Reanalysis of the Chronological Discrepancies Obtained by the Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments Project
Open accessAbstract
The most extensive chronometric study ever undertaken on Egyptian Dynastic sites was published inRadiocarbonby 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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
More often the 14C dating results of organic material in mudbricks and mud seals were found to be older by many decades and even centuries than historical age assessments.
“However, more often the 14C dating results of organic material in mudbricks and mud seals were found to be older by many decades and even centuries than historical age assessments [70,71,97].”
From The Minoan Thera eruption predates Pharaoh Ahmose: Radiocarbon dating of Egyptian 17th to early 18th Dynasty museum objects (2025) · cites this paper as [71]
The Introduction says the original radiocarbon dates tended to be older than historical dates, sometimes with calibrated ranges extending back 300–400 years. It also says grasses and twigs were sampled from mud bricks, but most samples were charcoal from mortar; it does not report mud-seal samples or establish that the stated offsets occurred specifically in mud-brick material. The Results and Discussion further report that the reanalysis brought estimated monument completion dates much closer to historical records. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredClaims for large and systematic errors or offsets for 14C dates relevant to the 3rd, 2nd, or 1st millennia BC east Mediterranean are untenable or incorrectly based.
“Claims for large and systematic errors or offsets for 14 C dates relevant to the 3rd, 2nd, or 1st millennia BC east Mediterranean are untenable or incorrectly based (e.g.Manning et al. 2002Manning et al. , 2010;;Dee et al. 2009;Manning and Kromer 201 lb)”
From Considerations of the Scale of Radiocarbon Offsets in the East Mediterranean, and Considering a Case for the Latest (Most Recent) Likely Date for the Santorini Eruption (2012) · cites this paper as Dee et al. 2009
The Results and Discussion says the variability in the Egyptian monument dates was almost certainly due to archaeological and taphonomic factors rather than inherent problems with radiocarbon dating. But the Introduction explicitly limits the reanalysis to 4th-Dynasty monuments, so this paper does not establish the claim for the eastern Mediterranean across the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st millennia BC. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events
Buck, C. E., Litton, C. D., & Smith, A. F. M. (1992) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/0305-4403(92)90025-x · Cited by 244 · see citing works
The present status of Egyptian chronology
Ward, W. A. (1992) · Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research · doi:10.2307/1357231 · Cited by 14 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Hence, despite its general reliability and accuracy, the absolute positioning of the chronology continues to be controversial (Mellaart 1979; Kitchen 1991; Ward 1992; Krauss 2004; Bietak 2007).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Bietak M. 2007. Introduction: High and Low Chronol- ogy. In: Bietak M, Hoflmayer F, editors. Synchronisa- tion of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium B.C. III. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. p 13-23.
- 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. Radiocar- bon 43(3):1297-320.
- Bronk Ramsey C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radio- carbon 37(2):425-30.
- Bruins HJ, Mook WG. 1989. The need for a calibrated ra- diocarbon chronology of Near Eastern archaeology. Radiocarbon 31(3):1019-29.
- Buck CE, Kenworthy JB, Litton CD, Smith AFM. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon informa- tion: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65(249):808-21.
- Christen JA. 1994. Summarizing a set of radiocarbon de- terminations: a robust approach. Applied Statistics- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C 43(3): 489-503.
- Christen JA. 2003. Bwigg: an internet facility for Baye- sian radiocarbon wiggle matching. Internet Archaeol- ogy 7. Available at http:/intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue13/ christe_index.html.
- Kitchen KA. 1991. The chronology of ancient Egypt. World Archaeology 23(2):201-8.
- Lehner M, Nakhla S, Hawass Z, Bonani G, Wenke R, No- lan J, Wetterstrom W. 1999. Dating the pyramids. Ar- chaeology 52(5):26-33.
- McFadgen BG. 1982. Dating New Zealand archaeology by radiocarbon. New Zealand Journal of Science 25: 379-92.
- McFadgen BG, Knox FB, Cole TRL. 1994. Radiocarbon calibration curve variations and their implications for the interpretation of New Zealand Prehistory. Radio- carbon 36(2):221-36.
- Mellaart J. 1979. Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology: a dilemma? Antiquity 53(207):6-20.
- Shaw I. 2000. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Ox- ford: Oxford University Press.
- Waterbolk HT. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37:15-33.
- Werner M. 2002. The Pyramids. London: Grove Press.
- Wilson SR, Ward GK. 1981. Evaluation and clustering of radiocarbon age determinations: procedures and para- digms. Archaeometry 23(1):19-39.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology
Regev, J., De Miroschedji, P., Greenberg, R., Braun, E., Greenhut, Z., & Boaretto, E. (2012) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s003382220004724x · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset in the radiocarbon record for ancient Egypt
Dee, M. W., Brock, F., Harris, S. A., Ramsey, C. B., Shortland, A. J., Higham, T. F. G., & Rowland, J. M. (2010) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.09.003 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Self-citationManning, S. W., & Kromer, B. (2012) · Radiocarbon · doi:10.1017/s0033822200047202 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Bruins, H. J., & van der Plicht, J. (2025) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0330702 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“A reanalysis of the above radiocarbon dates regarding 4 th Dynasty monuments was conducted by Dee et al. [71], using the OxCal calibration program [72] and its function to detect outliers [73].”
- Authors
- Dee, M. W., Bronk Ramsey, C., Shortland, A. J., Higham, T. F. G., & Rowland, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Cranfield University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dee, M W
- Venue
- Radiocarbon
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1061-1070
- ISSN
- 0033-8222 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-5755
- OpenAlex
- W2222944630
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Radiocarbon (publishedVersion)
- UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- American Educational Research Association
- Leverhulme Trust
- University of Oxford
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
- Keywords
- Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, radiocarbon dating, radiocarbon calibration, OxCal, outlier detection, Bayesian calibration
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
