Talk:Timeline of prehistory

Archaeology High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dog domestication

I have a question about the line on this page for "100,000 years --earliest domestication of dogs." When I follow the links to both the dog article and the Origin of the domestic dog article, I do not find that information. What I read doesn't begin to address a time so far back, as far as I could find.

I don't pretend to know anything about the subject, I was just doing some research and found this and thought it should be pointed out to someone.

DaniDarling 16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This source says dogs were domesticated around or before 100,000 bce.--Fang 23 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC) http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1997/151-26/15126-11.pdf][reply]

Useless without sources

What is the point of starting something like this without any sources? I can't see the point. I'm tagging it right now.Doug Weller (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add sources, of course. Please feel free to add sources and other data yourself. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I've quickly added some reliable sources. It's so much easier to do that rather than make derogatory comments and quickly tag. Paste (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, thank you very much. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Asimov? A book in a foreign language? Speculation about the Toba volcano? It still is not accurate, hence the tag. When there is a consensus that it is accurate, the tag can be removed.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And grabbing sources from other Wikipedia articles which is what seems to have been done here suggests strongly that the editor adding them hasn't read the source. Doug Weller (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with Dr. Isaac Asimov. He is a most reliable source. This article will take a long time and a lot of hard work. But it will be worth it. Of course, the work will be faster and easier if we have more editors who make contributions and fewer who just criticize without actually lifting a finger to help. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am fluent in Spanish. If you are not, go and learn it. It is not so difficult. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[[WP:RSUE}} "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher." There are good English language sources available (and please, no encyclopedias)Doug Weller (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we shall search for English language non-Encyclopedia sources. If you put as much time into adding data and sources to the article as you put into complaining and criticizing, the article would be close to completion already. As it is, it is going to take a long time. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Toba

Just a couple of links on this: [1] [2] -- that's one of the problems with a list like this, it too easily includes highly contentious stuff.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC) If we leave out Creationism, all the disputes can be solved in an amicable way. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria, linear approach

One of the reasons I am unhappy with this article is that it seems to have no criteria for what should be included -- there must be thousands of potential relevant entries, and to keep those accurate seems an impossible task. Another problem is that as it stands it is linear, and that doesn't match real life. Periods overlap, how is that going to be catered for? This is a relatively minor point but has to be dealt with. And I think every entry needs a good reference. And what do we do when something is contentious?Doug Weller (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can not give up on pursuing knowledge just because there are differences of opinion. If we did, we would all be Medieval Creationists. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, how does it differ in intent from Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures?Doug Weller (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gives a lot more detail than that Synoptic table, which just gives you an idea of the chronological position of those cultures, but does not talk about specific places and events. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question as to how a list handles either controversies (eg Toba)Doug Weller (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) or overlapping time periods, or the criteria.[reply]

As to controversies, we cannot advocate one POV or another. So we just present both sides and let this serve as a springboard for further research and investigation. As to overlapping time periods, that is not a problem and I do not see why it should be. In the real world, different cultures exist at the same time. As to criteria, I propose the following:

Omit and leave out mythology and fantasy, such as Plato's Atlantis, the movie "10,000 BC", and such.
For events that are controversial, see above. Present both views, without a POV.
Include cultures, places and events from c. 120,000 BP - the appearance of Homo sapiens to c. 3700 BC, when writing was invented and thereby Prehistory ended and History began.
Use time and energy to find and include data and sources. Do not waste time and energy in carping, caviling, complaining and criticizing.

I may think up more criteria later. Anybody else has any ideas? Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links

None of them worked. Also, the number needs to be kept to a minimum. See WP:EL. This basically means any external links need to relate to the whole article, not parts of it.Doug Weller (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herd of reindeer slaughtered

Again I ask what the criteria are for entries. What was the point of this one?--Doug Weller (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Reindeer existed in Western Europe and that humans were eating them. They were not vegetarians. That this really happened is not at all controversial. It is not doubted by anybody except Creationists who think the Universe began to exist in 4004 BC. If you are in that camp, you can still work on dates between 4004 BC and 3700 BC. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And Reindeer do not exist that far south in modern times. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. Are you looking for the earliest evidence of meat eating -- and if so, where? There is much, much older evidence that HSS ate meat. I don't think that it matters what meat they ate.Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very interesting that there were herds of Reindeer then in what today is France. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But that has nothing to do with this article. I really don't understand your criteria.Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with the article. The article is about Human Prehistory. The event took place during Human Prehistory. I do not see what your problem is. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

