Talk:10th millennium BC

10th millennium BC (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 1 April 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

10th millennium BC has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 8, 2019. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 10th millennium BC article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

10th millennium BC received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Map needed

It is requested that a global map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

A fact from 10th millennium BC appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 July 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the earliest evidence of sheep herding has been found in northern Iraq, dated before 9000 BC?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/10th millennium BC.

Wikipedia

Time Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Item removal

Removed these four items - the temperature change claimed is extraordinary; they sould be not be included without supporting evidence - MPF 14:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Circa 10,000 BC– Antarctica Polar temperatures rise as much as 60 degrees over 50 years
Circa 10,000 BC– Greenland: Ice cores reveal a 59 degree temperature increase at the North Pole and a large scale release of methane hydrate from the seafloor into the atmosphere.
Circa 10,000 BC– World: Ice age ends and global temperatures abruptly rise 20 degrees or more.
Circa 10,000 BC– Antarctica: Ice-free period, which has been put by different researchers everything between year 13000 and 9000 BC.
Racism in first section. It claims the 10th Century BCE only includes Europe, the Levant, etc. This excludes the homo sapiens in Australia, Sub Saharan Africans, South Africans, etc. Whoever edits some of these articles must be a eugenicist and member of the KKK. 2603:7000:9F03:1E45:B9F7:9B22:7350:3CA4 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request

Peer review request added by MPF on basis that a large number of additions by User:65.82.31.49 are very improbable (the four worst examples removed and listed above) - MPF 15:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before 10th millennium BC

I suggest to expand previous dates like 11th millenium BC because Upper Paleolith is event but not a timeline. Igor Skoglund

Armenoids

Armenoids in Polynesia: is it a hoax? Any references to confirm this? --Mzabaluev 21:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to MPF. All the information entered from me in April 2005 was from months and months of internet research/google searches and was meant to add content to an empty portion of the encyclopedia (where there was nothing before I wandered by) The only real filter I put on the information provided was that it was found on at least three different websites. I found the information interesting, not found in classic learning material, and wanted to see if someone would challenge me.... Thank MDF for giving it all a once over. Other info I had collected and added was on these sections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_millennium_BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_millennium_BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_millennium_BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_millennium_BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_millennium_BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium_BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_millennium_BC

I suggest this information be suitably incorporated somewhere.

...The alluvium samples of northern palaeochannel were tested at the behest of NIOT by Manipur University. The top alluvium collected just below marine sediment was dated to be around 3000 BP and a slightly lower alluvium gave an age of about 5000 BP. A black alluvium which was somewhat semi consolidated and collected above the river conglomerate gave an age of 19000 BP. Obviously the river has been flowing at least between 19000 years BP, prior to Glacial Maxima and up to 3000 BP. This shows that the palaeo channel in the north was active and a riverine regime existed at least from about 19000 BP....

Sample from the same carbonized wood was sent to National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, India and Geowissenschaftlicte Gemeinschaftsaulguben, Hannover, Germany for Carbon dating. This was the first sample (Location 21o 03.08’ N ; 72 o30.83 E) from near the southern palaeochannel. This first gave a clue to the age and environment of the civilization. The calibrated age as per NGRI was 9580-9190 BP and as per Hannover Institute it was 9545-9490 BP. It means the age is about 9500 BP and this takes the age by more than 4000 years older than the oldest city civilization of Mesopotomia and a fore-runner to ‘Harappan’ civilization....

As expected the one of the pottery piece whose figure is given, gave a date of 13000 ± 1950 BP. It is an important date. Another pottery piece which was ill-fired, on OSL dating (Location 21 o12.54’ N ; 72 o 30.370’ E) by Oxford University gave an age of 16840 ± 2620 BP. These are the oldest fired pottery pieces obtained sofar in the world. Till the results were out it was from Japan where the oldest potteries were known. The “Jomon” Pottery from the Fukui cave in Kyushu gave 12000 BP uncalibrated age. The pottery findings from Odai Yamamoto gave uncalibrated age of 13500-13800 BP. In the Gulf of cambay civilization already attempts appear to have been made in experimental pottery making......These are seen from effects of fired clays (for making pottery) which gave ages of 20130 ± 2170 BP (Location 21 o 13.720’ N ; 72 o 26.190’ E) and 16600 ± 1150 BP (Location 21 o13.80 ‘N ; 72 o 26.10 E), by OSL as determined by the Oxford University dating lab. The well fired 3 potteries in the northern palaeochannel gave ages of 7506 ± 785 BP, 6097 ± 611 BP (both by Manipur University) and 4330 ± 1330 BP by Oxford University.

