CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchTree-ring climate responses

Olive shrub buried on Therasia supports a mid-16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption

Open access
Pearson, Charlotte, Sbonias, Kostas, Tzachili, Iris, Heaton, Timothy J.·2023·Scientific Reports
DOI 10.1038/s41598-023-33696-wPMC PMC10147620
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The precise date of the 2nd millennium BCE (“Minoan”) eruption of Thera (Santorini) has long been a focus of controversy due to a discrepancy between archaeological and radiocarbon-based dating of materials from stratigraphic layers above and below tsunami, ash and pumice deposits resulting from the eruption. A critical, though controversial, piece of evidence has been four segments of a radiocarbon-dated olive tree branch, buried on Thera during the eruption. Here we report new radiocarbon evidence from an olive shrub found carbonized by the same eruption deposits on neighboring Therasia (Santorini). The Therasia olive shrub dates slightly younger than the previous olive branch. Calibrated results and growth increment counts indicate increased probabilities for a mid-16th century BCE date for the eruption, overlapping with multiple volcanic sulfate markers from ice core records.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A carbonized olive shrub buried by Thera eruption deposits on Therasia yields radiocarbon ages slightly younger than the earlier Santorini olive, increasing posterior probability for a mid-16th century BCE eruption. The results overlap with ice-core volcanic sulfate markers at 1562–1555 BCE and c.1538 BCE, though the radiocarbon plateau prevents an exact date.

Key findings

  • The youngest Therasia olive samples, 88-2 and 88-3, give a 95.4% calibrated outer-most age range of 1610–1510 BCE without a Therasia-specific offset, or c.1602–1502 BCE when applying a juniper-based laboratory/regional offset of +13.7 ± 2 14C years.
  • The Therasia shrub dates slightly younger than the original Santorini olive; its outer-most bark and shoot samples are consistent with one another at 3301 ± 23 and 3297 ± 23 14C years BP, and with short-lived materials from Akrotiri’s volcanic destruction layer and Theran tsunami deposits at Çeşme-Bağlararası and Palaikastro.
  • Calibrated results show increased posterior probability density in the mid-to-late 16th century BCE, coinciding with ice-core sulfate markers at 1562–1555 BCE and c.1538 BCE; the 1611 BCE sulfate is marginalized, while 1524 BCE remains possible under some models but less supported if growth bands approximate annual growth.
  • The data show no major volcanic 14C offset on Thera before the eruption, with an old-to-young radiocarbon gradient from inner to outer samples.

Methods

  • A charred olive shrub was excavated at Koimisis, Therasia, immediately below Minoan pumice between burnt stones; four sub-samples were selected for dendrochronological imaging and radiocarbon sampling.
  • Samples were converted to holocellulose and dated by AMS at the University of Arizona; results were calibrated using OxCal v.4.4.4 and IntCal20, with separate calibrations for each stem and a simple ordered sequence model.
  • Offset testing used 181 contemporaneous single-year Mediterranean juniper measurements from the same laboratory and analytical period, suggesting a +13.7 ± 2 14C year offset from IntCal20; calibrations were run with and without this Delta_R offset.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the radiocarbon plateau c.1620–1540 BCE prevents precise calendar dating from a single 14C determination and makes results sensitive to small interlaboratory or regional offsets and modelling choices.
  • Olive growth bands do not necessarily represent annual growth; the Therasia shrub had inconsistent, sub-500 μm banding, fractures, and uncertain counts, so growth increment boundaries were treated cautiously.
  • Sample 88-3 is based on two radiocarbon measurements identical within errors and separated by only a few possible growth bands; sample 88-2 has clearer boundaries but its growth increment count remains uncertain. The paper concludes that radiocarbon evidence alone cannot resolve the exact date of the Thera eruption.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-023-33696-w

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

17 of 39 cited sources checked · 8 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Study design and conductcitation

    The ordered sequence model, based on the fact that inner (first grown) material from each sample is older than outer-most (last grown) material from each sample, is the most sound basis for each calibration.