It seems an excellent idea to me, as it should mean that we get more knowledgable editors paying attention to it. As well as being a logical mergeDoug Weller (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem such a good idea to me. But it would be acceptable if all the data were transferred to the merged article. Too often I have seen "mergers" serve as a cover and excuse for the wholesale deletion of data, and an impoverishment of knowledge. But of course I have no choice but to accept the result of the majority voice. Everybody please vote. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that simply saying "It does not seem such a good idea" is not a vote. So here it is, the actual vote:

Strong vote Against merger. "Mergers" are usually just covers and excuses for deleting data. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't your article, and you are characterising the situation. At the moment, this article is getting worse as it is still using decades old sources. Merged it would get support from other editors with better resources.Doug Weller (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I need to say that you, Das Baz, have tried hard with this article but with all due respect, you don't have the resources and I'm afraid the background to maintain it. It really needs more editors with more expertise if it is to be a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. Merging will make this possible (although some of the sources need replacement and some more tweaking, the concept shouldn't be abolished).Doug Weller (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC

I am happy to see that the material has really been merged, not deleted, and I certainly hope qualified editors contribute to add and improve. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as you can see on the other talk page, I do too. I didn't want to delete the article.Doug Weller (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table, with separate column for several categories?

I've been working on the earliest parts of the Timeline of historic inventions on and off for a while. I've started adding which species is or is likely to be responsible for some inventions, and have thought about adding additional information/milestones that are not themselves inventions, to help give context. This page is where it would seem all of that context is relevant, and I trust this can become a really great page. I think a big improvement would be to make it into a table. What do you think?

Each row would cover a time period. Each column would cover a different category. Looking at the current list, I see these to start with, most in relation to Homo Sapiens:

geographic spread
inventions
specific cultures/assemblages
geological and climactic events/shifts (or does this need two columns?)
Homo genetic changes (extinctions, bottlenecks, cross-breedings, other developments such as lactose intolerance)
other major species' genetic changes (similar to above, and including the consequences of our domestication)

It would make it clearer where the gaps were and get us to fill them in, to give a more complete overview for any given period. Perhaps more importantly, we could probably connect each column to an existing timeline elsewhere as the "main article" for that column (for example, the inventions column and the Timeline of historic inventions#Earliest inventions), and hopefully pool editor resources to make the two pages in each case consistent, as complete and up to date as possible, etc. --John_Abbe (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

400,000-year-old fossil human cranium is oldest ever found in Portugal

Maybe this information can be added to the "Middle Paleolithic", it needs to be updated.

Sources:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170313192729.htm http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/03/14/world/science-health-world/400000-year-old-skull-found-portugal-cave-may-neanderthal-ancestor/

Northwolf56 (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article scope

My concern is that by focussing on deep prehistory (Stone Age), there is excessive ovelap with timeline of human evolution and list of first human settlements. Of course "prehistory" in principle includes everything from 15Gya until Herodotus, but the term is usually meant to refer to times more or less recently predating the beginning of the historical record. The Kish tablet isn't a "historical record" in a sense substantially different from the Vinca signs. The prehistoric period ends in classical antiquity, with the first coherent historiographical texts, or arguably in the 3rd millennium in the Fertile Crescent (Middle Bronze Age, Sumerian King List).

Imho, to avoid excessive ovelap with Paleolithic or human evolution timelines, the scope of this article (if it is viable at all under this title) should focus on "prehistory" in the sense "the period before the onset of the historical record, by world region", i.e. ca. 3000 BC in Sumer until ca. 1900 in Central Africa and parts of Maritime Southeast Asia. --dab (𒁳) 07:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a pretty obvious scope. Do you want to go ahead and trim or raise it at Wikiproject archaeology first? Doug Weller talk 12:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Blombos Cave engrave ochre 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hominins in the Philippines

