The olive branch chronology stands irrespective of tree-ring counting
Abstract
Cherubini et al. (above) question the reliability of identifying annual growth increments in olive trees, and therefore voice caution against the result of the wiggle-match of the four sections of a branch of an olive tree to the 14 C calibration curve. Friedrich et al. (2006) were well aware of the problematic density structure of olive trees, and therefore assigned rather wide error margins of up to 50 per cent to the ring count. This still resulted in a late seventeenth century BC youngest date for the modelled age range of the outermost section of wood (95.4% probability). One can even remove any constraint from ring counting altogether and model the four radial sections as a simple ordered sequence, in which only the relative position is used as prior information, in other words that outer sections are younger than inner ones in a radial section.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Calibrated age distributions based on radiocarbon determinations of materials buried by eruption deposits place the Thera eruption around 1600 BCE.
“persistent differences between the calibrated age distributions based on radiocarbon (14C) determinations of materials buried by eruption deposits9–13, placing the eruption around 1600 BCE”
From Olive shrub buried on Therasia supports a mid-16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption (2023) · cites this paper as [10]
We are neither able to treat the four dated blocks sampled from the Santorini olive branch as corresponding to a precise known number of annual growth bands, nor consider the reported internal-age gaps between these four blocks as exact.
“As a consequence, it has been recognised10 that we are neither able to treat the four dated blocks sampled from the Santorini olive branch as corresponding to a precise known number of annual growth bands, nor consider the reported internal-age gaps between these four blocks as exact.”
From Olive shrub buried on Therasia supports a mid-16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption (2023) · cites this paper as [10]
The most recently published and widely agreed modeling scenario for the Santorini olive branch, which presents a simple ordered sequence of older to younger wood, results in a 2 sigma range of 1614-1538 cal BCE for the outermost wood sample relative to ICCP17.
“The most recently published ( 13 ) and widely agreed modeling scenario, which does not attempt to argue yearly growth, but rather presents a simple ordered sequence of older wood to younger wood, results in a 2 s range of 1614 -1538 cal BCE for the outermost wood sample relative to ICCP17 (Table 1).”
From Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption (2018) · cites this paper as [13]
These radiocarbon estimates place the Thera eruption in the second half of the 17th century BCE.
“These estimates place the eruption in the second half of the 17th century BCE ( 9 , 13 ).”
From Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption (2018) · cites this paper as [13]
The end Boundary for the olive branch Sequence is regarded as the estimate for the date of the outermost growth increment and so the date for, or very close TPQ for, the Thera eruption.
“The end Boundary for the Sequence is regarded as the estimate for the date of the outermost growth increment of the original branch/tree and so the date for, or very close TPQ for, the Thera eruption (that likely killed and buried the tree [80, 81, 146])”
From Second Intermediate Period date for the Thera (Santorini) eruption and historical implications (2022) · cites this paper as [146]
The wood segments 14C-dated across the olive branch from Thera in [80] come from a growth node and progress from older to more recent in a temporal sequence.
“The wood segments 14 C-dated across the olive branch from Thera in [80] come from a growth node (see [80] at Fig 1), and thus not only progress from older to more recent in a temporal sequence [80,81,146]”
From Second Intermediate Period date for the Thera (Santorini) eruption and historical implications (2022) · cites this paper as [146]
Cites
Santorini Eruption Radiocarbon Dated to 1627-1600 B.C.
Friedrich, W. L., Kromer, B., Friedrich, M., Heinemeier, J., Pfeiffer, T., & Talamo, S. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1125087 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Self-citationRadiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt
Ramsey, C. B., Dee, M. W., Rowland, J. M., Higham, T. F. G., Harris, S. A., Brock, F., Quiles, A., Wild, E. M., Marcus, E. S., & Shortland, A. J. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1189395 · Cited by 246 · cited 2× · see citing works
“They observe that the generally good agreement between 14C dating and the Egyptian historical chronology (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010) cannot be quoted here, because the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries are not covered in that model (Kutschera et al. 2012: fig.”
BackgroundKutschera, W., Bietak, M., Wild, E. M., Ramsey, C. B., Dee, M., Golser, R., Kopetzky, K., Stadler, P., Steier, P., Thanheiser, U., et al. (2012) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200047172 · Cited by 58 · cited 2× · see citing works
“They observe that the generally good agreement between 14C dating and the Egyptian historical chronology (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010) cannot be quoted here, because the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries are not covered in that model (Kutschera et al. 2012: fig.”
BackgroundThe Date of the Minoan Santorini Eruption: Quantifying the “Offset”
Höflmayer, F. (2012) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200047196 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Manning, S. W., & Kromer, B. (2012) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200047202 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Self-citationRadiocarbon Anomalies from Old CO<sub>2</sub> in the Soil and Canopy Air
Soter, S. (2011) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200034354 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption
Pearson, C. L., Brewer, P. W., Brown, D., Heaton, T. J., Hodgins, G. W. L., Jull, A. J. T., Lange, T., & Salzer, M. W. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar8241 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Manning, S. W., Höflmayer, F., Moeller, N., Dee, M. W., Ramsey, C. B., Fleitmann, D., Higham, T., Kutschera, W., & Wild, E. M. (2014) · Antiquity · doi:10.1017/s0003598x00115388 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory
Manning, S. W., Kromer, B., Cremaschi, M., Dee, M. W., Friedrich, R., Griggs, C., & Hadden, C. S. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz1096 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationMcAneney, J., & Baillie, M. (2019) · Antiquity · doi:10.15184/aqy.2018.165 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Ehrlich, Y., Regev, L., & Boaretto, E. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-29392-9 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Second Intermediate Period date for the Thera (Santorini) eruption and historical implications
Manning, S. W. (2022) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274835 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Olive shrub buried on Therasia supports a mid-16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption
Pearson, C., Sbonias, K., Tzachili, I., & Heaton, T. J. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-33696-w · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Manning, S. W. (2024) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/rdc.2024.44 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“In addition to the Therasia olive samples there is the previously published Thera olive (TO) sample with a Sequence of radiocarbon dates on growth increments across the total of 72 growth increments recognized using 3D X-Ray tomography (Friedrich et al. 2006, 2014).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
- Authors
- Friedrich, W. L., Kromer, B., Friedrich, M., Heinemeier, J., Pfeiffer, T., & Talamo, S.
- Affiliations
- Aarhus University (DK)
- Heidelberg University (DE)
- University of Hohenheim (DE)
- Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE)
- Venue
- Antiquity
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 339
- Pages
- 274-277
- ISSN
- 0003-598X (ISSN-L)
- 1745-1744
- OpenAlex
- W2171142423
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 1.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Antiquity (publishedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Tree-ring climate responses
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
- Keywords
- dendrochronology, Olea europaea, radiocarbon calibration
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
