Talk:Paleolithic

I think this article needs to be culled of the information and theories sourced from Vincent W. Fallio. He doesn't seem to be a reputable scholar in the field, and his book that's cited often here is not published by a reputable press. Thoughts? NealBhattacharya (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Neolithic § Why not "Neolithic era" or "Neolithic age". —GoldRingChip 14:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

https://archaeologie.bemerkenswelt.de/en this is ground-breaking stuff, the images are satellite imagery from Google Earth so there's no doubt about that, it has placemarks of all stone age formations in Africa and Middle east! TL;DR Africa and Middle east were far more populated. Implement this large chunk of knowledge somewhere on the page, maybe even in a theories section! I hope the idea gets to the scientific community so they can research it more.. 178.221.182.108 (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

That looks like a very unreliable source and I doubt we can use it. The majority of the images on that page are of desert kites, which are well-studied and which we have a good article on, and keyhole monuments (monuments en trou de serrure), which we don't have an article on (yet) but are also known and dated.[1] [2] Neither are Palaeolithic, nor signs of particularly high population densities in the past. – Joe (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes - the site is fun, but on a non-exhaustive look it doesn't claim anything about the Paleolithic anyway. Indeed, all comments I saw about dating were admirably vague and cautious. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

fair point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.220.205.235 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

refrence 1 is a book that the website costs money to see so it can't be a reference and reference 18 is not working. Latin clash (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Under the Other Inventions sub-heading at the end of the first paragraph it says "....60 km of open ocean at 30,000 BCcal." which I believe should read "....60 km of open ocean at 30,000 BC." Efkinitos (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• B-Class level-4 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
• B-Class vital articles in History
• B-Class history articles
• Top-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• B-Class Archaeology articles
• Top-importance Archaeology articles
• B-Class Anthropology articles
• Top-importance Anthropology articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles