
doi: 10.1038/133259c0
FOR many years it was the custom to regard the line of separation of the Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods as roughly corresponding to the geological division between the Pleistocene and Holocene; and even Mr. Peake's excellent historical summary (NATURE, Jan. 20, p. 104) does not make it clear why this position was ever abandoned. It is unsatisfactory, and a source of confusion, that the term Neolithic should be used in a broad sense by one generation, and in a very narrow one by the next—that in one case it covers several thousand years in many different lands, while in the other it varies enormously in length in different countries, and in England (where the term originated) it is whittled down to a few decades, with some risk of complete disappearance.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
