CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchTree-ring climate responses

Considerations of the Scale of Radiocarbon Offsets in the East Mediterranean, and Considering a Case for the Latest (Most Recent) Likely Date for the Santorini Eruption

Open access
Manning, Sturt W, Kromer, Bernd·2012·Radiocarbon
DOI 10.1017/s0033822200047202
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The debate over the dating of the Santorini (Thera) volcanic eruption has seen sustained efforts to criticize or challenge the radiocarbon dating of this time horizon. We consider some of the relevant areas of possible movement in the 14 C dating—and, in particular, any plausible mechanisms to support as late (most recent) a date as possible. First, we report and analyze data investigating the scale of apparent possible 14 C offsets (growing season related) in the Aegean-Anatolia-east Mediterranean region (excluding the southern Levant and especially pre-modern, pre-dam Egypt, which is a distinct case), and find no evidence for more than very small possible offsets from several cases. This topic is thus not an explanation for current differences in dating in the Aegean and at best provides only a few years of latitude. Second, we consider some aspects of the accuracy and precision of 14 C dating with respect to the Santorini case. While the existing data appear robust, we nonetheless speculate that examination of the frequency distribution of the 14 C data on short-lived samples from the volcanic destruction level at Akrotiri on Santorini (Thera) may indicate that the average value of the overall data sets is not necessarily the most appropriate 14 C age to use for dating this time horizon. We note the recent paper of Soter (2011), which suggests that in such a volcanic context some (small) age increment may be possible from diffuse CO 2 emissions (the effect is hypothetical at this stage and has not been observed in the field), and that "if short-lived samples from the same stratigraphic horizon yield a wide range of 14 C ages, the lower values may be the least altered by old CO 2." In this context, it might be argued that a substantive “low” grouping of 14 C ages observable within the overall 14 C data sets on short-lived samples from the Thera volcanic destruction level centered about 3326–3328 BP is perhaps more representative of the contemporary atmospheric 14 C age (without any volcanic CO 2 contamination). This is a subjective argument (since, in statistical terms, the existing studies using the weighted average remain valid) that looks to support as late a date as reasonable from the 14 C data. The impact of employing this revised 14 C age is discussed. In general, a late 17th century BC date range is found (to remain) to be most likely even if such a late-dating strategy is followed—a late 17th century BC date range is thus a robust finding from the 14 C evidence even allowing for various possible variation factors. However, the possibility of a mid-16th century BC date (within ∼1593–1530 cal BC) is increased when compared against previous analyses if the Santorini data are considered in isolation.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper finds no evidence for more than very small growing-season-related radiocarbon offsets in the Aegean–Anatolia–east Mediterranean (excluding the southern Levant and Egypt), and argues that even a deliberately latest-date strategy for the Akrotiri volcanic destruction level still favors a late 17th century BC date for the Santorini eruption. A mid-16th century BC possibility increases only when the Santorini data are considered in isolation and a maximum plausible offset is applied.

Key findings

  • Offset tests against IntCal09 gave μ ± σ values of −1.2 ± 2.3 14C yr (NW Turkish pine), −3.6 ± 6.2 14C yr (Gordion juniper), −3.8 ± 8.1 14C yr (Miletos oak; 5.7 ± 15.4 with a 0 ± 20 prior), −1.1 ± 3.4 14C yr (Cyprus *Pinus brutia*, outlier excluded; −5.0 ± 3.3 with outlier), and −0.7 ± 6.9 14C yr (Lebanon *Cedrus libani*); the weighted average was 0.75 ± 1.72 14C yr, effectively 0.
  • For Akrotiri short-lived samples, the 28-date set had weighted average 3345 ± 8 BP and passed χ²; the 43-date set failed χ² due to 3 much-too-old and 3 much-too-recent data; the central 37-date set had weighted average 3346 ± 7 BP; the 25-date set had weighted average 3346 ± 8 BP, with *Lathyrus* sp. at 3346 ± 13 BP and *Hordeum* sp. at 3345 ± 10 BP.
  • A subjectively defined “low clump” gave weighted averages of 3328 ± 9 BP or 3328 ± 10 BP, and using only the 13 AD2000s data gave 3326 ± 11 BP; calibrated most likely ranges were in the 17th century BC (e.g., 1635–1607 or 1634–1606 cal BC), while isolation increased mid-16th century BC probability (1590–1532 cal BC at 36.2% for 3328 ± 9 BP; 1593–1531 cal BC at 43.4% for 3326 ± 11 BP).
  • Sequence analyses using the low clump gave highest-probability ranges of 1632–1605 cal BC or 1626–1612 cal BC; a final revised “latest plausible” model gave 68.2% range 1630–1605 cal BC and 95.4% range 1643–1559 cal BC, still not compatible with conventional 1530–1500 BC estimates.

