Talk:Holocene

message: : Impact events in near human history seem to be corraborated by recently published stories.
These stories connection to the Holocene period goes back several millenia. The Burkle crater conjoins with the deluge of the cultures from Mesoptomia and the Tuttensee impact with Greek mythology along with Celtic stories undated yet recited. Agencius 12:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact events 

message: The graphic used to delineate the Quaternary Period in this article (as well as in the "Quaternary" article) presently seems to group the Pliocene into the Quaternary.  The Quaternary Period only encompasses the Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs.
Perid 22:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic Timeline 

message: Can you provide some reasoning? Not averse in principle, but the page may grow over time.
: My reasoning was that the article was listed on Articles Needing Context and when I cleaned up the article I noted that it was a lot shorter than many of the stubs in that cat. If you really feel there is growth potential then don't merge, but it is pointless to have an article of one sentence. Martin Hinks 13:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 8.2ka event page merge 

message: The This time period is part of the Holocene epoch and related boxed info on articles of ancient cultures should be made into a template, for instance template:Holocene, instead of being individually made for each subsequent page. So that we only need add  or etc to the page. Nagelfar 09:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and so I've created the template (although I'll leave it to others to start using it). We might want to bring it in line with the similar info box seen on the Pleistocene page and just show Holocene stages and cultures, though. --coldacid (Talk|Contrib) 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box made into template page? 

message: Holocene [Gr holos whole and Gr kainos new] perhaps those creating soundbite definitions (i.e. in the Holocene Calendar entry it states: the name means entirely recent, and the Holocene epoch entry it states: Recent Whole, which seem close enough and perhaps I am just arguing semantics about semantics, but it seems that the two different entries should have the soundbite definition be the same for better continuity between Wikipedia entries.  It's just an idea. Galo1969X 04:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "Recent Whole"; it seemed to be a very makeshift translation. Iblardi 22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of the term Holocene 

message: I'd like to query the definition of the Holocne as an epoch. As I understood it, there is still debate as to whether the Holocene is an epoch in its own right or is the latest interglacial era in the Pleistocene epoch. I am aware that the naming would indicate epoch over era (the latter normally ending in -ian, at least in the UK) but I wasn't aware that this unequivocal decision had been made.
131.111.204.9 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Holocene as an Epoch 

message: In several places, the article uses past tense in a way that implies the Holocene has ended. When talking about issues with the Holocene fossil record, this presentation is especially unclear. The discussion is obviously in regard to the early Holocene, but it's quite confusing. I'll make a mess of it if I try, but it would be great if someone with expertise in both geology and grammar (and NPOV) would work on this issue.Ftjrwrites (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of past tense 

message: I disagree with the fundamental assumption of this chart that the end of the Pleistocene coincides with a major technology shift in the way shown. Certainly climate change was a factor, more in some places than others. But there was not always a clear shift to something that could be called Epipaleolithic, and Mesolithic should only be applied to northern Europe. In some places, shifts preceded the start of the Holocene by a few centuries. In others, the shifts came later if it all. Worse, the references to specific cultures is nonsensical. We know of thousands of cultures for these periods. These examples make little sense in this context. Most offensive (and telling) is the Kurgan reference. There's no prehistoric culture recognized by today's scholars as the "Kurgan culture." The term is a relic of an older theory about the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland. It remains controversial and those scholars who generally adhere to its basic ideas today would not call it the "Kurgan culture" in the same sense that some of these other cultures are named. That's a conflation of two different meaning of the word culture. In the archaeological sense, a culture is group of remains from sites showing great similarity within a clear region. A "culture" in this sense may or may not equate to an actual people group, as we might tend to use the word "culture" in common parlance. Kurgan burials are characteristic of several archaeological cultures from the Eurasian steppe, but there is no single "Kurgan culture." Regardless, the Kurgan intrusion (pun intended) has no place in this geological article. And neither does most of the other stuff in this chart. A better substitute chart might more clearly define the various climatic eras within the Holocene, such as the Younger Dryas or the Little Ice Age.Ftjrwrites (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pleistocene/Holocene technology chart and PIE bolt out of the blue 

message: I was very confused by this phrase: "Holocene started 10 14C k yr before present (11,703 calendar years before 1950)". So, 10,000 BP = 11,703 calendars years before 1950? I'm still trying to figure this out, moreover the other dates in the same paragraph. Thanks! :^)
: The 14C probably refers to Carbon-14 dating.  A carbon 14 date is a numerical calculation which is then adjusted to an actual date.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'm not entirely sure how to phrase it (so I haven't edited it), but the "14C" is in the middle of a phrase, thus completely messing up its meaning. 89.181.61.71 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please clarify this 

message: The article states that the Holocene epoch continued until the Anthropocene. However, I do not believe that Anthropocene is a geological term at all. The Geological time scale article does not mention it. It looks like a very recent neologism which is not (yet) widely accepted, but I am not a geologist. Can someone who is clarify please? Rachel Pearce (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropocene? 

