Talk:Epipalaeolithic Near East

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reson for term unclear[edit]

"The Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic was a period in the development of human technology that precedes the Neolithic period of the Stone Age. It is preferred as an alternative to Mesolithic in areas with limited glacial impact." ---- Why? What does "glacial impact", limited or otherwise, have to do with it? -- 201.51.211.130 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The impact in Northwestern europe (which is where this terminology originates) was much more severe than in the mediterranean region. For one the latter was not periodically covered in ice or tundra, which dramatically affects flora and fauna on which hunter gatherers depend. Therefore there's a clear period (the Mesolithic) where glaciers had a direct or indirect effect in northwest europe, but not in more southerly regions where there's no clear boundary. The Paleolithic cultures just keep on developing. Kleuske (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


See discussion about this term[edit]

At talk:Mesolithic. MiCkE 13:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no merge per Brucealarkey. -- Salix (talk): 06:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be turned into a redirect, with the Mesolithic article discussing the Epipaleolithic also. Doug Weller (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont. See above why. However, both are tied to different regions for good reason. Kleuske (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could give you quite a few reliable sources that don't agree. I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't match what I've read. Doug Weller (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two years later...Dondegroovily (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epipalaeolithic is routinely used in published literature and does not necessarily equate to the Mesolithic, therefore I think a short entry on the epipalaeolithic 'term' improves clarity (BruceMalarkey (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You misunderstood "merging". This does not mean the terms need to be synonyms. It means that we do not have enough material to warrant two articles, and that the two terms are best discussed together, as one serves to elucidate the other. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Range of problems still noticeable in 2016[edit]

To editors Dougweller, Dbachmann, BruceMalarkey, Salix alba and Kleuske: Hi! I just tried to improve this article without being able to do research or follow-up due to real-life limitations, and I'm sorry all I can do is post my observations on what I cannot do and hope someone else can work with them:

  1. This article should NOT be Start class, but Stub class. The info is too thin and confusing, even after I made headers, and the info isn't really tied into other articles well. I did not come away totally confident in my understanding of how and when the term is used.
  2. Because of this term's very confusing relationship with one of the MAJOR terms of the field, mesolithic, this info/article should be a high priority.
  3. I think having a section in Mesolithic (the article, hence the change in capitalization) that shows these terms' relationships almost in a Venn-diagrammatic manner would be easiest to understand. And it would mean the term "epipaleolithic" would have "an entry" in WP: a title that redirects to the appropriate section.
  4. Even if the terms are kept in separate articles, we don't need sections in this article on hunter-gatherers, etc., with such details on food. That's already in the other article, or it should be. Anything about human activity in the epipaleolithic period that is different from such activity connected to related terms belongs here, with links to articles' sections about what is the same. If there's little to no difference, please re-consider merging.

Thanks, and I hope this is useful! --Geekdiva (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I last concerned myself with this subject. AFAIK, the confusion is due to the fact that the mesolithic (originally) was defined in terms of glaciation and and interglacial periods. The term suggests a distinct archeological horizon, which makes sense for area's affected by glaciation. However, in area's not affected, the term is misleading, since there's no distinct horizon, no clear separation, but rather a continuum between the upper paleolithic and the mesolithic. The term "mesolithic" applies well to (northern) Europe, but fails in (for instance) the Middle East and Mediterranean cultures. Hence for those areas the term "epipaleolitic" is preferred. The distinction, therefore, is mainly geographical, instead of cultural.
I have no problems with a merger and no specific opinion on the "class" of the article. Kleuske (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought... I'll stick to my guns concerning a merger, since various sources use the term to mean different things, as shown above. If you want. I'll dig up a few more sources. Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

@Dbachmann and Johnbod: I'm not sure it was wise to fork this article from Epipalaeolithic. As far as I'm aware, the term is only commonly used in Near Eastern archaeology. It doesn't seem worth maintaining a separate article just to point out that it is also a seldom-used synonym for the European Mesolithic.

In any case, the current title defines the scope too narrowly. There is also an Epipalaeolithic of Anatolia, Iran, Arabia, Egypt, etc. and they are all part of the same phenomenon. If we don't merge the two articles back, this should at least be moved to something like Epipalaeolithic Southwest Asia. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't my idea! In fact, according to Levant, the "broader historic meaning" of the term includes all the Eastern Mediterranean, so all of those except Iran. Not sure if that matches the use of the term in archaeology. But certainly the areas involved should be spelled out - there are sites that can be linked to in these places. Epipaleolithic (Eastern Mediterranean) might be better - I don't think "Southwest Asia" can be placed readily by many of our readers. The use of "Epipaleolithic" for Europe seems rather variable - for some recent writers it is a synonym for the European Mesolithic, for others a preceding stage - in this paper for example. The Azilian is a focus for these differences. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In archaeology (which is about the only place it comes up in contemporary usage anyway) it refers specifically to Syria-Palestine – the area coloured in dark green at the top of Levant. Epipaleolithic (Eastern Mediterranean) would be good but it unfortunately excludes the eastern Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia and Iran) and the Arabian peninsula. I suggested Southwest Asia because that is the more modern term for the "Near East" in archaeology and anthropology. My preferred solution would be to undo the fork and stick with simply Epipalaeolithic. – Joe (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly comes up in history, but again with the same meaning, I would have said. On the whole we still tend to use "Near East". I'm agnostic on reverting the split. DAB? Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also Dbachmann's move changed the spelling from Epipalaeolithic (with an ae) to Epipaleolithic. I think the former is more common. – Joe (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The other redirected, & at the least should be set up for the Levant fork (perhaps by moving that). This is presumably a WP:ENGVAR difference, but they don't have the period in the Americas. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't intended as a fork, the burden is entirely on Johnbod to explain whatever this mess is supposed to be about. I have had run-ins with Johnbod before, and I do not expect him to understand anything he touches, he is basically a shell-script interfering with people working on content.

