Talk:Holocene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earth sciences Portal
Holocene is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Impact events

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)

[edit] NPOV?

However, if the human-induced global warming continues, a super-interglacial might occur, and become warmer and possibly longer than any past interglacial periods in the Pleistocene.

This ain't neutral! While anthrogenic climate change is generally accepted, it shouldn't be presented as a fact. -b 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Anthropocene OldDigger 09:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above user. More to the point: this is a worst-case scenario that is used widely politically, but hardly jibes with the most-likely scenario presented by scientists not affiliated with political organizations. The scientific groups from places like the UN are handpicked for political reasons are not objective independent observers.Ftjrwrites (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graphic Timeline

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)

Can anyone manage a graphical timeline similar to the one in the Geologic time scale article? There's a note by that one saying the Holocene is too dense to be shown, and the reader will tend to click the link in the hope of seeing the holocene shown similarly, and be disappointed. Oliver Low 15:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 8.2ka event page merge

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)

[edit] Info box made into template page?

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 {{Holocene}} or etc to the page. Nagelfar 09:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Etymology of the term Holocene

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)

I've removed the "Recent Whole"; it seemed to be a very makeshift translation. Iblardi 22:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dating of the Holocene

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)

[edit] The Holocene as an Epoch

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)

[edit] Use of past tense

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)

[edit] Pleistocene/Holocene technology chart and PIE bolt out of the blue

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)

[edit] Someone please clarify this

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)
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)

[edit] Anthropocene?

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)

  • I've heard geologists propose this term very recently, but it hasn't been generally accepted and thus shouldn't presented as fact. Bubbha (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)