CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and HistoryGeology and Paleoclimatology Research

The Date of the Minoan Santorini Eruption: Quantifying the “Offset”

Open access
Höflmayer, Felix·2012·Radiocarbon
DOI 10.1017/s0033822200047196
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite many recent attempts to settle the dispute concerning the absolute date of the Minoan Santorini eruption, there are still differences between some archaeologists and scientists on the absolute dates and the reliability of radiocarbon dating. The recent publication of over 200 new 14 C dates for dynastic Egypt rules out a major flaw in the historical chronology of Egypt and proves the reliability of 14 C dating in the Nile Valley. Therefore, the student of Aegean archaeology and eastern Mediterranean interconnections is still confronted with an archaeologically based conventional, or “low,” chronology and a 14 C-backed “high” chronology. New 14 C determinations from different sites of the Aegean support the high chronology for the Late Minoan (LM) IA, while recent re-evaluation of LM IB determinations are slightly higher but more or less in agreement with archaeological estimations. The present contribution reviews archaeological and scientific data for the LM IA period and argues that a reduced (∼30 to 50 yr) offset between archaeological and 14 C dates for the Minoan Santorini eruption may be possible, thus offering new perspectives for potential solutions for this problem.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review argues that the gap between the archaeologically derived "low" chronology and the radiocarbon-backed "high" chronology for the Minoan Santorini eruption is smaller than usually assumed, reducing the offset to roughly 50 years or less. It does so by re-examining Aegean ¹⁴C sequences and showing that the three main archaeological arguments for a low date (Egyptian stone vessels, Theran pumice, Cypriot White Slip I) are weaker than often claimed.

Key findings

  • Combined short-lived samples from the Akrotiri volcanic destruction layer (28 measurements from Manning et al. 2006) give 1664–1651 cal BC (20.1% probability) or 1642–1616 cal BC (48.1%); re-modelled as a Phase with four low-agreement samples removed, the end of the settlement falls at 1632–1611 cal BC (68.2%).
  • The Santorini olive branch wiggle-match places the last ring at 1621–1605 cal BC (1σ, 68.2%), with a high overall agreement index (Acomb = 155) indicating no fundamental tree-ring counting errors.
  • The Aegina Kolonna sequence places the phase K/L transition (LH I to LH IIA) at 1661–1591 BCE (68.2%), and the Palaikastro tsunami contexts give 1657–1546 BCE (1σ, 68.2%) — all consistent with a late-17th-century BCE eruption.
  • The Oxford New Kingdom model gives a start of the New Kingdom at 1566–1552 BCE (68.2%) or 1570–1544 BCE (95.4%), slightly higher than the ~1540 BCE historical date; the author concludes the offset between archaeological and ¹⁴C dates "comes down to ~50 yr or even less."

Methods

  • Narrative review and Bayesian re-modelling of published Aegean ¹⁴C datasets (Akrotiri short-lived samples, the Santorini olive branch, Aegina Kolonna, Palaikastro tsunami deposits) using OxCal v4.1 with the IntCal09 calibration curve.
  • Critical review of the archaeological arguments for the low chronology: Egyptian stone vessels in Mycenaean shaft-graves IV and V, Theran pumice in Egypt and the Levant (350+ samples analysed by neutron activation analysis), and Cypriot White Slip I pottery.
  • Comparison with the Oxford radiocarbon-based chronology for dynastic Egypt (200+ new measurements, 128 for the New Kingdom; reservoir offset estimated at −19 ± 5 ¹⁴C yr for the premodern Nile Valley).

Limitations

  • Stated by the paper: an up-to-date critical study of Egyptian stone vessels of the Second Intermediate Period and early New Kingdom is lacking, so the shaft-grave vessels could conceivably be one or two generations earlier; the pumice data are "still not conclusive" because few samples come from Second Intermediate Period contexts; White Slip I fragments come only from secondary or tertiary contexts; the New Kingdom model depends on prior reign lengths (Kitchen), with Thutmose IV's reign disputed (10 yr vs. ~30 yr).
  • Stated by the paper: olive tree-ring identification is problematic, and a dead branch attached to the trunk for years or decades is conceivable (though argued unlikely given a second branch with similar results); the Palaikastro bones were not found in primary contexts and may not reflect the eruption itself.
  • Evident from the text: the offset argument is a plausibility case rather than a new independent dataset — the conclusion rests on re-interpretation of existing dates and on the possibility of raising the Egyptian New Kingdom start, which the author presents as a "possibility" rather than a demonstrated result.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033822200047196

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 37 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingcitation

    A wiggle-match for the 4 dates from the olive tree based on published results indicates a date between 1621 and 1605 cal BC (1σ, 68.2% probability).

    “A wiggle-match for these 4 dates based on the published results indicates a date between 1621 and 1605 cal BC (1σ, 68.2% probability).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Friedrich et al. 2006 source
    • cites Friedrich et al. 2009
    • cites Heinemeier et al. 2009 source

      The Introduction says that four groups of olive-tree rings were wiggle-matched, supporting the method attributed to the paper. It reports a calibrated range of 1627–1600 BC at 95% probability, however, not the claimed 1621–1605 BC at 68.2%; our copy does not establish that specific 1σ interval. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    New 14C determinations from different sites of the Aegean support the high chronology for the Late Minoan IA period.

    “New 14 C determinations from different sites of the Aegean support the high chronology for the Late Minoan (LM) IA”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingnone given

    New 14C data from different sites in the Aegean provide consistent results for the late LM IA period and the Minoan Santorini eruption.

    “New 14 C data from different sites in the Aegean provide consistent results for the late LM IA period and the Minoan Santorini eruption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingreasoning

    The Palaikastro bone dates, grouped in a Phase defined by a TauBoundary at the start and a Boundary at the end, result in a possible date between 1657 and 1546 BCE (1σ, 68.2% probability).

    “The result for this comes down to a possible date between 1657 and 1546 BCE (1σ, 68.2% probability)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The flooding deposits near Palaikastro are due to a tsunami.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The Palaikastro bones should fall rather late than early before the tsunami.
  • Findingnone given

    White Slip I pottery does not occur in Tell el-Dab'a earlier than Str.C/3 (reign of Thutmose III).

    “Although White Slip I pottery does not occur in Tell el-Dab c a earlier than Str.C/3 (reign of Thutmose III)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 26
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Based on the model, the start of the Egyptian New Kingdom is calculated as between 1566 and 1552 BCE (68.2% probability) and between 1570 and 1544 BCE (95.4% probability).

    “Based on this model, the start for the New Kingdom can be calculated as being between 1566 and 1552 BCE (68.2% probability) and between 1570 and 1544 BCE (95.4% probability) (compared to -1540 BCE based on dead reckoning).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Although more than 350 samples of pumice have been analyzed, only a few samples come from contexts of the Second Intermediate Period.

    “Although more than 350 samples of pumice have been analyzed, only a few samples come from contexts of the Second Intermediate Period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sterba et al. 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Assuming all short-lived material (28 measurements) reflect the same point in time, the RCombine function of OxCal yields a date between 1664 and 1651 cal BC (20.1% probability) or between 1642 and 1616 cal BC (48.1% probability).

    “Assuming that all short-lived material (28 measurements published in Manning et al. 2006) reflect the same point in time (give or take a few years), maybe the last harvest stored in the settlement, the RCombine function of OxCal can be used to combine the short-lived samples prior to calibration, resulting in a date between 1664 and 1651 cal BC (20.1% probability) or between 1642 and 1616 cal BC (”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Manning et al. 2006 source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: All short-lived material (28 measurements) reflect the same point in time (give or take a few years), maybe the last harvest stored in the settlement.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    There is no positive evidence so far for earlier associations with acid peaks in Greenland ice cores around 1650 BCE or a climatic event observable in European or Anatolian tree-ring sequences (-1628 and -1650 BCE).

    “There is no positive evidence so far for earlier associations with acid peaks in Greenland ice cores around 1650 BCE or a climatic event observable in European or Anatolian treering sequences (-1628 and -1650 BCE)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Up to now, no Theran pumice was found in contexts that have been dated earlier than the 18th Dynasty, and in Tell el-Dab'a the first appearance of Theran pumice occurs in Str.C/2, dated to the late reign of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II.