    “ordered sequence model12, based on the indisputable fact that the inner (first grown) material from each sample was older than the outer-most (last grown) material from each sample is the most sound basis for each calibration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Pearson, C. L. et al. Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar8241. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8241 (2018). source

      The calibration discussion (p. 5) describes a widely agreed model for the Santorini olive branch that orders older wood before younger wood. The Statistics section (pp. 6–7) also uses known order while allowing uncertainty in ring counts. The paper does not establish that this is the most sound basis for every sample’s calibration. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • Rests on an assumption: The inner (first grown) material from each sample is older than the outer-most (last grown) material from each sample.
  • Findingown data

    The uncalibrated dates for the Therasia shrub's outer-most bark and shoot samples are consistent with determinations from short-lived materials from the volcanic destruction layer at Akrotiri, Theran tsunami deposits at Çeşme-Bağlararası and Palaikastro, and contemporary mainland contexts marked by the sudden arrival of Theran pumice.

    “they are also consistent with determinations from short lived materials from the volcanic destruction layer at Akrotiri11 and from Theran tsunami deposits at Çeşme-Bağlararası, Türkiye40 (e.g., 3297 ± 19 14C years BP) and Palaikastro on Crete39, as well as with samples found in contemporary mainland contexts marked by the sudden arrival of Theran pumice37,38.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [11] Manning, S. W. et al. Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age 1700–1400 BC. Science 312, 565–569. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1125682 (2006). source
    • cites [40] Şahoğlu, V. et al. Volcanic ash, victims, and tsunami debris from the Late Bronze Age Thera eruption discovered at Çeşme-Bağlararası (Turkey). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2114213118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2114213118 (2022). source

      The Results (General Description of the Sedimentological Horizons; page unavailable) identify radiocarbon-dated charcoal and seed samples in the Çeşme-Bağlararası tsunami horizons. The Discussion (The Age of the Eruption and Tsunamis; page unavailable) reports radiocarbon ages from that event horizon, but our copy does not give the cited uncalibrated value of 3297 ± 19 ¹⁴C years BP, so that specific determination cannot be verified. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [39] Bruins, H. J., Van Der Plicht, J. & MacGillivray, J. A. The Minoan Santorini eruption and tsunami deposits in Palaikastro (Crete): Dating by geology, archaeology, $${}^{14}$$C, and Egyptian chronology. Radiocarbon 51, 397–411 (2009). source
  • Interpretationreasoning

    The sulfate produced by Thera (between 0.34-36 Tg of S) would certainly have entered the stratosphere.

    “While confirming that Thera was a lower sulfate event (therefore with lower associated climatic forcing potential) the sulfate that it did produce (between 0.34–36 Tg of S32) would certainly have entered the stratosphere.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [32] Cadoux, A., Scaillet, B., Bekki, S., Oppenheimer, C. & Druitt, T. H. Stratospheric ozone destruction by the Bronze-Age Minoan eruption (Santorini volcano, Greece). Sci. Rep. 5, 1–12 (2015). source
  • Premisecitation

    Two additional volcanic events identified at 1586 BCE (Greenland) and 1550 BCE (Antarctica) are currently considered less likely for Thera based on tephra / hemispheric deposition evidence.

    “Two additional volcanic events identified at 1586 BCE (Greenland) and 1550 BCE (Antarctica) are not shown as they are currently considered less likely for Thera based on tephra / hemispheric deposition evidence31, but should be further investigated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [31] Pearson, C. et al. Geochemical ice-core constraints on the timing and climatic impact of Aniakchak II (1628 BCE) and Thera (Minoan) volcanic eruptions. PNAS Nexus 1, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac048 (2022). source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies the 1586 BCE event as a high-latitude Northern Hemisphere eruption distinct from Thera on tephra-geochemical grounds, and the 1551 BCE event as an unidentified Southern Hemisphere eruption. This supports treating both as less likely Thera candidates, but the source dates the second event to 1551 BCE, not 1550 BCE; the cited passage also does not specifically identify its deposition in Antarctica. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    When jointly calibrating multiple 14C samples affected by a systematic offset, it is necessary to model that shared offset explicitly during calibration.

    “However, when jointly calibrating multiple 14C samples which are all affected by a systematic offset, for example in an ordered sequence or a wiggle match, it is necessary to model that shared offset explicitly during calibration13.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Van der Plicht, J., Ramsey, C. B., Heaton, T., Scott, E. & Talamo, S. Recent developments in calibration for archaeological and environmental samples. Radiocarbon 62, 1095–1117.  https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.22 (2020). source

      The Regional and Seasonal Effects section (p. 1110) recommends explicitly allowing for a shared offset in complex Bayesian models and wiggle matches, and notes that offsets can be correlated across a dataset. It calls this approach “prudent,” however, rather than saying it is necessary in every joint calibration affected by an offset. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 23
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The result suggests an increased likelihood that Thera erupted in the mid to later 16th century BCE, consistent with certain archaeological arguments, including the controversial 1524 BCE date.

    “This result is significant because it suggests an increased likelihood that Thera erupted in the mid to later 16th century BCE, consistent with certain archaeological arguments, including the controversial9 1524 BCE date7,15.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [9] Manning, S. W. Second intermediate period date for the Thera (Santorini) eruption and historical implications. PLoS ONE 17, e0274835. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274835 (2022). source

      In “Historiography of Thera eruption dating” (Fig. 9; page not supplied), the paper gives a most likely range of approximately 1606–1589 BCE and explicitly excludes an eruption after approximately 1530 BCE. Its Introduction mentions 1524 BCE only as a previously suggested date, not as a date made more likely by this paper’s result. (LLM, conf=0.91)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [7] Warren, P. The date of the Late Bronze Age eruption of Santorini on the basis of the historical chronology. Pasiphae 4, 67–72 (2010).

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

    • cites [15] Wiener, M. H. Dating the Theran eruption: Archaeological science versus nonsense science. In Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective, 131–143 (Springer, 2015). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    A simple ordered sequence suggests, at 95.4% probability using IntCal20, that the Santorini olive sample died either between 1621 and 1598 BCE (23.2%) or between 1593 and 1540 BCE (72.3%).

    “A simple ordered sequence12 (based on the indisputable fact that the inner-most sampled material from the olive is older than the outer-most material) suggests, at 95.4% (2-) probability using IntCal20, that the sample died either between 1621 and 1598 BCE (23.2%) or between 1593 and 1540 BCE (72.3%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Pearson, C. L. et al. Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar8241. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8241 (2018). source

      The ‘Testing the implications of the offset for calibration’ section (pp. 4–5) describes a simple ordered sequence for the Santorini olive branch. But Table 1 (p. 4) gives results using IntCal13 and ICCP17, not IntCal20; it does not report the claimed intervals or probabilities. The table also specifies that this model estimates the age of the outermost measurement, rather than the date the sample died. (LLM, conf=0.91)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

    Premisecitation

    Subjective decisions on whether to model averaged values, which data to include, how to model them, and which archaeological observations to incorporate all have an impact on the end date range.

    “subjective decisions on whether to model averaged values24, which data to include, how to model them, and which archaeological observations to incorporate all have an impact on the end date range”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] Scott, E. M., Cook, G. T. & Naysmith, P. Error and uncertainty in radiocarbon measurements. Radiocarbon 49, 427–440 (2007). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    1611 BCE is marginalised by the dating results, a date considerably older than could be archaeologically supported assuming that Thera erupts after the start of the New Kingdom in Egypt.

    “1611 BCE, a date considerably older than could be archaeologically supported (assuming that Thera erupts after the start of the New Kingdom in Egypt7,8,15), is marginalised by our dating results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [7] Warren, P. The date of the Late Bronze Age eruption of Santorini on the basis of the historical chronology. Pasiphae 4, 67–72 (2010).

