This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Wisconsin - La Crosse/African Archaeology (ARC 312) (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.
No, it is a bad idea. UP refers largely to Europe, LSA to Africa. The two are very different and this difference is reflected in the literature on the topics. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead pictures in the ESA, MSA, and LSA articles are *all* bifaces! The technological change is far from obvious to the casual reader. Does anyone have a nice picture of some microliths or bone harpoons maybe? Megalophias (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, especially since bifacial foliates are typical of the MSA, not the LSA (in North Africa anyway). The image page does not say where the finds come from, so it is difficult to falsify that they are LSA. I have changed it with a Mouillah point photograph I have taken. I have a picture of a bone point, but it's broken. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the Africanist archaeological literature, this period is far more widely known as the Later Stone Age. The assertion that "nearly all scholarly literature uses Late Stone Age" is just totally false. This move should be reverted. Here is just one recent example in Nature Communications: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04057-3. That's the standard usage for African archaeology. Ninafundisha (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]