CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesTree-ring climate responsesGeology and Paleoclimatology Research

Radiocarbon offsets and old world chronology as relevant to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia and Thera (Santorini)

Open access
Manning, Sturt W., Wacker, Lukas, Büntgen, Ulf, Bronk Ramsey, Christopher, Dee, Michael W., Kromer, Bernd, Lorentzen, Brita, Tegel, Willy·2020·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-020-69287-2PMC PMC7431540
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The new IntCal20 radiocarbon record continues decades of successful practice by employing one calibration curve as an approximation for different regions across the hemisphere. Here we investigate three radiocarbon time-series of archaeological and historical importance from the Mediterranean-Anatolian region, which indicate, or may include, offsets from IntCal20 (~0–22 14 C years). While modest, these differences are critical for our precise understanding of historical and environmental events across the Mediterranean Basin and Near East. Offsets towards older radiocarbon ages in Mediterranean-Anatolian wood can be explained by a divergence between high-resolution radiocarbon dates from the recent generation of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) versus dates from previous technologies, such as low-level gas proportional counting (LLGPC) and liquid scintillation spectrometry (LSS). However, another reason is likely differing growing season lengths and timings, which would affect the seasonal cycle of atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations recorded in different geographic zones. Understanding and correcting these offsets is key to the well-defined calendar placement of a Middle Bronze Age tree-ring chronology. This in turn resolves long-standing debate over Mesopotamian chronology in the earlier second millennium BCE. Last but not least, accurate dating is needed for any further assessment of the societal and environmental impact of the Thera/Santorini volcanic eruption.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Three high-resolution Mediterranean-Anatolian radiocarbon time-series show small but chronologically important offsets from IntCal20, often around 0–22 14C years. Correcting these offsets resolves Old Assyrian/Old Babylonian chronology around the Middle Chronology range and sharpens, but does not fully settle, the date of the Thera/Santorini eruption.

Key findings

  • The Anatolian Middle Bronze Age juniper series fits IntCal20 poorly without an offset; the viable solution is a ΔR of 22 ± 5 14C years, while the alternative −32 ± 8 14C years is excluded. After removing a problematic IntCal interval, the remaining offset is 17.0 ± 4.1 14C years.
  • The MBA wiggle-match places earliest use of the Waršama Palace at Kültepe at ~1,837–1,826 BCE (95.4% hpd) and the Sarıkaya Palace at Acemhöyük at ~1,778–1,767 BCE (95.4% hpd), supporting the High Middle or Low Middle Mesopotamian chronologies.
  • The Egyptian New Kingdom offset against IntCal20 is ~16 ± 4 14C years, reduced from ~19 ± 5 against IntCal04; an alternative NK model gives a smaller ΔR of ~6 ± 6 14C years.
  • Gordion Hd GOR has a weighted average offset of 2.3 ± 2.1 14C years (n = 117), while AA GOR shows 11.2 ± 1.9 14C years, though AA measurements on Irish oak are ~6.2 ± 1.8 14C years older than ETH. Thera models give a 95.4% hpd window of 1,619–1,543 BCE, with most probability ~1,617–1,601 BCE and ~1,570–1,562 BCE; a hypothetical +8 14C year offset shifts probability toward the earlier-mid sixteenth century BCE.

Methods

  • The study compares three high-resolution 14C time-series against IntCal20: an Anatolian MBA juniper chronology from Acemhöyük, Karahöyük and Kültepe (76 dates, 40 elements; after exclusions 72 dates and 39 elements), the Egyptian New Kingdom dataset, and the Gordion tree-ring chronology in Heidelberg LLGPC and Arizona AMS versions. New ETH measurements were added for the MBA series and for known-age Erstein oak samples.
  • Analyses use OxCal versions 4.1.7, 4.3.2 and 4.4.1 with IntCal20 at 1-year resolution, including D_Sequence wiggle-matching, ΔR tests with neutral priors, SSimple outlier models, weighted averages, and Bayesian models for Egyptian NK, Amarna and Aegean/Thera contexts.
  • Historical and archaeological associations, dendrochronological crossdating, and published tree-ring/14C datasets provide the chronological constraints.

Limitations

  • The paper states that offsets are not constant and should not be treated as a single constant factor; much of IntCal20 for the second to early first millennia BCE still derives from LLGPC/LSS data, and inter-laboratory differences add further error. It also states that final placement of the Thera eruption depends on clarifying whether a small additional positive 14C offset existed.
  • Evident from the text: several key analyses and details—including the Thera model, outlier decisions, and supplementary comparisons—are placed in Supplementary Discussion/Tables rather than fully in the main text, so some methodological detail is not self-contained in the article.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-020-69287-2

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

83 of 158 cited sources checked · 42 supported · 3 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    In several instances including this one, detailed new measurements of time intervals with AMS 14C have indicated slightly older 14C ages.

    “As noted, in several instances including this one, detailed new measurements of time intervals with AMS 14C have indicated slightly older 14C ages1,2,10,38,39,43–48.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim9 of 10 sources checked
    • cites [1] Reimer, P. J. et al. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 kcal BP). Radiocarbon 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41 (2020). source

      The Dendrochronology section describes new, high-precision AMS measurements of tree rings, supporting the measurement part of the claim. It does not say those measurements generally yielded slightly older 14C ages. The Last Glacial section discusses older *calibrated calendar ages* for one interval, which is not the same as older measured 14C ages. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [2] van der Plicht, J., Bronk Ramsey, C., Heaton, T. J., Scott, E. M. & Talamo, S. Recent developments in calibration for archaeological and environmental samples. Radiocarbon 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.22 (2020). source
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source
    • cites [38] Pearson, C. et al. Securing timelines in the ancient Mediterranean using multiproxy annual tree-ring data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 8410–8415 (2020). source
    • cites [39] Pearson, C. et al. Annual variation in atmospheric 14C between 1700 BC and 1480 BC. Radiocarbon 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.14 (2020). source
    • cites [43] Pearson, C. L. et al. Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar8241 (2018). source
    • cites [44] Güttler, D., Wacker, L., Kromer, B., Friedrich, M. & Synal, H.-A. Evidence of 11-year solar cycles in tree rings from 1010 to 1110 AD—progress on high precision AMS measurements. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 294, 459–463 (2013). source
    • cites [45] Hogg, A. et al. The New Zealand Kauri (Agathis australis) research project: A radiocarbon dating intercomparison of Younger Dryas Wood and implications for IntCal13. Radiocarbon 55, 2035–2048 (2013). source

      The Five-Laboratory intercomparison reports that repeated ETHZ measurements had mean radiocarbon ages about 30 ± 7 years younger than the initial analyses, not older. The paper also describes its new Ollon505 measurements as offset toward younger ages. Although it used AMS for some measurements, these findings run contrary to the age direction attributed to it; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [46] Friedrich, R. et al. Annual 14C tree-ring data around 400 AD: Mid- and high-latitude records. Radiocarbon 61, 1305–1316 (2019). source
    • cites [47] Kuitems, M., van der Plicht, J. & Jansma, E. Wood from The Netherlands around the time of the Santorini eruption dated by dendrochronology and radiocarbon. Radiocarbon 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.23 (2020). source
  • Premisecitation

    IntCal20 employs a single 14C calibration curve as an approximation for different regions across the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes.

    “The new IntCal20 radiocarbon record continues decades of successful practice by employing one calibration curve as an approximation for different regions across the hemisphere.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
      “IntCal20 continues the long-standing assumption that a single 14C calibration curve is applicable to the mid-latitudes of the NH1–4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [1] Reimer, P. J. et al. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 kcal BP). Radiocarbon 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41 (2020). source
    • cites [2] van der Plicht, J., Bronk Ramsey, C., Heaton, T. J., Scott, E. M. & Talamo, S. Recent developments in calibration for archaeological and environmental samples. Radiocarbon 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.22 (2020). source
    • cites [3] Braziunas, T. F., Fung, I. Y. & Stuiver, M. The preindustrial atmospheric 14CO2 latitudinal gradient as related to exchanges among atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial reservoirs. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 9, 565–584 (1995). source
    • cites [4] Büntgen, U. et al. Tree rings reveal globally coherent signature of cosmogenic radiocarbon events in 774 and 993 CE. Nat. Commun. 9, 3605 (2018). source

      The Discussion refers to a singular, decadal-resolved IntCal calibration curve, supporting the general idea of one curve. It does not discuss IntCal20 or say that the curve is used as an approximation across different Northern Hemisphere mid-latitude regions; the paper instead reports geographic variation in radiocarbon concentrations. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationreasoning

    The circumstances of fluctuating offsets complicate the hypothesis of a single Northern Hemisphere calibration curve, with any variation assumed as effectively comparable with or incorporated within error terms.

    “These circumstances complicate the elegant hypothesis of a single NH calibration curve, with any variation assumed as effectively comparable with (or incorporated within) error terms2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] van der Plicht, J., Bronk Ramsey, C., Heaton, T. J., Scott, E. M. & Talamo, S. Recent developments in calibration for archaeological and environmental samples. Radiocarbon 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.22 (2020). source

      The ‘Regional and Seasonal Effects’ section (p. 1110) describes offsets from the hemispherical average and says most regional or seasonal effects are likely comparable to measurement precision. ‘Construction of the IntCal20 Curve’ explains that additional variation relative to a single hemispheric curve is incorporated into predictive intervals. The claim overgeneralizes this to any variation: the paper excepts major carbon-reservoir effects and cautions that offsets may be correlated across a dataset rather than captured by laboratory error terms. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    The impact of these 14C offsets can be substantial for Mediterranean and Near Eastern archaeology because of intricate and densely integrated timeframes and small margins of tolerance.

    “While small, the impact of these 14C offsets can be substantial for Mediterranean and Near Eastern archaeology because of the intricate and densely integrated timeframes involved and the small margins of tolerance2,7,8,10,12.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [2] van der Plicht, J., Bronk Ramsey, C., Heaton, T. J., Scott, E. M. & Talamo, S. Recent developments in calibration for archaeological and environmental samples. Radiocarbon 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.22 (2020). source

      The Regional and Seasonal Effects section (p. 1110) says small systematic ¹⁴C offsets matter when complex models seek decadal precision, particularly across large datasets. The Conclusions call a roughly 20-year calibration shift crucial to dating the Santorini eruption. These passages support the potential for substantial archaeological impact, but do not establish the claim’s broader scope across Mediterranean and Near Eastern archaeology or its stated explanation of densely integrated timeframes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [7] Bronk, R. C. Radiocarbon-based chronology for dynastic Egypt. Science 328, 1554–1557 (2010). source
    • cites [8] Manning, S. W. et al. Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6141–6146 (2018). source

      The Discussion says that relatively small offsets can produce dating changes important to high-resolution chronology debates in the southern Levant, where disputed dates differ by only decades. This supports the claim about substantial impact and narrow tolerances, but the paper does not establish that impact across Mediterranean and Near Eastern archaeology generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source
    • cites [12] Bietak, M. The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC (Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, 2000).

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

  • Premisecitation

    The intra-annual cycle of atmospheric 14C levels has a Northern Hemisphere winter low and a summer high.

    “Among explanations for offsets between 14C measurements, the least recognized is the role of the intra-annual cycle of atmospheric 14C levels, with an NH winter low and a summer high5,6,8–10,14.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [5] Kromer, B. Regional 14CO2 offsets in the troposphere: Magnitude, mechanisms, and consequences. Science 294, 2529–2532 (2001). source
    • cites [6] Dee, M. W. et al. Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset in the radiocarbon record for ancient Egypt. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 687–693 (2010). source
    • cites [8] Manning, S. W. et al. Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6141–6146 (2018). source
    • cites [9] McDonald, L., Chivall, D., Miles, D. & Bronk Ramsey, C. Seasonal variations in the 14C content of tree rings: Influences on radiocarbon calibration and single-year curve construction. Radiocarbon 61, 185–194 (2019). source
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source
    • cites [14] Levin, I. et al. Observations and modelling of the global distribution and long-term trend of atmospheric 14CO2. Tellus B 62, 26–46 (2010). source

      Section 3.3 confirms a Northern Hemisphere seasonal cycle in atmospheric ¹⁴CO₂. It places the maximum around mid-September and the minimum around late March to early April, however, rather than describing a winter low and summer high. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 46
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The MBA wiggle-match places likely earliest use (RY673) of the Waršama Palace at Kültepe ~1,837 to 1,826 BCE (95.4% hpd) and earliest use (RY732) of the Sarıkaya Palace at Acemhöyük ~1,778 to 1,767 BCE (95.4% hpd).

    “The MBA wiggle-match in Fig. 1b places likely earliest use (RY673) of the Waršama Palace at Kültepe18 ~ 1,837 to 1,826 BCE (95.4% hpd) and the earliest use (RY732) of the Sarıkaya Palace at Acemhöyük18 ~ 1,778 to 1,767 BCE (95.4% hpd).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] Manning, S. W. et al. Integrated tree-ring-radiocarbon high-resolution timeframe to resolve earlier second millennium BCE Mesopotamian chronology. PLoS One 11(7), e0157144 (2016). source

      Table 3 in the Results section identifies RY673 and RY732 as the likely earliest-use years, but gives their 95.4% hpd ranges as 1855–1839 BCE and 1797–1781 BCE, respectively. Both date ranges in the citing sentence differ from those reported in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A date for the Thera eruption after ~1,543/1,538 BCE remains improbable (end 95.4% hpd, multiple runs Fig. 6 models), ruling out the conventional 'low' chronology range ~1,530 to 1,500 BCE.

    “Contrary to previous advertisements43, a date for the Thera eruption after ~ 1,543/1,538 BCE remains improbable (end 95.4% hpd, multiple runs Fig. 6 models), ruling out the conventional ‘low’ chronology range ~ 1,530 to 1,500 BCE33,52, but final placement depends on clarification of the reality (or not) of a small additional positive 14C offset.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [43] Pearson, C. L. et al. Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar8241 (2018). source

      The Discussion (p. 5) says the revised 95% credible intervals extend beyond 1550 BCE in all but one scenario and overlap conventional archaeological chronology. It calls only dates more recent than about 1510 BCE highly unlikely, so it does not rule out the entire 1530–1500 BCE range or place a general cutoff at 1543/1538 BCE. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [33] Manning, S. W. A Test of Time and A Test of Time Revisited. The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid-second Millennium BC (Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2014).