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

    • cites [8] Höflmayer, F. The date of the Minoan Santorini eruption: Quantifying the “offset’’. Radiocarbon 54, 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200047196 (2012). source
    • cites [15] Wiener, M. H. Dating the Theran eruption: Archaeological science versus nonsense science. In Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective, 131–143 (Springer, 2015). source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Thera erupted after the start of the New Kingdom in Egypt.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    It has not yet been possible to assess whether another ice core sulfate exists around c.1524 BCE, when a severe climatic response observed in tree-rings has been suggested as a potential candidate date for Thera.

    “The brittle ice has also meant that it has not yet been possible to asses whether another ice core sulfate exists around c.1524 BCE, when a severe climatic response observed in tree-rings43 has been suggested as a potential candidate date for Thera7,15.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [43] Salzer, M. W., Larson, E. R., Bunn, A. G. & Hughes, M. K. Changing climate response in near-treeline bristlecone pine with elevation and aspect. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 114007 (2014). source

      Citation 43 is attached to the claimed severe tree-ring climatic response around 1524 BCE, not to the ice-core sulfate or proposed Thera date. The Introduction describes bristlecone pine tree rings as climate proxies, but our copy does not report an event around 1524 BCE (searched for 1524, 1525, and a severe tree-ring response). (LLM, conf=0.75)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [7] Warren, P. The date of the Late Bronze Age eruption of Santorini on the basis of the historical chronology. Pasiphae 4, 67–72 (2010).

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

    • cites [15] Wiener, M. H. Dating the Theran eruption: Archaeological science versus nonsense science. In Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective, 131–143 (Springer, 2015). source

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

    Premisecitation

    Calendar dated ice-core sulfate layers at 1611 BCE, 1562-1555 BCE and c.1538 BCE have been highlighted as possible markers for the Thera eruption.

    “Figure 5 also shows calendar dated ice-core sulfate layers at 1611 BCE, 1562-1555 BCE and c.1538 BCE which have been highlighted as possible markers for the Thera eruption31.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [31] Pearson, C. et al. Geochemical ice-core constraints on the timing and climatic impact of Aniakchak II (1628 BCE) and Thera (Minoan) volcanic eruptions. PNAS Nexus 1, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac048 (2022). source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A stem or branch with bark may have ceased to accumulate growth bands several decades before the death of the tree.

    “others have shown that the nature of olive growth may mean that a stem or branch with bark may have actually ceased to accumulate growth bands several decades before the death of the tree29.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] Ehrlich, Y., Regev, L. & Boaretto, E. Radiocarbon analysis of modern olive wood raises doubts concerning a crucial piece of evidence in dating the Santorini eruption. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–8 (2018). source

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

    Premisecitation

    Recent improvements to the IntCal radiocarbon calibration curve include over 800 high-precision, multi-laboratory 14C measurements on calendar dated tree-rings between 1700 and 1500 cal BCE.

    “Recent improvements to the IntCal radiocarbon calibration curve16, which now includes over 800 high-precision, multi-laboratory 14C measurements on calendar dated tree-rings between 1700 and 1500 cal BCE”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [16] Reimer, P. J. et al. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62, 725–757. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41 (2020). source

      The Dendrochronology section (page unavailable) says that multiple laboratories analyzed contemporary tree rings at annual resolution for the second-millennium-BC period and that all available new data for that period were included in IntCal20. It also discusses measurements from 1700–1500 BC. Our copy does not establish the claimed count of over 800 measurements for that interval. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Calibrated age distributions based on radiocarbon determinations of materials buried by eruption deposits place the Thera eruption around 1600 BCE.