Methods

  • Offset investigation used Heidelberg Radiocarbon Laboratory measurements on known-age or near-absolutely placed tree-ring series from the Aegean–Anatolia–east Mediterranean (excluding the southern Levant and Egypt), compared against IntCal09 with the OxCal ΔR function, prior 0 ± 20 14C yr except Miletos at 0 ± 10 yr, and curve resolution 1.
  • Santorini analysis used existing published 14C data on short-lived samples from the Akrotiri volcanic destruction level, forming sets of 43, 28, and 25 dates; frequency distributions and weighted averages were examined, and OxCal/IntCal09 Bayesian sequence models incorporated data from before, contemporary with, and after the eruption horizon, including olive branch, Mochlos, Chania, Maniatis charcoal, and a ΔR allowance of 4 ± 4 yr in the final latest-case model.
  • A Cyprus crop test compared 12 Δ14C measurements on wheat and barley collected in March and June 2004 in southern and central Cyprus against the Mauna Loa and German atmospheric records.

Limitations

  • The paper states that Soter’s proposed volcanic CO2 age-increment mechanism is hypothetical and “has not been observed in the field,” and that the “low clump” argument is subjective while the existing weighted-average studies remain statistically valid.
  • The paper notes that tree-ring-based offset findings may not fully apply to lower-elevation field crops, especially autumn-planted crops; the southern Levant and Egypt are distinct cases excluded from this analysis; and the Cyprus crop test is limited.
  • Evident from the text: the “latest plausible” sequence analysis deliberately applies multiple subjective choices (low clump, TauBoundary, ΔR 4 ± 4, no outliers excluded) to push dates as late as possible, and the Santorini data in isolation with ΔR can make a 16th century BC range as likely as or more likely than the 17th century BC range, though the paper argues this ignores the broader sequence.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033822200047202

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

9 of 58 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    The analysis of AD period German oak data finds a tiny (negligible) 14C offset (ΔR) of 2.5 ± 2.5 14C yr.

    “The analysis finds a tiny (negligible) 14 C offset (AR) of (expressed as the μ ± σ) of 2.5 ± 2.5 ,4 C yr.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bronk Ramsey 1995 source

      The Radiocarbon Calibration section (page unavailable) says OxCal can apply reservoir corrections, but it reports no offset estimated from AD-period German oak data. Searches for German oak and the claimed 2.5 ± 2.5 ¹⁴C-year value found no passage addressing that result. (LLM, conf=0.77)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Bronk Ramsey 2009a,b

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

    • cites Bronk Ramsey et al. 2001

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

  • Premisecitation

    Claims for large and systematic errors or offsets for 14C dates relevant to the 3rd, 2nd, or 1st millennia BC east Mediterranean are untenable or incorrectly based.

    “Claims for large and systematic errors or offsets for 14 C dates relevant to the 3rd, 2nd, or 1st millennia BC east Mediterranean are untenable or incorrectly based (e.g.Manning et al. 2002Manning et al. , 2010;;Dee et al. 2009;Manning and Kromer 201 lb)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Manning et al. 2002 source
    • cites Dee et al. 2009 source

      The Results and Discussion says the variability in the Egyptian monument dates was almost certainly due to archaeological and taphonomic factors rather than inherent problems with radiocarbon dating. But the Introduction explicitly limits the reanalysis to 4th-Dynasty monuments, so this paper does not establish the claim for the eastern Mediterranean across the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st millennia BC. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Manning and Kromer 201 lb

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

  • Findingown data

    Heidelberg Radiocarbon Laboratory measurements on known-age German oak compare very closely with the IntCal09 calibration curve in both an AD and BC period test.

    “A comparison of Heidelberg Radiocarbon Laboratory measurements on known-age German oak shows that they compare very closely with the IntCal09 calibration curve in both an AD and BC period test: Figures 123.”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS-RADIOCARBON OFFSETS IN THE AEGEAN AND EAST MEDITERRANEAN (OTHER THAN THE NILE HYDROLOGIC ZONE AND SOUTHERN LEVANT) · plain
      “Regardless of circularity, the outcome is that we can assert that Heidelberg Radiocarbon Laboratory measurements compare very closely to the IntCal09 calibration curve.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Reimer et al. 2009 source

      The References list identifies a Heidelberg-associated data set of German oak and pine tree rings (lab code Hd), and the Tree-Ring Data Sets section discusses the data used for IntCal09. Our copy does not report a close comparison between Heidelberg German-oak measurements and the curve in AD and BC period tests. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationown data

    The criterion suggested by Soter (2011) for recognizing a possible volcanic increment-affected case does not apply to the Akrotiri VDL.

    “Thus, the criterion for recognizing a possible volcanic increment-affected case suggested by Soter (2011)-”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Soter (2011) source
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
  • Interpretationown data

    Use of the lower 14C age estimates from the subjectively defined 'low date clumps' does not materially change previous assessments of the 14C-based dating of the Thera volcanic destruction level that favored mid-to-later 17th century BC ranges.

    “thus, use of the lower 1 4 C age estimates from the subjectively defined”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Manning 1999

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

    • cites Bronk Ramsey et al. 2004 source

      The Conclusions (page not supplied) favor a mid-to-later 17th-century cal BC date for the Thera eruption. The Bayesian Analysis section says several models with acceptable internal consistency yield similar chronologies, but it does not identify a test using lower age estimates from subjectively defined “low date clumps.” That specific basis for saying the assessment is unchanged is not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Manning et al. 2006 source
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.
  • May combine two claims. 41
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 6
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Egyptian offset does not apply elsewhere in the east Mediterranean (excluding the southern Levant), where the typical main growing season is spring to summer and at most only slightly offset from the standard mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere growing season.

    “It logically does not apply elsewhere in the east Mediterranean (excluding the southern Levant, where there is more of an offset in growing seasons, and so there may be more of a 14 C offset; this is a topic that needs a separate investigation: project in progress), where the typical main growing season is spring to summer and at most only slightly offset from the standard mid-latitude Northern”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Reimer et al. 2009 source

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

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • Rests on an assumption: The typical main growing season in the Aegean and east Mediterranean (excluding the southern Levant) is spring to summer and at most only slightly offset from the standard mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere growing season.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Under the subjective preference for the low date clump of Akrotiri volcanic destruction data on short-lived samples, the likely date for the Santorini volcanic eruption horizon lies, in round terms, in the last three decades of the 17th century BC.

    “If the subjective decision is made to prefer the (subjectively) observable”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Soter (2011) source

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

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The low date clump of Akrotiri volcanic destruction data on short-lived samples more likely represents the correct contemporary 14C age of this time horizon.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The first AD period sample is centered at AD 1316.5 versus a modeled fit with μ ± σ of AD 1318 ± 2 and against 68.2% and 95.4% probability ranges of, respectively, AD 1316-1320 and 1315-1320.

    “Thus, the first sample is centered at AD 1316.5 versus a modeled fit with μ ± σ of AD 1318 ± 2 and against 68.2% and 95.4% probability ranges of, respectively, AD 1316-1320 and 1315-1320 (note: no cleaning of the sequence for outliers has been undertaken).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The first BC period sample is centered at 1735 BC versus a modeled fit with μ ± σ of 1736 ± 1 BC and against 68.2% and 95.4% probability ranges of, respectively, 1737-1735 and 1739-1733 BC.

    “Thus, the first sample is centered at 1735 BC versus a modeled fit with μ ± σ of 1736 ± 1 BC and against 68.2% and 95.4% probability ranges of, respectively, 1737-1735 and 1739-1733 BC (note: no cleaning of the sequence for outliers has been undertaken).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Cyprus barley and wheat 14C data are consistent with the 2004 sampling period, with a slight tendency for larger values in spring (March) than early summer (June).

    “the data from both loci are consistent with the 2004 sampling period (and there is a slight tendency in the Cyprus data for larger values for the spring [March] versus early summer [June] samples).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The weighted average value of the 'low clumps' is 3328 BP versus 3345 or 3346 BP, a difference of 17-18 14C yr.

