Talk:Late Glacial Maximum

the found is 10ky older than analogus African. So we have the later refuges :)

Re-write or merge with LGM article?

This article which is really about a past geological/meteorlogical event has way too much to say about genetics. I think this is an example of geology being used to try and further justify an event based on genetics that archaeologists (and geneticists) aren't sure really happened or not (see Ahrensburg culture article). The result is also a bit too close to POVSYNTH if not the primary impetus for writing the article this way. Therefore I propose a rewrite or merge with the main LGM article. Most of the genetic info should come out and really the only reasonable statement to make in regards to genetics is something like:

"The European distribution of R1a has been suggested to have occurred as a result of receding glacial activity allowing males bearing the lineage from the present day territory of Ukraine to migrate and gradually populate central, northern, and western Europe (see also Ahrensburg culture)."

If anyone would like to share thoughts on this please let me know either here or on my talk page. It would also be nice to make this page more about the geological processes involved. More sources with that type of focus are needed here and would be greatly welcomed at this point. Geog1 (talk)Geog1 —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

Ok since I've gotten zero feedback I'm assuming that this page is not exactly the most watched or even controversial article on Wikipedia. That being said, I've noticed that the title of this article is actually misleading.

The term Ukrainian LGM would in essence refer to Ukrainian Late Glacial Maximum. One obvious problem is that this title contains an acronym for something that could easily refer to or be confused with the Last Glacial Maximum as well. Strike one.

However no one actually uses the term "Ukrainian LGM". The term that persists in most texts is Late Glacial Maximum(See Hoffecker 2002, and Klein 1979) and is used to describe, from what I can tell, a meteorlogical OR geological event that occurs throughout all of Europe c. 13000-10000 BP. This is essentially a made up or imagined term to serve a purpose. Strike two.

Finally the content itself does is all about genetics and not the Late Glacial Maximum itself. Passorino (2002), a study genetic from which this article here is primarily inspired by, uses the term Late Glacial Maximum. The way this article was written was really to over inflate the concept of an exodus of a male (or males?) out of Paleolithic Ukraine within the time frame of the Late GM in order to draw way more weight on the Paleolithic stance for R1a and its distribution. Throw in other studies that reference R1a's distribution but w/out any mention of the Late GM and you have some kind of peculiar mix between OR and synthesis. So strike three.

I am renaming this article using the move option. The content and presentation of info will of course change drastically to serve more accurately what the Late GM was all about. Geog1 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1

I have been watching the article for half a year now, and I always felt quite uneasy about it. Clearly something is wrong with it, and you definitely don't sound as if you are going to make it worse. I might have done something myself, but I simply don't have the necessary background. I am looking forward to your changes. Hans Adler 20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the concurrence Hans. As of today I have made good on my word and made all the necessary changes. Note, all of the info in the Intro and East Euro sections comes from Hoffecker (2002). Since the book deals w/ only Eastern Europe there now needs to be sections added for the North European plain, Iberian Peninsula, Balkan Peninsula, and Italian Penninsula. I suppose that's the best way to divide Europe but since this event occurs throughout much of the northern Hemisphere there will need to be other info from different continents included. I suggest to try and stick to geographical/geological nomenclature like Siberia or Siberian Plain, etc. rather than terms like Ukrainian, Russian, or whatever. An obvious exception would have to be made for Italian Peninsula. Also info would need to be included for the northern territory of North America. Basically any other info related to paleo-archaeology, paleo-geology, paleo-environmental-ecology and the paleo-meteorology for this time for other areas is welcomed. I've tried to set a relatively decent example using the East European. So what we need are the following sections.

