Talk:Minoan eruption/Archive 1

Impact on Egyptian history
I don't have a copy, but you do get discussion of the eruption and its possible links to the Exodus story in Ian Wilson's 1985 book "The Exodus Enigma".91.111.29.190 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Santorini Event"
The page mentions "the Santorini event" but previously it had just talked about ashfall in Santorini. Is that what the "event" was? It seems that something is missing. Rodrigo braz 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC) 03:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC). I realize now what is missing. At no point the article mentions that Thera is one of the islands of the archipelago of Santorini. For the reader who doesn't know this, it just sounds like Santorini is another island, especially when it is mentioned the first time. Rodrigo braz 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

VEI
The VEI has been claimed by F. McCoy to be as high as 7. McCoy's claims, however, have not been published in the peer-reviewed literature. This has been discussed recently by many people on e-mail, where it has been pointed out that Keenan (reference cited in the article) presented evidence that the VEI has previously been overestimated (because it included the ash from Crete--this is also discussed in the article). Daphne A 05:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A VEI of 7 and 60 km3 appear to be inconsistent. According to Volcanic Explosivity Index, 7 is greater than 100km3 and constitutes a super volcano.  The University of RI source for the 60 km3 comes from:




 * The McCoy claims of "up to 100 km3... (VEI = 7.0)" are found here:




 * I'm going to make statement consistent and reduce the VEI to 6 per the U. RI reference which is newer than the McCoy Ref.   Dspark76 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That has not been peer reviewed, it is a press release and the peer reviews indicate a VEI of ~7. I suggest you read the peer reviewed material not press releases.

1645 BC?
Looking through past edits, it seems clear that whenever someone edits the page to say that the 1645 BC date is "under debate," someone always changes it to "proven incorrect." What is the general consensus? Hammer seems adamant that 1645 BC is correct but Manning on his site accepts the debunking of 1645 BC. I still don't fully understand why Keenan considers aeolian differentiation a non-issue in differences between the Greenland ash and Theran ash; I'd be grateful to have someone explain this to me. Also, does anyone know where in time are the other ash layers in the ice caps that could be Thera candidates? --Pryaltonian 07:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keenan [2003] treats aeolian differentian in his paragraphs 32-34: Regarding aeolian differentiation, this would not seem to affect trace constituent abundances per se, and there is no obvious mechanism by which it would substantially affect major constituent abundances, especially for glass. ... Indeed, using the same reasoning [as Hammer], the Greenlandic tephra could be argued to match any (non-Arctic) eruption.


 * Also, N.J.G. Pearce et al. [Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems, 2004] demonstrate that the ash from Greenland is much more similar to Aniakchak than to Thera. (Pearce et al. actually claim that the ash is from Aniakchak, but Keenan has a piece on his web site (www.informath.org/G^304aS.pdf) showing how Pearce et al. made errors in their statistics.)
 * Daphne A 11:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If there was an Aniakchak eruption, then it might be responsible for the 1650 BC climate anomalies which Kuniholm found at Porsuk. That leaves the 1628 BC rings and the 1623 BC ice cores to be filed with the evidence from Thera itself. -- Zimriel 19:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The climate anomalies found at Porsuk, Turkey, are identical with those found in California Bristlecone pines. Its both 1627 BC and some of the following years. --Bender235 23:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are more scientific studies that indicate that ice core data from both ca. 1645 and the 1629/28 period are not particularly related to this Thera eruption. A quote from 'Zielinski, G. A. & Germani, M. S., 1998. "New Ice Core Evidence Challenges a 1620s B.C. Age for the Santorini (Minoan) Eruption", Journal of Archaeological Science 25, pp. 279-89.' "The layer of ice in the GISP2 (Greenland) ice core corresponding to 1623 ± 36 BC, which is probably correlative to the 1628/1627 BC event, not only contains a large volcanic-SO 4 2- spike, but it contains volcanic glass. Composition of this glass does not match the composition of glass from the Santorini eruption, thus severely challenging the 1620s BC age for the eruption. Similarly, the GISP2 glass does not match the composition of glass from other eruptions (Aniakchak, Mt. St. Helens, Vesuvius) thought to have occurred in the 17th century BC nor does it match potential Icelandic sources."(abstract quoted, full abstract available at http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2460360) On the whole, the archaeological date seems to be of more significance, as the technological dates are disputed. BTW, any works of Manning should be read with a grain of salt, as his eagerness to prove the older date clouds his conclusions. His dates are only after calibration, as before calibration they range well into the 14th century BC. He himself was one of the co-authors of the new calibration curve for c14-dating. Which should give some pause for thought. The archaeological dating method stands.Crusty007 01:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to Crusty007 regarding radiocarbon calibration. I doubt that Manning influenced the radiocarbon calibration curve to support his dating of Thera. There are many many researchers involved in the construction of the radiocalibration curves, and they all assess the data to make sure that it is robust. Manning was involved in the IntCal04 version (and onwards) but not on the IntCal98 version, which still gives a 17th century calibrated date for Thera. That said, recently Pearson et al. (2018) have published single year radiocarbon measurements of bristlecone pine and Irish Oak, showing that the radiocarbon calibration curve may actually be in error between 1660 and 1540 BC reuslting in calibrated dates that are too old. Using their data they calibrate to likely be in the early to mid 16th century BC, more in line with Archaeology.2A02:C7D:702E:C600:6CBF:EDE9:87B6:A9A5 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Just to update the discussion.. Manning and others sustainers of Aegean long chronology have definitley admitted that there is no longer reliability on the identification of Theran ashes anywhere in the GRIP cores. Anyway, due to a revision of the sulphuric emissions estimate, it has been thought that the eruption could as well correspond to the 1579 (if i do correctly remember) or to the 1530 peaks (please correct me if you have more precise dates). Note that recently a biomedical researcher has published three articles on "Medical Hypotheses" arguing he can date the precursor phase to 1603 BC and the final event at 1601 BC, august.I am an archaeologist rather than a geophysical scientist and i don't dare give an opinion on radiocarbon dating, but from an archaeological point of view, the plausible reconstruction of interlinked chronology becomes harder and harder to reconcile with a date of 1600BC for the eruption-anyone would be of this opinion given the fact, for example, that we would have the same ceramic class (classic WS I) produced in Cyprus for about 140 yrs. Moreover new dates are to be published soon by W.Kutschera on "Radiocarbon" wich seem to show that Egyptian radiocarbon dating suffers an offset of about 100 yrs, that is entirely compatible with that supposed for the Aegean area by Keenan et al. (Bietak, perss.comm.). When those dates will be finally available we'll be able to push further the analysis on radiocarbon reliability for dating the eruption.

(Note: not all radiocarbon date suggest a calibrated range of 1630-1600 BC: for example one of three dates obtained from the tsunami deposit at Palaikastro (Bruins et al. 2008) allows a date as late as 1509 BC, or even in the XV century, with lesser probability.Again, dates from Golisar lake, Turkey, of the base of the tephra deposit gives possible calibrated ranges ending as late as cca 1480 BC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.211.246.211 (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Somebody posted a link to the full-text Manning update below. Should be added. But regarding "Keenan et al"? Lest we forget, Keenan's contribution (statistics) to the study of this subject (i.e. the Minoan eruption), is rather limited: He applied the t-test on the data and thus reached the conclusion that the fragments were not from the Minoan eruption. But as pointed out by Pearce et al., and also by Manning, that statistical method is not appropriate for the type of data in question because it enhances the apparent differences between samples (which is probably why Keenan is seldom cited and almost never mentioned at all except in relation to Pearce, who helped him with subject expertise when he was putting together his journal article, according to Keenan's own article introduction). What the experts seem to be saying, in a nicer way, is that Keenan got lucky in this particular case because the method was applied to a material about which Pearce et al., albeit through the use of more appropriate methods, have also come to conclude was not from the Minoan eruption. For somebody who has no research experience in this field, a hobbyist with no university or other research facility affiliation, and with limited subject expertise (seems he's a former Wall Street trader with an M.Math degree from University of Waterloo and an academic publication count of 5 or so), being mentioned by scholars on this level, and getting an article in the subject published in a peer-reviewed journal to boot, is not bad, at all. Hats off to him for that. But does that make him an authoritative source for this article? I think not! The other sources you mention would seem valid additions though. 64.60.143.110 (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The 1645 BC ice core date came from the Dye3 ice core. Later with the GRIP and NGRIP ice cores, a new timecscale was developed (GICC05) which moved the 1645 BC date to 1641 BC. The ice core workers were adamant that 1641 BC ice acid was Thera, despite tephra in those layers not matching Thera and having a chemical signature similar to Aniakchak. The ice core workers also assumed that their ice cores were correctly dated, and so refused to consider that their 1641 BC volcanic horizon was associated with the well documented hemispheric tree ring effects from beginning in 1628 or 1627 BC (only the Irish bog oak appears to record anomalous growth in 1628 BC, and this was in a single tree). In the last decade or so, there was a growing body of work that suggested that the Greenland ice core chronology was in error. This work culminated with Baillie and McAneney (2015) and Sigl et al. (2015) definitively showing that GICC05 was too old in the first Millennium AD by around 7 years. The implication then is that in the 17th century BC, one would expect the ice cores to be at least 7 years too old. Recently McAneney and Baillie (2019) have suggested that in the 17th century BC GICC05 is around 14 years too old, meaning that the original 1645/1641 BC date is actually 1627 BC, which suggests that Aniakchak was the cause of the 1627 BC climate event and possibly not Thera (one cannot rule out Thera and Aniakchak erupting in the same year of course). The GISP2 ice core dates were found to be even worse than GICC05, with them being around 42 years too old in the 17th century BC (i.e. the 1623 BC GISP2 date is actually in the 1580s BC).2A02:C7D:702E:C600:6CBF:EDE9:87B6:A9A5 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

