Dendrochronologia 35 (2015) 1–3
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Dendrochronologia
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dendro
Short communication
Are cosmogenic events about to revolutionise the crossdating of
multi-millennial tree-ring chronologies?
Anthony M. Fowler ∗
School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 25 March 2015
Received in revised form 20 May 2015
Accepted 20 May 2015
Available online 27 May 2015
To state that dendrochronology is intimately entwined with
radiocarbon research is to state the obvious. All tree-ring
researchers will be familiar with the role of long tree-ring
chronologies in the initial development and subsequent refine-
ment of radiocarbon calibration, and most will also be well
aware of the potential for more precise radiocarbon dating
through wiggle-matching. However, recent developments in high-
resolution radiocarbon research suggest that radiocarbon may soon
have the potential to return the favour. Specifically, absolutely
dated annual-resolution cosmogenic markers will provide a means
to independently verify tree-ring crossdating and perhaps facilitate
the future development of multi-millennial chronologies.
Miyake et al. (2012) is the breakthrough paper in dendro-
cosmogenics. Their analysis of the tree rings of two Japanese cedar
trees identified an abrupt increase (ca. 12‰) in 14 C content within
one year (CE 774–775) that is well beyond individual year error
bands. Identification of the event spawned some interesting com-
mentary about possible extra-terrestrial causes, with debate about
whether the sun, or perhaps some more exotic cosmic event, was
responsible (Usoskin et al., 2013). Presuming the former, the CE
775 increase in 14 C implies an abrupt increase in solar activity that
was much larger than anything previously identified (Stuiver and
Braziunas, 1993; Usoskin et al., 2006). Although of interest, from a
tree-ring dating perspective the cause of the abrupt increase in 14 C
is not critical – more important for us is the identification of what
are essentially unequivocal calendar-year date stamps within the
14 C content of individual tree rings.
Similar analyses of a German oak tree (Usoskin et al., 2013) and
of a high-elevation Austrian bog pine (Büntgen et al., 2014) gave
identical dates for the CE 774/5 event and demonstrated that it
∗ Tel.: +64 9 373 7599x85380.
E-mail address: a.fowler@auckland.ac.nz
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2015.05.004
1125-7865/© 2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
was at least a northern hemisphere (NH) wide phenomenon. These
consistent NH results suggest that it will soon be possible to be
definitive about the calendar years of the 14 C registration of the
event in NH wood. Indeed that assumption has already been made
by some researchers. For example, Wacker et al. (2014) claim radio-
metric dating of a timber from a Swiss chapel to a specific calendar
year, based on identifying the CE 774/5 14 C change within the sam-
ple. However, lack of replication means that no such claim can yet
be made for the southern hemisphere (SH). Although analysis of SH
New Zealand kauri by Güttler et al. (2015) has definitively shown
that the event is registered with near-identical magnitude in both
hemispheres, their suggested early-775 timing for the cosmogenic
event depends on the dating accuracy of the Boswijk et al. (2014)
late-Holocene kauri chronology. However, because of the growing
season offset between the hemispheres, a SH chronology cannot
precisely confirm a NH result and there remains a plausible alter-
native scenario of a CE 774 event combined with one year error in
the kauri chronology. It is for this reason that multiple SH replica-
tion is required to determine if the abrupt 14 C increase is registered
in either the (southern hemisphere) CE 774–775 or the CE 775–776
growing season – i.e. before or after the NH CE 775 ring.1
Although the science related to the SH is incomplete, on-going
work suggests that unequivocal dating of the CE 774/5 cosmogenic
event for both hemispheres is imminent. This, I argue, will have
profound implications for crossdating millennial-scale tree-ring
chronologies, because we will then have at least one independent
source of information against which to verify our chronologies.
Interestingly, in this context, Rutherford and Mann (2014) express
1
Convention is to date SH rings by the year growth starts. The SH CE 774 and 775
rings therefore, respectively lead and lag the NH 775 ring, but possibly with some
overlap (e.g. cambial activity in April CE 775 would conventionally be SH CE 774
latewood and NH CE 775 earlywood).
2 A.M. Fowler / Dendrochronologia 35 (2015) 1–3
Fig. 1. Sample depth of the three sources of wood contributing to the Boswijk et al. (2014) late-Holocene kauri chronology and positions of the CE 774/5 and CE 993/4
cosmogenic events (Miyake et al., 2013).
the view that the CE 774/5 event may well be the key to definitively
resolving their contentious missing-ring hypothesis, related to vol-
canic eruptions and trees near their thermal growth limits (Mann
et al., 2012). My expectation is that cosmogenic verification will
become common, may very well become expected and, in some
cases, may even be required by funders/referees. Although initially
somewhat disruptive to current practice, such developments are
likely to be empowering for dendrochronology. For example, what-
ever our personal opinions may be on the fidelity of crossdating,
many of us will have experienced the scepticism of colleagues who
find it difficult to accept that pattern matching over millennia can
confidently yield an accuracy of ±0. If the chronology is verified
by cosmogenic events not used in the crossdating process, then we
have an emphatic demonstration of crossdating that must surely
convince the most ardent sceptic.
Not used in the crossdating process (above) is an important
caveat and one which raises interesting questions related to the
merits of using cosmogenic events actively in the crossdating pro-
cess. To highlight potential issues it can be useful to look to the
future by reflecting on the past – something I will do here by reflect-
ing on how development of the kauri late-Holocene chronology
(Boswijk et al., 2014) might have been affected if the CE 774/5 event
had been a known phenomenon at a critical point in chronology
development in 2003.