message: The article on the Holocene calendar says that the Era started 10,000 before 1AD, and to use the calendar, you only have to add a '1' to the front of the current year.  According to this page, you have to add 8000 to the current year.  Any way to reconcile this difference?  Or am I not reading something properly?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.216.66 (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  8000 BC, or 10,000 BC? 

message: Human civilization dates entirely within the Holocene.
How are we defining "human civilization" here? There most certainly were people living in groups, thus there were cultures, and arguably "civilizations" earlier than 10,000 years ago. A quick look at the Civilization article shows that there isn't necessarily consensus on the meaning of the term, thus on the beginning of "human civilization" at all. Can this quote be backed up somehow? If not, maybe it should be changed to reflect the subjective nature of this statement. romarin [talk ] 15:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought civilized had a definition, since anthropologists seem to accept certain cultures such as Greeks, Romans, Persians etc. as civilized while Germanic tribes were 'barbarians'.  I don't know the measure, but on a National Geographic show about Norsemen, he made the point that they called themselves barbarians, noticing a difference between themselves and Roman culture, but seeing no negative conotation to the phrase.  IF that's true, there must be some measure (buildings, non-nomadic?) which could be used to get an early date.  I've read that the first towns/cities were ~10,000 years ago, so that fits, but it was when I was young and a lot has been revised since them. Paddling bear (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's a useful addition that puts the epoch in perspective. According to the Civilization article, civilization is in its "most widely used definition ... a descriptive term for a relatively complex agricultural and urban culture." Also, the oldest date the Cradle of civilization article mentions is 12000 BC. The rest of the paragraph is more questionable. What do a couple of 40 to 35k-year-old musical instruments have to do with civilization in the definition mentioned earlier? The answer: not much, if anything. So I'm going to delete that and move the sentence about civilization to the first paragraph. Zonder (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  In this context we should go with the archaeologists - cities (which means public buildings, not just large towns), class structure, etc. Nothing to do with barbarians or 'civilized'. The musical instruments bit didn't belong in this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human civilization 

message: I removed the unsourced 11,430 BP date and used only the 11,600 BP which is the one I've encountered. The reference to this article give 11,780 BP but I don't know where that's derived from. The way, the truth, and the light 05:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give us some better sources? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have over a dozen references on my pc. But I am tired of being reverted again and again. So find another one. A bad sign is the primitive use of "BP" without definition.-2A02:8108:9640:AC3:4E6:1EBA:1073:84CD (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating of the Holocene 

message: The answer to my question could be of major importance for archaeologists.  Just think about it for a moment.   What would happen to our civilization if it were suddenly flooded.  Never mind the "suddenly" part, let's just think about what would happen if it took ten or even a hundred years to for sea levels to rise by a hundred meters.  What would we do?  More importantly, how much would we lose?  What impact would a general sea level rise of that magnitude have on our languages, our technologies and our politics?  We aren't any better at adaptation than our ancestors were.  If it came right down to it, I'd bet against us making it.  Our ancestors survived it because they were tough, but even though they were tougher than we are, they almost certainly lost a lot of things that they knew about. Just ten meters of salt water can put a great many things we take for granted out of our reach. -- Brothernight (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did the oceans look like while all that ice was piled up on the continents? 

message: I had a well sourced end of Holocene ref.  Why remove it? Hcobb (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  End the Holocene now, ask me how 