LM What?
The section on "Impact on Minoan civilization" uses the abbreviations LM I and LM II, but they are niether explained nor linked to an explanatory article. At least one or the other ought to be done, for the benefit of those of us who have no idea what they refer to. [68.98.251.239 20:49, 29 May 2006]
 * Sorry. I've explained what "LM" means and why I'm using it as the master baseline; check under the "Dating the volcanic eruption" section. (Zimriel 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Greek + Biblical "records" from 1600 BC
The legendary accounts from Greece and Israel do not count as contemporary records in the way of Egypt or even China. I've labeled them "traditions" and moved them to the end. - Zimriel 15:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thera eruption was bigger still
See BBC News article.--JyriL talk 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The full reference is
 * H. SIGURDSSON, S. CAREY, M. ALEXANDRI, G. VOUGIOUKALAKIS, K. CROFF, C. ROMAN, D. SAKELLARIOU, C. ANAGNOSTOU, G. ROUSAKIS, C. IOAKIM, A. GOGOU, D. BALLAS, T. MISARIDIS, and P. NOMIKOU.
 * "Marine Investigations of Greece’s Santorini Volcanic Field",
 * Eos 87 (34): 337,342,348 [22 August 2006].
 * Here is a quote (DRE = Dense-Rock Equivalent):
 * This young, widespread sequence is likely to be related to the 3600 year B.P. Minoan eruption of Santorini and may have been generated as a result of massive pyroclastic flow discharge into the sea. If the sequence consists of dominantly juvenile material from the Minoan eruption, then this would increase the total volume of erupted material estimated for this event. Volumetrically, the Minoan eruption deposit consists of four components: plinian ash fall from the main eruption column (2 cubic kilometers DRE), ash fall associated with pyroclastic flows (17 cubic kilometers [Watkins et al., 1978]), pyroclastic flow deposits on land on Santorini (1.5 cubic kilometers), and the newly mapped marine pyroclastic deposits around the volcano (41 cubic kilometers). Thus, the total volume of the event could be as high as 60 cubic kilometers DRE, nearly twice the previous estimate.
 * The estimate from Watkins et al. is an overestimate, but that does not make a large difference to the total.
 * (The two lead authors, Sigurdsson and Carey, are at the School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, in case anyone wants to mention it in the article.)
 * &mdash;Daphne A 10:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't clear how much of the new finds are from the Minoan eruption. To judge by the quote, the investigators don't seem to be extremely confident (?).   &mdash;Daphne A 19:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC) hi

Rename the article
This article should rather be named "Minoan eruption", since there have been numerous eruptions of Thera within the last 4000 years alone. "Minoan eruption" is more specific than "Thera eruption". --Bender235 23:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will rename it now. --Bender235 13:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know that this was a good idea. While it may be true that Thera eruption is vague, is there any evidence that Minoan eruption is even used in the scholarly world? This also presumes that this eruption caused the fall of the minoan civilization, which is not certain. I think it should probably be moved back. Thanatosimii 17:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither of these titles is accurate. The Bronze Age Eruptions of Thera/Santorini would cover the bases adequately for archaeologists. Alternatively, The Eruptions of Thera/Santorini: 2nd Millennium  BCE would cover geology, seismology, vulcanology, etc., as well.  "Minoan eruption"  is neither geographically precise -- it did not take place on Crete -- nor culturally accurate -- the eruption affected the entire Aegean and beyond, consisting of many Bronze Age cultures other than the Minoan.  Is there any reason to privilege the Minoan civilization above all the others? --unsigned comment by It'sWhom (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the logic is that this explosion presumably ended the minoan civilization. However, as I have said, that is not certain. Thanatosimii 22:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article should almost certainly be renamed. As stated, the Minoans lived on Crete. The Bronze Age Therans tend to be considered Cycladic, although certainly influenced by Minoans. Either way, the eruption did not immediately end Minoan culture. It may have caused a decline, but the real end came at the end of the Bronze Age. See Bronze Age collapse. This would be like calling the eruption of Vesuvius the "Roman eruption".--SkiDragon 09:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is not a term in use in the scholarly literature. Someone got a better title (nearly 10 years on)? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Essay entry
There are several points at which this becomes tendentious, presenting one editor's opinion of the right version. I do not claim that Galanopoulos is correct, but this is not the WP way to deal with a clear theory. I am not sure what more needs revision, but please read WP:NPOV; we're not here to argue for or against any version, even the right version. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Size
In the paragraph "physical effects of the eruption" it states that only tambora released more material than this euption. My first point is yellowstone and toba's biggest eruptions released many times more material than this eruption and my second point is that there's conflicting arguments over the size of the taupo eruption in around 181 a.d. Supposedly that eruption released as much as 150 cubic km which would surpass even that of tambora in 1815. Wiki235 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Yellowstone supereruptions happened long before recorded history, even before man first entered the American continents. The statement in the article about Thera having the largest mass of ejecta says "in historic times". Strausszek (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It did not say "in historic times" when the original post was made, so raising Yellowstone etc was valid at the time. And the point about Taupo's latest eruption was still good. I've now added that as an exception, along with Baekdu's eruption around 970 AD. Also see the discussion below: Talk:Minoan eruption. -- Avenue (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Strausszek (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Paranormal
Why is this article, which deals with archeology, geology and other natural sciences, a part of the Paranormal project? The Atlantis connection? That's a stretch. Orangemarlin 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Now removed. Verisimilus  T  20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Buried bodies
First of all, the bodies at Herculaneum were not buried by ash, at least not in the same manner as at Pompeii. Secondly, during the excavation of Herculaneum, very few if any bodies were found, and it was thought that the town successfully evacuated.

To quote the article on Herculaneum: "It was long thought that nearly all of the inhabitants managed to escape because initial excavations revealed only a few skeletons. It wasn't until 1982 when the excavations reached boat houses on the beach area that this view changed. In 12 boat houses archaeologists discovered 250 skeletons huddled close together."

I think the article should be more clear in mentioning the possibility that a similar discovery could be made at Akrotiri, near the ancient shoreline.--SkiDragon 22:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article does state there is a possibility. However, it is not encylopedic to speculate broadly based on what happened at another location.  Orangemarlin 00:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The excavators didn't actually find bodies at Pompeii, what they found was cavities created by bodies that had been engulfed by the lava and, in decomposing fully enclosed by the hardened volcanic rock, left holes corresponding to the shapes of each dead victim. At Herculaneum, skeletons (and lots of samll artefacts and even foodstuffs, eggs, bread and fruit, that were scorched and petrified, sort of fossilized). Strausszek (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But the cavities in Pompeii contained more or less complete skeletons. For example parts of the skull and teeth are still visible surfacing from the plaster casts. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

Minoan Civilization subsection
The last line of this subsec (under "Historical impact") has an associated ref, and currently reads:


 * "For instance, the palaces adopted a "Kouros"-god from the hills in addition to the Minoan goddess."

I read through the ref and found the relevant info near the bottom of p.6; I am not sure that the text we have now accurately reflects that provided in the ref. Based on how I read it, it seems that the Kouros statues were a standard (but perhaps recent) feature of the cult shrines in the LM I period, but they were torn down immediately before (or during, or after) the eruption, whereas our text indicates that they were a later addition to the shrines. Would someone else take a look at this and give their opinion? The relevant portion of the ref includes the last half of page 6 and first part of page 7. Doc  Tropics  20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I have to be serious for a moment. This article has undergone a large amount of revision over the past couple of months as we moved from a poorly written original research article to its current state.  My guess is that one or more editors kept that statement longer than necessary.  I like the article because it makes numerous references to the crisis in the civilization as a result of the Thera eruption.  For example, there are references to pumice offerings.  I say we delete the Kouros reference, because it would take a lot to discuss it.  But the pumice offerings are a real volcanic rock that is related to the eruption.  Maybe we should add back in something about pumice?  Orangemarlin 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. I leaned towards deleting the "kouros" sentence, but didn't want to step on toes, especially since it did contain some salvageable content. I would definitely support including some good info about the pumice offerings; will you take that one since you seem to be familiar with it? FWIW - I haven't made many substantive changes yet because I haven't seen the need for many. All jesting aside, you did a good job on this piece before I got here. I think that with a more thorough polishing it would be reasonable to resubmit this and try to restore it's GA status. I'm also curious about what it would take to turn this into a Featured article...it certainly has the potential. Doc  Tropics  21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Biblical traditions
OK, where do I start? I'm not opposed to having this section in the article, but it needs some serious work to meet even minimal standards for inclusion. Ref #28 doesn't actually say, or even imply, what our text currently asserts. As for ref #29, it frankly seems too poorly organized to qualify as a reliable source for anything. Since it seems possible that there might be some kind of biblical correlation with the eruption, I'd be interested in trying to find stronger refs, if there are any published refs that seem more reliable. I lack the ambition to tackle this issue immediately, but I'm interested in thoughts or suggestions. Doc  Tropics  22:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And I thought it was a good idea to ask your opinions on this? Remind me how to get you blocked again?  LOL.  Let me read those references.  Orangemarlin 22:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that you are a major pain in the tush, I think that you make some valid points. I believe that #28 should be used, because there is an interesting case to be made.  If the author's date for the Thera eruption is correct, then the Exodus doesn't correlate well with the eruption, unless you push events around.  But what if the eruption is correctly dated for early 1600 BCE (I'm not sure if 1620 BCE is early 1600 BCE or late...hard to reference a negative number), then Exodus makes more sense, as the Egyptians did not control Canaan then.  Then again, it could be a huge myth with no historical basis.  I'm starting to wonder if the whole chronology of the Mediterranean  is messed up by 100 years, if the radiometric dating is accurate.  It's hard to imagine that THAT many different radiometric measurements of the date of the eruption is off by so much--maybe archeologists got it wrong!  BTW, #29 is useless.  But I have a better one I'm going to add.  Orangemarlin 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that no one has picked up on the significance of Genesis 41:54, 57 in the light of the evidence of how devastating this volcano was. The severe famine over tthe whole earth referrred to makes sense. There is no neeed of recourse to the Exodus. And if I have this right we then get a very precise time line on the biblical patriarchs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.25.39 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I saw the tweak to the first ref (#28), and that actually makes sense now. I suppose I might have found that myself if I had read further. As for asking my opinion, I just assumed you were having a senior moment. Regarding the dating issues, I would lean towards accepting the radiometric dating as more accurate, not that we need to make a distinction in the article. And now the next archeologist to read this is going to flay me alive, so it's probably not worth the effort of having me banned. Doc  Tropics  23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is really fascinating. Another author is stating that there several eruptions, although I doubt that the volcano could build a whole new caldera in 150 years (maybe, but I don't think so).  So the catastrophic eruption may well have been 1450 BCE.  Orangemarlin 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead
I disagree with the edits of Drieakko for the following reasons:


