Talk:Magdalenian

message: Is this culture's name spelled Magdelanian or Magdalenian?  There shouldn't be a redirect from a mispelling another spelling, or vice versa.  Mrendo 1 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)
The correct spelling in English is "Magdalenian", in French it is "Magdalénien" Uitlander (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can someone please decide whether this article will take the position that the culture existed "17,000 BP to 9,000 BP" (opening paragraph) or "between c. 18,000 and 10,000 BP" (first paragraph of the Duration section)? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, someone source these dates? And we can't convert from BP to BCE just by subtracting. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in theory you can, but see last section ("uncalibrated"). I've followed this & others, averaging, and gone for "around 17k to 11k years ago". Johnbod (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory dating 

message: Hi all, my first "talk" post here, please advise if I am doing something wrong, thank you.
The caption "Bison on plaque, Bédeilhac grottoe, Ariège" is wrong. Most authors describe this as an aurochs calf, the object is a rondelle, and it is from Laugerie Basse, Dordogne. Also, since the photo was taken at the MAN, then this is likely a cast, not an actual Magdalenian artifact.
86.41.66.35 (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks. Actually the British Museum describe it as "Roundal with engraving of auroch cow and calf on opposite sides. Musee des Antiquites Nationales inv. 77558. 15000 yrs old, bone. 5.1 x 4.9 x 0.1 cm. From Mas d'Azil, Ariege."  See page 25 [here. I've noted that on the image file & changed the caption. THe MAS clearly have the original & given the uneven colour I'm sure this is it. Johnbod (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The photo dates from 2009. They may have had a special display. Either MAN or the Commons image are reversed, aren't they? Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong caption 

message: Böri (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't usually thought so, but nobody really knows anything about their language(s). Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were they "Uralic" ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magdalenian. 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/20090301000712/http://www.pole-prehistoire.com/page_site.php?site=20&base_arbo=187&arbo_id=187&page_id=304&lng=1 to http://www.pole-prehistoire.com/page_site.php?site=20&base_arbo=187&arbo_id=187&page_id=304&lng=1
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) 02:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Magdalenian →  – Magdalenian is an adjective, whereas article titles should use nouns, as well as be precise enough to identify the topic. In this article, Magdalenian(s) is used variously for the cultures, the people who practiced them, and the epoch in which they existed. These are related, yet distinct, subjects; the culture itself is the main topic. Insofar as specialist writing uses Magdalenian alone to refer to any or all of these, it's academic jargon that should be clarified for the general reader. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
*Thanks!  Since we should have broad consistency between titles, and potentially many articles are affected, I'd suggest raising the whole question at the Archaeology wikiproject (and perhaps others) to see if there is any broad consensus for changing the titles. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 July 2019 

message: To add to this article: date ranges for Magdalenian I through VI and mention of the term "Upper Magdalenian." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: I'm not too sure one cave site in Britain with decent evidence for cannibalism means that cannibalism was common in the Magdalenian culture. Using skull cups as drinking vessels is very logical when there is little else available and by itself does not constitute evidence for cannibalism, so I'm really not sure the  implication of widespread magdalenian cannibalism is justified. 
http://www.lateralmag.com/articles/issue-5/why-we-dont-eat-each-other
The theory of 'widespread' or 'common' cannibalism has lots of problems with it. It makes it hard for human societies to scale, presents a barrier to trade, and the more benign form of cannibalism that involves eating a person who died a natural death has the obvious problem that it requires eating meat that is potentially diseased. Incidental cannibalism is easier to justify.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Britain#Palaeolithic
The above wiki article paints a bleak picture of paleolithic Britain. "Gough's cave" was likely not a very nice place to live during the ice ages. It may have been a bit on the chilly side being so close to the arctic circle during that prolonged period of glaciation we call the 'paleolithic period'. It seems a good site for incidental cannibalism. 
But given the value of cooperation and the necessity of avoiding disease, neither cannibalism at that site nor the presence of a few 'skull cups' in France can be taken to be good evidence for 'widespread' or 'common' cannibalism. I know 'widespread' was not mentioned in the paragraph, but the whole section 'Treatment of the dead' seems to have been created just to exaggerate some potential cannibalism finds and imply that Magdalenian culture was frought with cannibalism. It doesn't seem justified. 
'Kuru' means that modern man is not well adapted to 'widespread' or 'common' cannibalism, and that probably has to do with homo sapiens having developed some sort of cooperative advatage long ago. That cooperative advantage probably includes cannibalism being uncommon enough that a typical person wouldn't have to worry about becoming someone's breakfast just because their neighbor's stomach was rumbling. It's difficult enough to engage in trade with neighboring tribes knowing you could be speared or otherwise attacked for territorial reasons. When you add in the possibility of being hunted for food it really makes the proposition even less tenable. And it's also pretty clear that trade occured during the Magdalenian period, and it looks like it may have been pretty common.
So unless there is some better evidence available, it seems like it might be a good idea just to drop that whole section, or at least clean up any implications of cannibalism being 'widespread' or 'common'.  Skull cups probably were somewhat common, but skull cups aren't the same thing as cannibalism. Comiscuous (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment of the dead. 

message: "The fauna of the Magdalenian epoch seems to have included tigers and other tropical species along with reindeer, arctic foxes, arctic hares, and other polar creatures. Magdalenian humans appear to have been of short stature, dolichocephalic, with a low retreating forehead and prominent brow ridges."
Tigers in europe? It seems possible someone may have inserted this paragraph just to see if anyone's paying attention. Based on a brief google search, it looks to me like there were never any tigers in europe. I'm not too sure about the "short stature" and "dolichocephaly" either. Magdalenian girl was 5'4" tall. The height of the average woman today is 5'4" tall. So how short could Magdalenian people have really been? Magdalenian girl is the most complete skeleton we have from this period, so if any researchers are concluding that Magdalenians were short based on less complete skeletons, they may need to recheck their work. A similar principle may apply to the dolichocephalic claim - but then there is no citation given at all, so who knows where this comes from. This paragraph should simply be deleted. 
The preceding paragraph is also lacking a citation and may need a review as well. On what basis should we conclude that Magdalenian Spain and France were lacking in water? Could someone have concluded that based on some notion that the gulf stream didn't reach europe back then? If Magdalenian girl was eating such good food that she represents the first known case of impacted wisdom teeth, doesn't that seem to imply that people had good options when it came to food because there was enough water to support a decent quantity and diversity of vegetation? "Cold and dry" did of course apply to much of western europe. Britain was uninhabitable much of the time for example. But "Magdalenian" refers to cultural sites, not climate, and the type site from which the period gets its name may well have been an exception to the rule of dry climate that applied to much of western europe, and particularly the northern parts of western europe.
Does one conclude because Maine has frigid winters that florida does also? So the whole section needs to be reviewed and maybe just deleted. It has no citations anyway, so deletion may be justified. Comiscuous (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that the first step regarding this and the previous commentary section you added would be to start adding 'citation needed' tags where-ever and whenever appropriate. While cite tags are ugly, I'm personally in favor of littering an article with them, when the obvious is at play - large sections of original research, speculation, and other problems when the material is unsourced. I'm generally against the whole tag of 'this section needs citations', as it's too vague and encourages people to _ignore_ the need for cites, because one is left guessing at what parts are problematic. So - cite-tag away is my encouragement, and if I have time I'll start doing so myself. True enough though - I am constantly removing material with cite tags that date back more than a decade, so it still requires followup effort - but it's better that the reader be immediately aware that what they are reading _is not encyclopedic_ in the wikipedia sense. Anastrophe (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad paragraph (and the whole section may need a review as well)