message: What makes the Holocene distinct from the Pleistocene? All I can make from the article is that it is basically just the most recent interglacial. --JorisvS (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there no one who can answer my question? --JorisvS (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's actually the Anthropocene, hence the difference. Hcobb (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean? I was specifically inquiring about the traditional epoch called the Holocene, not about the Anthropocene. --JorisvS (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Anthropocene is not official yet, let alone having a date of start.  Usually, these epochs have some geological event, so the Anthropocene may start at the point when human activity changed the weather, though, I'm not sure we could identify an actual date.  Don't conflate Anthropocene and Holocene.  When the latter ends, the former will begin.  The Holocene started, I believe, at the Younger Dryas.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Since we only deal in reliable sources and verification, what proof have you?  Since there has been no geological event that ends the Holocene, then it hasn't ended.  If some organization has decided to rename the Holocene, then again bring a reliable source.  SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Refs are at Anthropocene, but the Holocene has always been the Homocene anyway, as it has always been about the footprint of man on the world. Hcobb (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the citations at the other article do not support the change in naming.  Again, you might want to review it.  And now you're saying it's "Homocene?"  I don't mean to be cranky, but you're a moving target.  I have never heard "Homocene" used.  In general, epochs are defined by geological events, which is one of the reasons that Anthropocene has not been accepted as an official name.  SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

text: The Holocene and the Pleistocene are the two series that make up the Quaternary. Mikenorton (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  But why? Since the stages of the Pleistocene are glacials and interglacials, why is the current interglacial a distinct series? --JorisvS (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are arbitrary.  Usually there's a geological signature, like a layer of rock or something, but in this case it was a weather event that varied all over the world.  It was essentially at the end of the last glaciation, where there was a mass extinction of mega fauna, the collapse of some human cultures, and the retreat of the ice sheet.  You are assuming that there's some line, but as we get nearer to present day, lots of things blur.  Since we're naming these epochs, we get to choose what the cutoffs are.  There aren't that many rules about it, though there are definitive signatures as we go further back.  You're asking a question that has no definitive answer.  Read Younger Dryas for a slightly better definition of the beginning of the Holocene.  SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

text:  The question as to "why" is a good one, and even as a professional palaeoclimatologist a good answer eludes me. The Holocene's just another interglacial among many, apart from the rise of increasingly technical human civilizations and their impact on the bio-/geo-/atmosphere. So the whole debate about whether to use Anthropocene instead seems a bit redundant, as we were always the only truly distinctive thing about the Holocene anyway. One practical consideration is, though, that the climatic history of the Holocene being studied perhaps more than those of all earlier periods combined. This is because the Holocene deposits tend to be the best preserved, have the best resolution, and are of most immediate relevance to helping understand future changes (as the background conditions were mostly the same as today). So in terms of intensity of research it certainly deserved a "special place". J.S.Salonen (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocene vs. Pleistocene 

message: According to this article, the Holocene started 11,500 years ago. Looking at a number of pages - Smilodon, Nothrotheriops, American mastodon and short-faced bear being just a few that come to mind - the "temporal range" area of the Infobox says, for example "X - Late Pleistocene, X - 10,000/11,000 years ago", instead of "X - Early Holocene" With Smilodon it's even worse, 8,000 years. Am I missing something here, or are a lot of these animal pages incorrect? I'd edit them without asking this, but I'm not sure if it's me missing something or an actual error. Jackakraw (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox extinction dates 

message: This part, "perhaps inspiring deluge or inundation myths such as that of Noah's Flood." is one sided and even false. We cannot ignore the flooding of the Black Sea region, or the mention of a flood in so many different sources, as early as the Sumers, as far as I am aware of. Remember the end of the Ice Age... -Yozer1 (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of "perhaps" in the phrase makes establishing a claim of truth or falsehood much more difficult than if the word were not there. In addition, the statement includes a citation to support the claim; please recall that verifiability outranks truth. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact events 

message: The first lines of the article say " at approximately 11,700 years before AD 2000". Could someone clarify why this doesn't say 11,700 years ago or 9,700BCE ? The language of it is simply poor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.176.85.193 (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is using the same language that the source uses, to quote "A timescale based on multi-parameter annual layer counting provides an age of 11 700 calendar yr b2 k (before AD 2000) for the base of the Holocene, with a maximum counting error of 99 yr". Further it says "The term b2k refers to the ice-core zero age of AD 2000; note that this is 50 years different from the zero yr for radiocarbon, which is AD 1950" This apparently odd formulation appears to be because the GSSP for the Base Holocene is defined from an ice core record and so uses it's way of reporting a date. Some additional information would probably be useful in the article however. Mikenorton (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we're going to use their exact language, it can be put in quotes. I'm changing it to 'ago'; 16 years isn't enough to affect that. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this even mean ? 