    “Up to now, no Theran pumice was found in contexts that have been dated earlier than the 18th Dynasty, and in Tell el-Dab c a the first appearance of Theran pumice occurs in Str.C/2, dated to the late reign of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II (Bietak and Höflmayer 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bietak and Höflmayer 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    14C data for the Egyptian New Kingdom tend to give slightly earlier results based on the reign lengths as put forward by Kitchen than expected, with a date of 1570 BCE as the earliest possible start for the New Kingdom for the 95.4% probability range.

    “14 C data for the Egyptian New Kingdom tend to give slightly earlier results based on the reign lengths as put forward by Kitchen than expected, with a date of 1570 BCE as the earliest possible start for the New Kingdom for the 95.4% probability range.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kitchen

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Recent re-evaluation of LM IB determinations are slightly higher but more or less in agreement with archaeological estimations.

    “while recent re-evaluation of LM IB determinations are slightly higher but more or less in agreement with archaeological estimations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    No complete White Slip I vessels were found in Tell el-Dab'a, and the published fragments only come from secondary or tertiary contexts; no material was found in situ.

    “it has to be remembered that no complete vessels were found and that the published fragments only come from secondary or tertiary contexts, i.e. no material was found in situ.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The first appearance of White Slip I ware in the early 18th Dynasty in the eastern Mediterranean should be regarded only as a terminus ante quem for the start of the White Slip sequence on Cyprus, which should then start earlier than -1540 BCE based on the Egyptian historical chronology.

    “One should thus regard the first appearance of White Slip I ware in the early 18th Dynasty in the eastern Mediterranean only as a terminus ante quern for the start of the White Slip sequence on Cyprus, which should then start earlier than -1540 BCE based on the Egyptian historical chronology.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The context of the Egyptian jug from shaft-grave IV can be dated in the LH I period, a date that has not been challenged in the literature.

    “The context can be dated in the LH I period, a date that has not been challenged in the literature (Dietz 1991 ;Phillips 2001 ;Warren 2006Warren , 2009;;Höflmayer 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dietz 1991

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Phillips 2001

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Warren 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The occurrence of 2 Egyptian stone vessels in shaft-graves IV and V are important for synchronizing Aegean and Egyptian chronologies.

    “While indeed the occurrence of 2 Egyptian stone vessels in shaft-graves IV and V are important for synchronizing Aegean and Egyptian chronologies”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The similarity in form between the actual vessel and the depicted forms should not be used as an argument for dating, because the dates offered for these forms in Lilyquist's publication are based on fragmentary material.

    “Also, the dates offered for these forms in Lilyquist's publication are based on fragmentary material; therefore, the similarity in form between the actual vessel and the depicted forms should not be used as an argument for dating”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lilyquist 1995

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    14C data backs the historical chronology in general, but tends to give slightly higher dates for the start of the New Kingdom.

    “14 C data therefore backs the historical chronology in general, but tends to give slightly higher dates for the start of the New Kingdom.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Wente and van Sielen (1976) argued for a longer reign of about 30 years for Thutmose IV and also for a longer reign for Amenhotep II.

    “whereas already in the 1970s Wente and van Sielen (1976) argued for a longer reign of -30 yr (and also for a longer reign for Amenhotep II).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wente and van Sielen (1976)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    An eruption date shortly before -1600 BCE, as indicated by short-lived samples from Akrotiri, 2 branches of an olive tree presumably killed by the eruption, dates from the 14C sequence at Aegina Kolonna, and from the Palaikastro tsunami contexts, shows that only a gap of a few decades exists between the White Slip bowl on Thera and White Slip pottery in the eastern Mediterranean.

    “An eruption date shortly before -1600 BCE as indicated by short-lived samples from Akrotiri, 2 branches of an olive tree presumably killed by the eruption, dates from the 14 C sequence at Aegina Kolonna, and from the Palaikastro tsunami contexts show that in fact only a gap of a few decades exist between the White Slip bowl on Thera and White Slip pottery in the eastern Mediterranean”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The context of the converted Egyptian alabastron from shaft-grave V was dated to the LH I period and this date has not been challenged.