    “thus, a weighted average value of the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The 14C placements place the end of the Late Minoan IB period in the earlier to mid-15th century BC and the Late Minoan II period in the later 15th century BC.

    “the 14 C placements of the end of the Late Minoan IB period in the earlier to mid-15th century BC, and the Late Minoan II period in the later 15th century BC (see Figure 13)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The calibrated calendar age ranges for 3328 ± 9 and 3326 ± 11 BP are most likely in the 17th century BC, in particular the subranges 1635-1607 or 1634-1606 cal BC, respectively.

    “The most likely calendar age ranges are in the 17th century BC (and in particular the subranges 1635-1607 or 1634-1606 cal BC, respectively)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For the Miletos oak data, the apparent regional 14C offset is small to negligible, with μ ± σ = −3.8 ± 8.1 14C yr using a 0 ± 10 yr prior; with a 0 ± 20 yr prior it becomes 5.7 ± 15.4 14C yr.

    “The apparent offset is again small to negligible (with the SD outweighing any possible small offset found) with μ ± σ of -3.8 ± 8.1 14 C yr (if an offset test of 0 ± 20 14 C yr is employed then this becomes 5.7 ± 15.4 14 C yr): Figure 6B.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The known-age tree-ring samples used for offset comparisons are accurately dated to their stated calendar years.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The most likely wiggle-match (60.4% of the overall probability) equates with the known age date, while the less likely possible fit is older (7.8% of the overall probability).

    “The most likely one (60.4% of the overall probability) equates with the known age date; the less likely possible fit is older (7.8% of the overall probability).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Gordion time series, a few runs see slightly larger offsets (to ~5.1 ± 9.2 14C yr), but in no case is 0 outside the SD range.

    “a few runs see slightly larger offsets (to ~5.1 ± 9.2 in runs considered for this paper), but in no case is 0 outside the SD range.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    For those wishing to hold close to the conventional low chronology while accommodating the 14C evidence, the available low-date option is a Santorini eruption date somewhere in a range from about 1593 to 1530 cal BC (looking at the Santorini evidence in isolation), with the area offering the most plausible date closest to the conventional archaeological assessment lying from about 1550 to 1539/153

    “the available”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The Akrotiri volcanic destruction level (VDL) corresponds to the Santorini volcanic eruption.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For the Stavros tis Psokas Pinus brutia data, the apparent offset against IntCal09 with the outlier excluded is about −1.1 ± 3.4 14C yr, and with the outlier included it remains small at about −5.0 ± 3.3 14C yr.

    “With this datum excluded, the apparent offset against IntCal09, citing μ ± σ, is about -1.1 ± 3.4 14 C yr (and even with the outlier included it remains small at about -5.0 ± 3.3 14 C yr): Figure 7.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The known-age tree-ring samples used for offset comparisons are accurately dated to their stated calendar years.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The possible calendar range for the Santorini eruption ends 1532-1530 cal BC at 95% probability and 1529-1527 cal BC at 99.7% probability.

    “Nonetheless, the notable point is that the possible calendar range ends 1532-1530 cal BC at 95% probability (and 1529-1527 cal BC even at 99.7% probability).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The Akrotiri volcanic destruction level (VDL) corresponds to the Santorini volcanic eruption.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    These sequence-analysis ranges are a little more recent than previously reported but remain firmly centered in the later-late 17th century BC, with clear highest probability either 1632-1605 cal BC (Figure 12A) or 1626-1612 cal BC (Figure 12B).

    “These ranges are a little more recent than previously reported, but remain firmly centered in the later-late 17th century BC, with clear highest probability either 1632-1605 cal BC (Figure 12A) or 1626-1612 cal BC (Figure 12B).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The wiggle-match of the Beharre Cedrus libani data closely fits the calibration curve in two possible places, with the correct known-age fit clearly the most likely (60.4% of total probability versus 7.8% for the alternative in the example shown; in no runs did the likelihoods go below 57.1% versus 11.1%).

    “The wiggle-match of the data closely fits the calibration curve in 2 possible places (see Figure 7A) with the correct known-age fit clearly the most likely (60.4% of total probability versus the alternative at 7.8% probability, taking the most likely 68.2% range in the example shown and with a 0.1 rounding error-in no runs did the likelihoods go below 57.1% versus 11.1%).”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS-SANTORINI DATA SET AND DATA PATTERN · plain
      “Within the most likely 68.2% probability range (and a small 0.1 rounding error), there are 2 possible wiggle-matches.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The known-age tree-ring samples used for offset comparisons are accurately dated to their stated calendar years.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The overall 43-date set (set 1) fails a chi-squared test and noticeably has 3 data much too old and 3 much too recent.