    “persistent differences between the calibrated age distributions based on radiocarbon (14C) determinations of materials buried by eruption deposits9–13, placing the eruption around 1600 BCE”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [9] Manning, S. W. Second intermediate period date for the Thera (Santorini) eruption and historical implications. PLoS ONE 17, e0274835. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274835 (2022). source
    • cites [10] Friedrich, W. L. et al. The olive branch chronology stands irrespective of tree-ring counting. Antiquity 88, 274–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00050377 (2014). source
    • cites [11] Manning, S. W. et al. Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age 1700–1400 BC. Science 312, 565–569. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1125682 (2006). source
    • cites [12] Pearson, C. L. et al. Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar8241. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8241 (2018). source
    • cites [13] Van der Plicht, J., Ramsey, C. B., Heaton, T., Scott, E. & Talamo, S. Recent developments in calibration for archaeological and environmental samples. Radiocarbon 62, 1095–1117.  https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.22 (2020). source

      In “The Minoan Santorini (Thera) Eruption” (pp. 1102–1104), the paper reports radiocarbon dates from key sites and calibrated dates near 1600 BCE. But it does not identify those dated materials as buried by eruption deposits, and its IntCal20 analysis gives several possible age ranges, with the largest probability around 1625 BCE rather than a single date around 1600 BCE. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Modelled in this way, the four increments of the Santorini olive show strong agreement with the various results from the Therasia shrub, with wide-ranging dating possibilities in both the 17th and 16th centuries BCE.

    “Modelled in this way, the four increments of the Santorini olive show strong agreement with the various results from the Therasia shrub (Fig. 5), with wide-ranging dating possibilities in both the 17th and 16th centuries BCE.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Sample 72-2 had the clearest defined boundaries and produced the most reproducible counts.

    “Sample-72-2 had the clearest defined boundaries, and produced the most reproducible counts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The Therasia olive shrub, specifically its outer-most material, dates slightly younger than the previous Santorini olive branch.

    “The Therasia olive shrub dates slightly younger than the previous olive branch.”
    • Also stated in: § Radiocarbon dating · hedged
      “However the outer-most material from the Therasia olive indicates slightly younger 14C ages (Fig. 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The data in this study, as well as for the original Santorini olive, show an old to young gradient in radiocarbon measurement from inner to outer-most sample, with radiocarbon ages approximately supporting growth increment counts.

    “The data in this study, as well as for the original Santorini olive27, show an old to young gradient in terms of radiocarbon measurement from inner to outer-most sample, with radiocarbon ages approximately supporting growth increment counts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] Friedrich, W. L. et al. Santorini eruption radiocarbon dated to 1627–1600 BC. Science 312, 548–548 (2006). source

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

    Findingown data

    Sample 88-2 produced higher numbers of counts but these were less reproducible.

    “88-2 produced higher numbers of counts but these were less reproducible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The layer of burnt soil (plus a few late Middle Cycladic sherds) was very thin (5-7 cms), below which soil, bone and pottery were all unburnt.

    “The layer of burnt soil (plus a few late Middle Cycladic sherds) was very thin (5-7 cms), below which soil, bone and pottery were all unburnt.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingown data

    Sample 88-3 was mostly pith with barely discernible banding.

    “88-3 was mostly pith with barely discernible banding.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    If considered to represent annual growth, band counting of sample 88-2, combined with the most likely point of intersection for the inner-most determination with IntCal2016, indicates a death date towards the middle of the 16th century BCE, but clear uncertainties remain.

    “If considered to represent annual growth, band counting of sample 88-2, combined with the most likely point of intersection for the inner-most determination with intCal2016, indicates a death date towards the middle of the 16th century BCE, but clear uncertainties remain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The oldest measured part of the Therasia shrub (88-1 inner) calibrates to 1741-1617 BCE at 95.4% probability, consistent with the 92.3% range, supporting a date for the first earthquake during this period.

    “The oldest measured part of the Therasia shrub (88-1 inner) calibrates to 1741-1617 BCE at at 95.4% probability, consistent with the 92.3% range, supporting a date for the first earthquake during this period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    We are neither able to treat the four dated blocks sampled from the Santorini olive branch as corresponding to a precise known number of annual growth bands, nor consider the reported internal-age gaps between these four blocks as exact.

    “As a consequence, it has been recognised10 that we are neither able to treat the four dated blocks sampled from the Santorini olive branch as corresponding to a precise known number of annual growth bands, nor consider the reported internal-age gaps between these four blocks as exact.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] Friedrich, W. L. et al. The olive branch chronology stands irrespective of tree-ring counting. Antiquity 88, 274–277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00050377 (2014). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Olive bark has efficient photosynthetic mechanisms and would likely have been taking up 14C via photosynthesis right up to the time the shrub died, even if the stem below it had ceased growing.

    “Indeed as olive bark has been shown to possess efficient photosynthetic mechanisms35 it would likely have been taking up 14C via photosynthesis right up to the time the shrub died (i.e., during the eruption), even if the stem below it had ceased growing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] Filippou, M., Fasseas, C. & Karabourniotis, G. Photosynthetic characteristics of olive tree (Olea Europaea) bark. Tree Physiol. 27, 977–984 (2007). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Due to the plateau effect, any determination potentially consistent with the plateau will likely have a calibrated 95.4% range that extends over all of it, so only minor differences to this broad 95.4% range are expected.

    “Due to the plateau effect, we would only expect minor differences to this broad 95.4% range: any determination potentially consistent with the plateau will likely have a calibrated 95.4% range that extends over all of it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Modelled results indicate that the 1524 BCE date is worthy of further exploration, but if the observed growth bands in the Therasia olive are representative of something approximating annual growth, this date would not be so well supported.

    “Modelled results (Fig. 5f,g) indicate that this date is worthy of further exploration, but if the observed growth bands in the Therasia olive are indeed representative of something approximating annual growth, this date would not be so well supported (Fig. 5d).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The observed growth bands in the Therasia olive are representative of something approximating annual growth.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Caution is necessary in interpreting the result for 88-3 because it is based on two radiocarbon measurements that are identical within errors, fall fully on the radiocarbon plateau, and are separated by only a few possible growth bands.

    “Caution is necessary however in interpreting the result for 88-3 as it is based on two radiocarbon measurements that are identical within errors, which fall fully on the radiocarbon plateau and are separated by only a few possible growth bands.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    High resolution composite photomicrographs were produced and marked up with dots to allow for reproducibility of sampling and further testing of the assigned boundaries.

    “Instead, high resolution composite photomicrographs were produced using a Canon EOS digital SLR camera mounted on a Leica compound microscope, then enlarged for final counting and marked up with dots to allow for reproducibility of sampling and further testing of the assigned boundaries (Fig. 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Conventional dating places the start of the New Kingdom after 1540 BCE, with some arguing for 1524 BCE as an exact date for the eruption.

    “conventional dating places it ‘after 1540 BCE’, with some arguing for 1524 BCE as an exact date for the eruption7,15.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [7] Warren, P. The date of the Late Bronze Age eruption of Santorini on the basis of the historical chronology. Pasiphae 4, 67–72 (2010).

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

    • cites [15] Wiener, M. H. Dating the Theran eruption: Archaeological science versus nonsense science. In Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective, 131–143 (Springer, 2015). source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The abandonment of the settlement at Koimisis seems to coincide with the first destruction, as there are no traces of Late Cycladic I pottery which is found at Akrotiri in association with the second seismic event.

    “The abandonment of the settlement at Koimisis seems to coincide with this first destruction, as there are no traces of Late Cycladic I pottery which is found at Akrotiri in association with the second seismic event.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisenone given

    Archaeologically-based arguments place the Thera eruption after the start of the New Kingdom in Egypt.

    “and archaeologically-based arguments for an eruption date after the start of the New Kingdom in Egypt.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Therasia olive provides an important new opportunity to gain further insights into which ice-core sulfate signals may be best supported by radiocarbon dating evidence for Thera.

    “The Therasia olive provides an important new opportunity to gain further insights into which of these sulfate signals may be best supported by radiocarbon dating evidence for Thera, and consequently perhaps a new possibility to obtain a precise eruption date.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    This study underlines the limitations of the more subjective aspects of a modelled approach, combined with the effect of the calibration curve plateau and the limitations of existing radiocarbon data available from Theran contexts.

