Talk:1257 Samalas eruption/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Source suggestion

Take a look at this, which mentions the spike pre-identification; it mentions Milcent as the core which is not the same as Crete. If I get time I'll try to dig into this and see what is going on with the underlying core data. There might be something else useful in the paper; haven't had time to go through it in detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

And this, which it cites, appears to be specifically about Samalas, so that should be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I just tried searching for papers citing that last one that included "1259": this link should work. I think these need to be looked at. Some are probably already cited in the article, but not all of them -- e.g. this might be worth mentioning as an apparent mis-identification of the volcano, and this is specifically about calculating the ash transport from the eruption. This looks worth reading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie:. Huh. Interesting. I might be able to field something about these tomorrow - I also have a brief list of sources that refer to the eruption as Rinjani to perlustrate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Specifically this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Milcent core I am thinking that that publication does not say that the 1257 mystery layer was discovered in it, just that it was dated to 1259 in that core. Regarding [1], I dunno it looks like most of the interesting information is already in the article. I've requested the other two sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The Okataina article is chiefly an article about the dating of the Kaharoa eruption and the wider implications of volcanism and world history, the "gag order" article is mostly a comment/complaint about News embargos in science. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there’s some usable material. For example, from Langway, Clausen, & Hammer, I think we could give the locations and dates of the cores used for the analysis, and mention that the volcano was thought to be equatorial, north of the equator. Less important, but a nice touch, would be to assemble the data they give in figs 1-9 into a single graph (since we can use colour coding) to show the superimposed signal (though looking again that might not be doable as the horizontal axes aren’t simple years. Still, picking one and reproducing it would be easy; currently the article doesn’t have any of the data or graphs used to identify it.

I’m currently visiting friends so I only have an iPad with me and don’t want to do complicated editing, but I can have a go at adding some of this material when I get back if you like. I know it’s at FAC so will preview anything I add here before putting it in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: At the risk of jumping the gun, I've added a bit of material from that source. Having a graph would be nice, but I don't have any graph-making skills whatsoever. Do you know someone who can write them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I should be able to put something together later this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie:You know, a question that I should have asked much sooner: Many of these sources do not explicitly discuss Samalas, they merely discuss the tephra layer/sulfate spike/climate consequences of the 1257/1258/1259 eruption that was later attributed to Samalas. Should we put in a note to clarify this somewhere? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I would think it’s mostly obvious from context — in the section talking about research history the whole point is that it’s not yet known where the volcano is. When I get back home this week I will read through and see if can find anything that needs clarification but I suspect it’s OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

The problem is when these sources say something like "The El Nino caused by the 1258 eruption of an unknown volcano broke a centuries long drought in the Western USA". Two other sources discussing this are [2] and [3]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Another thing I just realized that there is another thing I was wondering about: This source says in Lake Malawi sediments (1°S, 34.5°E), as a thickash layer of age within dating uncertainties (100 yr)of 1258 A.D. (T. C. Johnson 2006, personal communication). This source says something similar. Would these be OK sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Research history notes

Jo-Jo, I've put together some notes about the research history in a sandbox. The part below the white space in the sandbox is the existing article text, with the citations converted to inline so it's easier to see where the information is drawn from. The part above the white space is a rough draft of a revision, though it's missing some information from the lower half. A couple of points about the changes:

• I think the existing text gets the sequence wrong. I am confident now that the sequence is like this: Hammer invents the conductivity method (1977) and finds the spike in the Crête and Camp Century cores (1980). Langway (1988) then finds the spike in Antarctic cores, demonstrating it must be a huge equatorial eruption. At this point there's no chronicle evidence and no climatic evidence (Zielinski 1995, and I think Oppenheimer 2003 cite Zielinski to make this point too). Then starting in 1998 some climatic evidence appears (listed by Oppenheimer) and in 2000 Stothers publishes the chronicle evidence. The current article text gives the chronicle, climate, and ice core data as if they were basically contemporary; I think this needs to be rephrased.
• I don't yet have Palais 1992 which is one of the two articles by Palais supporting El Chichón as a candidate; I have Palais 1990. I think these are worth citing as they are repeatedly mentioned by everyone up to Lavigne as the source for the suggestion of El Chichón.
• I list Langway 1988 where you list "Hammer, Clausen & Langway 1988"; it's the same paper, I just followed the order of authors at the top of the paper.
• I've included some text at the start explaining Hammer's method; I think this is worth it as it clarifies for the reader why it is not until after 1977 that this analysis is possible, and the method is not explained prior to this point.
• I'd suggest dropping the New Scientist piece, or at least making sure you supplement it with another cite for anything you use it for; it's a summarizing piece and doesn't give the sequence, which I think is a main part of the interest of the "Research history" section.