    “Indeed, although the overall 43 date set (set 1) fails a χ2 test (this set noticeably has 3 data”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS-SANTORINI DATA SET AND DATA PATTERN · plain
      “that are much too old and 3 that are much too recent: see Figure 9, and Manning and Kromer 201 la: Figure 1)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the wiggle-match analysis there are two possible matches; the most likely match (60.4% of the overall probability) equates with the known age date, and the less likely possible fit is older (7.8% of the overall probability).

    “there are 2 possible wiggle-matches.The most likely one (60.4% of the overall probability) equates with the known age date; the less likely possible fit is older (7.8% of the overall probability).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    If the Aegean Late Minoan I-II sequence is ignored, the Santorini evidence considered in isolation using the 'low date clump' most strongly favors a late 17th century BC date range but also permits a mid-16th century BC range with much more probability (36.2% to 43.4% in Figure 11).

    “then the Santorini evidence considered in isolation employing the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The Akrotiri volcanic destruction level (VDL) corresponds to the Santorini volcanic eruption.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The sequence analyses reported in Figure 12, if adjusted by the ΔR of 4 ± 4, are less affected and the slightly lower calendar age ranges still very clearly resolve in favour of dates in the later-late 17th century BC (1632/1624 to 1609/1601 cal BC).

    “The sequence analyses reported in Figure 12 if adjusted by the AR of 4 ± 4 are less affected and the slightly lower calendar age ranges still very clearly resolve in favour of dates in the later-late 17th century BC (1632/1624 to 1609/1601 cal BC): see Table 4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Cyprus data match within their correct date window and could not be misplaced by more than 1-2 calendar years.

    “the Cyprus data clearly match within their correct date window and could not be misplaced by more than 1-2 calendar yr.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    With the date 3328 ± 9 BP, the range 1590-1532 cal BC has a 36.2% probability, and the most likely 68.2% subrange is 1573-1539 cal BC; with the date 3326 ± 11 BP, the range 1593-1531 cal BC has a 43.4% probability, and the most likely 68.2% subrange is 1575-1537 cal BC.

    “A date range of 1590-1532 cal BC has a 36.2%probability with the date 3328 ± 9 BP (the most likely subrange(s) looking at the 68.2% probability range is 1573-1539 cal BC) and a range 1593-1531 cal BC has a 43.4% probability with the date 3326 ± 11 BP (the most likely subrange looking at the 68.2% probability range is 1575-1537 cal BC).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Akrotiri VDL data (Figures 9 and 10), there is a long tail to the old side; there are very few more recent data than those in the 'low clump,' but quite a large range of older ages.

    “We might also observe that there is more of a long tail in the data to the old side in both Figures 9 and 10.Thus, there are very few more recent data than those in the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

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

    Findingown data

    The 'low date clump' of central values offers weighted average 14C ages of 3328 ± 9 BP (Figure 9) or 3328 ± 10 BP (Figure 10).

    “This”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The 14C-supported range, even at its margin and doing everything plausible to achieve the most recent age possible, does not run into the mid-1520s BC, let alone to 1500 BC or later.

    “The ^-supported range (even at its margin and doing everything plausible to achieve the most recent age possible) does not run into the mid-1520s BC, let alone to 1500 BC or later”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The Akrotiri volcanic destruction level (VDL) corresponds to the Santorini volcanic eruption.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When these 14C ages are considered in isolation, there is now a noticeably increased possibility for a date in the later 17th century BC and also for a date in the mid-16th century BC.

    “However, there is now a noticeably increased possibility for a date in the later 17th century BC, and also for a date in the mid-16th century BC date range when these 1 4 C ages are considered in isolation (as in Figure 11).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The weighted average of the μ ± σ offset findings for the Aegean-Anatolian-east Mediterranean region is 0.75 ± 1.72, effectively 0.

    “The weighted average of the μ ± σ offset findings in Figures 45678for the Aegean-Anatolian-east Mediterranean region is 0.75 ± 1.72i.e.effectively 0.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the runs considered for this paper, a few runs see slightly larger offsets (to ~5.1 ± 9.2 14C yr), but in no case is 0 outside the SD range.