message: The article implies that the Holocene has been divided. It has not formally been accepted by the IUGS and so this is original research. In any case if the dates from the IUGS were to be used then the 1972 division dates would not match with the 2013 division dates. So the article is inconsistent. Instead a proposal from Walker 2012 that divides into Late / Middle / Early which is syn with Upper / Middle / Lower should be used. At least it should be mentioned in the article.  So the info here is outdated and also wrong by its muddling of the scientific and non scientific literatures.  is the walker paper http://www.ub.edu/ice/sites/default/files/docs/jornades/Walker2012.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.29 (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates wrong and Holocene division unofficial 

message: Scientists have recently determined that we now live in the Anthroporcene era, and the Holocene ended with the advent of widespread radiation distribution in the 1950s. Please stop revising changes that say otherwise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.113.239.22 (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthropocene is not "official". This is explained in both this article and in Anthropocene. I saved the citation to the Guardian newspaper, but removed the assertion that the Holocene ended in about 1950. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:134.113.239.22, the source reference that you cited says "If our recommendation is accepted”. Your cited source clearly shows that a recommendation had not been approved by the IUGS at the time of the source article's publication. Editors of Wikipedia are supposed to avoid trying to predict the future (see WP:FUTURE) e.g. reporting possible or probable future events as if they had already occurred. Deletions can be avoided either by reflecting accurately what a cited source reference actually states, or by waiting until an event has actually happened or a decision has actually been made. If the IUGS does approve the recommendation then that decision will probably generate a new set of source references that could be used to support description of the adoption of the Anthropocene and a change to the end date of the Holocene as facts. Then the establishment of these facts could be referred to in the past tense. GeoWriter (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropocene 

message: Apparently "It is accepted by the International Commission on Stratigraphy that the Holocene started approximately 11,700 years ago". When was it "accepted"?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "2008"  Glendoremus (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Holocene. 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/20080227192411/http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al.%2C%201997%20Millenial%20Scale%20Holocene%20Change.pdf to http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al.%2C%201997%20Millenial%20Scale%20Holocene%20Change.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The mention of "recent" as an invalid synonym for holocene is referenced to OED when it can be referenced to the actual source, Gradstein, as excerpted by the  International Commission on Stratigraphy, so this has been done.Robertwhyteus (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing International Commission on Stratigraphy 

message: In Mesoamerica, transformations of natural environments have been a common feature at least since the mid Holocene, mostly through the exploitation of wild plants and the establishment of crods.
Should this read "crops"? I'm not aware of the word "crods", there's no Wikipedia entry for this word, and no instance of the word in the cited source. Is this just a typo?
--208.38.59.161 (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a typo - now fixed. More of a problem is the almost direct quoting from the source (which is already tagged). Mikenorton (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crods? 

message: The Holocene has been divided into three stages/ages: Greenlandian, Northgrippian, Meghalayan. Numeric ages have been added: base  Meghalayan 0.0042, base Northgrippian 0.00833.. Te Karere (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:   2018/07 - Holocene divided into three stages: Greenlandian, Northgrippian, Meghalayan 

message: After reading the article, I don’t believe I saw any mention of the ongoing Holocene mass extinction. This seems like a very crucial detail, so why it has been left out is beyond me. I would suggest adding a section that pulls from the “Holocene extinction” main article. Yupwewin (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocene extinction 

message: These are exclusively valid in middle Europe and can thus not be used to subdivide "THE Holocene" as a global feature. Hans J. Holm; 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:70D5:FCCA:A7AB:51D (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blytt–Sernander stages/ages 

message: I removed this sentence on earthquakes: 
Earthquakes are a leading cause of sediment deformation, leading to the creation and destruction of bodies of water.[26]
Frankly I (having studied geology with a large focus on the Quaternary) do not have a clue what point the author was trying to make here, but whereas the first part of the sentence is not wrong in itself (although the role of earthquakes in the Holocene are not any larger then before), I really have no clue to which events the second part might be referring to. Considering that in the preceding sentence post-glacial rebound was wrongly named as causing the Baltic Sea, whereas it is only constantly reducing its size (the Baltic Sea being caused by the Baltic ice cap and the erosion of glaciers spreading from there, also corrected that), I suspect somebody got something mixed up so I removed it and made this section to give the original author a chance to explain what he of she meant to say.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv (talk • contribs) 10:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed a sentence on earthquakes 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Holocene's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "WorldScientists":
From Human impact on the environment: 
From Holocene extinction: 
Reference named "PimmJenkins":
From Holocene extinction: 
From Human impact on the environment: 
Reference named "dirzo":
From Holocene extinction: 
From Mammal: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Holocene]]