcolithic transition. While you are pondering I am changing the level of Chalcolithic in the box. One might conceivably put the transition under Stone Age, but the Copper Age is nowhere considered a subdivision of the Neolithic. Logically it is on a level with the whole stone age but that would entail considerable box rearrangement, so I am at least bringing it up to the major 1st level of stone age, while you think about it. In fact in the copper age one sees elaborate ritual or monumental objects in stone not visible in the neolithic, testifying to total mastery of stone-carving.Dave (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- So where are we then? Is Chalcolithic to remain in this box or not? I am of the opinion that it should not really, but as it is we have this and the Neolithic box corresponding and so both would need to be changed. It does not fit well into the other BA and IA boxes as they are area specific as Botteville points out correctly.
- I have also shrunk the picture slightly to keep it more inline with the other boxes Chaosdruid (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
tools found in atirampakkam near chennai[edit]
The article fails to mention one of the more recent Acheulian tool finds - in india. The site has been excavated over the last decade and research over the same peroid dates these tools to be 1.5 Mn years old. the article link is here - http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/25/stories/2011032564021300.htm.
If there are more scholarly references, please do use them to see if it ties in / challenges current theories of human migration.
I would like to believe that it is an important find in understanding the continuum of civilizational growth in India at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.135.74 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Lower is a top, upper is a bottom[edit]
This template, as well as {{Paleolithic}}, {{Mesolithic}} and {{Neolithic}}, uses upside-down time scale. It is especially confusing because {{Cenozoic graphical timeline}} (and similar navboxes) use conventional ordering: earlier down, newer up. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
