Cited by 919Geology and Paleoclimatology ResearchMarine and environmental studiesGeological formations and processes

Formal subdivision of the Holocene Series/Epoch: A discussion paper by a Working Group of INTIMATE (Integration of ice-core, marine and terrestrial records) and the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (International Commission on Stratigraphy)

Open access
Walker, M. J. C., Berkelhammer, M., Björck, S., Cwynar, L. C., Fisher, D. A., Long, A. J., Lowe, J. J., Newnham, R. M. +2 more·2012·Journal of Quaternary Science

Abstract

Abstract This discussion paper, by a Working Group of INTIMATE (Integration of ice‐core, marine and terrestrial records) and the Subcommision on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), considers the prospects for a formal subdivision of the Holocene Series/Epoch. Although previous attempts to subdivide the Holocene have proved inconclusive, recent developments in Quaternary stratigraphy, notably the definition of the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary and the emergence of formal subdivisions of the Pleistocene Series/Epoch, mean that it may be timely to revisit this matter. The Quaternary literature reveals a widespread but variable informal usage of a tripartite division of the Holocene (‘early’, ‘middle’ or ‘mid’, and ‘late’), and we argue that this de facto subdivision should now be formalized to ensure consistency in stratigraphic terminology. We propose an Early–Middle Holocene Boundary at 8200 a BP and a Middle–Late Holocene Boundary at 4200 a BP, each of which is linked to a Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP). Should the proposal find a broad measure of support from the Quaternary community, a submission will be made to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), via the SQS and the ICS, for formal ratification of this subdivision of the Holocene Series/Epoch. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jqs.2565

Cites

160 of 160 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An early Anthropocene level risks confusion with the tripartite division of the Holocene, and broad overlap with the Pleistocene and/or Holocene would make the Anthropocene redundant as a unit of geologic time.

    “An early Anthropocene level risks confusion with the tripartite division of the Holocene, with Early, Mid-and Late Holocene age/stage-level units proposed to be defined making use of the 8.2 ka BP and 4.2 ka BP climate events (Walker et al., 2012), and the broad overlap with Pleistocene and/or Holocene would make the Anthropocene redundant as a unit of geologic time.”
  • The Holocene Epoch began approximately 11,700 years ago.

    “Thus, by definition the Holocene Epoch-the abstract time unit-began ~11,700 years ago.”
  • Marked environmental perturbations occurred at both 8,200 and 4,200 B.P., but most proxies subsequently recovered in a matter of centuries, implying these were temporally discrete paleoclimatic events rather than truly novel states within the Earth system.

    “Although there is no doubt that marked environmental perturbations occurred at both 8,200 and 4,200 B.P., most proxies subsequently recovered in a matter of centuries, implying these were temporally discrete paleoclimatic events, as opposed to truly novel states within the Earth system.”
  • The 8,200 and 4,200 year events proposed to mark the Mid- and Late Holocene Sub-epochs show no major change in CO2 concentrations.

    “The 8,200 and 4,200 year events proposed to mark the Mid- and Late Holocene Sub-epochs, respectively ( 13 ), show no major change in CO2 concentrations.”
  • The 4,200 B.P. climate shift is not expressed in these curves.

    “A 4,200 B.P. climate shift, proposed to mark the start of the Late Holocene ( 13 ), is not expressed in these curves.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walker, M. J. C., Berkelhammer, M., Björck, S., Cwynar, L. C., Fisher, D. A., Long, A. J., Lowe, J. J., Newnham, R. M., Rasmussen, S. O., & Weiss, H.
Affiliations
  • Aberystwyth University (GB)
  • Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (US)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • University of New Brunswick (CA)
  • Natural Resources Canada (CA)
  • Durham University (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
  • Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Walker, M. J. C.
Venue
Journal of Quaternary Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-08-30
Volume
27
Issue
7
Pages
649-659
ISSN
  • 0267-8179 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1417
OpenAlex
W2063685813
Cited by
919
References
160
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 124 · 2018: 121 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 2
FWCI
30.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Journal of Quaternary Science (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine and environmental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Earth-Surface Processes › Geological formations and processes
Keywords
GSSP, Pleistocene-Holocene boundary, stratigraphic nomenclature, Quaternary stratigraphy, 8.2 ka event, 4.2 ka event

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review