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

    • cites [52] Höflmayer, F. The date of the Minoan Santorini eruption: Quantifying the “offset”. Radiocarbon 54, 435–448 (2012). source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There is no substantive Mediterranean 14C offset at this time beyond that covered already by IntCal20 for this period.
    • Rests on an assumption: 14C dates on samples from Thera are not affected by volcanic CO2.

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

    Premisecitation

    Latitude-based variations in 14C levels are regarded as minimal within the mid-latitudes.

    “Finally, there are latitude-based variations in 14C levels, but these are regarded as minimal within the mid-latitudes3,4,11.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [3] Braziunas, T. F., Fung, I. Y. & Stuiver, M. The preindustrial atmospheric 14CO2 latitudinal gradient as related to exchanges among atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial reservoirs. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 9, 565–584 (1995). source
    • cites [4] Büntgen, U. et al. Tree rings reveal globally coherent signature of cosmogenic radiocarbon events in 774 and 993 CE. Nat. Commun. 9, 3605 (2018). source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies a north–south gradient in mean ¹⁴C levels and generally higher concentrations above 60° N, supporting the existence of latitude-based variation. It does not assess whether variation within the mid-latitudes is minimal. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [11] Stuiver, M. & Braziunas, T. F. 1998 GRL anthropogenic and solar components of hemispheric 14C. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 329–332 (1998). source

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

    Interpretationcitation

    Apparent seasonal 14C offsets are potentially associated with changes in percentage contributions of early and late wood to given tree-rings.

    “and potentially also, therefore, changes in percentage contributions of early and late wood to given tree-rings5,8–10,13.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [5] Kromer, B. Regional 14CO2 offsets in the troposphere: Magnitude, mechanisms, and consequences. Science 294, 2529–2532 (2001). source
    • cites [8] Manning, S. W. et al. Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6141–6146 (2018). source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) links radiocarbon offsets to differences in growing seasons and suggests that climate-driven shifts in those seasons can change the offsets. It does not discuss changing percentage contributions of earlywood and latewood within individual tree rings, so that specific proposed mechanism is not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [9] McDonald, L., Chivall, D., Miles, D. & Bronk Ramsey, C. Seasonal variations in the 14C content of tree rings: Influences on radiocarbon calibration and single-year curve construction. Radiocarbon 61, 185–194 (2019). source
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source

      The Results (Interlaboratory 14C differences; page unavailable) associate a radiocarbon offset with the wood’s source and growing season, and the Introduction (Differences in typical growing season and 14C offsets; page unavailable) discusses when oak latewood forms. Neither passage links the offsets to changes in the percentage of earlywood versus latewood within individual tree rings. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [13] Manning, S. W. et al. High-precision dendro-14C dating of two cedar wood sequences from First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom Egypt and a small regional climate-related 14C divergence. J. Archaeol. Sci. 46, 401–416 (2014). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The growth period of tree rings in central and northern Europe and northern America that comprise the Holocene IntCal record is spring through summer, whereas many plants in the Mediterranean and Near East grow in winter to early summer.

    “An example of the latter is the difference between the growth period of tree rings in central and northern Europe and northern America that comprise the Holocene IntCal record (spring through summer), versus those of many plants in the Mediterranean and Near East (winter to early summer)5–8,10.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [5] Kromer, B. Regional 14CO2 offsets in the troposphere: Magnitude, mechanisms, and consequences. Science 294, 2529–2532 (2001). source
    • cites [6] Dee, M. W. et al. Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset in the radiocarbon record for ancient Egypt. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 687–693 (2010). source
    • cites [7] Bronk, R. C. Radiocarbon-based chronology for dynastic Egypt. Science 328, 1554–1557 (2010). source
    • cites [8] Manning, S. W. et al. Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6141–6146 (2018). source
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Apparent seasonal 14C offsets appear associated with changes in 14C production and thus likely with variations in solar activity and climate (and ocean systems).

    “and appear associated with changes in 14C production and thus likely with variations in solar activity and climate (and ocean systems), and potentially also, therefore, changes in percentage contributions of early and late wood to given tree-rings5,8–10,13.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [5] Kromer, B. Regional 14CO2 offsets in the troposphere: Magnitude, mechanisms, and consequences. Science 294, 2529–2532 (2001). source
    • cites [8] Manning, S. W. et al. Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6141–6146 (2018). source

      The Abstract (page unavailable) says regional 14C offsets can vary with climate processes, solar activity, and ocean circulation. The Results (page unavailable) also report associations between the observed offset, warmer temperatures, and calibration-curve reversals corresponding to increased solar irradiance. Our copy does not establish the claim's intermediate link—that the apparent seasonal offsets are associated with changes in 14C production. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [9] McDonald, L., Chivall, D., Miles, D. & Bronk Ramsey, C. Seasonal variations in the 14C content of tree rings: Influences on radiocarbon calibration and single-year curve construction. Radiocarbon 61, 185–194 (2019). source
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source
    • cites [13] Manning, S. W. et al. High-precision dendro-14C dating of two cedar wood sequences from First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom Egypt and a small regional climate-related 14C divergence. J. Archaeol. Sci. 46, 401–416 (2014). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many plants in lower elevation contexts in the Mediterranean and Near East grow primarily in winter to spring, or exhibit plasticity allowing climate and growth environment to modulate the boundaries of their growing season from year to year.

    “In contrast, many plants in lower elevation contexts in the Mediterranean and Near East grow primarily in winter to spring6,8,10, or exhibit plasticity allowing climate and growth environment to modulate the boundaries of their growing season from year to year15.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [6] Dee, M. W. et al. Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset in the radiocarbon record for ancient Egypt. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 687–693 (2010). source
    • cites [8] Manning, S. W. et al. Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6141–6146 (2018). source

      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
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source
    • cites [15] Flexas, J. et al. Photosynthetic limitations in Mediterranean plants: A review. Environ. Exp. Bot. 103, 12–23 (2014). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    This provides a specific and secure chronological placement for the later part of the time series, versus a lack of clarity with a smaller dataset and previous calibration curves.

    “This provides a specific and secure chronological placement for the later part of the time series, versus a lack of clarity in this region with a smaller dataset and previous calibration curves18,21.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [18] Manning, S. W. et al. Integrated tree-ring-radiocarbon high-resolution timeframe to resolve earlier second millennium BCE Mesopotamian chronology. PLoS One 11(7), e0157144 (2016). source

      In Materials and Methods, §14C and Dendrochronology (page unavailable), the paper reports robust calendar placements and says the newer IntCal13 curve reduced discrepancies in the earlier Gordion analysis. Fig. 5 also compares a placement using only part of the Gordion series. These passages support improved chronological placement, but do not establish the claimed lack of clarity specifically for the later part of the series with both a smaller dataset and previous calibration curves. (LLM, conf=0.79)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [21] Manning, S. W., Barjamovic, G. & Lorentzen, B. The course of 14C dating does not run smooth: Tree-rings, radiocarbon, and potential impacts of a calibration curve wiggle on dating Mesopotamian chronology. J. Ancient Egypt. Interconnect. 13, 70–81 (2017).

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Based on existing observations, 14C offsets are typically evident only over certain periods, and become visible in the context of longer high-resolution rigid or near-rigid time-series.