 * 1) The date is in dispute and it's not 50 years, but closer to 150 years.
 * 2) If the date of eruption as shown by radiometric studies and tree-ring analysis differs from the archeological estimates by 150 years, that's a significant change to historical and archeological analysis of the area. That should be in the lead.
 * 3) The lead should be sync with what is written in the rest of the article. The changes would have made the lead in opposition to the article.
 * 4) If you don't understand the comments in the edits, why would you revert without pursuing an answer that you did understand?

Those are my opinions. Orangemarlin 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was reviewing the article for GA and immediately stopped at the lead that sounded difficult for an average reader that just wanted to know what this is about. I give my review comments and move forward. --Drieakko 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. A couple of us editing wanted to add more information about the dating issue in the lead because it was interesting and notable.  You disagree?  And if it is too confusing for the average reader,  I'd rather have a reviewer make it more readable than not.  Orangemarlin 20:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict):OK, there are 3 of us working here now, and I'd definitely prefer to avoid edit warring; I was really enjoying some peaceful and productive work on the article. Regarding the last portion of the first paragraph, I think it was better in the original form (before Drieakko's changes). The info was accurate and it seems important enough to warrant an early mention with more details to follow in the body. However, regarding the date "around 1600", I do think this is also good info to include in the intro. Maybe a compromise would satisfy everyone; since the earliest (generally accepted) date is 1650 BCE, and the latest is around 1550, what if we express it like this:


 * The Bronze Age Minoan eruption of Thera (or Santorini), around 1600 BC (+/- 50 years), is considered to be..."
 * This makes the general figure immediately available, while providing an "accuray range" to indicate the possible variance. I'd also be open to rewriting the end of the paragraph for clarity, as long as we keep the info. Doc  Tropics  20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the reviewers comments below. I particularly enjoy the remarks about Atlantis, which always bothered me about this article. I used a good reference on global climate changes, which I need to incorporate in the article. Orangemarlin 20:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Speculation?
In "physical effects of the eruption", the end of the third para reads thus:
 * Further archeological excavations at the site may eventually result in finding bodies similar to those found at Pompeii that were buried by the ash of the catastrophic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD.

While it is an intersting comparison, the specualtive nature of this statement makes me a little uneasy. Would it be better to rewrite this, delete it, or am I being too sensitive and we should leave it as-is? Doc  Tropics  21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be left, or perhaps rewritten. Certainly, the sites of Pompeii/Herculaneum and Akrotiri are very similar, both being buried by volcanic eruption, and both being very well preserved, especially wall paintings. Certainly a comparison should be made. What is more speculative, I think, is that all the inhabitants made it out safely. Just because no bodies have yet been found does not mean that nobody died. See my earlier comment on Herculaneum.--SkiDragon 23:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But speculation is not our job. Is there perhaps a reference we could use that does indeed speculate?  Orangemarlin 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I agree that the similarities are there, and as I said, I do think the comparison is interesting. My hesitation is because I'm not sure that it's proper for us to draw the comparison ourselves...that is what seems to border on original research. If only we had a ref that showed someone else making the comparison, it wouldn't be a problem. As it stands, I'm still on the fence about including it without a ref. Doc  Tropics  23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. It seems that OM and I are "on the same page" with this: A proper ref for the text would make it bulletproof, but without one we should probably err on the side of exclusion. Doc  Tropics  23:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source, although not exactly scholarly: http://www.vrsantorini.com/ It is pretty similar to what I have already said.--SkiDragon 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While it doesn't look like a scholarly website (too attractive and well designed), the article itself certainly sounds scholarly; ie, it was clearly written by an academic. As a ref, this is stronger than many things I've seen included in other articles, and I'm willing to accept it. Thaks for finding it, that was good work : ) Doc  Tropics  00:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, we may have an issue here. Initially, I only read through the first half of the ref to verify its content and quality. After posting the above I went back and read the rest of it. In the latter half of the linked site, there are several pieces of text that match ours...word for word. If this site was used for research on our article then it's a fairly simple fix: we just need to rewrite our text to avoid any possible copyvio. On the other hand, if the site copied their content from WP, then we can't use it at all because we can't use ourselves as a ref. Please review the linked site and share your thoughts on this. Doc  Tropics  00:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That reference used to be in the article a few months ago. I took it out because I was convinced that it mirrored the article here.  In addition, there are so many outstanding references for this eruption, I think we can find a better one.  You should look through Thera Foundation Articles.  I did a search a while ago, and found nothing.  I'm inclined to delete the sentence until we have references.  Orangemarlin 01:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, if it's a mirror-site, that at least relieves my copyvio concerns, but does rule it out as a ref. Since I still agree that the text has potential to be useful and informative, let me suggest a compromise: we can copy the text into this section while deleting it from the article. That way it remains easily available when a ref is found, and then we can copy it back in. Any objections? Doc  Tropics  01:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Go for it before you're permanently banned for vandalism of my user page. :)  Orangemarlin 01:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OM, you can't vandalize a vandal...those were official warnings that you removed! I'll wait to hear from SkiDragon before acting, but I do think this is a good short-term solution. Doc  Tropics  01:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Conversions
I had previously started adding conversions in parenthesis (metric to English) because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Looking at it now though, I really rather dislike the appearance of the page with so many parenthetical inserts. Since no policy actually requires the conversions (at least, that I know of), I'm now second-guessing myself. I'd appreciate any input on whether I should finish adding the conversions, or remove the ones I've already put in. Thanks. Doc  Tropics  18:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, we put in the conversions for the dumb Americans (I think I'm taking Canadian citizenship temporarily), so maybe they are unnecessary. Orangemarlin 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've decided to adopt a funny accent and tell people I'm Australian. G'day mate! Doc  Tropics  19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dormancy
Dormancy is not something that occured once, this last cycle. It's simply a non-eruptive stage in the life cycle of a volcano. The prior volcanos had periods of dormancy. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say about the ignimbrite. A volcano explodes, cools, there is rock at the surface, and a magma chamber below. The magma chamber explodes violently, emptying completely, and collapses, the rock at the surface, in the cone, collapses into the emptyied magma chamber, this is a caldera. So, what about the ignimbrite? Maybe if you quoted the book here on the talk page I could see where you are going. KP Botany 18:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the clarification. The reference stated that the caldera slowly filled with ash from the growing volcano displacing the seawater.  I think that's where the ignimbrite was referenced.  I think I might have given more weight to that particular part of the cycle than was critical.  In fact, it's probably not relevant to the Minoan eruption itself.  I read your edits, and it sounds much better. Orangemarlin 05:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Minoa?
What is meant by this sentence in the "Historical impact" section? "Earlier historians and archaeologists assumed that the effect on Minoa was more substantial because of the depth of pumice found on the sea floor." I do not know of this "Minoa". Is Thera or Crete meant? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thera is the volcano, which has erupted numerous times over the past few hundred thousand years. The eruption is called the Minoan eruption to refer to the fact that it probably destroyed the Minoan Civilization of Crete.  Minoa is the culture, people, and/or civilization extant on Crete at the time of the eruption of Thera.  Orangemarlin 06:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never seen the term "Minoa" used to describe the Minoan civilization, so I'm changing "Minoa" to "Crete" in that sentence. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bietak shows the eruption happened around 1450-1500 BCE
This theory is not supported by current archaeological evidence which show no pumice layers at Avaris or elsewhere in Lower Egypt during the reigns of Ahmose I and Thutmosis III.

That is simply false. The recent excavations at ancient Avaris led by Professor Manfred Bietak showed that Theran pumice was found in an early D18 layer (between Ahmose I and Thutmose III). Bietak dismissed the C14 and dendro dates because it would require an eruption in early Hyksos times.

Can we change this sentence in the article ? --Squallgreg 09:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Provide sources, using WP:CITET (trying to keep this GA), make sure it's a verifiable and peer-reviewed source, and we'll get it right. We want to get this article to FA status during the summer, so anything that makes it better helps.  However, I still think C14 and dendro dates are going to prove accurate someday, and we'll be changing the chronology of Egypt.  This could be very interesting.  Orangemarlin 16:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The chronological disagreement is between what is described elsewhere in WP as "Relative" dating methods (archeological) and "Absolute" dating methods (radio, dendro). WP needs to lean to the Absolute, objective, scientific date.  The rather flexible assumptions of the sequential pottery-based timelines cannot trump the physics.


 * Just because Egyptologists don't want to re-write their history does not mean they get to ignore the new research. Further, there is far more dispute within Egyptology over the validity of various chronologies (three or more!) than there is in physics or dendro about the validity of the radio and dendro dates.  That alone indicates that Egyptian archeology is a substantially less exact discipline, and one more prone to subjective evaluation.