North European Plain (Poland, Germany, Scan., parts of France, Low Countries), Iberian Peninsula/Western Europe (France, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Britain), Balkan Peninsula (I would include Greece as well as all the former Soviet bloc and Yugoslavian states), Italian Peninsula, Siberian Plain, Northern North America

I think this would cover everything. Since my subject area is really the East European Plain I invite any paleo-specialists in any of these regions to contribute. But if you have good info on East European Plain please add to. Thanks and regards. Geog1 (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)(Geog1)

I decided to include the regions that correspond with human activity/re-population and glacial retreat during the Late GM within the Northern Hemisphere: West Euro, East Euro, Siberia, and North America. I'd say the we need perhaps a section on Balkan Europe as it seems Gravettian may have witnessed significant development there and Hoffecker does reference that the Gravettian skeletal remains were of a more tropical physical type but I am not an expert on Gravettian. Most always it seems the material/typological developments of these people are ascribed to the Aurignacian/Magdelinian and those origins seem to be regarded as western which would correspond actually with repopulation from Iberia. This is of course problematic because traditionally, archaeology and genetics will also suggest at times that these people (Aurignacian/Magdelinian vs. Gravettian) were "different", but really we need ancient DNA to resolve some of these problems rather than speculation. A really good source could come in handy here though.

Well folks I have done just about all I can do to make this article better (I hope). I may add a few other things here or there but we will see. Best.Geog1 (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1

Nonsense

The whole introduction and times were completely outdated: 1. In fact there are two temperature minima in the Weichsel/Devensian Last Glacial Period, the first around -72-60 ka, the second around -28 ka CC (cf. any Greenland icecore data). 2. The LGM is slightly following the temperature minima and is currently dated from c. the 240th to 170th century BC. It is followed by the 'Late Glacial from ca. the 170th century to the onset of the Holocene at ca. 9660 BC. Because nobody else was able to read the literature, I now changed the text.HJJHolm (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Confusion

The article is still confusing the Late Glacial Maximum with the following Post Late Glacial Maximum, in turn followed by the Late Glacial (=GI1,GS1), which I have not the time to rewrite.HJJHolm (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Its not nonsense

It was originally proclaimed that this article is 'nonsense' and the text 'completely biased' as can be seen when comparing the original statement of HJJHolm by going to the history of the talk page but this is not remotely the case as to how this article came to be. Rather it was aimed to remove the bias + POVSYNTH synth of someone else as can be seen in the top section here on the talk pages relating to Ahrensburg culture and the hypothetical migrations associated with it based on non-aDNA as well as salvage something out of the the Ukrainian LGM Refuge article which was not a sufficient subject in and of itself to really deserve its own article nor appropriately titled for what the original version of this article was discussing.

Hoffecker 2002 defines a period from 13,000 to 10,000 years BP as the 'Late Glacial' - when climates begin to ameliorate on page 33 in his book entitled 'Desolate Landscapes'. I was assuming good faith in believing that the prior incarnation of the article was referring to a Ukrainian LGM Refuge as 'Late' Glacial Maximum because it was taking the title from what the Semnio et al. 2000 article was discussing out of a weird POVSYNTH maneuver and presenting post-glacial recolonization of Europe by overemphasizing the role of males carrying the M-17 paternal line. So really what this article was initially focused on, when it was known as the 'Ukrainian LGM Refuge', were events during the 'Late Glacial' and not how things were like in a refuge area somewhere in Mesolithic Ukraine. Go look at the article history and see for yourself.

So the only thing really required here as far as I can see is to rename this article 'Late Glacial' by simply dropping the 'Maximum'. Not an entire rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog1 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No Im afraid its incorrect.

The Late Glacial Maximum, aka "the Ice Age' occurred from 23-19 ky BP. The Late Glacial is from 14 - 10 kya BP, and it different ecoloigical and cultural entity to the LGM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.51.137 (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

no you said it doesn't make sense which is different from incorrect. The content is fine. The issue here is the title. It should just be Late Glacial but the matter was confused by someone doing sneaky POV synth trying yo make an article around LGM Refuge concept. That was incorrect and didn't make any sense. The only thing wrong here is a naming issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog1 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)