    “Again, the context was dated to the LH I period and this date has not been challenged (Dietz 1991).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dietz 1991

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Kitchen usually attributes 10 years to Thutmose IV, and this is used in the New Kingdom model with an additional error of 5 years.

    “for whom 10 yr are usually attributed by Kitchen (which is also used in the New Kingdom model with an additional error of 5 yr)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kitchen

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Since the mid-1980s, a date for the Minoan eruption of Santorini 100 to 150 yr higher than previously argued was suggested by radiocarbon dating and climatic events recorded in ice cores and tree rings, placing the end of the Late Minoan IA period in the second half of the 17th century BCE.

    “Since the mid-1980s, a date for the Minoan eruption of Santorini 100 to 150 yr higher than previously argued was suggested by radiocarbon dating and climatic events recorded in ice cores and tree rings from North America, Europe, and”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Betancourt 1987 source
    • cites Manning 1988 source
    • cites Manning 1989a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The evidence from pumice and White Slip pottery in Egypt and the Levant is inconclusive.

    “this author regards the evidence from pumice and White Slip pottery in Egypt and the Levant as inconclusive.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The offset comes down to -50 yr or even less, if a slightly higher date for the Egyptian New Kingdom is accepted.

    “The”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The pumice layer at Tell el-Dab'a in Str.C/2 cannot be considered as a terminus ad quem (a direct date for the Minoan eruption), but should rather be seen as a terminus ante quem (a point in time after the Minoan eruption).

    “Therefore, the pumice layer cannot be considered as a terminus ad quern (i.e. a direct date for the Minoan eruption), but should rather be seen as a terminus ante quern (being a point in time after the Minoan eruption).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Wente and van Sielen placed the beginning of the Egyptian New Kingdom at -1570 BCE, a date even possible in the 95.4% probability range of the model based on the short Thutmose IV and Amenhotep II reigns.

    “They placed the beginning of the Egyptian New Kingdom at -1570 BCE, a date even possible in the 95.4% probability range of the model based on the short Thutmose IV and Amenhotep II reigns.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wente and van Sielen (1976)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The possibility that a dead branch was attached to the tree trunk for several years or even decades is highly unlikely, because a second branch found in the immediate vicinity has similar results for the last ring.

    “Although it might be possible that a dead branch was attached to the tree trunk for several years or even decades, the fact that a second branch found in the immediate vicinity with similar results for the last ring (J Heinemeier, personal communication, April 2011), makes this assumption highly unlikely.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Recently, the results of the extensive project on Egyptian chronology and 14C dating were published, providing more than 200 new measurements for samples from securely dated contexts, including 128 dates for the New Kingdom.

    “Recently, the results of the extensive project on Egyptian chronology and 14 C dating were published, providing more than 200 new measurements for samples from securely dated contexts (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010), including 128 dates for the New Kingdom.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    There is no dispute that the Cypriot White Slip I milk bowl found on Santorini belongs to the White Slip I series and comes from a pre-eruption context on Thera.

    “Although the vessel itself is lost today, there is no dispute about the fact that it belongs to the White Slip I series and that it comes from a pre-emption context on Thera (Merrillees 2001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Merrillees 2001

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    The pumice data are still not conclusive.

    “the pumice data are still not conclusive.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sterba et al. 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The recent publication of over 200 new 14C dates for dynastic Egypt rules out a major flaw in the historical chronology of Egypt and proves the reliability of 14C dating in the Nile Valley.

    “The recent publication of over 200 new ,4 C dates for dynastic Egypt rules out a major flaw in the historical chronology of Egypt and proves the reliability of 14 C dating in the Nile Valley.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If an early 18th Dynasty date for the 2 stone vessels is tentatively accepted, then the Minoan Santorini eruption took place after the start of the Egyptian New Kingdom and therefore-based on the historical chronology-after -1540 BCE.

    “If we tentatively accept an early 18th Dynasty date for these 2 stone vessels, we have to conclude that the Minoan Santorini eruption took place after the start of the Egyptian New Kingdom and therefore-based on the historical chronology-after -1540 BCE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: An early 18th Dynasty date for the 2 Egyptian stone vessels is tentatively accepted.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A slightly higher start for New Kingdom Egypt (by -20 yr) seems to be a possibility.

    “A slightly higher start for New Kingdom Egypt (by -20 yr) seems to be a possibility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It does not seem impossible that the 2 Egyptian stone vessels from the Mycenaean shaft-graves could have been produced 1 or 2 generations earlier than previously suggested (i.e. in the late Second Intermediate Period).

    “Given the unsatisfactory state of research in the field of Egyptian stone vessels of the Second Intermediate Period and the early New Kingdom, it does not seem impossible that the 2 Egyptian stone vessels from the Mycenaean shaft-graves could have been produced 1 or 2 generations earlier than previously suggested (i.e. in the late Second Intermediate Period).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A longer reign for Thutmose IV might be preferable based on significant changes in pottery forms, the high number of tomb chapels, and officials recorded during this king's reign.

    “Furthermore, it has been argued that a longer reign might be preferable based on the significant changes in pottery forms, the high number of tomb chapels, and of officials recorded during this king's reign (Wiener 2006b; see also Manning 1999; Aston, forthcoming).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Wiener 2006b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Manning 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Aston, forthcoming

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The isolated bones from Palaikastro likely do not reflect the eruption proper, as they were not found in primary contexts and the respective animals cannot be assumed to have been killed by the eruption and/or tsunami effects.

    “In both cases, it is likely that these isolated bones do not reflect the eruption proper as they were not found in primary contexts and we cannot assume that the respective animals were killed by the eruption and/or the tsunami effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The length of some Egyptian royal reigns is disputed, especially for king Thutmose IV.

    “However, the length of some reigns are disputed, especially for king Thutmose IV”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
33 of 33

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    All short-lived material (28 measurements) reflect the same point in time (give or take a few years), maybe the last harvest stored in the settlement.

    “Assuming that all short-lived material (28 measurements published in Manning et al. 2006) reflect the same point in time (give or take a few years), maybe the last harvest stored in the settlement”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The 28 short-lived samples represent rather the end of the settlement (latest phase) rather than being of the same age.

    “in this case that the samples represent rather the end of the settlement”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The direct link between the last ring of the olive tree and the eruption itself is accepted (the tree was killed by the eruption).

    “if the direct link between the last ring of the olive tree and the eruption itself is accepted”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The flooding deposits near Palaikastro are due to a tsunami.

    “linked with flooding due to the assumed tsunami”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The Palaikastro bones should fall rather late than early before the tsunami.

    “as it can be assumed that the bones should fall rather late than early before the tsunami”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    An early 18th Dynasty date for the 2 Egyptian stone vessels is tentatively accepted.

    “If we tentatively accept an early 18th Dynasty date for these 2 stone vessels”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    1525 BCE is accepted as the first appearance of Theran pumice in Tell el-Ajjul.

    “accepting 1525 BCE as the first appearance of Theran pumice in Tell el-Ajjul”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The high 14C dates for LM IA are accepted.

    “if the high 14 C dates for LM IA are accepted”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Theran pumice in eastern Mediterranean contexts and White Slip pottery on Thera and in the Levant are inconclusive for placing the Minoan Santorini eruption.

    “whereas Theran pumice in eastern Mediterranean contexts and White Slip pottery on Thera and in the Levant have been found to be inconclusive.”
9 of 9

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?

  • All the scientific dating evidence could indicate a likely date for the Santorini/Thera eruption in the later 17th century BCE potentially compatible with the 1628-1626 BCE range.

    “Since we may now remove the Porsuk tree-ring growth anomaly from this discussion (see above), all the scientific dating evidence could therefore indicate a likely date for the Santorini/Thera eruption in the later 17th century BCE potentially compatible with the 1628–1626 BCE range (e.g. [66, 68, 69, 78–81, 89–92]).”

    From Integrated Tree-Ring-Radiocarbon High-Resolution Timeframe to Resolve Earlier Second Millennium BCE Mesopotamian Chronology (2016) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Palaikastro Tsunami Deposits section says radiocarbon evidence consistently points to an eruption late in the 17th century BCE, and the olive-branch model includes 1628–1626 BCE within its 95.4% range. But the paper says there is no positive evidence linking the eruption to the tree-ring climatic event around 1628 BCE, so it does not support treating all scientific dating evidence as pointing to that range. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Application of the Middle or Low-Middle Chronology dating could yield dates for Tell el-Dab'a compatible both with its detailed radiocarbon chronology and other evidence indicating the need for an earlier timeframe for this period and site.

    “application of the Middle or Low-Middle Chronology dating could yield dates for the site compatible both with its detailed radiocarbon chronology [98]–which has been rejected by the excavator of the site for no good reason [94]–and other evidence indicating the need for an earlier timeframe for this period and site [66, 68, 69, 95, 96].”

    From Integrated Tree-Ring-Radiocarbon High-Resolution Timeframe to Resolve Earlier Second Millennium BCE Mesopotamian Chronology (2016) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Egyptian New Kingdom Chronology and Radiocarbon Dating section says a slightly earlier start for the New Kingdom is possible, supporting an earlier timeframe for the period. The paper does not establish that applying a Middle or Low-Middle Chronology would make dates for Tell el-Dab'a compatible with the site's detailed radiocarbon chronology; the citing sentence attributes that chronology separately to [98]. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Analysis with IntCal20 using (1) weighted average 14C ages, (2) a published dataset and alternative appropriate method, or (3) the series of 14C dates on an olive branch found buried by the Santorini/Thera eruption, all indicate a most likely late seventeenth century BCE date, but include varying probability in the earlier-mid sixteenth century BCE.

    “Analysis with IntCal20 using (1) weighted average 14C ages2, (2) a published dataset and alternative appropriate method52,53, or (3) the series of 14C dates on an olive branch found buried by the Santorini/Thera eruption2,53,55, all indicate a most likely late seventeenth century BCE date, but include varying probability in the earlier-mid sixteenth century BCE (Supplementary Figs. S10a,b, S11a,b,”

    From Radiocarbon offsets and old world chronology as relevant to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia and Thera (Santorini) (2020) · cites this paper as [52]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The available material culture and textual evidence, examined critically, is either ambiguous, capable of different interpretations, or not capable of sustaining the evidential weight necessary to be determinative for the date of the Thera eruption.

    “The available material culture and textual evidence, examined critically, is either ambiguous, capable of different interpretations, or simply not capable of sustaining the evidential weight necessary to be determinative (e.g. Höflmayer 2012; Reference Höflmayer2018; Manning et al. Reference Manning, Höflmayer, Moeller, Dee, Bronk Ramsey, Fleitmann, Higham, Kutschera and Wild2014; Ritner and Mo”

    From Problems of Dating Spread on Radiocarbon Calibration Curve Plateaus: The 1620–1540 BC Example and the Dating of the Therasia Olive Shrub Samples and Thera Volcanic Eruption (2024) · cites this paper as Höflmayer 2012

    The ‘Archaeological Arguments’ and ‘Conclusions’ sections call the pumice and White Slip pottery evidence inconclusive, and the ‘Egyptian Stone Vessels’ section identifies limits to dating the vessels. But the paper treats those vessels as important archaeological evidence rather than dismissing all material culture, and the cited passages do not assess textual evidence. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 14C suggested an earlier date range for the Thera eruption by ~50-100+ years.

    “However, then radiocarbon ( 14 C) suggested an earlier date range by �50-100+ years [7,9,31]”

    From Second Intermediate Period date for the Thera (Santorini) eruption and historical implications (2022) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Palaikastro Tsunami Deposits section says radiocarbon evidence consistently places the eruption late in the 17th century BCE, supporting the claim that it suggested an earlier date. But the Conclusions estimate the gap between archaeological and radiocarbon dates at about 50 years or less, not 50–100+ years as the paper’s revised estimate. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Two different identifiers for the same excluded sample

    Minor

    The fourth low-agreement measurement is listed as Hd-6059-7967, but the subsequent list of the two samples that were too young calls it Hd-6049-7967.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Merrillees, 2001, The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia in Honour of Malcolm Wiener., 89
  2. Bichler, 2003, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 - EuroConference Haindorf 2nd - 7th of May 2001., 11
  3. Manning, 2007, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 -2nd EuroConference, Vienna 28th of May - 1st of June 2003.
  4. Manning, 1999, A Test of Time: The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid Second Millennium BC.
  5. Polz, 2007, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches: Zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende
  6. Bietak, 2003, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 - EuroConference Haindorf 2nd - 7th of May 2001., 23
  7. Manning, 2009, Time's Up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini.
  8. Eriksson, 1992, Acta Cypria. Acts of an International Congress of Cypriote Archaeology held in Göteborg on 22–24 August 1991., 152
  9. Manning, 2009, Tree-Rings, Kings, and Old World Archaeology and Environment. Papers Presented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm., 299
  10. Warren, 1988, The Thera eruption: continuing discussion of the dating. III. Further arguments against an early date, Archaeometry, 30
  11. Friedrich, 1990, Thera and the Aegean World III. Proceedings of the Third International Congress.
  12. Wiener MH . 2003. Time out: the current impasse in Bronze Age archaeological dating. In: Polinger Foster K , Laffineur R , editors. Metron. Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference New Haven, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002. Liège. p 363–99.
  13. Kitchen, 2000, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloß Haindorf, 15th - 17th of November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th - 12th of May 1998., 39
  14. Phillips, 2001, The Social Context of Technological Change. Egypt and the Near East, 1650 - 1550 BC., 73
  15. Beckerath, 1994, Chronolgie des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches
  16. Wiener, 2001, The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia in Honour of Malcolm Wiener., 195
  17. Friedrich, 2009, Tree-Rings, Kings, and Old World Archaeology and Environment.
  18. Polinger Foster K , Bichler M . 2003. Theran pumice from Egyptian graves. In: Polinger Foster K , Laffineur R , editors. Metron. Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference New Haven, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002. Liège. p 431–9.
  19. Warren, 2006, Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak.
  20. Wiener, 2006b, Egypt and time, Ägypten and Levante, 16
  21. Michael, 1988a, The Thera eruption: continuing discussion of the dating. II. Further arguments for an early date, Archaeometry, 30
  22. Wiener, 2007, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 - 2nd EuroConference, Vienna 28th of May - 1st of June 2003., 25
  23. Michael, 1988b, The Thera eruption: continuing discussion of the dating. IV. Addendum, Archaeometry, 30
  24. Aston, 1994, Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels: Materials and Forms (Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens 5)
  25. Bichler, 2007, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 - 2nd EuroConference, Vienna 28th of May - 1st of June 2003., 49
  26. Bietak, 2001, The White Slip Ware of Late Bronze Age Cyprus. Proceedings of an International Conference Organized by the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia in Honour of Malcolm Wiener.
  27. Bichler, 2000, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloß Haindorf, 15th - 17th of November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th - 12th of May 1998.
  28. Manning, 2003, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 - EuroConference Haindorf 2nd - 7th of May 2001.
  29. Lilyquist, 1995, Egyptian Stone Vessels: Khian through Tuthmosis IV.
  30. Warren, 1990, Thera and the Aegean World III. Proceedings of the Third International Congress.
  31. Kitchen, 2007, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 - 2nd EuroConference, Vienna 28th of May - 1st of June 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Höflmayer, F.
Affiliations
Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Orient-Abteilung (DE)
Corresponding author
Höflmayer, Felix
ORCID
Höflmayer, Felix
Venue
Radiocarbon
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2012
Volume
54
Issue
3-4
Pages
435-448
ISSN
  • 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-5755
DOI
10.1017/s0033822200047196
OpenAlex
W1858438758
Cited by
39
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 1660 d)
Locations
  • Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Yale University
  • Aarhus Universitet
  • Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
  • A.G. Leventis Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and History
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
Keywords
Santorini eruption, Minoan civilization, radiocarbon dating, chronology, archaeological chronology, Aegean 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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