 * Additionally, the methods and findings of radio and dendro have been independently corroborated many times before in other historical contexts. Egyptology is largely a self-contained system with few outside checks.  Which is, after all, central problem: Egyptian chronology suffers from a severe lack of hard synchronisms with the surrounding civilizations, especially in this period.  It seems foolish to reject such strong evidence for such a major event.


 * Finally, there is the dog that doesn't bark. Thera was a HUGE eruption.  It's impact in the rest of the ANE seems to fit quite well into all the existing timelines save Egypt.  Yet there is as yet no counter-narrative from Egyptologists that explains how the signals and evidence from Thera can be otherwise explained (aside from attempts to assert that it didn't happen at all!), or how the rest of the ANE could be wrong about such a major event!  Where is the support for the Egytian Chronology in Greece, Anatolia, or Mesopotamia?  Why is there no fierce resistance from scholars in those sub-disciplines to the proposed radio and dendro dates?  In fact, despite the dispute between some radio and some dendro dates, they disagree by merely 25 years; the Conventional Egyptian Chronology disagrees by 100+ years, and places Thera in a period rejected by BOTH 'hard science' methods.  We may not know which is 100% right.  But we can easily see which is 100% wrong. 65.207.2.2 20:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not make that last edit but I think it should remain "story". Saying it's a story does not make any judgement on truth, but saying it's a myth implies it's false, which I think is more a point of view than the simple fact that it's a story.--SkiDragon 04:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Archeologists remain wedded to whatever chronology they follow - despite the fact that there are often several competing dates within their own discipline. Archaeology can certainly reveal relative dates or termini ante/post quem but for anchoring to the real world we need more scientific evidence. Dendro-chronology has unambiguously indicated a date of 1627-8 BCE (which is also consistent with radiocarbon dating) and if your personal theory of the Hyskos makes it a century off then it's time to consign your theory to the dustbin of history. TheMathemagician (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * People need to realize that dendrochronology has serious weaknesses when it's used as any sort of precise method to set absolute dates thousands of years ago. It's only as strong as its weakest link and there are many weak links in there when you're building bridges, plank by plank millennia back, far beyond the individual lifespans of nearly any tree species included in the register of counts and ring variation patterns it is built on. Different kinds of trees have different ways of responding to the climate, some trees and bushes are more prone than others to conflate two or more rings into one during cool year/s, introducing unpredictable errors that will increase more the further back you get. Plus the climate will vary a lot from one region or country to another: when there isn't a sizeable bank of old tree rings from one and the same region in an unbroken run, it does weaken the whole thing. - C14 has its own sources of uncertainty (and contamination), and the traces of eruption-related ash clouds in glacier cores do not provide definite answers as to which volcano was the cause - having a marker that can be dated to around 1625 BC in a Greenland ice core doesn't show it had to be Thera.


 * I'm certainly not saying the dendro method is bollocks in itself but it's much weaker and more approximate than its propagators would have you think when it's used on its own in this way. But since it sounds intuitive, easy to grasp for the layman - and also intriguing in a gee-whiz way - it has built a lot of leverage in some of the debate about bronze and iron age chronology, and in news reporting. It is misguided to say that tree ring derived absolute dates would be safer or better than the traditional scientific dates of Egyptian or old Assyrian/Babylonian chronology. Unfortunately archaeological meta-debate on the merits of chronologies and dating methods isn't hot news material or even hot stuff for doctoral specimens, and is unlikely to get close to the ears of wikipedians. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Change of name of article
I am not opposed to changing the name of the article to better reflect the eruption. Santorini eruption of course may refer to any number of eruptions in both the historical and prehistorical periods. Any name we choose must be supported by academic references. IMHO, Minoan eruption is used academically. However, not being a vulcanologist, Egyptologist or Santorini-ologist, and not playing one one TV either, I would suggest we change it to what is commonly used! Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 17:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As the one who renamed the article in Dec. 2006 I strongly oppose. Minoan eruption is much more specific than Thera eruption, since Thera erupted multiple times. --Bender235 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, same reason. However, I think it would be valuable in the intro sentence to mention something like "The Minoan Eruption, also referred to as the Thera Eruption or Santorini Eruption, was..."  Dspark76 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as well - I understand that you are aiming for less ambiguity, Orangemarlin, and that's to be commended, but if you can cite where another term is more commonly used by the academic community than, say Thera eruption, I would find it a far more compelling reason to consider changing the name of the article. The redirects seem to be in place. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As another example, see the articles for the Hatepe eruption and the Oruanui eruption at Lake Taupo. Dspark76 (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bad example. Thoughts? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I haven't seen any objection, I will add the "...also referred to as the Thera Eruption or Santorini Eruption" bit to the intro... But if someone would rather not or do it a different way, say so here and I'll fix it.  Dspark76 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just commented above (damn these multiple sections on Talk pages!), but I agree that this page needs to be renamed. The current title is not used in the scholarly literature. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Major Eruptions during the History of Civilization
The article mentions:


 * Only the Mount Tambora volcanic eruption of 1815 CE released more material into the atmosphere during historic times.

Mount Tambora is estimated at ~160 km3 (VEI = 7).

It seems that the Hatepe eruption of Lake Taupo circa 180 CE would then rank as #2 at 120 km3 (VEI = 7). The estimates for the Minoan eruption range from 60-100 km3 placing it at third. Dspark76 (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you make sure that this is cited? I haven't looked at your edits, so if you have, excellent!   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't added this to the article yet. I am still looking over the references and if everything checks out, I'll make the change with citations.  Thanks for the feedback.  Dspark76 (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Found this reference for 120km2 VEI=7: http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0401-07=&volpage=erupt Dspark76 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Tianchi eruption of Baekdu around 1000 CE was probably also bigger, although there is some uncertainty about this. The Smithsonian volcanism program website gives a tephra volume range of 76-116 km3 for that eruption. -- Avenue (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This link gives 96 +/- 19 km3 for Baekdu: http://www.springerlink.com/content/1x63hxtlyt0yajfj/. Also this table: http://books.google.com/books?id=EZXj87n_mJgC&pg=PA277&dq=Taupo+VEI&sig=w6cXdgOH_8eLgrbnNYWqyZj7gzo#PPA275,M1 also rates Baekdu as VEI=7.
 * I think that the statement (above) relating the Minoan eruption to Tambora may be misleading. I would suggest that we soften the statement a little such as:
 * The minoan eruption was amongst the largest eruptions during the history of civilization, comparable to the 180 CE Hatepe eruption of Lake Taupo and the 1000 CE Tianchi eruption of Baekdu and surpased by the 1815 CE eruption of Mount Tambora. -- Dspark76 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for new sections
I would like to propose / suggest the addition of 2 new sections:


 * Atlantis
 * The Atlantis legend and its link to this eruption deserves some mention, at least briefly. It is currently mentioned in the intro, but nowhere in the body (which is discouraged by the guidlines for a good intro)...  I would suggest expanding it to at a few sentences under either the historical impact section or as a new section.  Text can be transcribed from Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis.


 * Thera Today
 * Some mention should be made about ongoing volcanic/geothermal activity and possibility of furture erruptions. Some good starting points can be found at:
 * http://www.uri.edu/endeavor/thera/hydrothermal.html
 * http://www.uri.edu/endeavor/thera/kolumbo.html

Anyway, I might start working on this (but not today) after I do a little more checking of the references. If anyone has any ideas or comments, please post them here. Thanks --Dspark76 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Atlantis was deleted from this article long ago. Atlantis is a pseudoscientific concept, and any information about it should be placed in an article about the legend.  Let's keep this article based on science and verified information.  I agree that current volcanic activity would be interesting, since I was wondering about that. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me revise my opinion about Atlantis. It's still pseudoscience and pseudoarcheology.  However, it rate a couple of sentences in "Greek Traditions."  But let's not give undue weight to a legend.  In other words, let's stick with verified sources that Plato actually meant the Minoan eruption in his legend of Atlantis.  Let's not add speculation that Atlantis existed someplace.  It didn't.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Both are good ideas. I have just been told in another context though that you can't copy and paste someone else's text as it belongs to them, so something new will have to be written.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I figured that his topic had come up before. :) I'm ok with keeping the atlantis bit short, maybe 2 or 3 sentences.  The association between the Atlantis legend and the Minoan eruption is certainly notable based on the number of sources (and entire books) written on the subject.  We shouldn't claim that the legend is real or imply that Thera or Crete are confirmed locations, but simply note that the connection has been made.  The statement however, can not be maintained in the intro paragraph (the article would never pass FA in that condition).  I would actually suggest that it doesnt need to be there at all if it was included somewhere in the body.  Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "verified sources that Plato actually meant the Minoan eruption in his legend of Atlantis".  No such reference is really plausable or should be considered valid.  Noone with certainty can say what Plato's story is based on.  What I'm proposing is to state 1) a connection has been proposed, 2) give one or two points of the connections (ie tsunami = swallowed by the sea), and 3) cite two or three sources that have proposed such connections.  Please let me know if you think this is not appropriate.  Thanks -- Dspark76 (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Super Volcano?
Wasn't there some talk about how the Minoan eruption was the result of a supervolcano? I haven't cites for it, but if someone else has heard the same sort of thing,I'll look around for it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the VEI topic above. Talk:Minoan_eruption -- Dspark76 (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me this is an attempt at humour
Exodus mentions that the Israelites were guided by a "pillar of smoke" during the day and a "pillar of fire" at night, which many scholars have speculated that it refers to volcanic activity.

