Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2350 BC Middle East Anomaly

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and rename. A couple of options below were thrown about, but nothing concrete reached. I will leave to normal editorial processes to execute said move (either via being bold and just doing it, or a requested move) once a target is pinpointed. Daniel (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2350 BC Middle East Anomaly

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The source is published by British Archaeological Reports[1] which should mean its reputable, but as it is a collection of papers from the Second Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Cambridge Conference, and SIS is a Velikovskian group[2] I'm pretty dubious. I don't see the term used in mainstream publications or at least when it is with a reference to the SIS report, and I'm not convinced it's used in mainstream academia. For instance, Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse doesn't seem to mention it. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Umm al Binni lake. From what I can gather (although not exactly an in-depth look) this is one hypothesis about the origin of this structure, but not the most likely one. So worth mention but not a standalone article. After recent edits the target article now seems to do a good job of laying out the discourse. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The below comments make a good case that this should not be a simple redirect. I like Paul H.'s approach of refocusing the article on the parent topic (as it were). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. ~~Delete~~. In my opinion, the evidence is mixed. I do not see the failure to include it in the 1994 volume cited above as suspicious as it appears to be an idea which has emerged since then. The 1998 volume and its lead editor, Peiser, are fringe, see [3]. However, the author of the 1998 article, Courty, does not seem fringe. His name gets 49 hits in the 1994 volume. I do not think that the idea is fringe, although it appears to have received some fringe support. A source which supports a climate anomaly at 2350 BC but not specifically Middle East, which is an RS so far as I can judge, is Why we shouldn’t ignore the mid-24th century BC when discussing the 2200-2000 BC climate anomaly. However, a single source is not sufficient for notability, so I would not at present oppose deletion. Further evidence may well emerge to justify an article with a title such as Mid-24th century BCE climate anomaly.

The redirect to Umm al Binni lake is not helpful to readers. It now mentions 2350 but just cites the 1998 article and a google search, neither of which are reliable sources. The mention of the lake is in any case just a peripheral speculation about a possible site which for some reason seems to be wrongly regarded by some editors as the main topic of the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Umm al Binni lake. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The best source I can find on the anomaly at [4] does not mention Umm al Binni lake and is mainly on Irish tree rings. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why also? None of the sources that I consulted mention Umm al Binni lake. Paul H. (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Revise. ~~Delete~~. This article conflates two different hypothesis. The first hypothesis is about a climate anomaly about 4,200 BP (2,200 BC). This hypothesis is discussed by several peer-reviewed publications (papers and at least one book chapter). The second and final hypothesis is that this climate anomaly was caused by an extrerrestrial impact. The second hypothesis involves Dr. Marie-Agnes Courty arguing that a dust layer accumulated across the Middle East “...after а disruption of sшfaсе soils, possibly caused by а shock wave well-documented in archaeological sites...” There are published papers and book chapters about this hypothesis by Dr. Marie-Agnes Courty and proponents of coherent catastrophism, e.g. W. Bruce Masse, Mike Baillie and others. I suggest that the article and possibly title be revised to focus on the climate anomaly with only a brief mention of the impact hypothesis as only one of various hypotheses proposed to explain the climate anomaly without giving it undue weight.

The references that I found for both are:

1. References for the 4,200 BP / 4.2 ka Climate Anomaly / 4.2 ka Megadrought

Note: PDFs of many of the below publications can found online.

Baillie, M. and McAneney, J., 2015. Why we should not ignore the mid-24th century bc when discussing the 2200–2000 BC climate anomaly. 2200 BC—Ein Klimasturz als Ursache für den Zerfall der Alten Welt? 2200 BC—A Climatic Breakdown as a Cause for the Collapse of the Old World, pp.23-26.

Carolin, S.A., Walker, R.T., Day, C.C., Ersek, V., Sloan, R.A., Dee, M.W., Talebian, M. and Henderson, G.M., 2019. Precise timing of abrupt increase in dust activity in the Middle East coincident with 4.2 ka social change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(1), pp.67-72.

Cookson, E., Hill, D.J. and Lawrence, D., 2019. Impacts of long term climate change during the collapse of the Akkadian Empire. Journal of Archaeological Science, 106, pp.1-9.

Weiss, H., 2016. Global megadrought, societal collapse and resilience at 4.2–3.9 ka BP across the Mediterranean and west Asia. PAGES, 24(2), pp.62-63.

Weiss, H., 2017. 4.2 ka BP Megadrought and the Akkadian Collapse. Megadrought and collapse: From early agriculture to Angkor, pp.93-160.

2. References discussing extrerrestrial impact hypothesis

Baillie, M.G.L., 2007a. The case for significant numbers of extraterrestrial impacts through the late Holocene. Journal of Quaternary Science: Published for the Quaternary Research Association, 22(2), pp.101-109.