    “Based on existing observations, 14C offsets are typically evident only over certain periods, and become visible in the context of longer high-resolution rigid or near-rigid time-series5–8,10,13.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [5] Kromer, B. Regional 14CO2 offsets in the troposphere: Magnitude, mechanisms, and consequences. Science 294, 2529–2532 (2001). source
    • cites [6] Dee, M. W. et al. Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset in the radiocarbon record for ancient Egypt. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 687–693 (2010). source
    • cites [7] Bronk, R. C. Radiocarbon-based chronology for dynastic Egypt. Science 328, 1554–1557 (2010). source
    • cites [8] Manning, S. W. et al. Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for archaeological chronology debates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6141–6146 (2018). source
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source
    • cites [13] Manning, S. W. et al. High-precision dendro-14C dating of two cedar wood sequences from First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom Egypt and a small regional climate-related 14C divergence. J. Archaeol. Sci. 46, 401–416 (2014). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Much of the calibration curve record up until IntCal20 derives from laboratories using LLGPC or LSS, and except for ~1,700 to 1,500 BCE, most of the second to early first millennia BCE still does.

    “Much of the calibration curve record up until IntCal20 derives from laboratories using LLGPC or LSS1,10,11,27,32, and, except for the period ~ 1,700 to 1,500 BCE, most of the second to early first millennia BCE still does1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim5 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [1] Reimer, P. J. et al. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 kcal BP). Radiocarbon 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41 (2020). source

      Section 2, “Dendrochronology” (page unavailable), says earlier Holocene calibration measurements were performed by decay counting and describes newer AMS measurements. It does not establish that LLGPC or LSS measurements still make up most of the second-to-early-first-millennia BCE record, or that ~1700–1500 BCE is the exception. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source

      The Results section (‘Interlaboratory 14C differences’; page unavailable) says LLGPC measurements form the basis of most of the existing IntCal curve around 1660–1540 BCE. It does not establish that LLGPC or liquid scintillation counting supplied most of the record across the second to early first millennia BCE, or that this remained true in IntCal20, which it describes as forthcoming. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [11] Stuiver, M. & Braziunas, T. F. 1998 GRL anthropogenic and solar components of hemispheric 14C. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 329–332 (1998). source

      The Introduction and ‘Temporal Regional 14C Change’ section discuss tree-ring measurements and the regions used for earlier calibration curves. Our copy does not say whether those measurements used LLGPC or LSS, or describe the composition of IntCal20 across the second to early first millennia BCE. Searches for the counting methods and the 1700–1500 BCE interval found no passage addressing those points. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [27] Reimer, P. J. et al. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years Cal BP. Radiocarbon 55, 1869–1887 (2013). source

      The Terrestrial ¹⁴C Archives section and Table 1 describe tree-ring data included in IntCal13, including data spanning parts of the second millennium BCE. They do not identify which laboratories used LLGPC or LSS, establish that those methods account for most measurements, or describe an exception around 1700–1500 BCE. Searches for the method names and that date range did not resolve the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [32] Reimer, P. J. et al. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 Cal KYR BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058 (2004). source

      The Tree-Ring Data Sets and Belfast Data Set sections describe laboratory measurements used in IntCal04, including measurements in the period around 1700–1500 BCE. But our copy does not identify those laboratories’ methods as LLGPC or LSS, establish that they supplied most of the record, or address what remained in IntCal20. (LLM, conf=0.79)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    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,”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] van der Plicht, J., Bronk Ramsey, C., Heaton, T. J., Scott, E. M. & Talamo, S. Recent developments in calibration for archaeological and environmental samples. Radiocarbon 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.22 (2020). source

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

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [52] Höflmayer, F. The date of the Minoan Santorini eruption: Quantifying the “offset”. Radiocarbon 54, 435–448 (2012). source

      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
    • cites [53] Manning, S. W. et al. Dating the Thera (Santorini) eruption: Archaeological and scientific evidence supporting a high chronology. Antiquity 88, 1164–1179 (2014). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    AA 14C data overall for 1,700-1,480 BCE are older than the consensus (IntCal20) or in direct comparisons with ETH by around ~6 to 7 14C years.

    “Second, AA 14C data overall for this period38,39,43 are older than the consensus (IntCal20) or in direct comparisons with ETH by around ~ 6 to 7 14C years39.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [38] Pearson, C. et al. Securing timelines in the ancient Mediterranean using multiproxy annual tree-ring data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 8410–8415 (2020). source

      The Results report that annual data differ from IntCal13 over 1650–1540 BCE, and the Fig. 2 caption identifies AA and ETH data as closely agreeing. The paper does not establish that AA dates are older than ETH or IntCal20 by approximately 6–7 radiocarbon years; it says IntCal20 had yet to be released. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [39] Pearson, C. et al. Annual variation in atmospheric 14C between 1700 BC and 1480 BC. Radiocarbon 62, https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.14 (2020). source

      The Results report a mean AA–ETH difference of 6.2 ± 1.8 radiocarbon years, with ETH measurements younger, supporting the quoted 6–7-year direct comparison. That comparison covers approximately 1680–1500 BC, not the full 1700–1480 BC period; the paper compares its annual data with IntCal13, not IntCal20. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [43] Pearson, C. L. et al. Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar8241 (2018). source

      The IntCal13 comparison (p. 3) reports an offset in the annual Arizona measurements, but only from about 1660 to 1540 BCE; it says the data agree with IntCal13 from 1700 to 1660 BCE and after 1540 BCE. The calibration discussion (p. 3) describes a change of roughly 30–40 radiocarbon years, not 6–7. This 2018 paper does not compare the data with IntCal20, and its Experimental design section (p. 6) gives no quantified AA–ETH difference. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The dendrochronology of the Juniperus sp. time series from Acemhöyük, Karahöyük and Kültepe is published.

    “The dendrochronology of the Juniperus sp. time series from Acemhöyük, Karahöyük and Kültepe is published18.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] Manning, S. W. et al. Integrated tree-ring-radiocarbon high-resolution timeframe to resolve earlier second millennium BCE Mesopotamian chronology. PLoS One 11(7), e0157144 (2016). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Timbers from the Sarıkaya Palace at Acemhöyük include bark, so the felling date and likely primary construction 0-1 year later is at RY730-731, suggesting earliest building use likely ~ RY732.

    “Timbers from the Sarıkaya Palace at Acemhöyük include bark (felling date and likely primary construction 0–1 year later) at RY730–731, and so suggest earliest building use likely ~ RY73218.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] Manning, S. W. et al. Integrated tree-ring-radiocarbon high-resolution timeframe to resolve earlier second millennium BCE Mesopotamian chronology. PLoS One 11(7), e0157144 (2016). source

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    This could minimize a time difference previously viewed as problematic, and might start to permit discussion of suggested possible associations between these episodes.

    “This could minimize a time difference previously viewed as problematic52, and might start to permit discussion of suggested possible associations between these episodes56.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [52] Höflmayer, F. The date of the Minoan Santorini eruption: Quantifying the “offset”. Radiocarbon 54, 435–448 (2012). source
    • cites [56] Ritner, R. K. & Moeller, N. The Ahmose ‘Tempest Stela’, Thera and comparative chronology. J. Near Eastern Stud. 73, 1–19 (2014). source

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    Pretreatment and processing of samples and their AMS 14C dating at the ETH laboratory followed methods previously described for similar wood/charcoal samples.