The Israelites could have seen the pillar of smoke and fire from Thera, almost a thousand kilometres away? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.121.117 (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Anyway, I hate to see 'many scholars'. And pillar of smoke? Don't people read the Bible before telling us what it says? It's 'cloud', not 'smoke'. Actually, the article here:  has this in Google "canic ash spread upward as a pillar of fire and clouds into. the atmosphere and blocked out the ..... dence Could Link Volcano to Biblical Exodus.""  "Science and the Miracles of Exodus Colin Humphreys,Department of Materials Science & Metallurgy, University of Cambridge, says "Here is what the book of Exodus says:“By day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pil- lar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people”(Exodus 13: 20-22). The traditional interpretation of the pillars of cloud and fire is that these pillars were just in front of the Israelites and that they moved with them as they marched, rather like tour group leaders holding up a rolled umbrella and walking at the head of the group. But the book of Exodus does not imply that the pillars of cloud and fire were just in front of the Israelites, and neither does it state that they were moving pillars; they could have been a con- siderable distance ahead and fixed, like a beacon on a hill giving light. There is, in fact, a natural event that fits perfectly the descrip- tion “pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night”: a volcanic eruption. Why does a volcano often appear to emit cloud by day and fire by night? Physics provides the answer.In a volcanic erup- tion huge towering flames leap out of a volcano surrounded by thick clouds of vapour. By day, often only the surrounding cloud is visible, reflecting the light of the sun. But by night the cloud is invisible and the volcanic fire becomes visible. Similarly in a smoky bonfire seen from a distance, by day you see mainly the smoke and by night mainly the flames. Figures 3 and 4 show a typical pillar of fire by night and pillar of cloud by day emitted by a volcano." He seems to have written a book on it, and his website is here: . --Doug Weller (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates.
I am not sure how useful coordinates are for an event that had far-reaching effects and happened so long ago, but in any case, shouldn't they be in the center of the island, at Nea Kameni? Unless the eruption was actually centered on one of the modern towns on the island, but I doubt it.--SkiDragon (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Manning clarification
Could consider adding a reference for the more recent Manning clarification of his position http://dendro.cornell.edu/articles/manning2007a.pdf Ploversegg (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)ploversegg

Geochemistry
Wikipedia should cite relevant peer-reviewed literature on the subject of the article. The paper by Keenan (2003) was published in the geochemistry journal with the highest impact factor, is entirely about the tephra, and has not been rebutted by any other work in the peer-reviewed literature (that I could find). Hence it should be cited. (The argument given against citing it, that the author is a "statistician with minimal and peripheral involvement in the subject", is ad homenim, hence meritless.) None of this implies that Keenan's paper is right or wrong: the criterion for Wikipedia is not truth, but  WP:verifiability. 217.42.16.203 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Keenan's only contribution to this subject is one low-impact article (=one not widely cited, and, when it does show up somewhere, as in Manning, mentioned primarily as a footnote when Pearce's contributions are discussed), it would not appear to meet even the above user's own "highest impact factor" requirement. It also fails Wikipedia's requirement for WP:Reliable_sources. The problem is two-fold: the use of such a limited source (=a source in which a non-scholar reached a conclusion through questionable or tiny-minority methods/methodology, in a field where he has no expertise, and where mainstream scholars do not endorse his findings due to the way they were established), violates WP:UNDUE as spelled out in the policy entry for Reliable sources - scholarship: "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." Several sentences attributed to Keenan are unrelated to his controversial application of a certain statistical method to the data, such as the sentence "The ash found on Crete is now known to have been from a precursory phase of the eruption, some weeks or months before the main eruptive phases, and would have had little impact on the island...". . This is certainly not "known" through any of the mentioned author's "contributions" - there is no reason whatsoever to attribute such information to someone who has no published field research, and who appears to have no first-hand knowledge of archeological impact studies undertaken on Crete. To have this person appearing as an authority on the subject by attributing categorical statements to him, such as "at one time, it was believed that...", that he "demonstrated that this was not...", his finds "leading to the conclusion that...", etc., etc., in a high-profile scholarly dispute like this one, gives an almost comical impression. As per Reliable_sources: "The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes." Such a search renders extremely meager results for this author whose main claim to fame instead appears to be related to a series of sensational fraud accusations in different fields, forwarded mainly on blogs (apart from the "fame" of a lot of Google hits generated by having his personal web site listed as a source on Wikipedia in a variety of subjects). The second part of the problem is the removal of researchers with opposing views regarding the ice core data: there is no consensus among scholars on this issue - the attempt to imply that this is so in order to promote a certain low-impact article is inappropriate.  In addition, the eagerness by which this name and web site is promoted with the help of a very small group of user names/IPs on Wikipedia does not inspire much confidence in my eyes. Sorry, can't agree with the use of Keenan as an authority in this subject. 64.60.143.110 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The impact factor is for the journal; it does not apply to articles. Keenan's article has appeared in the geochemistry journal with the highest impact factor and has not be contradicted anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature (as far as I could tell).  It is Keenan's paper that is important here; I do not understand why you think that it fails WP:Reliable_sources ("this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals"). On the other hand, have you read this review by Manfred Bietak?--the scholarship of Manning is disputed there.
 * I am also curious about your comment regarding "archeological impact studies undertaken on Crete". Would you elaborate on that?  There is solid evidence of a tsunami, but the Minoans nonetheless continued for some years.   How does this affect the argument?
 * 217.42.16.203 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What does the scholarly dispute between Bietak and Manning have to do with your use of Kennan as an authority on this subject?? Only one of them appears to have a brief footnote in passing on Keenan (ie. on his problematic use of a certain statistical method on the ice core data). I don't see this name appearing in Bietak's text. Would you mind pointing out the page number where he is mentioned by Bietak? Manning and Bietak are authoritative sources, bona fide scholars with PhD degrees and tenured positions, with research and credentials endorsed by universities and research institutions, who are extensively published and extensively cited by the academic community at large. They continuously contribute and they have documented impact on each other and on other researchers who have continuously revised their conclusions based on various contributions throughout the years. Kennan is none of these things and has ONE SOLE article published on the subject in a peer-reviewed journal, in which he used methods that have been rebutted by Pearce and Manning. I have not been able to locate anybody who actually endorses the way he used a certain method on this data to reach a certain conclusion. Please point them out so that we may perceive what "impact" he has had on the subject and if that is indeed enough to warrant mention (perhaps in relation to Pearce's research). Also: Please explain why a non-academic with no independent research, with one article published, should be cited as an authority, rather than a combination of scholars with different views who have decades of research experience and/or research projects that have been scrutinized through vetting procedures for PhD theses, and who between themselves have a very large amount of peer-reviewed articles published in well-renowned academic journals? Regarding the request that I elaborate on impact studies: The reason I brought up the subject of field research is that Keenan is quoted by 217.42.16.203 as an authority on how the island was impacted ("The ash found on Crete is now known to have been from a precursory phase of the eruption, some weeks or months before the main eruptive phases, and would have had little impact on the island." ''). The subject under discussion is the use of Keenan as an authority on various aspects of the Minoan eruption. My point is that he has not contributed research or anything else to the study of how the island was impacted, and thus cannot be attributed as an authority on this issue. 64.60.143.110 (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The same individual has been heavily promoted and repeatedly inserted into a host of articles and article talk pages related to global warming and dendrochronology (including being used as a source for the article Maşat Höyük through the use of an unpublished essay on a personal site). In my opinion it is important to stay with mainstream and authoritative sources in order to avoid having Wikipedia become a vehicle for politically motivated agendas that normally lie outside the scope of academic pursuits. Although there is of course no guarantee that the collaborations and disputes developing within the mainstream scientific community will lead to unbiased results, the main aim and interest among scholars can still be more generally assumed to be to contribute to the growth of scientific knowledge in a particular field in a NPOV way. That aim normally excludes creating blogs regarding unsubstantiated fraud allegations when one's theories do not pass peer-review and remain unpublished. 71.107.2.244 (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to be understanding. First,scientific publication is much preferred to be in a peer-reviewed journal, according to Wikipedia policy.  Second, in judging scientific journals, the journal's impact factor is widely considered.  Third, there is no "impact factor" for a particular paper.  Fourth, did you find a rebuttal of Keenan in a peer-reviewed journal?
 * (It would be nicer if you could use paragraphs in your writing.)
 * This looks to be about statistics. You said that Keenan is a statistician (though I cannot see this from a quick look at Keenan's web site).  Why are you claimng that Manning knows more about statistics than a statistian?  I just googled a bit, and found this comment from Keenan claiming that Manning does not understand the concept of standard deviation, and citing his own peer-reviewed paper: has Manning rebutted that anywhere?
 * You say "point is that he has not contributed research or anything else to the study of how the island was impacted, and thus cannot be attributed as an authority on this issue" makes no sense. This is about geochemistry.
 * 217.42.16.203 (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An example of someone who seems to follow Keenan in geochemistry is Yalcin et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 2006. Again, this is a high-impact journal. 217.42.16.203 (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keenan's home page shows that he has published six peer-reviewed papers in archaeological science, five of which deal with chronology, and three of which treat the eastern Mediterranean. You appear to have something against Keenan, but the justifications that you give does not support that.  Also, you talk about "scholarly dispute between Bietak and Manning".  There is no way to read Bietak's review and fairly characterize it that way.  Bietak is accusing Manning of fraud.  And Keenan says that he formally alleged that Manning committed fraud, here.   217.42.16.203 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As already stated, the heated dispute between Bietak and Manning has nothing to do with the individual blowing his horn above (and who's now trying to ride on the shirttails of Bietak - a scholar who totally ignores him). The repeated fraud allegations against different scholars by Keenan have not been taken seriously by the scientific community, which is probably why it is considered so passionately imperative to push them in places like Wikipedia. (It's a tough choice for the various scholars targeted, I suppose; ignore, because it's a waste of time to disentangle the basic scientific facts that are misinterpreted or misunderstood by this individual who has no background in science, or rebutt and offer the accuser and his allegations an air of legitimacy). But all that aside, the following problem, more directly related to this article, remains and needs to be resolved: The calculations in the sole peer-reviewed article on the Minoan eruption produced by this individual are not in any way the landslide of definite "proof" which 217.42.16.203 is trying to push in this article, where one individual (a non-scholar with checkered academic credentials) now aims to be the sole authority on "what is now known" as opposed to what "was previously believed". As a matter of fact, there is no scientific consensus on the issue and scholars in geochemistry have different views on the ice core data, which needs to be reflected in the article. I have hesitated to tag the article because it has good article standard and I can see in the article history that people have had to work hard to keep the religious POV-pushing at bay in another section (and I also regret having to spread for the fraud allegation venom from this individual's personal campaign to more places on Wikipedia, and thus add more Google hits, which I suppose is the true aim here), but I think getting more editors/administrators involved would be the best way to keep this somewhat in check. In the recent past, requests for help have been posted off-site ("I put in a correcting paragraph but someone keeps removing it. I NEED HELP") to "rectify" Wikipedia by having ideas sourced to this individual's self-published articles added. The use of that sort of postings and desperate "come-and-help-me" tactics on various blogs may make NPOV hard to achieve in individual articles without the involvement of more editors within the Wikipedia community. I will therefore temporarily tag the section affected, rather than readding the sources which have now been removed by 217.42.16.203 again (in order to feign consensus on the issue on which he has made his source the scientific authority - a removal that also reintroduced a spelling mistake), with the hope that this issue may receive wider attention. 64.60.143.110 (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As already stated, the heated dispute between Bietak and Manning has nothing to do with the individual blowing his horn above (and who's now trying to ride on the shirttails of Bietak - a scholar who totally ignores him). The repeated fraud allegations against different scholars by Keenan have not been taken seriously by the scientific community, which is probably why it is considered so passionately imperative to push them in places like Wikipedia. (It's a tough choice for the various scholars targeted, I suppose; ignore, because it's a waste of time to disentangle the basic scientific facts that are misinterpreted or misunderstood by this individual who has no background in science, or rebutt and offer the accuser and his allegations an air of legitimacy). But all that aside, the following problem, more directly related to this article, remains and needs to be resolved: The calculations in the sole peer-reviewed article on the Minoan eruption produced by this individual are not in any way the landslide of definite "proof" which 217.42.16.203 is trying to push in this article, where one individual (a non-scholar with checkered academic credentials) now aims to be the sole authority on "what is now known" as opposed to what "was previously believed". As a matter of fact, there is no scientific consensus on the issue and scholars in geochemistry have different views on the ice core data, which needs to be reflected in the article. I have hesitated to tag the article because it has good article standard and I can see in the article history that people have had to work hard to keep the religious POV-pushing at bay in another section (and I also regret having to spread for the fraud allegation venom from this individual's personal campaign to more places on Wikipedia, and thus add more Google hits, which I suppose is the true aim here), but I think getting more editors/administrators involved would be the best way to keep this somewhat in check. In the recent past, requests for help have been posted off-site ("I put in a correcting paragraph but someone keeps removing it. I NEED HELP") to "rectify" Wikipedia by having ideas sourced to this individual's self-published articles added. The use of that sort of postings and desperate "come-and-help-me" tactics on various blogs may make NPOV hard to achieve in individual articles without the involvement of more editors within the Wikipedia community. I will therefore temporarily tag the section affected, rather than readding the sources which have now been removed by 217.42.16.203 again (in order to feign consensus on the issue on which he has made his source the scientific authority - a removal that also reintroduced a spelling mistake), with the hope that this issue may receive wider attention. 64.60.143.110 (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

First, you say "scholars in geochemistry have different views on the ice core data, which needs to be reflected in the article". I agree. I do not agree that removing a paper on the subject, published in the geochemistry journal with the highest impact factor, by a statistician, is a way to do that. If you want to come up with another formulation that cites other related work as well as Keenan's, that's good by me. (I will not respond to your other points, at least right now.) 217.42.16.203 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would add that discussion of the tephra should be strongly based on peer-reviewed literature. In science, peer-review is considered very much more important than it is in archaeology. In science, it is commonly said that what is important is where a paper was published. In archaeology, the author matters more. You do not seem familiar with this distinction. 217.42.16.203 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Effect On Minoan Civilization
Several good books have already addresses the issue of the effect of the blast on Minoan civilization, including "Fire in the Sea" and "Atlantis Destroyed". Since the blast seems most likely to have occured on the Late Middle Minoian or Late Minoan I period (depending on when you date the blast and the Minoan periods) it is clear that the Minoan culture continued to flurish long after the explosion. Modeling of the fallout as described in "Fire in the Sea" suggests that the prevailing winds blew the fallout from the worst explosion (there may have been several over a period of months or even years) east southeast. While the north east portion of Crete did indeed receive significant fallout, Rhodes may have actually suffered far more seriously than Crete. It's possible that northern Crete experienced tidal waves, but nothing in the archeological record shows any indication that Knossos was impacted by disasterous waves. While climate change would have occured, it would have impacted the Mycean and Egyptian cultures to the same degree, and not favored them. Therefore I suggest that the impact of the explosion(s) on the Minoan culture be left open to debate, though there is little evidence to suggest that Thera led to its actual downfall. - Ken Keisel June 15 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken keisel (talk • contribs) 20:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Climatic effects
For climatic effects of the eruption, the article currently relies on LaMoreaux (1995). LaMoreaux's paper has been shown to be grossly incorrect by Pyle (1997). LaMoreaux has now had a decade to respond, and has not done so, as far as I can tell. Hence the article's discussion of climatic effects needs to be updated. Does anyone know of some good peer-reviewed papers on the climatic effects? 217.42.16.203 (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Atlantis, again
OK, I'm going to keep reverting extensive discussions of Atlantis, especially when it uses a crappy History Channel presentation as its source. Yes, Atlantis MIGHT, and I say MIGHT, be related to the Santorini eruption, but it should not be given excessive WP:WEIGHT in this article, which is essentially an article about a volcano. One or two sentences in the Greek traditions area is sufficient. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 05:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As per the comments, I transferred this material from the article on Santorini, where it had been for some time. The material clearly belongs here more than there.  I have no special affinity for it, and am not pushing it, but wholesale deletation is obviously wrong.  I suggest amending it to suit better or leaving it until someone else does, or perhaps creating a new article for the Atlantis–Thera speculation.
 * Your comment "I'm going to keep reverting" comes across as asinine.
 * 217.42.16.203 (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I just found out that there already is an article about Location hypotheses of Atlantis. I have moved most of the text there.  217.42.16.203 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I almost had to utilize my reverting skills.  :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we've already been through this loop before and the prior result was:
 * 1) The info was minimized on the minoan erruption page
 * 2) The text was transfered from Santorini to the Location hypotheses of Atlantis
 * 3) The Location hypotheses of Atlantis page was condensed somewhat from the orgnial text on Santorini. I think several attempts by various authors have attempted to reference other sources than a simple reguritated summary of the history channel episode.
 * 4) It became evident that the same information was being (or could potentially be) used on multiple pages (Santorni, Theory of Atlantis, Minoan Erruption, Minoan Civilization, etc..) However, there was no clear "main article".
 * 5) There was some talk about moving the text to new article and then referencing it using the 'main article' link, but this was never really completed. A main article with (See article ...) references would probably prevent having to keep going through this...
 * Dspark76 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved the section to Greek traditions. I removed undue weight issues regarding discussions about the reality of Atlantis.  Since almost every scientist considers it a myth, and there is a strong possibility that Plato was discussing this myth because of the Santorini eruption, we can keep it to a sentence or two.  I linked to the main article.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese records about three suns
Chinese records Some scientists correlate a volcanic winter from the Minoan eruption with Chinese records documenting the collapse of the Xia dynasty in China. According to the Bamboo Annals, the collapse of the dynasty and the rise of the Shang dynasty, approximately dated to 1618 BCE, were accompanied by "'yellow fog, a dim sun, then three suns, frost in July, famine, and the withering of all five cereals".[7]'' '' Chinese records about three suns one can explain assumming that eruption produced three semitransparent layers. Water is most probable build up material of such a semitransparent layers.

For simplicity let intensity of solar light will be one. When light transfering semitransparent layer decreases its intensity by factor of t. Intensity of reflected light is (1-t).

When light passes three layers its intensity is t3.

pic 1.

When light is refleced twice beetwen layers its intensity is t3(1-t)2.

pic 2, pic 3

There are possible 4 and more times reflection, but factor t3(1-t)4 is probably beneth level of background of sky, or absorption during passes and reflections causes that signal disapears.

It leads to conclusion that there were at least three separated eruptions (not one)!!! It looks that volcanic cone had holes. Through these holes water flowed in. Thanks to it eruption was more violent. First eruption destroyed volcanic cone. After it water flowed into freshly created hole and make next eruption more violent. This eruption destroyed internal caldera and once more water flowed into freshly created hole and make next eruption more violent. The third eruption destroyed external caldera.

Santorini eruption could disturb C14 dating in two ways:

layers mentioned above could cut circulation of C14 in atmosphera;

significant amount of biomasa were blocked beneth volcanic ash, C14 decay was running and carbon atoms were outside circulation. After certain amount of time came back into circulation but with lower level of C14. It caused overrepresentation of C12 atoms.

Both of them made organic material "older".