    “The outcome from a typical run is shown; a few runs see slightly larger offsets (to ~5.1 ± 9.2 in runs considered for this paper), but in no case is 0 outside the SD range.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The known-age tree-ring samples used for offset comparisons are accurately dated to their stated calendar years.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    If the 'low date clump' Thera volcanic destruction level value is considered in isolation, the further slight reduction in the effective 14C age makes a 16th century BC date range just about as likely as, or even slightly more likely than, the 17th century BC date range.

    “If the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

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

    Premisecitation

    The Bronk Ramsey et al. (2010) study rules out some revisionist low chronologies and questions other extreme views.

    “Huber (2011:211) accepts that the Bronk Ramsey et al. (2010) study rules out some revisionist low chronologies and questions other extreme views”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A late 17th century BC date range remains the most likely date for the Santorini eruption even if a late-dating strategy is followed, and is a robust finding from the 14C evidence even allowing for various possible variation factors.

    “In general, a late 17th century BC date range is found (to remain) to be most likely even //such a late-dating strategy is followed-a late 17th century BC date range is thus a robust finding from the 14 C evidence even allowing for various possible variation factors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Several sets of 14C data on short-lived plant material from the Thera volcanic destruction level from Akrotiri have been published, with the data fully and readily available.

    “Several sets of 14 C data on shortlived plant material from the Thera volcanic destruction level from the archaeological site of Akrotiri have been published, with the data fully and readily available (shown in Manning and Kromer 2011a: Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Manning and Kromer 2011a

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

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    In statistical terms, the existing studies using the weighted average remain valid.

    “This is a subjective argument (since, in statistical terms, the existing studies using the weighted average remain valid) that looks to support as late a date as reasonable from the 14 C data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Second millennium BC Egyptian chronology is not entirely resolved; there remain several areas for minor debate.

    “This does not mean that 2nd millennium BC Egyptian chronology is entirely resolved-indeed there remain several areas for minor debate (e.g.Huber 2011)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Huber 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Growing-season-related 14C offsets are not an explanation for current differences in dating in the Aegean and at best provide only a few years of latitude.

    “This topic is thus not an explanation for current differences in dating in the Aegean and at best provides only a few years of latitude.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The apparent offset on the decadal scale in the more recent part of the Gordion time series reflects specific issues, especially the major solar minimum in the later 9th to mid-8th centuries BC and some apparent need for revision to IntCal09 in the 14th-13th centuries BC, and is not appropriate for typical periods and situations in the Aegean and east Mediterranean.

    “There is an apparent offset more on the decadal scale when looking at the more recent part of the Gordion time series-see discussions inManning et al. 2010-but this reflects specific issues-especially the major solar minimum in the later 9th to mid-8th centuries BC, but also some apparent need for revision to IntCal09 in the 14th-13th centuries BC-and so it is not appropriate for typical periods”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Manning et al. 2010

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Sophisticated 14C dating works very well in Egypt and offers a close match with the historical chronology.

    “We also know that sophisticated 14 C dating works very well in Egypt and offers a close match with the historical chronology (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    To employ such a low date for the Santorini eruption would still require a substantial revision and rethinking of a number of conventional Aegean-Egyptian linkages, especially viewpoints that place archaeological traits contemporary with the Santorini eruption and/or from shortly after it as lying in the 15th century BC, and in particular from the start of the reign of Tuthmosis III (~1479 BC).

    “To employ such a date for the Santorini eruption would still require a substantial revision and rethinking of a number of the conventional Aegean-Egyptian linkages, and especially of viewpoints that place archaeological traits that are at a minimum contemporary with the Santorini eruption, and/or from shortly after it, as lying in the 15th century BC, and in particular from the start of the reign”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bietak 2003

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

    • cites Bietak and Höflmayer 2007

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

    • cites MacGillivray 2009

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

    • Rests on an assumption: The Akrotiri volcanic destruction level (VDL) corresponds to the Santorini volcanic eruption.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Other suggested associations from tree-ring anomalies or changes in speleothem chemistry either lack a definite causal association with Santorini or have some flexibility in their chronology.

    “(Other associations suggested from tree-ring anomalies [and exactly which ones?], or changes in speleo-them chemistry, might also come into play, but as yet they either lack a definite causal association with Santorini, or have some flexibility in their chronology and, thus, we do not discuss them here: see Manning 2010:466-7.)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Manning 2010:466-7

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    For the Soter suggestion of a possible volcanic-source older age increment to be applicable despite the coherent Akrotiri VDL data, the effect would need to apply to both Hordeum sp. and Lathyrus sp., and thus to different original crop-growing fields and at different heights off the ground, which is perhaps unlikely.

    “it could be further argued that for the Soter suggestion of a possible volcanic-source older age increment to be nonetheless applicable then the effect needs to apply both to the Hordeum sp. and to Lathyrus sp. and so to different (original crop growing) fields and at different heights off the ground, which is perhaps unlikely.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    This dating is relatively robust.

    “Moreover, this dating is relatively robust.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The Akrotiri volcanic destruction level (VDL) corresponds to the Santorini volcanic eruption.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    For the Soter suggestion to be allowed, a consistent effect would have to apply to a large area of pre-eruption Santorini and over a period of weeks to months to years to decades, which is perhaps rather unlikely and no such case has yet been observed in the field.

    “Hence, it could be argued that a consistent effect has to somehow apply to a large area of pre-eruption Santorini, and over some time period of weeks to months to years to decades, in order to allow the Soter suggestion-and this overall scenario is perhaps rather unlikely (and no such case has yet been observed in the field).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If the Soter effect applied, the olive tree found buried by the eruption must also have been consistently affected over a number of years, which is seemingly unlikely.

    “then the olive tree in question (found some distance from Akrotiri and its likely fields) must also have been consistently affected and over a number of years (again seemingly unlikely, especially a stable effect over several years to decades).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    A late 17th century BC date range is more easily potentially compatible with a revised interpretation of the east Mediterranean archaeological synchronizations than an earlier mid-17th century BC date, which causes many more problems and contradictions.

    “By preferring a late 17th century BC date range, we find a result that is more easily potentially compatible with a revised interpretation of the east Mediterranean archaeological synchronizations (e.g.Kemp and Merrillees 1980;Betancourt 1987;Manning 1988Manning , 1999Manning , 2007Manning , 2009;;Manning et al. 2006;Manning and Bronk Ramsey 2009;Manning and Kromer 2011a)-whereas an earlier date”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kemp and Merrillees 1980
    • cites Betancourt 1987
    • cites Manning 1988 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The ice-core signal argued to be possibly associated with the Santorini eruption is published as dating ~1642 BC, but an apparent unexplained dating problem could see the ice-core date reduced by ~20 yr, potentially placing it into the same time period.

    “The ice-core signal that has been argued to be possibly associated with the Santorini eruption (despite criticisms) by Vinther et al. (2006Vinther et al. ( , 2008) ) is published as dating -1642 BC, but an apparent dating problem (unexplained) exists that could see the ice-core date reduced by ~20 yr (Muscheler 2009), potentially also placing it into the same time period.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Vinther et al. (2006, 2008)

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

    • cites Muscheler 2009 source
45 of 45

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The typical main growing season in the Aegean and east Mediterranean (excluding the southern Levant) is spring to summer and at most only slightly offset from the standard mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere growing season.

    “where the typical main growing season is spring to summer and at most only slightly offset from the standard mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere growing season as represented by the trees used for constructing the Northern Hemisphere 14 C calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2009).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The frequency distributions of 14C ages can reveal the presence of small 14C age increments affecting some data.

    “it is suggested here, by looking at the frequency distributions of the data sets available, that there may (subjective assessment) in fact be evidence of small 14 C age increments affecting some data”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The known-age tree-ring samples used for offset comparisons are accurately dated to their stated calendar years.

    “known-age pine from northwestern Turkey over a 500-yr period from AD 1300-1800”
    “known-age decadal samples over 130 calendar yr (AD 1801-1930)”
    “known-age samples over 60 calendar yr (AD 1800-1859)”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The short-lived samples from the Akrotiri VDL are securely associated with the Santorini eruption and date the destruction level.

    “short-lived sample material from the Akrotiri VDL”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 14C ages of the short-lived samples reflect the contemporary atmospheric 14C level except for possible volcanic CO2 contamination.

    “least altered by possible old (volcanic) C0 2”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The conventional archaeological date estimates for the Santorini/Thera eruption are 1530–1500 BC.

