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 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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accesdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help){{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)That has not been peer reviewed, it is a press release and the peer reviews indicate a VEI of ~7.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.
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)
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.
(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)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.
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)
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)
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]
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)
See BBC News article.-- JyriL talk 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 last line of this subsec (under "Historical impact") has an associated ref, and currently reads:
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)
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)
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)
I disagree with the edits of Drieakko for the following reasons:
Those are my opinions. Orangemarlin 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In "physical effects of the eruption", the end of the third para reads thus:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions:
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)
I would like to propose / suggest the addition of 2 new sections:
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)
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#VEI -- Dspark76 ( talk) 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
'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)
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)
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 [[ [8]] 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)
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)
I've reviewed all the above as a result of a Wikiquette alert and would like to note the following:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
"...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)
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)
Within the text you can read: With an estimated DRE in excess of 60 km3 (14 cu mi), the volume of ejecta was approximately 100 km3 (24 cu mi). 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accesdate=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help){{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)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.
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)
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.
(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)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.
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)
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)
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]
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)
See BBC News article.-- JyriL talk 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 last line of this subsec (under "Historical impact") has an associated ref, and currently reads:
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)
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)
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)
I disagree with the edits of Drieakko for the following reasons:
Those are my opinions. Orangemarlin 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In "physical effects of the eruption", the end of the third para reads thus:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions:
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)
I would like to propose / suggest the addition of 2 new sections:
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)
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#VEI -- Dspark76 ( talk) 13:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
'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)
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)
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 [[ [8]] 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)
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)
I've reviewed all the above as a result of a Wikiquette alert and would like to note the following:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
"...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)
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)
Within the text you can read: With an estimated DRE in excess of 60 km3 (14 cu mi), the volume of ejecta was approximately 100 km3 (24 cu mi). 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)