The difficulties of dating olive wood
Abstract
Olive wood is difficult to date for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is that one cannot tell visually what is an annual growth increment (usually referred to as a ‘ring’) and what is a sub-annual growth flush of which there may be any number in one growing season. (I have been able to count a dozen or more flushes in olive wood where the end of the growing season was somewhat more clearly marked than usual.) If one cannot determine the ring boundaries with certainty, one cannot do tree-ring dating, period. For Egyptologists reading this note, acacia is just as bad, and for the same reason. For 25 years I had a couple of sections of olive wood in my dendrochronology lab. Every term I would challenge students to tell me how many rings there were on them. No two students ever came up with the same answer and neither could I. An inspection of two different radii on the same piece also yielded widely varying results. (A side issue, not relevant here, is that the size of the ring in an olive tree does not necessarily reflect climatic conditions but rather the energies of the farmer or gardener who brings water to it. Thus olive is useless for purely dendrochronological cross-dating purposes.
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?
Olive trees do not necessarily produce annual growth rings in the way that pine or oak trees might.
“However, this sample has proved highly controversial because olive trees do not necessarily produce annual growth rings in the way that pine or oak trees might28.”
From Olive shrub buried on Therasia supports a mid-16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption (2023) · cites this paper as [28]
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
Cadogan, G. (1987) · Nature · doi:10.1038/328473a0 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McAneney, J., & Baillie, M. (2019) · Antiquity · doi:10.15184/aqy.2018.165 · Cited by 33 · 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
“Hence olives have been stated to be problematic for dendrochronology as no regular, annual, growth increment can be recognized in many cases, and instead intra-annual density fluctuations are observed or anticipated (Cherubini et al. 2003, 2013; Kuniholm 2014).”
BackgroundKlontza-Jaklová, V. (2016) · Masarykova univerzita eBooks · doi:10.5817/cz.muni.m210-8472-2016 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kuniholm, P. I.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kuniholm, Peter Ian
- ORCID
- Kuniholm, Peter Ian
- Venue
- Antiquity
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 339
- Pages
- 287-288
- ISSN
- 0003-598X (ISSN-L)
- 1745-1744
- OpenAlex
- W1865844172
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Antiquity (publishedVersion)
- 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
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
- Keywords
- olive wood, dendrochronology, acacia wood, cross-dating, Egyptian archaeology
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