    “This study underlines the limitations of the more subjective aspects of a modelled approach, combined with the effect of the calibration curve plateau and the limitations of existing radiocarbon data available from Theran contexts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    This study improves on previous modelled iterations via the Therasia data and may bring the long running impasse between radiocarbon and archaeological evidence for the dating of Thera closer to a final resolution.

    “Nonetheless, this study improves on previous modelled iterations via the Therasia data and may bring the long running impasse between radiocarbon and archaeological evidence for the dating of Thera closer to a final resolution.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Due to the small size and poor definition of the growth boundaries and their variation around the stems, the Velmex/Tellervo measurement process did not produce usable data.

    “However, due to the small size and poor definition of the growth boundaries and their variation around the stems, this process did not produce usable data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Koimisis olive shrub was excavated a few meters south of the present day Monastery of Panaghia Koimisis, at an Early to Middle Bronze Age clifftop settlement 196m above sea level at the edge of the caldera.

    “The Koimisis olive shrub was excavated a few meters south of the present day Monastery of Panaghia Koimisis, at an Early to Middle Bronze Age clifftop settlement 196m above sea level at the edge of the caldera2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Sbonias, K. et al. The early and middle bronze age settlement at Koimisis, Therasia: Periods of habitation and architecture. Ann. Br. School Athens 115, 105–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245420000039 (2020). source

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

    Premisenone given

    The site sits on lava flows dated c. 45,000-25,000 years ago, and the ashes of the Cape Riva eruption of Thera c. 22,000 years ago.

    “The site sits on lava flows, dated c. 45,000-25,000 years ago, and the ashes of the Cape Riva eruption of Thera c. 22,000 years ago.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The town of Akrotiri suffered two seismic destructions, one in the late Middle Cycladic period (Middle Cycladic phase C) with imported Cretan material that dates in the MM IIIA, and one early in the Late Cycladic I period (the so-called 'Seismic Destruction Level').

    “This town suffered two seismic destructions, one in the late Middle Cycladic period (Middle Cycladic phase C at Akrotiri) with imported Cretan material that dates in the MM IIIA44 and one early in the Late Cycladic I period (the so-called ‘Seismic Destruction Level’).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] Nikolakopoulou, I. Akrotiri, Thera: Middle Bronze Age Pottery and Stratigraphy, Vol. I: Stratigraphy, Ceramic Typology and Technology, Weaving Equipment (Archaeological Society at Athens, Series No 318, 2019).

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

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The burnt stones were situated at the top of the pre-eruption surface and did not continue in depth, therefore a rapid fire burnt only what existed on the surface in the vicinity of the charring shrub.

    “The burnt stones were situated at the top of the pre-eruption surface and did not continue in depth, therefore a rapid fire burnt only what existed on the surface in the vicinity of the charring shrub.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    The IntCal20 calibration resource precisely describes the radiocarbon plateau and small inversion c.1620-1540 BCE.

    “providing a state-of-the-art calibration resource which precisely describes the radiocarbon plateau and small inversion c.1620-1540 BCE.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
36 of 36

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The Therasia olive shrub shares the same systematic offset from IntCal20 as the contemporaneous Mediterranean juniper data.

    “assuming it may share the same offset as the contemporary juniper data.”
    “whether or not the offset from IntCal20 identified in the contemporaneous Mediterranean juniper is truly shared by the olive shrub.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Thera erupted after the start of the New Kingdom in Egypt.

    “assuming that Thera erupts after the start of the New Kingdom in Egypt7,8,15”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The observed growth bands in the Therasia olive are representative of something approximating annual growth.

    “if the observed growth bands in the Therasia olive are indeed representative of something approximating annual growth”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The inner (first grown) material from each sample is older than the outer-most (last grown) material from each sample.

    “based on the indisputable fact that the inner (first grown) material from each sample was older than the outer-most (last grown) material from each sample”
4 of 4

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?

  • There does not seem to be a measurable volcanic CO2 reservoir effect in the vegetation growing on Thera (Santorini).

