Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T02:12:29.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reanalysis of the Chronological Discrepancies Obtained by the Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments Project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

M W Dee ,
C Bronk Ramsey ,
A J Shortland ,
T F G Higham  and
J M Rowland
M W Dee*
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory for Archaeology, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
C Bronk Ramsey
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory for Archaeology, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
A J Shortland
Affiliation:
Centre for Archaeological and Forensic Analysis, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, Swindon SN6 8LA, United Kingdom
T F G Higham
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory for Archaeology, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
J M Rowland
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory for Archaeology, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
*
Corresponding author. Email: michael.dee@stx.ox.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The most extensive chronometric study ever undertaken on Egyptian Dynastic sites was published in Radiocarbon by Bonani et al. (2001). It comprised 269 radiocarbon measurements on monuments ranging from the 1st–12th dynasties. However, many of the calibrated dates obtained were significantly offset from historical estimates. The greatest discrepancies occurred in the 4th Dynasty where, paradoxically, the dating program had been most rigorous. For this period, 158 measurements were made at 12 sites, with the majority of the dates being 200–300 yr older than expected. The 4th Dynasty results were especially significant as they included some of the most important monuments in Egypt. In this paper, the raw data from that study have been reanalyzed using the OxCal calibration program, making particular use of its new outlier detection functionality. This Bayesian approach has resulted in a new series of calibrations that show much closer agreement with conventional chronological records.

Information

Type
Statistical Applications
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , 2009 , pp. 1061 - 1070
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

REFERENCES

Bietak, M. 2007. Introduction: High and Low Chronology. In: Bietak, M, Hoflmayer, F, editors. Synchronisation of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C. III. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. p 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonani, G, Hass, H, Hawass, Z, Lehner, M, Nakhla, S, Nolan, J, Wenke, R, Wölfli, W. 2001. Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle Kingdom monuments in Egypt. Radiocarbon 43(3):1297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2):425–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon 43(2A):355–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Dealing with outliers and offsets in radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon, this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruins, HJ, Mook, WG. 1989. The need for a calibrated radiocarbon chronology of Near Eastern archaeology. Radiocarbon 31(3):1019–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, CE, Kenworthy, JB, Litton, CD, Smith, AFM. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65(249):808–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, CE, Litton, CD, Smith, AFM. 1992. Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19(5):497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christen, JA. 1994. Summarizing a set of radiocarbon determinations: a robust approach. Applied Statistics-Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C 43(3):489–503.Google Scholar
Christen, JA. 2003. Bwigg: an internet facility for Bayesian radiocarbon wiggle matching. Internet Archaeology 7. Available at http:/intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue13/christe_index.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, PA. 1994. Chronicle of the Pharaohs. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Kitchen, KA. 1991. The chronology of ancient Egypt. World Archaeology 23(2):201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauss, R. 2004. Manetho's Twelfth Dynasty and the standard chronology. The Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 29.Google Scholar
Lehner, M, Nakhla, S, Hawass, Z, Bonani, G, Wenke, R, Nolan, J, Wetterstrom, W. 1999. Dating the pyramids. Archaeology 52(5):26–33.Google Scholar
Manning, SW. 2006. Radiocarbon dating and Egyptian chronology. In: Hornung, E, Krauss, R, Warburton, DA, editors. Ancient Egyptian Chronology. Leiden: Brill. p 327–55.Google ScholarPubMed
McFadgen, BG. 1982. Dating New Zealand archaeology by radiocarbon. New Zealand Journal of Science 25:379–92.Google Scholar
McFadgen, BG, Knox, FB, Cole, TRL. 1994. Radiocarbon calibration curve variations and their implications for the interpretation of New Zealand Prehistory. Radiocarbon 36(2):221–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart, J. 1979. Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology: a dilemma? Antiquity 53(207):6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, I. 2000. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, WA. 1992. The present status of the Egyptian chronology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 288:53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterbolk, HT. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37:15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, M. 2002. The Pyramids. London: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, SR, Ward, GK. 1981. Evaluation and clustering of radiocarbon age determinations: procedures and paradigms. Archaeometry 23(1):19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar