3 ms·
Wikipedia's a bit of a mixed bag, especially around the early neolithic stuff. If you look at the east Asian articles, some of them are still using antiquated t
by AlotOfReading 5y ago
Wikipedia's a bit of a mixed bag, especially around the early neolithic stuff. If you look at the east Asian articles, some of them are still using antiquated terms like mongoloid and caucasoid. The southwest asian stuff is theoretically underdeveloped and last time I checked reflects an 80-90s bent, citing people like Hodder. Other regions have very underdeveloped articles. NA is probably the best with the rather excellent chronologies, but not much besides.
- ido 5y agoWhat's the best resource to read online instead?
- Kye 5y agoI don't know of a best resource, but good information usually comes from reading different takes on the same thing. Encyclopedia Britannica is still around. https://www.britannica.com/event/Neolithic/additional-info#full_index https://www.britannica.com/event/Neolithic/additional-info#f...
- tfghjnkm 5y agoI'm struggling to think of a great unified resource, but with regards to Gobekli Tepe specifically (which is the a major focus in this thread) the blog maintained by the actual archaeologists who work at the site is fantastic: https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/ https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/