Jump to content

Talk:List of first human settlements/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Oldest Remains Might Be 400,000 Years Old

And, found in Israel. Discovery News Article Phys.org Article NBCnews.com Video Frankly, I find it hard to believe, because it's Israel, which has a LOT to gain by faking an earliest human remains case (their tourism, and power entirely rely upon people believing in the Monotheist cults originally invented by the Hebrews to preserve history, smack-talk non-Hebrews, etc.). But, while I am personally skeptical, it should be mentioned that the oldest remains might be these teeth, rather than anything in Ethiopia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.188.59 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I second this comment and I propose that I now include it in the article, especially since nobody has objected to the idea since this comment above was published on here in June this year (see time stamp above). I will do it now. Please comment here before removing it if anyone has an objection. I will use the dailymail.co.uk article that I found as a citation to backup my comment which I assume would count as a valid secondry source, which in turn refers back to the primary source (i.e. findings of Professor Avi Gopher and Dr Ran Barkai of the Institute of Archeology at Tel Aviv University, published last week in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology). --197.229.68.167 (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Last week? What are you talking about? And this is a perfect example of why we shouldn't use newspapers. See [1] and [2]. They never claimed the teeth were from homo sapiens or were 400,000 years old. And some of your text was copy and paste from a source. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.historyofnations.net/africa/capeverde.html
    Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with American dates

The intro states "The Americas were populated by humans at least as early as 14,800 years ago,[6] though there is great uncertainty about the exact time and manner in which the Americas were populated" which isn't too bad. But then we get sections such as the one for Canada "25,000-40,000 BP", United States "50,000 BP" which says, with no cite, "Dr. Albert Goodyear carbon dates plant back to 50,000 years and sediment in Allendale County,USA." Allendale County, South Carolina says "possible evidence of a pre-Clovis culture dating back 50,000 years" again with no citation. Brazil has "41,000-56,000 BP" linking to Pedra Furada sites which says there are artefacts there "carrying the range of dates up to 60,000 BP." That's sourced to "Guidon, Niède. 1986 "Las Unidades Culturales de Sao Raimundo Nonato - Sudeste del Estado de Piaui-Brasil"; New Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas: 157-171. Edited by Alan Bryan. Center for the Study of Early Man. University of Maine. Orono."

All of this is controversial but is in the List as fact. Some help with this would be appreciated from anyone familiar with the literature. The linked articles probably need work also, especially the Pedra Furada one which needs updating. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an americans theory and americans know everything.

But logic and commonsense tells us most of us the world humans live in Asian/India and not Africa. Please explain how you can tell the age/dating from your human fragments and show us a;; how you can tell there age through DNA. http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/evolution/chinese-academics-point-to-fossil-finds-as-evidence-modern-humans-evolved-in-southeast-asia/news-story/759392de611a3c7ffb5e57f97a2d4c1a

Lithuania

The reindeer horn hammer find dated 41,000–43,000 BP is possible, but the cited source says it could be a Neanderthal artifact, not modern human. Goustien (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of countries and islands by first human settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of countries and islands by first human settlement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

This is a neat article, but lacks a stated "criteria for inclusion". Otherwise it's open ended to any country in list of sovereign states, which is very long, and ultimately not very interesting/trivial? Green Cardamom (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters additions must be well sourced, from an academic document, published journal article or equivalent. That pretty much eliminates the chance of superfluous additions, as it would be doubtful that a research journal would go into that form of meaningless, trivial detail (such information tends to come from unreliable blogs). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
No sorry I was not clear. If we look at Poland for example. If we went to the library and found a reliable academic book on Polish history (there are many), and read the first chapter, it would describe the earliest known human settlements in Poland. Then we did the same for Botswana. Then Mexico. And so on.. we could do this for every nation in the world, there are 100s. Is that the scope of this article? Or only a select few countries as representative? Green Cardamom (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
If this is a list, I don't see any problem with including all countries - which, if organised properly, can be useful rather than trivial - since trends in settlement dates may become evident. I would say open it to all recognised countries - otherwise the article becomes open to bias. Perhaps organising by continent (or adding continent as a sortable column) would be helpful. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, what costitutes a settlment? Two jawbones doesn't seem like enough. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC).
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC).
17:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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 of this discussion was to merge. Goustien (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I propose that List of islands by modern settlement date be merged into List of first human settlements. All the information on that page is already, or should be, included here in the sections "Holocene" or "Modern." Goustien (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I approve of it as the creator of the islands list.--Simen113 (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
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.

