This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pittsburgh Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area 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.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. National Register of Historic Places High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. University of Pittsburgh Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Pittsburgh 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.University of PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject University of PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject University of PittsburghUniversity of Pittsburgh articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Indigenous peoples of the Americas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas 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.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Appalachia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Appalachia, a collaborative effort to increase coverage of Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention.AppalachiaWikipedia:WikiProject AppalachiaTemplate:WikiProject AppalachiaAppalachia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 June 2020 and 3 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aes1691. Peer reviewers: CJBissell.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I ran this article past Mark A. McConaughy (see links to his page in article), and included his edits. This is what he provided specifically about the dates:

"Radiocarbon dates from the site indicated occupancy as early as 14,000 B.C. and possibly as old as 17,000 B.C. (Note: these are rough uncorrected radiocarbon B.C. dates, or 16,000 years ago and 19,000 years ago for the two listed dates - you can choose which set of dates to use, but I would prefer the 16,000 and 19,000 year ago since it is more correct in terms of how the dates are cited.)" Tomcool

In the 2nd paragraph under this heading, there is the sentence, "Paleoindians were primarily hunters of big game animals which would later become extinct." This could be better worded. I originally read this to mean that the Paleoindians became extinct, but even if the 'which' refers to the big game animals, not all of them became extinct. SaturnCat ( talk) 18:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I missed this page, searching for Meadowcroft Rockshelter, so I wrote a new article for Meadowcroft Rockshelter. We probably should merge these two articles. There's good material in both. The main discrepancy are the dates, which are the controversial part. The name should probably be "Meadowcroft Rockshelter". A Google on that term results in 10,900 hits. A Google on the more sensical, "Meadowcroft Rock Shelter" results in only 571 hits. The closest to an official site is Meadowcroft Museum, which uses the "Rockshelter" version. Tomcool 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

No one disputed the merge, so I merged the two pages, and put a redirect at the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter. Tomcool 17:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

High on archaeology, in relation to "Clovis first" evidence. Pustelnik ( talk) 17:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Alos, upgraded to "start" class reply

The so-called physical evidence of stone tools found at Meadowcroft look NOTHING like the Solutrean tools utilized during the same period (16,000 - 14,000 B.C.E). Is there a reason that Meadowcroft shelter is associated as possible proof of a Solutrean campsite? Did the Altantic version of the Solutrean travelers forget their stone making ways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.0.63 ( talk) 03:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I've removed this, as I cannot find a citation that nails it down. It's not clear that this refers to Clovis archaeologist C. Vance Haynes: "Seeing as the site fails Hayne's criteria for dating Paleoindian sites in the Americas as the site could potentially have been contaminated by natural carbon at the site the age of 19,000 years could be significantly older than the real age." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougluce ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply

"The "Clovis First" camp has tried to dispute the age of the findings, but generally their efforts have been dismissed.[citation needed]"

This is biased writing. If the 'Clovis First' 'camp' of scientists dispute findings, then their side should also be given in this article, also with clear citations. This sounds like a tourist attraction ad, rather than an explanation of the natural process that good science requires - evidence, testing and retesting of evidence, etc. I'm removing this line, as citation is not given and it sounds one sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihola ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

C. Vance Haynes Jr. has been critical of James M. Adovasio's theories regarding Meadowcroft, and would be a place to start, when bringing greater balence and depth to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihola ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not quite clear why this article has the "unbalanced" tag. Perhaps someone knows? Otherwise it should be removed. The article needs quite a bit of development and improvement, and perhaps during the natural process of growth whichever unbalanced issues might exist presumably will be weeded out. Faintly curious. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110624005552/http://heinzhistorycenter.org/secondary.aspx?id=150 to http://www.heinzhistorycenter.org/secondary.aspx?id=150

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610171922/http://mai.mercyhurst.edu/academics/archaeology-anthropology/meadowcroft-rockshelter/ to http://mai.mercyhurst.edu/academics/archaeology-anthropology/meadowcroft-rockshelter/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heinzhistorycenter.org/meadowcroft/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Aes1691,

As of now not enough information has been added on your part for me to critique the content. If it is in your sandbox let me know. The content of the article so far is good. The main things I suggest you change are the structure and contents of the page. The geology and location section is underdeveloped compared to the rest of the subheadings. I would also suggest breaking them up into two separate subheadings if you find enough content to fill both. With archaeological sites the geographic location and composition can be a very important factor so I think there should be more information on it if you are able to find it. Number 20 on the citations list may have some good info on that but I wasn't able to read the entirety of the article. Go through the references section and check some of the citations and references as I've found that number 9 on the citations list no longer works. Overall, the content of the article is great, I only suggest elaborating on and reformatting the geology and location section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJBissell ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply