Talk:List of archaeological sites by continent and age

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

sorry, already exists.[edit]

I'll try to shift the material. --Yak 15:27, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Flawed article[edit]

This article seems flawed and is misleading. The "ages" that are categorised in this article are not really compatible with each other. Specifically speaking, in the case of Oceania, ages for two completely different culture chronologies are being used. "Palaeolithic" in Australia is different from that in New Zealand, and Australia doesn't even have a "Classical Period". Aggelophoros 11:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.aee.gr/english/6petrlona/exc_history/exc_history.html http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9059489/Petralona-skull http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%86%CF%81%CE%B7%CF%82_%CE%A0%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%8C%CF%82 (in greek) http://www.willighp.de/evo/thema/funde/hh_petralona.php?PHPSESSID=d0f9d8a6dcbd0bd4d3e1af2c52dc88df (in German) http://www.ancientgr.com/Unknown_Hellenic_History/Eng/THE_HELLENIC_PREHISTORY.html Take a look at Petralona man in Chalkidiki / Greece

Yes, I agree with the previous post. Lumping all of the sites for the Americas under a single category "Neolithic" fails to do justice to the range of cultural variability expressed by Meadowcroft and Machu Picchu. They are both technically neolithic, but Meadowcroft is conservatively considered a terminal Pleistocene site and Machu Picchu is part of the Inca Empire. Would it be alright to break up the Americas into smaller regional divisions, and use locally specific terms? I have to say that even then, categorical treatment of temporal periods becomes complicated. For example, the Formative Period in the northern Titicaca Basin probably begins 500 years before it does in the more arid southern basin. As structured, this page can't escape these kinds of kinds of classificatory issues: split to the point of confusion, or lump and obscure local variation. I can work on the Americas, but would like to hear people's thinking on the enterprise in general. --Nathancraig 02:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't Blackwater Draw Locality #1 at Clovis, New Mexico listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.70.135.142 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

A really nice addition (one that would perhaps take it out of the "list quality" category to s.t. better) would be a world map, or if that scale is too small, then a by-continent map. It could use different colors or symbols for different ages. That said, I'm no map-maker... Mcswell (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]