I fully agree with what you say, Joe. The plan was to treat Epipaleolithic as a redirect to Mesolithic, with Epipaleolithic (Levant) about the Levant only. But I can also support your suggestion of Epipalaeolithic (Southwest Asia). Unfortunately, there is at present very little coverage on the period in Anatolia or the Caucasus. I was planning to improve on this too. We can do this at Epipalaeolithic (Southwest Asia), which may or may not still be merged into a section at Mesolithic, and the main Mesolithic page may or may not be moved to Epipalaeolithic. I would be happy to implement all your suggestions presently, if just Johnbod can be convinced to step back and let us deal with it without random disruption. --dab (𒁳) 12:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, I have experience of DAB's self-assessed "expertise" in areas he actually knows little about, cavalier approach to editing, and his charming attitude on talk pages! I don't think the Epipalaeolithic in Europe can just be brushed into a redirect, as it is often distinguished from the Mesolithic, and has its own character. DAB's actual edits took the little information we have on it right out of the likely path of any reader. I'm happy to leave the Levant page to you both, but will say that until we have a lot more material, there should probably only be one page for all the areas outside Europe where the term is used, however titled. Probably sections here, and redirects, will be enough. Obviously the suggestion that "the main Mesolithic page may or may not be moved to Epipalaeolithic" is - well, I'd better not say! He is quite capable of actually doing something like that on a whim, as with his lazy move of Epipalaeolithic to Epipalaeolithic (Levant), which has caused all this. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've rather lost track of who's in favour of what here. Redirecting Epipalaeolithic to Mesolithic or using it cover the European Epipal doesn't make sense to me, because it's a relatively obscure term in European prehistory but a core component of the chronology of the Near East. And the term Mesolithic is not used in Near Eastern archaeology. How about this structure:

If we can settle on a sensible set of titles I'd quite like to start overhauling our coverage of Epipal SW Asia, which is not in a good state. – Joe (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first two is what I'm in favour of (and bar an expansion and rename of the Levant one, what we now have). At the moment I'd rather deal with Europe at Epipalaeolithic (and Azilian), which I'm working on - partly because it is not hard to find good quality up to date sources that regard it as Late Palaeolithic or otherwise not part of the "true" Mesolithic, a turn of phrase I keep running into (see refs recently added there). Does that make sense? Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll try to re-add a summary of this article to Epipalaeolithic at some point though. The situation I wanted to avoid in opening this discussion was having the main article dominated by a minor usage of the term, whilst the very significant Near Eastern Epipalaeolithic is relegated to a fork.
I'll go ahead and move this article. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Btw, I just noticed that Epipaleolithic Europe has been redirecting to the Epipaleolithic section of Palaeolithic Europe for years! Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, thank you. Now Epipalaeolithic is a complete WP:CFORK. Since Johnbod seems to selectively target me, perhaps you would like to merge this too, so we can close this case. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dbachmann: If we're going to split our coverage of the Epipal. by region, which correct me if I'm wrong, is something you initiated, it seems obvious to have an overview article at Epipalaeolithic. At the very least it means we can get straight into the archaeology in this article, without getting bogged down in tedious terminology sections.
I have to say I find your own edits quite baffling. They seem to be motivated mainly by a desire to conflate the Mesolithic and the Epipalaeolithic, which is just factually incorrect. If you made more use of edit summaries it might help us understand your goal here. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some periods seem to be date inconsistently[edit]

In the 3rd paragraph, "...Early Epipaleolithic corresponds to the Kebaran culture, c. 20,000 to 14,500 years ago..." "...Late Epipaleolithic to the Natufian, 14,500–11,500 BP..." When is the Middle Epipaleolithic?

In the section Levant; Early Epipaleolithic "...Early Epipaleolithic, also known as Kebaran, lasts from 20,000 to 12,150 BP..." In the section Levant; Late Epipaleolithic "...Natufian culture between 12,500 and 9500 BCE..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:958E:280:8082:E26A:EA2B:53AF (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Epipalaeolithic_Near_East&oldid=1195695613"