Cited by 5Tree-ring climate responsesArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesAncient Egypt and Archaeology

The difficulties of dating olive wood

Kuniholm, Peter Ian·2014·Antiquity

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

Crossref · 10.1017/s0003598x00050407

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kuniholm, P. I.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Kuniholm, Peter Ian
Venue
Antiquity
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