Fig. 1 shows kauri sample depth in 2014, across three dis-
crete sources of material. By 2003, the modern material (mostly
living trees) was pretty much extant and multiple fragments of
swamp material had been crossdated into a multi-millennial float-
ing chronology. The latter’s sample depth was lower and it did not
extend back as far, but qualitatively the swamp data set was sim-
ilar to what is shown in Fig. 1, and radiocarbon dating had placed
it close to the calendar dates shown. But missing in 2003 was all
of the archaeological material, except for one tree (a logging relict)
spanning CE 911-1601, which crossdated with the modern chronol-
ogy. By 2003 we were aware that radiocarbon dating of the swamp
chronology pointed to a likely overlap with the logging relic, and
Gretel Boswijk had identified a possible weak match. When I inde-
pendently looked at the same material, aware that Gretel had found
something interesting but not what, I found the same weak match
position. However, neither of us was convinced by the pattern
matching and bridging the gap had to wait until the archaeological
material starting to come on line over the next few years. Ultimately
this did confirm the weak match position, but it did not shake our
conviction that our caution in 2003 was appropriate.
But what if we had known about the CE 774/5 cosmogenic event
12 years ago? Perhaps we would have searched for it in the recent
end of the then-floating swamp chronology – this after all is no
more than high-precision wiggle matching (similar to Wacker et al.,
2014). Because I am assuming, for the sake of argument, that the CE
774/5 event is unequivocal, having found it in the swamp chronol-
ogy, we would then have been able to lock in chronology calendar
years (±0) without any reference to the modern and archaeological
datasets. Calendar dates for the swamp chronology would in turn
have confirmed the weak match between the swamp chronology
and the logging relic, and would have allowed us to build the late-
Holocene kauri chronology earlier and without the enormous effort
invested in bridging the gap with archaeological material.
Although the above scenario might have been a plausible route,
I think it would have been a serious mistake. First, accepting
weaker pattern matching based on ancillary evidence is contrary to
common dendrochronological practice. Second, the weak bridging
section of the chronology would have been a source of enormous
frustration, probably leading us to the conclusion that we had pro-
duced a second-rate master chronology not worth publishing. It
follows that we would have then turning to the archaeological
wood anyway. Third, if cosmogenic events are used for crossdating,
obviously they cannot then be used for independent verification. If
possible, this is a loss that should be avoided, as it could be in the
kauri case where we were well aware that archaeological material
would bridge the gap.
Although revolutionise in the title may be too strong a word,
given that we only presently know of two cosmogenic events
that register as abrupt inter-annual changes in 14 C in tree rings,
and in only the first millennium CE (Miyake et al., 2013), clearly
these events do have the potential to significantly contribute
to crossdating in some specific cases. Particularly appealing and
uncontroversial is the prospect of independent verification of
multi-millennial chronologies. Use as part of the crossdating pro-
cess is also possible, but is potentially fraught and has the important
downside of removing the scope for independent verification. Indi-
vidual researchers will make decisions about such use and those
decisions will be nuanced, depending on specific circumstances.
For example, in situations where there is no realistic prospect of
exploiting additional material to resolve chronology issues, cos-
mogenics may be an invaluable addition to the crossdating toolkit.
However, caution is probably advisable at this stage and it would
perhaps be useful for the tree-ring research community to have a
conversation about the use of cosmogenics as part of the crossdating
process before we go too far down that particular road.
References
Boswijk, G., Fowler, A.M., Palmer, J., Fenwick, P., Hogg, A., Lorrey, A., Wunder, J.,
2014. The late Holocene kauri chronology: assessing the potential of a
4500-year record for palaeoclimate reconstruction. Q. Sci. Rev. 90, 128–142.
Büntgen, U., Wacker, L., Nicolussi, K., Sigl, M., Güttler, D., Tegel, W., Krusic, P.J.,
Esper, J., 2014. Extraterrestrial confirmation of tree-ring dating. Nat. Clim.
Change 4, 404–405.
Güttler, D., Adolphi, F., Beer, J., Bleicher, N., Boswijk, G., Christl, M., Hogg, A.,
Palmer, J., Vockenhuber, C., Wacker, L., Wunder, J., 2015. Rapid increase in
cosmogenic 14 C in AD 775 measured in New Zealand kauri trees indicates
short-lived increase in 14 C production spanning both hemispheres. Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 411, 290–297.
Mann, M.E., Fuentes, J.D., Rutherford, S., 2012. Underestimation of volcanic cooling
in tree-ring-based reconstructions of hemispheric temperatures. Nat. Geosc. 5,
202–205.
 A.M. Fowler / Dendrochronologia 35 (2015) 1–3
Miyake, F., Masuda, K., Nakamura, T., 2013. Another rapid event in the carbon-14
content of tree rings. Nat. Commun. 4, 1748, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
ncomms2783
Miyake, F., Nagaya, K., Masuda, K., Nakamura, T., 2012. A signature of cosmic-ray
increase in AD 774–775 from tree rings in Japan. Nature 486, 240–242.
Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Ludlow, F., Beer, J., Friedrich, M., Kovaltsov, G.A., Solanki,
S.K., Wacker, L., 2013. The AD775 cosmic event revisited: the Sun is to blame.
Astron. Astrophys. 552, L3 1–4.
Usoskin, I.G., Solanki, S.K., Kovaltsov, G.A., Beer, J., Kromer, B., 2006. Solar proton
events in cosmogenic isotope data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L08107, 1–4.
3
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., 2014. Missing tree rings and the AD 774–775
radiocarbon event. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 648–649.
Stuiver, M., Braziunas, T.F., 1993. Sun, ocean, climate and atmosphere 14CO2: an
evaluation of causal and spectral relationships. Holocene 3, 289–305.
Wacker, L., Güttler, D., Goll, J., Hurni, J.P., Synal, H.-A., Walti, N., 2014. Radiocarbon
dating to a single year by means of rapid atmospheric 14 C changes.
Radiocarbon 56, 573–579.