The Fall of Babylon in 1499: Another Update
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The Middle or Low-Middle Chronology can henceforth be regarded in approximate terms-with a robust dendro-14C anchor-as the accurate timeframe for Mesopotamian history.
“Contrary to claims that it should be dismissed (e.g. [18, 19, 76]), the Middle or Low-Middle Chronology can henceforth be regarded in approximate terms–with a robust dendro-14C anchor–as the accurate timeframe for Mesopotamian history.”
From Integrated Tree-Ring-Radiocarbon High-Resolution Timeframe to Resolve Earlier Second Millennium BCE Mesopotamian Chronology (2016) · cites this paper as [76]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Manning, S. W., Griggs, C. B., Lorentzen, B., Barjamovic, G., Ramsey, C. B., Kromer, B., & Wild, E. M. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157144 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
“[18, 19, 76]), the Middle or Low-Middle Chronology can henceforth be regarded in approximate terms–with a robust dendro-(14)C anchor–as the accurate timeframe for Resolving Mesopotamian Chronology”
- Authors
- Warburton, D. A.
- Corresponding author
- Warburton, David A.
- Venue
- Akkadica
- Publisher
- Ghent University
- Published
- 2011-01-01
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-22
- ISSN
- 0772-1331 (ISSN-L)
- 1378-5087
- OpenAlex
- W3183971531
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Akkadica (publishedVersion)
- Akkadica
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Near East History
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Medieval History and Crusades
- Keywords
- fall of Babylon, Babylonian history, Neo-Babylonian Empire
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