Note that I am not suggesting you replace any of your text with mine; as I said, you've got some additional material I don't have. I think I've put together enough material that it can now be integrated with what's there; I didn't want to go further without getting your take on it. I've cited inline; you probably know or have most of the papers I cited, but let me know if you're missing anything and I can send it to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Oof, thanks. In its current form the whole section is not entirely chronological; the first paragraph contains all the information in one piece. I figure a chronological reordering may be warranted, a couple of points:

• There is a fair amount of sources that discuss El Chichón as a candidate volcano; I figure that most of them are second hand sources, so I would not necessarily consider it important which one is used, but preferred would be one that also discusses Samalas such as Lavigne et al. 2013.
• Hammer's method is probably more suited for a footnote; I'd consider it a bit overly detailed to be in main text.
• I've noticed that Citoid and refToolbar often give a different order of authors than the source itself; perhaps that's why you get Langway 1988.
• The proposed text is a bit WP:PROSELINE-y.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any of my text be used as such -- I just wrote it out to convince myself that I had the material correctly sourced and chronological. So long as the reader understands that the sequence was ice core in Greenland, then ice core in Antarctica, then climate records, then chronicles, I don't care whether you use my text or not -- I just don't think the current text makes that clear. Agree that Hammer's method can be a footnote, and I agree the suggestion of El Chichón doesn't need to be cited to everyone who mentions it, but I do think it's worth mentioning Palais (perhaps in a footnote) as the source of the suggestion and giving the date of her papers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

S'OK. I'll see if I can get a source check squeezed in tomorrow in between the new (old) sources for African humid period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Coming back to this: I am a little undecided on whether to chronologizing that section, but that's probably because I've been working on a different article over the past week. I think the proseline aspect would need to be resolved, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't have to be strictly chronological. My concern is more that it's actively misleading -- at the moment a reader would conclude that the medieval chronicle data and the ice core data came along at the same time. They also wouldn't see that it was eight years before the Antarctic data confirmed that it must be a global event, nor that it was nearly 20 years before climate studies (e.g. tree rings) showed a possible climatic impact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: OK, I shall see to implement some ordering tomorrow in the in-article section unless you get there first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've rewritten the text a bit, does the chronology look less misleading now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

That's definitely better. I would suggest citing Zielinski 1995, "Stratospheric loading and optical depth of explosive volcanism over the last 2100 years", to say that initially there was little supporting climatic evidence and no supporting historical evidence, but in 2000 Stothers demonstrates support in the chronicles and at around the same time climatic evidence begins to be found -- Oppenheimer has the details and cites both Zielinski and Stothers. I also think it's worth saying that it's not until 1988 that Langway demonstrates that it's definitely a global event; up to the 1988 paper it could have been a northern hemisphere event. I think those dates are helpful to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Did a bit more changes, but I have a problem with the dates - I am thinking it's a bit WP:OR to infer them from the publication dates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to go to work in a few minutes, so am out of time, but Oppenheimer's discussion of Zielinski and Stothers I recall as being fairly explicit about the sequence of events and dates -- IIRC he actually says that Stothers is the first to find chronicle evidence, and he cites Zielinski's paper to say that there was little climatic evidence at that time and then gives cites and dates for later discoveries of climatic evidence. For the Antarctic evidence I'm sure I've seen multiple citations to Langway 1988 as the first to demonstrate it was a global event; if you can't quickly find a cite for that I'll look tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Aye, Oppenheimer 2003 has some dates; I've added them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

St Mary Spital skeletons

In 1999 to 2002 Museum of London Archaeology Service excavated over 10,000 skeletons at St. Mary Spital. Many of them were radiocarbon dated to a famine in the late 1250s and in 2012 attributed to the Samalas eruption. This is covered in the article in the sentence "A mass burial of famine victims was found in the 1990s in the centre of London." I think this is worth a bit more context but the only online source I have access to is a 2013 New Scientist article at [4]. This says "The magnitude of the calamity came into vivid focus last year when researchers from the Museum of London Archaeology released details of their excavation of more than 10,500 skeletons from mass graves at St Mary Spital, a former medieval monastery in London. Radiocarbon dating of the bones indicated that the majority belonged to people who had perished in the wake of crop failures from late 1257 to 1260." This seems to me accurate but there is dispute whether New Scientist is a reliable source. Any views on adding to our article based on NS? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That New Scientist article is already cited in this article (Hamilton 2013), actually. I did minimize the coverage of the London skeletons mainly because of undue weight concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Eruption date

​I see that the infobox currently states that the eruption took place around "1257 Jul 1 ± 90 days" citing this source but the article text endorses a date around September. The GVP source does not explain how it comes to that conclusion while the article text source here does. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)