Talk:Acheulean

Nature disputes the accuracy of this article; see http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html and Wikipedia:External_peer_review#Nature. We're hoping they will provide a list of the alleged errors soon. —Steven G. Johnson 01:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

One possible error Geologic Age: (300,000 years - 1,000,000 years) found on a university website. --JPotter 02:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing a rewrite at [1] adamsan 16:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a huge improvement over the current version. I think it would be worth replacing the existing article. 85.210.17.122 18:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I'm scouting around for a GFDL picture and doing some fact-checking but if nobody objects then yes, I think we could swap this one in soon. Should the Nature template remain even after we're happy with a new version? I wish they'd say what the problems were. I spotted a few but not 7. adamsan 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Errors to fix

[Comments by User:Adamsan in italics]

• Cro-Magnons (early Homo sapiens) did not use the Acheulean!!
  • The retooled article now stresses the connection with earlier hominids but I will emphasise this further in the Users section
• Date range is off, its about 1.5 my to 200 ka
  • I need to research this dating further; my sources disagree but science moves quickly.
• The following statement is inaccurate and poorly written: 'The period during which these these tools were innovated is usually thought to be the early Paleolithic era or the beginning of the middle Paleolithic era.'
  • Terminology and wording improved to cover Lower Palaeolithic and Middle Palaeolithic - will re-read again. It would be useful if lay users could have a read through and say what is clear and what isn't.
• I have no idea what this following statement means: 'However, the Acheulean industry continued to be used by some primitive hominid cultures up until 100,000 years ago.' It’s not correct.
  • Again, I have a source that quotes this date (Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology). Will check some more books.
• This is an awful set of sentences: 'by efficient scavengers, who were still preyed upon frequently by larger animals and often bewildered by their environment. Adversely, Acheulean tools gave their masters the ability to hunt and defend themselves successfully and gave them the distinction of being equally as deadly as the greatest predators of the prehistoric Earth.' Early hominins were probably hunting and scavenging. Acheulean hominins also likely scavenged and hunted. Acheuelean tools are often associated with large carcasses, suggesting that they had access to large quantities of meat. The sentence about Acheulean hominins abilities is overstated. Regarding Asia, I would say West and Southern Asia. Acheulean hominins did not spread to Eastern Asia.
  • Can't disagree with these criticisms, hopefully these ambiguities and other points are already addressed in the rewrite.
• The statement 'It flourished roughly 400,000 to 100,000 years ago in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia.' has nothing to do with the Acheulean, I am not sure what it means.
  • Northern Asia certainly sounds wrong, again the dating needs checking

I think aside from the dating problem (which I am sure will be difficult to get an agreement on anyway) the factual problems are nailed. I have a book at work with some great hundred-year old etchings of Acheulean tools I will borrow and scan in next week for a picture. In the meantime I will proofread and add a 'traditional' to the dates section. adamsan 14:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've checked some more dates and gone for Nature's range, although some regional sources disagree. That stuff can be added in later though. I feel the points have all been addressed so I will swap the articles over. adamsan 16:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I read the article as a layperson - and though it is quite technical (not surprisingly), it reads well. Would be preferable to have some pictures (photos, diagrams) - especially of typical Acheulean hammerstones, stone cores, tranchet flakes, etc. As well as the process of manufacture. It may also be helpful to show/explain the specific distinguishing features between Mode 2 and Mode 3 - The sole distinction mentioned between Mode 1 and Mode 2 is supplemented by then using wood or bone implements to pressure flake fragments away from the stone core - as a lay reader, there doesn't appear to be much in it; so it may be a good idea to explain just how significant the Mode 1/2/3 industries developments are... Anyway - a superb article (20040302)

Thanks. I agree we need some more images but the crackdown on non-GFDL images lately is making it hard to find some suitable candidates that won't get deleted. As for your other points I will work on addressing them. Cheers. adamsan 15:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks.. Nice stuff. More context there- I feel educated! 20040302

FA?

This is one of the few nature reviewed articles which also appears to meet wikipedia standards for references. Anyone else think this should be a Featured article candidate? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion Savidan. My rewrite was with the intention to FAC it but then I got worried that I might be making a bit of a rod for the wiki's back. If it turns out somebody from Nature re-reads the article and finds something else wrong with it then it will make the FAC process look bad and become a criticism of the site ie: "We tell them what's wrong with their articles but they still mess it up". I stand by what I've written but there may still be inaccuracies there. Also, I think it could pass FAC but really it still needs more work on distribution and periodisation before it could claim to be a summary of knowledge about the Acheulean. adamsan 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)