    “Pretreatment and processing of samples and their AMS 14C dating at the ETH laboratory followed methods previously described for similar wood/charcoal samples4,44,65,66.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [4] Büntgen, U. et al. Tree rings reveal globally coherent signature of cosmogenic radiocarbon events in 774 and 993 CE. Nat. Commun. 9, 3605 (2018). source

      The Methods sections on Sample preparation and Radiocarbon measurements (page unavailable) describe preparing wood samples, graphitizing them, and measuring their radiocarbon at ETH Zurich using AMS. The paper is a precedent for the wood-sample methods, but our copy does not describe pretreatment or dating of charcoal samples. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [44] Güttler, D., Wacker, L., Kromer, B., Friedrich, M. & Synal, H.-A. Evidence of 11-year solar cycles in tree rings from 1010 to 1110 AD—progress on high precision AMS measurements. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 294, 459–463 (2013). source
    • cites [65] Němec, N., Wacker, L., Hajdas, I. & Gäggeler, H. Alternative methods for cellulose preparation for AMS measurement. Radiocarbon 52, 1358–1370 (2010). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The wiggle-match calendar placement of the Hd GOR time series uses the placement with satisfactory OxCal agreement indices after removing the 13 or 14 largest outliers; this places the last year of the chronology RY1,764, with bark (felling date) ~748BCE.

    “The wiggle-match calendar placement of the Hd GOR time series22 uses the placement with satisfactory OxCal agreement indices after removing the 13 or 14 largest outliers (SSimple outlier model24 applied to individual dates, dates in weighted averages, and the weighted averages42). The minimum almost satisfactory case removes 13 individual outliers and achieves Amodel ~ 58 and Aoverall ~ 61, while”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [22] Bronk Ramsey, C., van der Plicht, J. & Weninger, B. ‘Wiggle matching’ radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 43, 381–389 (2001). source

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

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [24] Bronk Ramsey, C. Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 51, 1023–1045 (2009). source
    • cites [42] Ward, G. K. & Wilson, S. R. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: A critique. Archaeometry 20, 19–31 (1978). source

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

    Premisecitation

    The archaeological associations between the contexts of the MBA tree ring time series and the sites of Kültepe and Acemhöyük are as previously outlined.

    “The archaeological associations between the contexts of the MBA tree ring time series and the sites of Kültepe and Acemhöyük are as previously outlined18,19,21.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [18] Manning, S. W. et al. Integrated tree-ring-radiocarbon high-resolution timeframe to resolve earlier second millennium BCE Mesopotamian chronology. PLoS One 11(7), e0157144 (2016). source
    • cites [19] Barjamovic, G., Hertel, T. & Larsen, M. T. Ups and Downs at Kanesh-Observations on Chronology, History and Society in the Old Assyrian period (Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden, 2012).

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

    • cites [21] Manning, S. W., Barjamovic, G. & Lorentzen, B. The course of 14C dating does not run smooth: Tree-rings, radiocarbon, and potential impacts of a calibration curve wiggle on dating Mesopotamian chronology. J. Ancient Egypt. Interconnect. 13, 70–81 (2017).

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

    Premisecitation

    The 14C dates and dendrochronology of the Gordion time series employed is published.

    “The 14C dates and dendrochronology of the Gordion time series employed is published5,10,37–39,64.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [5] Kromer, B. Regional 14CO2 offsets in the troposphere: Magnitude, mechanisms, and consequences. Science 294, 2529–2532 (2001). source
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source
    • cites [37] Manning, S. W. et al. 14C Record and wiggle-match placement for the Anatolian (Gordion Area) Juniper Tree-Ring Chronology ~1729 to 751 Cal BC, and typical Aegean/Anatolian (growing season related) regional 14C offset assessment. Radiocarbon 52, 1571–1597 (2010). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Timbers from the Waršama Palace at Kültepe include bark, so the felling date and likely primary construction 0-1 year later is placed RY670-672, suggesting earliest building use likely ~ RY673.

    “Timbers from the Waršama Palace at Kültepe include bark. Hence the felling date and likely primary construction 0–1 year later is placed RY670–672, and so suggest earliest building use likely ~ RY67318.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] Manning, S. W. et al. Integrated tree-ring-radiocarbon high-resolution timeframe to resolve earlier second millennium BCE Mesopotamian chronology. PLoS One 11(7), e0157144 (2016). source

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

    Premisecitation

    Details on the Miletos and Noceto tree-ring samples and 14C dates are published.

    “Details on the Miletos and Noceto tree-ring samples and 14C dates are published10,51.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source

      The Results section describes tree-ring samples from Noceto and their 14C date series, and Materials and Methods points to supplementary details on the samples and measurements. No passage found in our copy addresses Miletos (searched: Miletos, Miletos tree-ring samples), so this source supports only the Noceto part of the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [51] Manning, S. W. et al. Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Science 312, 565–569 (2006). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    This fit is 2 years later than the OxCal best fit using all data (against IntCal20 or IntCal04) but with poor OxCal agreement indices.

    “This fit is 2 years later than the OxCal best fit using all data (against IntCal20 or IntCal0410) but with poor OxCal agreement indices.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] Manning, S. W. et al. Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020). source

      The Introduction’s Fig. 1 caption reports an OxCal best fit against IntCal04, but does not compare it with a fit two years later or report poor agreement indices. The Results mention placements within two calendar years for separate OYM datasets, not the claimed comparison. A search for agreement indices and an IntCal20 best fit found no passage establishing this claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The model incorporating an offset ΔR of 22 ± 5 14C years offers a good visual fit with IntCal20 and the observed ΔR corresponds successfully with this prior estimate.

    “In contrast, the model incorporating an offset effect ΔR of 22 ± 5 14C years offers a good visual fit with IntCal20 (Amodel and Aoverall around 60) (Fig. 1b) and the observed ΔR corresponds successfully with this prior estimate (Fig. 1c).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For RY701, the mid-point of the 68.3% hpd range is ~1,851 BCE with no ΔR, ~1,803 BCE with ΔR 22 ± 5, and ~1,883 BCE with ΔR −32 ± 8, a total range of ~81 calendar years.

    “The mid-point of the 68.3% highest posterior density (hpd) range for RY701 with no ΔR is ~ 1,851 BCE, with ΔR 22 ± 5 14C years it is ~ 1,803 BCE and with ΔR − 32 ± 8 14C years it is ~ 1,883 BCE—a total range of ~ 81 calendar years.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The MBA data are offset on average either about 22 ± 5 14C years or alternatively about −32 ± 8 14C years.

    “The data are offset on average either (and most likely) about 22 ± 5 14C years, or, alternatively about − 32 ± 8 14C years.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The reduced time series avoids the bi-modal probability issue, so the previous ambiguity may be viewed as caused by the problematic dip in the current IntCal dataset.

    “Further, within 95.4% probability limits, the reduced time series now avoids the bi-modal probability issue noted above (Supplementary Fig. S1)—we may therefore view the previous ambiguity as caused by the problematic dip in the current IntCal dataset.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The model with ΔR −32 ± 8 14C years yields poor OxCal agreement indices, poor agreement with the prior, and poor visual fit.

    “Runs of the latter model yield poor OxCal agreement indices (Amodel and Aoverall below 30, well below the satisfactory threshold value of 60), the posterior density for the ΔR offers poor OxCal agreement with the prior (< 60), and there is a poor visual fit (Supplementary Fig. S2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Re-run against IntCal20, the Egyptian NK offset reduces slightly but remains present at ~16 ± 4 14C years.

