Cited by 13Tree-ring climate responsesArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesGeology and Paleoclimatology Research

Annual 14C Tree-Ring Data Around 400 AD: Mid- and High-Latitude Records

Open access
Friedrich, Ronny, Kromer, Bernd, Sirocko, Frank, Esper, Jan, Lindauer, Susanne, Nievergelt, Daniel, Heussner, Karl Uwe, Westphal, Thorsten·2019·Radiocarbon

Abstract

Two tree-ring series, one from a high-latitude pine tree (located in northern Scandinavia) and one from a mid-latitude oak tree (located in eastern Germany) were analyzed for radiocarbon (14 C) at annual resolution. The new records cover the calendar date ranges 290–460 AD and 382–486 AD, respectively, overlapping by 79 yr. The series show similar trends as IntCal13. However, some significant deviations around 400 AD are present with lower Δ 14 C (higher 14 C ages). An average offset between the two new series and IntCal13 of about 20 years in conventional 14 C age is observed. A latitudinal 14 C offset between the tree sites in central and northern Europe, as would be expected due to the relatively large spatial distance, is not recorded, however. Periodic changes in the 14 C records are resolved that can be attributed to the “11-year” solar cycle (Schwabe cycle) with cycle length from 9 to 11 years. The magnitude of changes in Δ 14 C due to the solar cycle is between 1.5 and 3‰. Since solar cyclicity is only partially synchronous between the two new series, reasons for asynchronicity are explored.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/rdc.2019.34

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • The Mediterranean cases reviewed suggest an AMS 14C-to-LLGPC difference of about half the larger level (or less), while other comparisons are mixed and some are close to zero.

    “However, despite some data suggesting larger AMS 14C–to–LLGPC differences of around this level (10, 12, 13), the Mediterranean cases reviewed above only suggest a difference of about half this level (or less), other comparisons are mixed, and some are even close to zero (see above).”

    From Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory (2020) · cites this paper as [10]

    The cited paper supports the sentence’s point that AMS measurements can show a larger offset: General Trends and IntCal13 (p. 1310) reports differences of 22 and 23 radiocarbon years between its AMS tree-ring records and IntCal13. It does not identify those differences as a direct AMS-to-LLGPC comparison. The Mediterranean, mixed, and near-zero comparisons are not the part of the sentence to which this citation is attached. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Annual data for 290-486 AD (1660-1464 cal BP) have provided improved resolution of the IntCal raw data.

    “Annual data for the period 290 -486 AD (1660 -1464 cal BP) (Friedrich et al. 2019) have also provided improved resolution of the IntCal raw data.”

    From The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP) (2020) · cites this paper as Friedrich et al. 2019

  • In several instances including this one, detailed new measurements of time intervals with AMS 14C have indicated slightly older 14C ages.

    “As noted, in several instances including this one, detailed new measurements of time intervals with AMS 14C have indicated slightly older 14C ages1,2,10,38,39,43–48.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Friedrich, R., Kromer, B., Sirocko, F., Esper, J., Lindauer, S., Nievergelt, D., Heussner, K. U., & Westphal, T.
Affiliations
  • Curt Engelhorn Centre Archaeometry (DE)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (CH)
  • Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Zentrale (DE)
Corresponding author
Friedrich, Ronny
Venue
Radiocarbon
Published
2019-04-30
Volume
61
Issue
5
Pages
1305-1316
ISSN
  • 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-5755
OpenAlex
W2943552603
Cited by
13
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
  • DORA WSL (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Tree-ring climate responses
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
Keywords
11-year solar cycle, early Middle Ages, northern Scandinavia, Eastern Germany

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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