Apart from this sun-dried Pottery pieces were collected in these areas. Three of the specimens were dated by OSL facility in Oxford. The results obtained are (1) 31270±2050 BP, (2) 25700±2790 BP and (3) 24590±2390 BP. A black slipped dish which was also sun dried was dated in Oxford by OSL. This gave an age of 26710 ± 1950 BP.

The hearth material from the southern township (Location 21o03.04 N 72o30.70 E) by TL dating from PRL, Ahmedabad gave an age of 10000 ± 1500 BP whereas the hearth material near the top in the northern township gave an age of 3530 ± 330 BP by OSL, Oxford University...

From the above it is quite clear that the human activity is very evident from about 31000 BP in what is now in the Gulf of Cambay much before the Glacial Maxima at 18000 BP. The ancients were making potteries and were getting them dried initially in the sun. From about 20000 years, it is clear that the ancients are firing the clay to produce pottery. That means they knew how to make, maintain and manage fire. They appear to have succeeded in making fired pottery from about 16800 BP. They knew the art of construction of towns and houses in neat straight line, row after row as picked up by Side Scan Sonar image and wattle and daub structure and from rammed floor. Both the northern and southern townships have continuous habitational sites interspersed with big structures in between. But good quality fired pottery makes it appearance from about 13000 BP...

Source[1]

This issue is discussed extensively on Talk:Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay. The consensus is that the "pottery" found in the Gulf of Cambay are just naturally occurring concretions. The source that you cited is Graham Hancock, a pseudoarchaeologist. --Sean Brunnock 11:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No dates for events section

I noticed there are no dates listed after the first two items in the section titled "Events." Did these occur throughout the 10th millennium BC, at an unknown time during the 10th millennium BC, or circa 9000 BC like the first two? 24.62.234.209 01:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goat thoughts

In this article, goats are thought of to be domesticated in 10000 BC. But I have noticed on this citation ([[2]]) goats were domesticated in 6500 BC. Does the current statement have a citation, or another reason to believe it to be true? Maybe the date isn't specified. If that's it, please someone do so. --Chomeara 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on BC

Not everyone is christian. Why would wikipedia use "BC" over "BCE" or "BP"? Is wikipedia christian run and biased? Ateo 17:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Jews generally use BC rather than BCE, while religious Christians (who think that the "C" in BC is blasphemous when being used for mundane matters), and those attempting to cater to non-Christians who use BCE. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia articles in question are in error. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Christian, and 'BC' refers to something that is only belived by Christians. It is wrong that wikipedia should use BC. 'BCE' is the recognised universal terminology. this page name should be changed.

and the Jewish thing, most don't use BC. Colt .55 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, yes, Wikipedia is biased. Against christians. I was flabbergasted to see an article that still has the politically incorrect "BC". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if we should change it to BCE, we will be accused of being biased against another sect of christianity. Like they have done many many times. Cant please everyone all the time. So its generally a good idea to ignore those who make such flagrant claims without thinking that others may have a different point of view. Your bias is clear. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan

Removed - *Azerbaijan: Gobustan Culture(Qobustan). please provide source showint that Azerbaijan has been a 10millenium bc country. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavallee (talk • contribs) 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lapita

I removed the claim that that 'proto-Lapita' arrived in the Pacific around this time. Austronesian migration began after the domestication of rice in China, three thousand years later; the origins of Lapita are debated amongst archeologists, but Lapita itself is at lest seven thousand years after this period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.48.226 (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis

Considering that most scholars (and indeed anyone who has actually read Plato) agree that Atlantis was a hypothetical place Plato conjured to discuss politics, is it really relevant to list anything about it alongside actual historic events? 99.147.151.86 (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree..I have removed *c. 9400s BC – Fall of Atlantis as told by Critias. Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10,000

This timeline puts the end of the glaciation and the mass extinction of animals at 10,000 BC. Other pages on wp put it at 10,000 before present, which is 8,000 BC. This should be fixed somewhere. Smarkflea (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:10th millennium BC/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) 09:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 3E1I5S8B9RF7

Reference No. 9 should have an URL link.
References No. 12, 13, 21, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31 & 33 should be formatted like the others (Edwards, p. 21), with the book title in "Bibliography" section, with the others.
Reference No. 19 lacks an ISBN number.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 3E1I5S8B9RF7. Thank you for these points which I will address. I'll let you know when I've done. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Points addressed

@3E1I5S8B9RF7: All points have been addressed. Citations have been added over many years and there was inconsistency which is hopefully much improved now. Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I think the article now meets the GA criteria. I'm promoting it, accordingly.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@3E1I5S8B9RF7: Thank you very much. The review was thorough as it highlighted the inconsistencies in sourcing and I was glad to put that right. Now that we have a standard, as such, for one of these millennia articles, it can be applied to the others. Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheddar Man

Just remembered Cheddar Man...worth adding somehow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]