Why there are 2 different timescales used??

first author is using BP timescale to switch to AD in the other part? It does not make any sense! BTW the earliest Paleolithic human activities in Poland is about 800,000 years old. Can somebody fix these errors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.183.31 (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, due to the nature of archaeology, standard dates for the oldest settlements are generally given in years before present. However, for recent events it is often easier for the reader to put the date in perspective if the calendar year is given. 800 BP doesn't mean anything to me at first glance, but 1200 AD immediately puts images of medieval Europe in my head. This is a convenient reference. Anyway, the dates are clearly marked, so I disagree with the need to standardize them.
As for the 800,000 BP date in Poland (Stone-Age Poland), that refers to Homo erectus. This list is only for modern Homo sapiens, not Homo erectus or Neanderthals. Goustien (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Because the scale goes up to AD 1974, and it would be peculiar to give the date of 1974 as "-24 BP". Dates known from the historical record (as opposed to the archaeological one), such as the settlement of Iceland, should be given in the AD epoch. --dab (𒁳) 13:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancies between map and list

The map and list have apparent discrepancies, such as when the list includes several asian pre-60k entries while the map shows post-60k dates.

I realize the map is showing vectors where larger patterns have been observed, while the list is inclusive of individual discoveries that may not align to those patterns and trends. So, while there isn't a likely 'fix' that makes the map fit all the list entries, perhaps an explanation would help, and/or individual markers/blips for entries that don't neatly fit the larger trends (yet?). Or the map could be revised. Or a second map could show individual (vs trend) sites from the list. ArtDent (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


Also, the map shows migration out of eastern africa at 200kya when the Jebel Irhoud site shows it had already spread much before that. It's time for a new map. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebel_Irhoud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubecuber (talk • contribs) 11:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Callao Cave

Callao Cave is Homo luzonensis not Homo sapiens (Jkrn111 (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC))

When was this last updated?

When was this last updated? 107.77.197.64 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Levalloisean implements within the 30-, 15-, and 10-foot terraces in Egypt predate Taramasa Hill

In the 3.1 Africa (section) of the Levallois technique article on Wikipedia I found this:

  • Egypt: Within the banks of the Nile River, excavations have located Levalloisean implements within the 30-, 15-, and 10-foot terraces. Within the 30-foot terrace, the implements were originally thought to be early Mousterian, but were later reclassified. The 15- and 10-foot terraces again were classified first as Egyptian Mousterian, but later as developed Levalloisean.[1]

Seems to predate Taramasa Hill but since I'm no expert on this subject I'd like someone who is to verify if it is considered a human settlement and worth adding here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongoven (talk • contribs) 10:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Langer, William L., ed. (1972). An Encyclopedia of World History (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. pp. 9. ISBN 978-0-395-13592-1.

Help me understand what's posted about settlement at the "Frankish Castle" on the island of Paros in Greece.

I visited the island of Paros in Greece last month. Signage on the interesting "Frankish Castle" suggests findings there document continuous settlement stretching back more than four thousand years. In short the signage makes the following assertions:

  • Roughly a thousand years ago in 1260 a Venetian Duke built this castle from remains of the ancient temple of Athena existing in the 5th century BC (roughly a thousand seven hundred years before the Duke's time).
  • It says that nearby a Neolithic settlement from two thousand BC was excavated.

That places settlement at the castle environs stretching back at least four thousand years.

I see no mention of the site in this list of settlement sites.

You can see the castle and the signage at the end of my Facebook video below starting at 2:20 minutes into the video at the link below. I welcome anyone's comments here or on my facebook post which is available publicly. You do not have to be a facebook user to see the video. Enjoy the music

https://www.facebook.com/100000180567972/videos/pcb.6072202522795706/2824806257825048


Al samuel225 (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

[1]

References

  1. ^ signage seen and recorded on the Frankish Castle on the island of Paros in Greece that you can see in the video at the link above

Lepenski Vir is not on the list...

Why for God sake Lepenski Vir is not on this list? Бојан Радусиновић — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uyashiba (talk • contribs) 07:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Move to " list of early human settlements"

I think this would make significantly more sense, as first implies the absolute first one, that is incompatible with a list. Geardona (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_first_human_settlements/Archive_1&oldid=1257846966"