    “conventional archaeological date estimates for the date of the Santorini/Thera eruption -1530-1500 BC”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The low date clump of Akrotiri volcanic destruction data on short-lived samples more likely represents the correct contemporary 14C age of this time horizon.

    “If the subjective decision is made to prefer the (subjectively) observable”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Akrotiri volcanic destruction level (VDL) corresponds to the Santorini volcanic eruption.

    “In conclusion, a reappraisal of the Akrotiri volcanic destruction level 14 C data set from short-lived samples, in light of the paper of Soter (2011), suggests that a dating for the Santorini volcanic eruption in the late 17th century BC remains most likely”
8 of 8

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?

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.

  • Cyprus offset disagrees with plotted model output

    Minor

    The stated offset of about −1.1 years does not match the displayed model mean of −1.60858 years, which rounds to −1.6 years at the stated precision.

  • Miletos offset changes sign between text and caption

    Minor

    For the 0 ± 20-year offset test, the text gives +5.7 years but the Figure 6 caption gives −5.7 years.

  • Turkish pine offset has opposite signs

    Minor

    The text reports the offset as −1.2 years, while the Figure 4 caption reports +1.2 years for the same comparison.

  • Discussion reverses several reported offset signs

    Minor

    The discussion presents Gordion, Miletos, and Lebanon offsets as +3.6, +3.8, and +0.7 years, respectively. Their earlier reported values are −3.6, −3.8, and −0.7 years; these are signed μ ± σ values, not absolute magnitudes.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Housley, 1990, Thera and the Aegean World III. Volume Three: Chronology.
  2. Wiener, 2003, Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age.
  3. Warren, 2010, Die Bedeutung der minoischen und mykenischen Glyptik. VI. Internationales Siegel-Symposium aus Anlass des 50 jährigen Bestehens des CMS Marburg, 9–12 October 2008.
  4. Manning, 2007, The Synchronisation of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. – III.
  5. Hardy, 1990, Thera and the Aegean World III. Volume Three: Chronology.
  6. Friedrich, 1990, Thera and the Aegean World III. Volume Three: Chronology.
  7. Kutschera, 2000, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. – I., 68
  8. Friedrich, 2009, Time's Up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini. Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007 Initiated by Jan Heinemeier and Walter L. Friedrich., 56
  9. Maniatis, 2010, New radiocarbon dates from Akrotiri, Thera, Pasiphae, 4, 41
  10. Bietak, 2003, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. – II., 23
  11. Nelson, 1990, Thera and the Aegean World III. Volume Three: Chronology., 197
  12. Manning, 2009, Time's Up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini. Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007 Initiated by Jan Heinemeier and Walter L. Friedrich., Volume 10
  13. Wiener, 2009b, Tree-Rings, Kings and Old World Archaeology and Environment: Papers Presented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm.
  14. Muscheler, 2009, Time's Up! Dating the Minoan eruption of Santorini. Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007 Initiated by Jan Heinemeier and Walter L. Friedrich., Volume 10
  15. Manning, 2009, Time's Up! Dating the Minoan Eruption of Santorini. Acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007 Initiated by Jan Heinemeier and Walter L. Friedrich., Volume 10
  16. Hubberten, 1990, Thera and the Aegean World III. Volume Three: Chronology.
  17. Manning, 2003, The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC (II). Proceedings of the SCIEM2000 EuroConference Haindorf, May 2001.
  18. Wiener, 2006, Timelines: Studies in Honor of Manfred Bietak.
  19. Manning, 2012, Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Egypt.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Manning, S. W., & Kromer, B.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
Corresponding author
Manning, Sturt W
ORCID
Venue
Radiocarbon
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2012
Volume
54
Issue
3-4
Pages
449-474
ISSN
  • 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-5755
DOI
10.1017/s0033822200047202
OpenAlex
W2237192334
Semantic Scholar
785c5d03437b3f677e39ff80d4e87c2aa2e442a5
Cited by
29
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.15
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
  • Institute for Aegean Prehistory
  • Council for British Research in the Levant
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Tree-ring climate responses
Keywords
Santorini eruption, Santorini, radiocarbon dating, growing season effects, Akrotiri, Eastern Mediterranean, eruption chronology, Minoan eruption, Minoan collapse, Minoan Bronze Age

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 2026-10-26.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-26.

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