    “Re-run against IntCal20, the offset reduces slightly, but remains present at ~ 16 ± 4 14C years (Fig. 3a,b, Supplementary Fig. S5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The new ETH data indicate values older than IntCal20 and more in the range of those from the MBA time series.

    “Instead, they indicate values that are older than IntCal20 and more in the range of those from the MBA time series.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    With the edited time series, the OxCal ΔR offset observed is reduced a little but remains present.

    “With the edited time series, the OxCal ΔR offset observed is reduced a little—but nevertheless remains present.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The MBA 14C time series fit against IntCal20 with no offset allowed is poor, failing an overall χ2 test and yielding poor OxCal agreement indices.

    “However, the fit is poor, failing an overall χ2 test and yielding poor OxCal agreement indices (Fig. 1a).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The MBA series as placed with ΔR 22 ± 5 closely describes the wiggle ~1,850 to 1,810 BCE in the IntCal20 calibration curve.

    “In particular, although offset to slightly older 14C ages, we note how the MBA series as placed in Fig. 1b closely describes the wiggle ~ 1,850 to 1,810 BCE in the IntCal20 calibration curve (Fig. 1d, Supplementary Fig. S3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Hd GOR series (GOR RY737-1,764, ~1775 to 748 BCE/3,724-2,697 Cal BP) has a weighted average offset of 2.3 ± 2.1 14C years (n = 117), with periods of fluctuating offsets in each direction.

    “Wiggle-matched versus IntCal20 (see “Methods”, Supplementary Discussion 2) (Fig. 3a,c,d), the Hd GOR series (GOR RY737–1,764, ~ 1775 to 748 BCE/3,724–2,697 Cal BP) has a weighted average offset of 2.3 ± 2.1 14C years (n = 117), with periods of fluctuating offsets in each direction.”
    • Also stated in: § Gordion tree ring chronology versus IntCal20 · plain
      “In contrast to the Hd GOR time series, where the weighted average offset against IntCal20 is calculated as − 2.3 ± 2.1 14C years (Supplementary Fig. S8)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Wiggle-matched against IntCal20, the AA GOR series is placed 1,678 ± 1 BCE (GOR RY 834) to 1,493 ± 1 BCE (GOR RY 1,019), with extrapolated 95.4% range for GOR RY1,764 of 751-746 BCE, μ ± σ = 748 ± 1 BCE.

    “Wiggle-matched against IntCal20, they are placed (μ ± σ) 1,678 ± 1 BCE (GOR RY 834) to 1,493 ± 1 BCE (GOR RY 1,019) (Fig. 3e, Supplementary Fig. S6, extrapolated the 95.4% range for GOR RY1,764 is 751–746 BCE, μ ± σ = 748 ± 1 BCE).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Noceto series from Italy, the Miletos series from western Turkey, and data from Bcharre in Lebanon exhibit only a small average offset.

    “The Noceto (NOC) series from Italy also exhibits only a small average offset, as does the Miletos series from western Turkey, or data from Bcharre in Lebanon (Fig. 4a, Supplementary Fig. S9).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The AA GOR data at first glance suggests a small additional positive 14C offset, but it is contradicted by other available data, and is likely not supported even by the AA GOR data series once the evident inter-laboratory offset and excessive noise is removed.

    “While, at first glance, this is perhaps suggested by the AA GOR data (Fig. 3, Supplementary Fig. S6), it is contradicted by other available data (see above), and is likely not supported even by the AA GOR data series once the evident inter-laboratory offset and excessive noise is removed (Supplementary Fig. S14, Supplementary Discussion 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingreasoning

    The MBA time series initially comprised 76 14C dates, reduced to 40 elements after combining same mid-points; after removing three outliers and one suspect date, the remaining time series contains 72 dates and 39 elements.

    “The MBA time series comprises 76 14C dates. After combining dates with the same mid-points the time series contains 40 elements.”
    • Also stated in: § Radiocarbon modelling · plain
      “The remaining time series contains 72 dates and 39 elements.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [42] Ward, G. K. & Wilson, S. R. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: A critique. Archaeometry 20, 19–31 (1978). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The modelled dating probability for the Thera eruption, using the median OxCal Amodel result from 11 model runs, has a total dating window at 95.4% hpd of 1,619-1,543 BCE and most likely 68.3% hpd regions overall of ~1,617 to 1,601 BCE (average 62.8% hpd) and ~1,570 to 1,562 BCE (average 5.4% hpd).

    “The modelled dating probability for the Thera eruption, using the median OxCal Amodel result from 11 model runs (Supplementary Fig. S13) is shown in Fig. 6a. Across the 11 runs the total dating window at 95.4% hpd is 1,619–1,543 BCE and the most likely 68.3% hpd regions overall are ~ 1,617 to 1,601 BCE (average 62.8% hpd) and ~ 1,570 to 1,562 BCE (average 5.4% hpd) (Supplementary Fig. S13).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [51] Manning, S. W. et al. Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Science 312, 565–569 (2006). source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: There is no substantive Mediterranean 14C offset at this time beyond that covered already by IntCal20 for this period.
    • Rests on an assumption: 14C dates on samples from Thera are not affected by volcanic CO2.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Excluding OxA-30908 and re-running the model leaves the placement identical and raises Amodel and Aoverall to ~76 and ~80, exceeding the satisfactory threshold of 60.

    “If we exclude OxA-30908 and re-run the model, the placement is identical and the Amodel and Aoverall values exceed the satisfactory threshold value of 60 at ~ 76 and ~ 80.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The dataset does not provide a good visual fit with the calibration curve, failing an overall χ2 test (T = 65.4 > 52.6 df38 at 5%) and delivering poor OxCal Agreement indices (Acomb = 10.3 < An = 11.3%, Amodel and Aoverall ≤ 10, well below the satisfactory value of 60); it appears likely there is a systematic offset between the data measured and the calibration curve.

    “The dataset does not provide a good visual fit with the calibration curve (Fig. 1a)—many data are placed below or away from the calibration curve—failing an overall χ2 test (T = 65.4 > 52.6 df38 at 5%) and delivering poor OxCal Agreement indices (Acomb = 10.3 < An = 11.3%, Amodel and Aoverall ≤ 10, well below the satisfactory value of 60). It appears likely there is a systematic offset between the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The ΔR model produces a bi-modal result, with possible offsets on average (usually more likely) ~22 ± 5 14C years or the very different −32 ± 8 14C years.

    “For a number of model runs Convergence values are poor (< 95). The reason is that the ΔR model in these cases produces a bi-modal result. The possible offsets are on average (usually more likely) ~ 22 ± 5 14C years or the very different − 32 ± 8 14C years.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    Each run of such Bayesian models is different and small variations occur; in well-constrained data sets where there is a single best fit location or Sequence solution, these tend to be small and in the range of, e.g., 0-2 years.