The recent re-analysis determining there were hominins/homininds in the Philippines c. 700,000 years ago is interesting, but I thought "human" here refers to homo sapiens, and there is no direct evidence of even genus homo at this site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"11th millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 11th millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#11th millennium BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"12th millenium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 12th millenium BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#12th millenium BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"35,000 BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 35,000 BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#35,000 BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"12,000 BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 12,000 BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#12,000 BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"14th millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 14th millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#14th millennium BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"12th millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 12th millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#12th millennium BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"120,000 years ago" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 120,000 years ago. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#120,000 years ago until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"14th milennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 14th milennium BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#14th milennium BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"11000 BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 11000 BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#11000 BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"13th millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 13th millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#13th millennium BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"20000 BCE" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 20000 BCE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#20000 BCE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"11000 BCE" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 11000 BCE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#11000 BCE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"12000 BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 12000 BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#12000 BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"32nd millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 32nd millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#32nd millennium BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"31st millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 31st millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#31st millennium BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"11200 BCE" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 11200 BCE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#11200 BCE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"34th millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 34th millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#34th millennium BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"33rd millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 33rd millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#33rd millennium BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"35th millennium BC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 35th millennium BC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 9#35th millennium BC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"198444 B.C." listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 198444 B.C.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 10#198444 B.C. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Rough consensus "human" qualifier is redundant. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of human prehistory → Timeline of prehistory – More concise title. The article Prehistory is not called Human prehistory. Interstellarity (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 09:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Inaccurate title. "Prehistory" encompasses everything prior to the invention of writing, from the Big Bang on. This article is specifically about Homo sapiens from evolution to writing. Serendi ^podous 11:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Serendipodous. The new title would change the scope. Dimadick (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Prehistory is also used to describe more distant periods in earth science and (especially) palaeontology, but there's a general consensus across related articles that it primarily refers to human prehistory (see e.g. Talk:Prehistory#Requested move 2 July 2020 and Category:Prehistory). In this case I think consistency is more important than precision. We can add a hatnote pointing to Timelines of world history for any readers that end up here searching for information about dinosaurs. – Joe (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Serendipodous. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as only if I preferred, per Joe Roe. --2001:4452:4AE:8A00:DE4:C605:1EBC:B353 (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pre-human events are not part of history (and perhaps our article should make that a bit clearer but others do). The formation of the solar system for example is studied as cosmogeny rather than history. See also three-age system. Note it divides "history" into these three ages. And they don't include the Big Bang. Andrewa (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONCISE. Our article on prehistory clearly defines "prehistory" as the period of human activity before writing. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2021 (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.

If we're not going to call this page Timeline of human prehistory

then we need to define what prehistory is. Time since Homo sapiens? Time since Homo? Time since stone tools? Serendi ^podous 21:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the section on article scope above. Doug Weller talk 21:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. What qualifies as human? This article uses a different definition of prehistory to the article on Prehistory. Serendi ^podous 23:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it shouldn't. See [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology#What is prehistory? this that I've just asked.] Doug Weller talk 11:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of this article says: Prehistory covers the time from the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age) to the very beginnings of ancient history. But for some reason, the timeline starts in the Middle Paleolithic and it doesn't include the Lower Paleolithic. So it seems both articles have the same definition, we just need to add the Lower Paleolithic to the timeline. Vpab15 (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone took the "Middle" out. To me this is fairly straightforward. Humans didn't exist before 300 thousand years ago. Serendi ^podous 13:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to agree. Looking at Google Books it appeared to be consensus, but then I found this CUP book.[3]. "The Cambridge World Prehistory provides a systematic and authoritative examination of the prehistory of every region around the world from the early days of human origins in Africa two million years ago to the beginnings of written history, which in some areas started only two centuries ago". Note that is a shorter period of time than the 3 million plus years covered by Prehistory. But this book World Prehistory and Archaeology: Pathways Through Time says "and the development of political complexity, respectively. Part II, “Human Evolution,” covers the period from the first evidence of tool manufacture to the spread of modern humans (Homo sapiens) throughout the globe. Human evolution involves the interaction between changes in human anatomy and changes in the way humans lived and in the tools they used. The four chapters in this part follow the process of biological evolution while tracking the geographic spread of human populations and developments in the way they lived." Doug Weller talk 10:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of animals use tools, even stone tools. The fact that australopithicus used tools doesn't make it human. Serendi ^podous 18:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]