    “Hence, there does not seem to be a measurable volcanic CO2 reservoir effect in the vegetation growing on Thera (Santorini), as also noted by Manning [60] and Pearson et al. [68].”

    From The Minoan Thera eruption predates Pharaoh Ahmose: Radiocarbon dating of Egyptian 17th to early 18th Dynasty museum objects (2025) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Results (Radiocarbon dating; no page given) say the olive and comparison samples show no major volcanic radiocarbon offset on Thera in the years leading up to the eruption, consistent with no substantial effect from old volcanic CO2. The citing sentence extends that finding to vegetation growing on Thera generally and to any measurable effect; the source does not rule out smaller effects or address other periods. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The recent dating of ordered sequences of radiocarbon dates on sections of branches of the same olive (Olea europaea) shrub from Therasia (southern Aegean) associated with the Minoan eruption of the Thera (Santorini) volcano offers an example of the problem of plateau spread.

    “The recent dating of ordered sequences of radiocarbon dates on sections of branches of the same olive (Olea europaea) shrub from Therasia (southern Aegean) associated with the Minoan eruption of the Thera (Santorini) volcano (Pearson et al. 2023), which intersect with the plateau in the radiocarbon calibration curve ca. 1620–1540 BC, offers an example of the problem.”

    From Problems of Dating Spread on Radiocarbon Calibration Curve Plateaus: The 1620–1540 BC Example and the Dating of the Therasia Olive Shrub Samples and Thera Volcanic Eruption (2024) · cites this paper as Pearson et al. 2023

  • The recent dating of ordered sequences of radiocarbon dates on sections of branches of the same olive (Olea europaea) shrub from Therasia (southern Aegean) associated with the Minoan eruption of the Thera (Santorini) volcano intersects with the plateau in the radiocarbon calibration curve ca. 1620-1540 BC.

    “which intersect with the plateau in the radiocarbon calibration curve ca. 1620–1540 BC”

    From Problems of Dating Spread on Radiocarbon Calibration Curve Plateaus: The 1620–1540 BC Example and the Dating of the Therasia Olive Shrub Samples and Thera Volcanic Eruption (2024) · cites this paper as Pearson et al. 2023

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Hardy, D. A. Thera and the Aegean World III: Earth Sciences Vol. 2 (Thera Foundation, 1990).
  2. Warren, P. The date of the Late Bronze Age eruption of Santorini on the basis of the historical chronology. Pasiphae 4, 67–72 (2010).
  3. Bronk Ramsey, C. OxCal program, version 4.3. Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (University of Oxford, 2017).
  4. Heinemeier, J., Friedrich, W. L., Kromer, B. & Ramsey, C. B. The Minoan eruption of Santorini radiocarbon dated by an olive tree buried by the eruption. Monogr. Danish Inst. Athens 10, 285–293 (2009).
  5. Fischer, P. M. The chronology of Tell el-Ajjul, Gaza: Stratigraphy, Thera, pumice and radiocarbon dating. Monogr. Danish Inst. Athens 10, 253–265 (2009).
  6. Tsoulakou, M. New pillar shaft 67. A deep stratigraphic section in the history of the city at Akrotiri. In Doumas, C. C. & Devetzi, A. (eds.) Akrotiri, Thera. Forty Years of Research (1967–2007), 81–103 (Society for the Promotion of Studies on Prehistoric Thera, 2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pearson, C., Sbonias, K., Tzachili, I., & Heaton, T. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Ionian University (GR)
  • University of Crete (GR)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Pearson, Charlotte
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-04-28
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
6994-6994
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-023-33696-w
PMC
PMC10147620
OpenAlex
W4367311745
Semantic Scholar
59007a812abadcfa5cf8410d1814005c24cad295
Cited by
13
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Malcolm H. Wiener Foundation
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
Thera eruption, Santorini, Minoan eruption, radiocarbon dating, carbonized wood, eruption chronology, volcanic sulfate, ice core records, tsunami deposits, 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 2026-10-26.

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