    “It should be noted that each run of such Bayesian models is different and small variations occur. In well-constrained data sets where there is a single best fit location or Sequence solution, these tend to be small and in the range of, e.g., 0–2 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Model runs with the alternative (earlier) fit with a ΔR of −32 ± 8 14C years achieve unsatisfactory OxCal Amodel and Aoverall values, all <30, well below the satisfactory threshold value of 60; the ΔR posterior density also offers poor OxCal agreement values (<60) with the prior; the visual fit is poor with most data not matching the calibration curve, and instead placed below the curve; thus this

    “In contrast, model runs with the alternative (earlier) fit with a ΔR of − 32 ± 8 14C years achieve unsatisfactory OxCal Amodel and Aoverall values, all < 30, well below the satisfactory threshold value of 60. The ΔR posterior density also offers poor OxCal agreement values (< 60) with the prior. The visual fit is poor with most data not matching the calibration curve, and instead placed below the”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Recognition of offsets and tying sequences to specific appropriate 14C records opens the way for more accurate and precise dating, as illustrated for Old Assyrian/Old Babylonian chronology.

    “However, as we illustrate for Old Assyrian/Old Babylonian chronology, it opens the way for more accurate and precise dating through recognition of offsets and by tying sequences to specific appropriate 14C records.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationnone given

    Another part of the differences is inferred to represent differing parts of the intra-annual atmospheric 14C cycle recorded because of different plant growth seasons or contexts.

    “Another part is inferred as a representation of the differing parts of the intra-annual atmospheric 14C cycle, recorded because of different plant growth seasons or contexts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationnone given

    Part of the differences in 14C offsets may result from inter-laboratory offsets or from differences between recent AMS 14C measurements and those from previous 14C dating technologies.

    “Part of such differences may result from inter-laboratory offsets (see Supplementary Discussion 1), or derive from differences between recent AMS 14C measurements versus those from previous 14C dating technologies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data

    The ΔR −32 ± 8 option is excluded as not viable.

    “We thus exclude this option as not viable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Our findings confirm the resolution of Old Assyrian/Old Babylonian chronology around the Middle Chronology range and end a long-running debate.

    “Our findings here, with additional data and the new IntCal20 calibration curve, confirm the resolution of Old Assyrian/Old Babylonian chronology around the Middle Chronology range and end a long-running debate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Historical chronologies provide constraints; in turn, they are better dated.

    “Historical chronologies provide constraints; in turn, they are better dated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Since this part of IntCal20 comprises legacy data, the offset may reduce a little in the future.

    “However, since this part of IntCal20 comprises legacy data, we might anticipate this offset reducing a little in the future (compare our MBA case above).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    This better fit, and recent review of the historical and astronomical evidence, may favour a longer/higher NK Egyptian historical chronology.

    “This better fit, and recent review of the historical and astronomical evidence, may favour a longer/higher NK Egyptian historical chronology36.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [36] Aston, D. A. How early (and how late) Can Khyan really be: An essay based on “conventional archaeological methods.” In The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and Priorities of Current Research (eds Forstner-Müller, I. & Moeller, N.) 15–56 (Österreichische Archäologisches Institut, Vienna, 2018).

      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).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Remaining offsets and variations would then have other causes, such as seasonal effects.

    “Remaining offsets and variations would then have other causes, such as seasonal effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The Egyptian NK data and the OxCal CQL2 code have been published.

    “The Egyptian NK data and the OxCal CQL2 code have been published7.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] Bronk, R. C. Radiocarbon-based chronology for dynastic Egypt. Science 328, 1554–1557 (2010). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The older solution is clearly unlikely on the basis of the 14C wiggle-match data just discussed, and instead offers a good correspondence only with the High Middle Chronology or Low Middle Chronology.

    “Moreover, regardless, the older solution is clearly unlikely on the basis of the 14C wiggle-match data just discussed. This instead offers a good correspondence only with the High Middle Chronology or Low Middle Chronology, see text and Fig. 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Especially at times of reversals and plateaus in the 14C calibration curve, even modest variations may have great import for high-resolution chronology in the Mediterranean and Near East, and could affect a number of long-running debates.

    “Especially at times of reversals and plateaus in the 14C calibration curve, even modest variations may have great import for high-resolution chronology in the Mediterranean and Near East, and could affect a number of long-running debates.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Even small changes in 14C ages can make large calendar differences during reversals and plateaus in the calibration record.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    At present, a basic problem is that comparisons for many periods (where extensive new annual resolution AMS 14C data are not yet available) merge two separate issues: (1) differences between older LLGPC and LSS 14C calibration data versus newer AMS 14C data, as well as (2) an apparent modest seasonal 14C component.

    “At present, a basic problem is that comparisons for many periods (where extensive new annual resolution AMS 14C data are not yet available) merge two separate issues: (1) differences between older LLGPC and LSS 14C calibration data versus newer AMS 14C data, as well as (2) an apparent modest seasonal 14C component.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Except where noted (6 cases in Supplementary Fig. S1), the authors only employed data where the model run achieved satisfactory Convergence, C, values ≥95.

    “It is important to observe that—except where noted (6 cases in Supplementary Fig. S1)—we only employed data where the model run achieved satisfactory Convergence, C, values ≥ 95.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The older alternative option, about 81 calendar years earlier than the fit shown in Fig. 1b, is likely too early to correspond with the High Mesopotamian Chronology, which is only ~56 years earlier than the Middle Chronology; even at the limits of 68.3% hpd and 95.4% hpd, the difference is at least 72 and 62 calendar years respectively, leaving any correspondence as unlikely.

    “We note that the older alternative option, about 81 calendar years earlier than the fit shown in Fig. 1b, is in fact likely too early to correspond with the High Mesopotamian Chronology20, which is only ~ 56 years earlier than the Middle Chronology. Even at the limits of 68.3% hpd and 95.4% hpd, the difference is at least 72 and 62 calendar years respectively, leaving any correspondence as”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Pruzsinszky, R. Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium BC. An introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological Issues (Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, 2009). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Erstein (ERST) 14C measurements are on oak samples from a tree-ring chronology built from preserved timbers recovered from archaeological excavations at Erstein, France, and dendrochronological crossdating places the sample used, ERST 5964-GBS-218-37, at 2,010-1,764 BCE.

    “The Erstein (ERST) 14C measurements are on oak (Quercus sp.) samples from a tree-ring chronology built from preserved timbers recovered as part of archaeological excavations undertaken before the development of the Parc d’Activités du Pays d’Erstein, Erstein, France (48.4269N, 7.6386E)25,26. Dendrochronological crossdating places the sample used, ERST 5964-GBS-218-37, at 2,010-1,764 BCE.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [25] Croutsch, C., Tegel, W. & Rault, E. Les puits de l’âge du Bronze du Parc d’Activités du Pays d’Erstein (Bas-Rhin, Alsace): Des analyses dendroarchéologiques à l’étude de l’occupation du sol. Bull. Soc. Préhistor. Franç. 116, 743–774 (2019). source
    • cites [26] Croutsch, C., Tegel, W., Rault, E. & Pierrevelcin, G. Des sites de la fin du Néolithique et de l’âge du Bronze ancien: Nouvelles données sur la chronologie absolue en Alsace (2500–1450 av.J.-C.). In Préhistoire de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest: Mobilité, Climats et Identités Culturelles, Volume 3: Néolithique—Âge du Bronze (eds Montoya, C. et al.) 475–481 (Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, 2019).

      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).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Resolution requires deconvolution of the now mixed IntCal record.

    “Resolution requires deconvolution of the now mixed IntCal record.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The construction of the Egyptian NK model and the historical priors included are as published.