I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia. I can't add pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W.z.c. (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This material can be added to the article, if you can find good-quality references to support what you say. See WP:NOR.  217.42.16.203 (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Three Suns" do not lead per se to the "conclusion that there were at least three separated eruptions", as three Suns in the sky is a relatively common phenomenon caused by ice crystals in the atmosphere during very cold weather (remember: " frost in July"), see e.g. Sun Dog and also a story by J.London, The Sun-Dog Trail. So there is no basis for fabricating three layers of anything and in particular for them influencing C14 levels. 194.174.76.21 (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

BC/AD convention
There are some editors who regard the use of BC/AD as "Christian POV". This particular opinion is not relevant to the situation here at the mo. The article was started and developed some time ago in the BC/AD convention. There is no reason to change it although recent editors to the article have wrongly inserted text using a different format which has led to a mixture of format in the article. In accordance with WP:ERA and WP:MOS generally the BC system takes priority. Can we get some clarification on this to stop people like OrangeMarlin from trying to take unilateral control?--Mountwolseley (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we can change it if we get consensus. I'd prefer the BCE/CE convention. I see nothing in our policies and guidelines to suggest that 'generally the BC system takes priority;. dougweller (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Dougwellwer, BCE/CE preferred for a science article. Vsmith (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry that's wrong - it's not a case of preference, WP policy is clear - the convention must be retained to prevent these kinds of unproductive discussions, BC is the prevailing convention (from the start) which several editors are trying to change; that's not on. It should be returned to its original convention.--AssegaiAli (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Science articles don't require a BCE convention. I have checked; all the journal references for this article use the BC system!! Can we please keep people's (obviously biased) opinions out of this. The only important fact is that WP policy requires the original convention to be retained so it must be returned to the BC format.--94.196.122.50 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is in reply the anonymous editor and Moutwolseley, who insist on pushing an inappropriate POV. As of 18 months ago, after nearly 500 edits from myself and other good-faith and dedicated editors, this was the condition of the article. This is a scientific article, and common convention in the real world is to use BCE/CE.  Soon after this article was given GA status.  So, despite the passing 18 months, and GA review, and GA commentary, we have one editor pushing a POV.  I think that this conversation is done, and really is a waste of time.  Thanks Vsmith and Dougweller for their comments.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My obvious question is why take part in a discussion that is a waste of time??? I say that not only one editor is pushing a POV here. For the information of those editors who reside in the USA - you probably need to know that BC is almost never considered point of view anywhere else in the English-speaking world and the BCE system is seldom followed because it smacks of political correctness amongst other reasons. The article should be returned to its original BC convention--79.70.232.70 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice if you'd logged in. In any case, this is beating a dead horse. Wikipedia uses both conventions. Plus of course you're wrong. Eg, the BBC: "In line with modern practice bbc.co.uk/religion uses BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) as a religiously neutral alternative to BC/AD. As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians."
 * The above unsigned comment - I listen to and watch the BBC every day - they never use BCE or CE - so giving one webpage as an example is quite misleading (again!). I can give loads of example to overturn the religion page and  are just two--Mountwolseley (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure that all the contributions made were in a spirit of cooperation and the GA status can be maintained. Unfortunately the above link for the condition of the article is misleading. The operative link is a couple of months earlier [|here]. Apparently in between all the BCs were wrongly changes to BCE. There is no POV here - the fact is the original format is to be retained. This discussion is not a waste of time - it is being lengthened by a lot of misleading comments being added and editors falsely stating that science articles must use BCE. They do not - I am professionally involved in writing and I read them as well as part of my job and that is simply nonsense.--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrongly changed? The article was a piece of shit before it was rewritten by several good faith editors.  Just because some Christian POV pushing editor first wrote (which is true, just look at the first editor of this article), doesn't mean it was right.  So, retract your wrongheaded personal attack, and maybe I won't get on your case too much.  It's staying BCE, because it's a science article.     Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ERA, "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." Per WP:DATE, "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."  The article has been stable in the BCE/CE style, there is no substantial reason to change it, and any existing doubt does not appear to be shared by a consensus.  So, I don't see what the problem is in leaving the article as it is, in the BCE/CE dating style.  Nothing in the WP:MOS sections appears to set an absolute requirement for turning back the clock. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I was saying. Thanks Hertz.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hertz and others, the article was not "stable in a given style"- it was a mixture of both conventions and in that case was not 'stable' - therefore we "defer to the style used by the first major contributor" as you quote and that means the BC system.--Mountwolseley (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to my spot-checking, the ratio of BCE/CE to BC/AD 12, 9 and 6 months ago was 13:0 or 14:0 each time; 3 months ago it was 10:4. To me that shows only that some contamination had crept in, not instability. BCE/CE has predominated for a long time. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hertz what you say is true but the article was in BC only, from lots of editors before that. I wondered how it changed to the position in January 2008 that you flagged up. It seems that [[|here] in one edit Orangemarlin removed all the BCs and replaced them with BCEs under the edit summary of "standardised dating". This is in contravention of WP:MOS. Can we please wrap this up now?--AssegaiAli (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That was 18 months ago. Get over it.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Somehow the perpetrator of policy-breaking doesn't think it is so bad when he is the guilty party. Can someone please raise a POV warning here?--79.70.133.250 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mountwolseley, see WP:TEND.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed all the above as a result of a Wikiquette alert and would like to note the following:
 * Following the letter of the law, the date convention of the original 27 Feb 2006 edit should be followed.
 * However Manual of Style is classified as a Guideline, not a Policy, meaning it's intended to be advisory in nature. Additionally the WP:MOS itself notes Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. Therefore, it would be better to try to come to a consensus based on the merits of the case and the article rather than pounding each other with rules. (Especially because one of the rules is WP:IAR.)
 * If ya'll fail to achieve consensus, an article WP:RFC might be a logical next step. Gerardw (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do you come up with this "edict"? You have no idea what you're saying.  An RFC is a waste of time.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gerardw for your input. Can we say that in the light of AssegaiAli's post above we have consensus? Otherwise I shall go with RFC.--Mountwolseley (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus? Does it come down to a vote, based on WP:IAR and personal preference?  In that case I vote for BCE/CE, on the basis of relative stability for 18 months, and relative quiet about it, and that BCE/CE is relatively faith-neutral, scientifically-objective terminology. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No WP:Consensus is not a vote. Gerardw (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Geologists generally use the BCE convention in English. I've worked on paleontology articles where we've agreed to a convention for the sake of the origin of most of the literature. Actually, geology and paleontology use a lot of American English conventions for some things. Still, sometimes consideration has to be given to the editors who are doing hard work on an article. I write articles based on research in 19th century British English. I use British English spelling conventions, and, a British English spell checker. It's difficult to move back and forth with serious research.

I think the BCE convention makes researching and writing the article easier, especially for the geological aspects, which, for a volcanic eruption, is fairly all-encompassing. This is a geology article. The writers working on it right now, doing a lot of editing and researching are comfortable using this convention for this article. --KP Botany (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh?? I barely know where to begin with the above posting. a)Geologists do not use BCE. They generally use BP actually because of reliance on radioactive isotopes for dating. b) So this is a geology article? Well....No. There is not yet anything on the geological origins or even the underlying rock formations let alone the geological classification of Thera. WikiProject Geology is not even involved in this article. c) Nice point about the references for this article.....one problem though, they all use the BC convention. So what's the point?--Mountwolseley (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Most geological writing involves ages so much far older than the 2K stuff that it would be absurd to use either BCE or BC in their writings. Volcanology is a geological field of study and the volcano WP project is under the geology project.
 * What does the "C" stand for in BC? A religeous mythical character of one religeous group -- so why do we insist on promoting one religion within articles unrelated to that religion when a neutral abbreviation, BCE, is available? Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Christ is NOT a myth. There is reliable historical evidence that the person of Christ existed. It's only the divinity that's the source of dispute. And besides, you should have a bit more respect and open mind and not automatically assume "myth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.144.231 (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This "reliable historical evidence" has turned out not to be reliable at all on close inspection. If it were, the debate wouldn't be so heated and persistent. Even if there was a single historical person (known as "Historical Jesus") as model, it is so strongly mythologised that the figure of Christ IS, essentially, a myth. (Even in principle, you couldn't identify the Historical Jesus because the possible historical core is so slight. Hypothetically, you could do no more than to round up hundreds of itinerant religious teachers from Roman-ruled Judaea and ask the candidates: "Would the Real Historical Jesus please stand up?") But I don't see what this has to do with the question at hand, except that the scriptural evidence is contradictory on the birth of Jesus and he cannot have been born precisely at the start of the start of the Christian Era. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You should know that a lot of people don't think that BCE is neutral--79.70.152.204 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry, I'm doing other research in addition to the historical eruptions, and the stack of articles and my most recent searches, that I ran through, because of this discussion, were not the volcano articles.  I was a bit surprised that there were so many dates in the articles, and it should have clicked I wasn't on target.
 * Yes, volcanoes are studied by geologists who specialize in volcanoes, and this article contains geology. I'm not sure what you mean by saying an article about volcanoes isn't a geology article, though.  It includes tons of geology already, the measures of eruption size, the volcanology, the dates are all geology, radiocarbon dating, probably done by geologists, and magma, ash layers.
 * I'm more inclined, then, to go with the style used in the bulk of the references. However, if that is against the style of the primary editors, I think flexibility that moves the article forward is better than continued debate and delay.  It's hard on Wikipedia to reach a compromise on an issue.  However, it would be nice sometimes to see people weigh how much it matters and in what way.
 * I would be glad to add a brief discussion on the geological setting and its relevance to this particular eruption if editors want to pursue FA. Let me know.  --KP Botany (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
I started reading this article, having to write about a volcanic eruption purely from geology (probably doing Lassen), and looking around, and I have to say the first paragraph and the lead section overall are very well written--the first paragraph in particular. I'll read the rest at I get the time (while looking at other volcanoes), but good job for writing a coherent lead paragraph that touches all the bases accurately geology, history, culture and the questionable. --KP Botany (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the GA process was helpful in doing that. When I have time, I would like to FA this article, but with edit warring over BC/BCE, it's not going to happen.  I'm also trying to find THE definitive citation that clarifies the dates of eruption and how they may have affected world's civilization.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin - The age of the eruption there are several sources in the scientific journals viz: Science, J. Geol. Soc. London, GSA. The term BC/AD is rarely used by volcanologists and geologists - we also eve more rarely use the term BCE/CE - BC means Before Christ, AD Anno Dominii - The year of the lord, CE and BCE are often interpreted as meaning CHRISTIAN ERA and BEFORE CHRISTIAN ERA. Hence we use BP - Before Present but more commonly we use ka, ma and ga to mean thousands of years, millions of years and billions of years. There seems to be a lot of histrionics both in the actual article and this talk page by people who seem to be entrenched in their views. This is neither useful to the article or those who seek knowledge. Geologists and volcanologists commonly refer to the Santorini eruption as the Minoan eruption whilst archaelogists refer to it as the Bronze age or Minoan. Dating by archaelogists has been by the usual methods they use, whilst the geological community have used a much more robust method - radiometric dating. I am a volcanologist and unlike many on here whom I suspect have never set foot on the island I have spent many long hours working on the volcano. So if you need assistance etc, post on here and I'll get back to you.