Baillie, M.G.L., 2007b. Tree-rings indicate global environmental downturns that could have been caused by comet debris. In Comet/asteroid impacts and human society (pp. 105-122). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Courty, M.-A., 1997. Causes And Effects Of The 2350 BC Middle East Anomaly Evidenced By Micro-debris Fallout, Surface Combustion And Soil Explosion Presented at the SIS Conference: Natural Catastrophes during Bronze Age Civilisations (11th-13th July 1997) (abstract)

Courty, M.-A., 1998a. Causes and effects of the 2350 BC Middle East anomaly evidenced by micro-debris fallout, surface combustion and soil explosion. Natural Catastrophes During Bronze Age Civilisations: Archaeological, Geological, Astronomical and Cultural Perspectives. British Archaeological Reports-S728, Archaeopress, Oxford. (not accessed, likely a mangled citation for Courty 1998b, below)

Courty M.-A. 1998b. The soil record of an exceptional event at 4000 BP in the Middle East. In: Peiser BJ, Palmer T, Bailey ME (eds) Natural catastrophes during Bronze Age civilizations: archaeological, geological, astronomical, and cultural perspectives. BAR International Series 728, Archaeopress, Ox- ford, pp 93–108

Courty M.-A. 2001. Evidence at Tell Brak for the Late EDIII/Early Akkadian Air Blast Event (4 kyr BP). In: Oates D, Oates J, McDonald H (eds) Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium BC. McDonald Institute for Archaeology/British School of Archaeology in Iraq, London, pp 367–372.

Courty, M.-A., Crisci, A., Fedoroff, M., Grice, K., Greenwood, P., Mermoux, M., Smith, D. and Thiemens, M., 2008. Regional manifestation of the widespread disruption of soil-landscapes by the 4 kyr BP impact-linked dust event using pedo-sedimentary micro-fabrics. In New trends in soil micromorphology (pp. 211-236). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Masse, W.B., 2007. The archaeology and anthropology of Quaternary period cosmic impact. In Comet/asteroid impacts and human society (pp. 25-70). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

3. Web page

Dossier météorites > Sur les traces d'un impact d'astéroïde il y a 4000 ans > Un astéroïde a-t’il percuté La Terre à l'époque des pyramides ? Paul H. (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have an article about the 4.2-kiloyear event which is well covered in numerous sources. The 2350 BC Middle East Anomaly explicitly refers to a different (putative) event. –Austronesier (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Only Courty (1997) calls it the "2350 BC Middle East Anomaly". In Courty (1998b) and thereafter, she moved the "2350 BC Middle East Anomaly" event to 4000 BP. Baillie and McAneney (2015) designates their event as the "2200–2000 BC climate anomaly", which groups both events together as one. Finally, Carolin et al. (2091), above, gives the duration of the 4.2 ka event being from 4.26 ka to 3.97 ka, which also means that there is only one instead of two events. Given whether calibrated versus uncalibrated radiocarbon dates are being used and the magnitude of the sigma on them, a difference of 200 years might very well be meaningless. But her event is a regional "airblast." Paul H. (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baillie and McAneney do not group the two events as one. They mention the 2200-2000 BC event and then say "However, it might be unwise to ignore the precisely dated, abrupt environmental downturn that occurs some 150 years earlier." They are using dendro dating, which does not have the same problems as radiocarbon. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep (and rename). User:Dudley Miles has made a good point that the hypothesis about this climate anomaly is not solely linked to Umm-al-Binni-related musings. But I also agree that if only based on the paper by Baille & McAneney (which is about a "growth downturn" observed in Irish and English oak tree rings "spanning 2354 BC to 2345 BC with hints of inundation", paired with wildly literalist speculations, check out e.g. the Annals of the Four Masters stuff on p. 837 of their paper), this is probably not enough for establishing independent notability. –Austronesier (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is almost entirely based on conference abstracts, which do not substantiate notability. It's not clear what the supposed renamed article would be titled or about. We already have an article on the 4.2-kiloyear event regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and Austronesier. I am changing my vote to "delete" as it based on Courty's publications with not enough published detailed analysis and research in addition to Courty's than her to establishing independent notability. Paul H. (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep (and rename) Per Dudley Miles' arguments. There seem to be several sources about a climate anomaly in this era, but they do not limit it to the Middle East. If kept, the article would need a change in scope. Dimadick (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename -- We have clear evidence of a catastrophic event, published in a reliable source. Archaeopress is a reputable archaeological publisher and would not publish unsubstantiated material. There is clearly a dispute as to the interpretation of the event, whether it was volcanic or an air blast, but that is a matter of legitimate academic debate. We have an article on a 4.2 kiloyear event, but that is explicitly 200 years earlier. The first source places this at about 4000 years BP (=2350/2300 BC). This coincides with an event detected dendrochonology (which is fully precise); Baillie is an expert in this field. I would suggest as a name 2350 BC climatic event or 4.0 kiloyear climatic event. I prefer the former. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with keep and rename per the deep dive of sources by multiple users above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Dudley Miles, Dimadick, Peterkingiron, Caleb Stanford, and Austronesier: do any of you have sources that will give us a title complying with WP:COMMONNAME? Because Google Scholar doesn't seem to back any of the suggested names. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having supported delete I am moving towards keep but rename in the light of the discussion. Courty does seem RS and there is also the source I cited above, Baillie and McAneney, Why we shouldn’t ignore the mid-24th century BC when discussing the 2200-2000 BC climate anomaly. This is mentioned in a review article at [5], p. 182, which only mentions 2350 in passing but treats it as a fact. As Doug points out, there does not seem to be a name which complies with commonname. I like my suggestion of Mid-24th century BCE climate anomaly as clear for readers, unlike the vague and obscure 4.2-kiloyear event, but other editors may of course have better suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dudley Miles - I also having supported delete, I am move "...towards keep but rename in the light of the discussion." Paul H. (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.