    “The construction of the Egyptian NK model and the historical priors included are as published7,33.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [7] Bronk, R. C. Radiocarbon-based chronology for dynastic Egypt. Science 328, 1554–1557 (2010). source
    • cites [33] Manning, S. W. A Test of Time and A Test of Time Revisited. The Volcano of Thera and the Chronology and History of the Aegean and East Mediterranean in the Mid-second Millennium BC (Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2014).

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

61 of 61

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There is no substantive Mediterranean 14C offset at this time beyond that covered already by IntCal20 for this period.

    “assuming no substantive Mediterranean 14C offset at this time beyond that covered already by IntCal20 for this period”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Even small changes in 14C ages can make large calendar differences during reversals and plateaus in the calibration record.

    “Even small changes in 14C ages can make large calendar differences during reversals and plateaus in the calibration record.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    14C dates on samples from Thera are not affected by volcanic CO2.

    “despite no positive evidence as regards any archaeological sample”
3 of 3

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?

  • Studies linking textual and archaeological evidence from Kültepe, Mari and Acemhöyük with dendrochronological and radiocarbon evidence from Kültepe and Acemhöyük have created an independent dating framework for Mesopotamian chronology.

    “For the Mesopotamian chronology, studies linking textual and archaeological evidence, especially from Kültepe, Mari and Acemhöyük (Türkiye), with dendrochronological and radiocarbon evidence from Kültepe and Acemhöyük, have created an independent dating framework (Barjamovic et al. 2012;Manning et al. 2016Manning et al. , 2020)).”

    From New evidence for Middle Bronze Age chronology from the Syro-Anatolian frontier (2023) · cites this paper as Manning et al. 2020

    The Results sections on the Anatolian Middle Bronze Age tree-ring series and Mesopotamian chronology link textual and archaeological associations at Kültepe and Acemhöyük with tree-ring and radiocarbon dates to assess Mesopotamian chronology. Our copy does not identify Mari as part of that evidence, so the named-site detail is not fully supported; page numbers are unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The recommended average seasonal offset for ancient Egypt for IntCal20 is ca 12 ± 5 14C years.

    “The recommended “average” figure for the offset has been recalculated by Manning et al [160] for IntCal20 as ca 12 ± 5 14C years.”

    From The Minoan Thera eruption predates Pharaoh Ahmose: Radiocarbon dating of Egyptian 17th to early 18th Dynasty museum objects (2025) · cites this paper as [160]

    The Discussion (page not provided) recalculates an Egyptian offset against IntCal20 as 12 ± 5 ¹⁴C years, but that figure comes from 18th–19th-century CE data, not ancient Egyptian data. The Results report a New Kingdom offset of about 16 ± 4 years under one model and 6 ± 6 under another, so 12 ± 5 is not established as the average for ancient Egypt. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Concerning calibration of the shabti radiocarbon dates, no minor correction for a possible reservoir effect was applied because Ficus sycomorus grows only in places with enough water throughout the year, so its growth was not limited to late winter.

    “Concerning the calibration of our radiocarbon dates of the shabtis, we did not apply a minor correction for a possible reservoir effect [154,159,160], because the Ficus sycomorus tree grows only in places where there is enough water throughout the year [173, 175]. Therefore, its growth in ancient Egypt was not limited to the late winter season when 14C in the air is at a minimum [159].”

    From The Minoan Thera eruption predates Pharaoh Ahmose: Radiocarbon dating of Egyptian 17th to early 18th Dynasty museum objects (2025) · cites this paper as [160]

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

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The Egyptian seasonal effect was revised to 12 ± 5 14C yr BP against IntCal20.

    “However, recent analyses against IntCal20 have revised it down to 12 ± 5 14C yr BP [47].”

    From Resolution of the High versus Low debate for Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt (2025) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Discussion (‘Radiocarbon offsets and their causes’) revises the estimated typical seasonal offset for maximally offset regions, including Egypt and the southern Levant, to approximately 12 ± 5 ¹⁴C years. But the Results (‘Egyptian New Kingdom radiocarbon time series versus IntCal20’) give the Egyptian New Kingdom offset against IntCal20 as approximately 16 ± 4 ¹⁴C years. The claim presents the broader seasonal estimate as the Egypt-specific result. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The most likely 68.3% hpd range in Fig 9, 1606-1589 BCE, does not correspond with most of the possible proxy volcanic eruption signals noted so far in ice-core, tree-ring and other records; only the bristlecone pine minima 1597 BCE overlaps, with other signals just outside this range: 1611/1610 BCE, 1586 BCE and 1584 BCE.

    “The most likely 68.3% hpd range in Fig 9, 1606-1589 BCE, does not in fact correspond with most of the possible proxy volcanic eruption signals noted so far in ice-core, tree-ring and other records-only the bristlecone pine minima 1597 BCE overlaps-with the other signals noted in this vicinity just outside this range: 1611/1610 BCE, 1586 BCE and 1584 BCE [12-14, 44, 70].”

    From Second Intermediate Period date for the Thera (Santorini) eruption and historical implications (2022) · cites this paper as [44]

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

    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.

  • Uncertainty for the AA-ETH Irish oak difference changes

    Minor

    The same average difference between AA and ETH measurements of Irish oak is given an uncertainty of ±1.8 radiocarbon years in one passage and ±2.8 in another.

  • Hd Gordion offset is reported with opposite signs

    Minor

    The weighted average offset of the Hd Gordion series relative to IntCal20 is reported as both +2.3 and −2.3 radiocarbon years.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bietak, M. The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC (Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna, 2000).
  2. Barjamovic, G., Hertel, T. & Larsen, M. T. Ups and Downs at Kanesh-Observations on Chronology, History and Society in the Old Assyrian period (Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden, 2012).
  3. Croutsch, C., Tegel, W., Rault, E. & Pierrevelcin, G. Des sites de la fin du Néolithique et de l’âge du Bronze ancien: Nouvelles données sur la chronologie absolue en Alsace (2500–1450 av.J.-C.). In Préhistoire de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest: Mobilité, Climats et Identités Culturelles, Volume 3: Néolithique—Âge du Bronze (eds Montoya, C. et al.) 475–481 (Société Préhistorique Française, Paris, 2019).
  4. Aston, D. A. How early (and how late) Can Khyan really be: An essay based on “conventional archaeological methods.” In The Hyksos Ruler Khyan and the Early Second Intermediate Period in Egypt: Problems and Priorities of Current Research (eds Forstner-Müller, I. & Moeller, N.) 15–56 (Österreichische Archäologisches Institut, Vienna, 2018).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Manning, S. W., Wacker, L., Büntgen, U., Bronk Ramsey, C., Dee, M. W., Kromer, B., Lorentzen, B., & Tegel, W.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Masaryk University (CZ)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Manning, Sturt W.
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-08-17
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
13785-13785
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-020-69287-2
PMC
PMC7431540
OpenAlex
W3049500357
Semantic Scholar
d9211d60f072abb6f50cd37236b7a0b9d79c826e
Cited by
35
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DORA WSL (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
  • Apollo
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (BCS 1219315)
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (895-2011-1026)
  • European Research Council (714679, ECHOES)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Tree-ring climate responses
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
Keywords
IntCal20, tree-ring chronology, Middle Bronze Age, Mesopotamian chronology, Minoan eruption, Anatolia, Egypt, Mediterranean, growing season length, accelerator mass spectrometry, liquid scintillation counting, 2nd millennium BC

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 2026-10-17.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-17.

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