Template talk:Prehistoric technology

"Prehistory" and "History"

As I mention in the discussion for Clothing in the ancient world, that article's inclusion in this template betrays a lack of understanding that "history" refers to the period of the human past for which there are written records (and thus the existence of civilization), while "prehistory" refers to the period in which writing had not yet been developed. The Neolithic revolution and the emergence of agriculture and civilization are also generally synonymous with the development of writing (both in the New and Old World), and thus form a traditional boundary between the periods. "Prehistorical" would then be appropriate to describe the technology that appears in Prehistoric technology, such as that used by "Ötzi the Iceman," but it is not correct to apply that term to, e.g., the clothing of ancient Rome or ancient maritime history. These are NOT prehistorical. Blacksun1942 (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge or separate "Prehistorical" and "Ancient"

Given the inclusion of various articles that are concerned with the ancient world and NOT prehistory, I suggest that either a new template should be formed, "Ancient Technology," or those articles dealing specifically and exclusively with ancient technology (i.e. ancient maritime history, clothing in the ancient world, etc) should be removed from this template. Blacksun1942 (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Inclusions

This is an interesting and useful template although I wonder about the logic of various parts of it, especially the architecture section. Why Göbekli Tepe and not other ancient sites; why Stonehenge but not e.g Callanish? Just referring to Scotland alone, there is no mention of Unstan ware, brochs, or any of the Oldest buildings in Scotland yet there are some specific structures mentioned that (to me) are a little obscure. This is a huge topic and without some clear criteria I can see the template getting very bloated. Ben MacDui 17:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. My problem is the word 'technology' doesn't make me think of most of the things in the template. Where are Lithic core, Lithic flake, Lithic reduction, Lithic technology - which are clearly technology. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I've added over half of the items, and have managed the templates placement and additions for quite awhile, so good to hear voices in the wilderness. I thought the Lithic items were in there, maybe under a slightly different name (EDIT: They're under toolmaking, and the section head 'Toolmaking' itself also links to Lithic technology). The specific sites, some of them were added because they are unique in their technology or are major examples of the technology mentioned (mainly in architecture). I added Stonehenge because, well, it's Stonehenge (and a very good example of the type of ceremonial structure). Please add or subtract, and I had added Unsten ware earlier. Thanks. Randy Kryn 19:40 10 November, 2014 (UTC)

p.s. As for the meaning of technology, this may possibly cover it, especially the third paragraph. Looked at Broch, wouldn't that be too late in the Iron age for this template? The page seems to indicate they were built in the A.D.'s, and I think that's the same reason I bypassed the oldest buildings in Scotland page. Unsten is listed as a subsection of 'Pottery'. Randy Kryn 19:49 10 November, 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes - I see Unstan ware now. Brochs generally date from a prehistoric time in that there are no written records. However, Egyptian pyramids do not. I wonder if it might not be better to consider a Neolithic template rather than all of prehistory? There are at least 20 prehistoric structures listed at Oldest buildings in Scotland - and that's why I am suggesting criteria. Stonehenge is certainly iconic - but then so are Newgrange, Carnac, Skara Brae, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Ġgantija, etc., etc. I am reluctant to start adding yet more detail without some clear overarching structure. Ben MacDui 20:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good to have folks to talk to on this. Yes, many of the individual sites could be removed without adding more, unless that seems like the way to go. Stonehenge isn't really needed, but is on all the maps (inner and outer maps) that people have of prehistoric data. Brochs sound like a good addition then (have never studied them, a new "find" for me, thanks). Rather than one template, with the divisions this has turned into several template in one, and maybe just minor tweaks as discussed here will make the entire package even more useful and functional. Randy Kryn 20:29 10 November, 2014 (UTC)

Template consolidation

Need to trim this huge template down a bit... and fix the accessibility problem with all the sections. I will look this over in the next few days. -- Moxy (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The template seems fine and inclusive, especially since it was moved into several sections (which, in effect, provides several related templates as one template, each one being of manageable size). If it is too large on a page it can be labeled 'state=collapsed' which will bring the size down to one line. A couple of us put in lots of work on this, and when it was divided into three sections that, for me, solved the size problem (it was concerning up until that point, but now it presents a good guide to the very large field of prehistoric technology). Randy Kryn 12:30 2 January, 2015 (UTC)

Inclusive is right every possible link is here like a category including many not all that related. Also best we dont collapse sections so that mobile users and thoses with disabilities can use it. Since someone spoke up before my edits (was not expecting a reply at all)...I will do it in a sand box first.... then we can decide on the best format.-- Moxy (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Forget all the above ....I see that you guys just did all this....I will move on to something else. -- Moxy (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)