Biblical traditions
I excised most of this section because it lacked sources and read like an opinion piece in the newspaper. The only two sentences that had references remain untouched, although the last would benefit from a little "tweaking" to minimize repetition. Sorry to delete someone's good faith efforts, but it seemed entirely OR and speculative. Frankly, I'm not sure the section itself belongs at all, but I'll leave it for now. Doc  Tropics  17:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

After removing the speculative material and reviewing what's left, I think it should all go. The first sentence disproves its own assertion, and the second isn't supported by its cite: very specifically, Humphreys clearly identifies Mt. Sinai in his paper, not Thera. Removing this section will actually improve the article's overall quality and credibility. Doc  Tropics  21:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the material should be reworked, but I don't believe it should all go. If we have nothing on the subject, someone will probably come along and add something worse than what you've deleted. Also we now mention this briefly in the lead section without expanding on it below. -- Avenue (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone adds something worse, the proper response is to delete it. 90% of what I removed was unsourced OR with no refs at all. Of the two refs provided, one flat-out contradicted the text it was supposed to support, and the other indicated that there was no probable relationship between biblical passages and the eruption. In other words...the section contained absolutely no useful, verifiable information. In the absence of reliable sources it's not appropriate to include any of it. Thanks for pointing out that mention in the lede, I'll fix it. Thanks as well for bringing your ideas to the talkpage. Doc  Tropics  01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The refs in the lede relate specifically to how the storm was percieved in Egypt, they do not mention Exodus at all, so I removed that portion of the text as well. Doc  Tropics  01:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC):
 * Is it too much to ask that the people who contribute to this thing should be able to express themselves without making multiple spelling mistakes?--79.78.155.219 (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks please, and if you are referring to 'lede', that is not a spelling mistake. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What does 'lede' mean? It doesn't appear in the Oxford dictionary - see section heading above this one--Mountwolseley (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEDE and in particular lede and also and  for a lot of references to its use in journalism. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignore me
"...impacted the coastal areas of Crete and may have severely devastated the Minoan coastal settlements..."

Or may, on the other hand, have only mildly devastated them. 190.45.183.236 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Two notable eruptions?
According to Welwei: Griechische Frühzeit (C.H.Beck, 2002), there were possibly two notable eruptions of Thera: one perhaps around 1650 B.C.E (implications are unclear, but it may have been the reason why Minoan palaces were destroyed around that time, although they were rebuilt later) and another around 1450 B.C.E (possibly the reason for the Minoans' final downfall.) It doesn't look like the article reflects this; should it be modified? Tropical wind (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know of anyone else arguing that there were two eruptions, so I'd hesitate to put this in the article. It seems like a desperate conjecture to come up with a scenario that incorporates both radiocarbon dating and the idea that the eruption caused the collapse of Minoan civilization. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If there were two eruptions, then there would be volcanological evidence for such, and that evidence would be described in the literature. It isn't. 86.158.74.226 (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

New Size
Within the text you can read: With an estimated DRE in excess of 60 km3, the volume of ejecta was approximately 100 km3. But in my opinion the both sources are not compatible. Normally the Tephra Volume ist 2.2 to 2.8 times greater the the DRE Volume (remember pumice floats on water). So a Tephra Volume of 130 to 160 should be reasonable? Is ther no original comment n that from Sigurdsson availible? Thanks --Sextant2 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Provide reliable sources that support your statements, and we can make the change. The numbers are from the reliable sources used. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought about this some more. DRE is an actual measurement, while VEI is an estimate.  Now since this eruption happened in 1600's BCE, both are estimates.  If it was an order of magnitude off, I'd have an issue.  But not now. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * First af all, yes, GVP is a reliable source, but you are not shure, that their value depends on the new estimate from Sigurdsson (2006), or from the older Value, that was 40 km³ DRE, whitch fits better. So I found with www.archive.org an GVP Webpage from 2004, where the same Value (99 km³) was recordet.
 * Second: In the Encyclopedia of Volcanoes Page 264 you can read the different densities of molten rock (2300 to 2700 kg/m³) and tephra (600 to 800 kg/m³).
 * Third: the calculation from DRE to Tephra or vice versa must be done by the same author, because of the specific mix of Pumice, Ash, Ignimbrit and so on. --Sextant2 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Tell el-Dab'a Pumice
I have edited the snippet on the Tell el-Dab'a pumice which grossly misstated both the time line of the discovery - it implied it was post- the carbon dating, and the definitiveness of the date. It was also manifestly unencyclopediac in tone and quite frankly read like someone with an axe to grind inserting material into the page, based on a secondary source who also has an axe to grind. The dating of the pumice is based on a relationship to a floating chronology and not based on the specific site per se because the radio-carbon dates for the site are highly problematic because of a lack of clear stratigraphic reduction. Present consensus is that the archeological floating chronology supports a date of 1570 BCE for the workshop, with the radio carbon date within error bands of the dating, not 1540. And 1540 isn't the traditional date for Thera, merely closer to it.

The arguments over this particular sample had been particularly nasty in the scholarly literature, with ample, and unseemly, name calling. However the consensus has moved beyond the name calling and towards a range of reconcilable dates. Wikipedia should do likewise.

24.128.152.92 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Dating
The biblical traditions of the exodus were written down some 500 years after the events and must have inevitabvly become garblod and sequence of events changed.

In his book on the subject Phillips avances a plausible explanation that the biblical story of the plagues could be the after effects of the eruption of Santorini and dated to the reign of Akhenaton. The worship of the sun encouraged by the sun blotted out by the cloud of dust thrown up by the Santorini eruption.AT Kunene (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Section on Dissent
This section is confusing. It states that archaeological studies suggest a later date for the eruption, but out of the three citations, 41 is a dead link, 42 argues for an earlier date, and 43 is to a book to which I do not have access. A new edit today accepts the conventional date, and therefore seems misplaced in the dissent section.

By the way, the link in the new citation 44 does not work because the url has a | in it, which 'cite book' treats as an unknown parameter. Is there a way round this? I came across the same problem today, and had to resort to using the [ ] method of citing instead. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Something must have been broken as I've had that problem twice today and haven't been able to fix it. Yes, I meant to do further work on this - we need to reword the section and the section heading. Any suggestions? Kevin Lawson, the author of the new book, does say that this to is the most debated event in Mediterranean archaeology. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems odd to have a sub-section headed Dissent when the whole section is on the controversy. I would suggest deleting it. Citations 42 and 44 could be used elsewhere, but I do not know about Warren's 2006 book at 43. A key question is whether archaeologists still maintain the late date, and I cannot see any citations which establish this point. Walsh cites Warren in 1996 as dating the eruption to 1520 BCE. Is this the same Warren maintaining the same view in 2006, and is he an archaeologist or a scientist? I hope your further work can clarify current thinking. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren is Professor Peter Warren BA(Wales), MA, PhD(Cantab), FSA, FBA Senior Research Fellow in Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Bristol. This looks interesting although maybe outdated. Ah - a 2012 paper. No time now to read it though, sorry. Over to you. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have had a go. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, at least it's a lot more uptodate. Of course there are a couple of related articles that need this.... Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Recorded history" in the intro
The eruption is not recorded in any texts that we have from the area, so this is not "recorded history." I propose dropping this phrase. Thoughts? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, Minoan civilization as such is kind of borderline historic/prehistoric; it depends some on what definition of "prehistoric" one is using and also, if you're asking a historian or an archaeologist. The whole region around the coasts of the eastern mediterranean had entered the light of history by the 18th/17th csentury BC. In Egypt and present-day Syria and Iraq (mesopotamia) there was continuous use of writing and the areas in between - Palestine, Asia Minor, Crete etc - were at least steadily in touch with those high urbanized cultures, so they were under observation by the Egyptians et al., even if they didn't produce any major written texts by themselves.


 * According to a French academic definition, "prehistory stops with the first written document". There are some written inscriptions from Minoan Crete, though we are not yet able to read them, and the whole region was within the compass of literate cultures. The phrase "within recorded history" seems to refer to a particular age in a certain region (here: the Eastern Med realm of cultures) having made use of writing in general, it doesn't mean that every event we're discussing (or most events) has to have been recorded in writing. If we put it that way, then both Minoan Crete and the later Mycaenean and Hittite empires fall within history, not prehistory. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)