The criticism of the date of the olive tree branch from Thera offered by Cherubini et al. (above) has to be fully supported. The attribution of the branch in question to the late part of the seventeenth century BC is by itself not unexpected, as most of the other radiocarbon dates of short-lived samples from the site of Akrotiri fall into the second half of that century. The attempt to produce a wiggle-match drawn from a succession of non-existent tree-rings in this branch, and to fit such a result into the general calibration curve to give the illusion of precision, however, does not pass the scientific test. Olive trees do not develop annual tree-rings. Furthermore, no proof could be produced that this branch was alive during the eruption. The olive leaves found in an underlying horizon had no connection to the branch and could have been preserved in dry ground like this for ages before the eruption occurred. The remains of the branch were not found in a tight-fitting context but in a much larger cavity and it seems that the outer part of the branch, including the bark edge (waney edge)—contrary to the assertions of Friedrich et al. (2006)—are missing. The other issue in this scientific discussion is that dating the Thera eruption by 14C is much more problematic than is acknowledged by scientists, since it clashes distinctly with historical and archaeological dating.