CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Ancient Egypt and ArchaeologyArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesAncient and Medieval Archaeology Studies

Resolution of the High versus Low debate for Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt

Open access
Erdil, Pınar, Webster, Lyndelle, Kuitems, Margot, Knoblauch, Christian, Bestock, Laurel, Höflmayer, Felix, Beeckman, Hans, Fuller, Dorian Q. +2 more·2025·PLOS One
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0314612PMC PMC12119019
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The unrivaled millennia-long historical chronology of ancient Egypt forms the backbone for archaeological synchronization across the entire Eastern Mediterranean region c. 3000-1000 BCE. However, for more than a century, scholars have wrangled over the correct calendrical positioning of this record, with older scenarios being referred to as ‘High’, and younger ones, ‘Low’ chronologies. Offsets between the two can be as great as a century, substantially confusing connections with other civilizations of the time. Here, we settle this debate for two major periods of political unity in ancient Egypt, the Old Kingdom (the Pyramid Age), and the Middle Kingdom. We introduce 48 high-precision radiocarbon dates obtained through rare access to museum collections as well as freshly excavated samples. By combining these new results with legacy radiocarbon data and with text records for reign lengths of kings within a Bayesian statistical framework, we show that the Low Chronology is no longer empirically supported for the Old and Middle Kingdoms, and resolve a long-standing historical schism.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using 160 radiocarbon dates (48 new) and Bayesian models, the paper resolves the High versus Low chronology debate for Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt. It finds the Low Chronology is not empirically supported for either period, with Middle Kingdom models exclusively supporting the High Chronology.

Key findings

  • The Low Chronology is ruled out for the Old Kingdom at 95% probability, and the results reaffirm earlier High chronological estimates. For the Middle Kingdom, models exclusively support High Chronology irrespective of the reign-length configuration employed, with no empirical support for the Low Chronology.
  • The study employs 160 14C dates total: 48 new and 112 previously published. The Old Kingdom models comprise 33 14C dates, while the Middle Kingdom models comprise 127 14C dates.
  • Key modeled dates from model P1 (Hornung et al. reign lengths): Start of OK 2679–2642 BCE (68% hpd), 2698–2629 BCE (95%); Start of FIP 2267–2228 BCE (68%), 2283–2204 BCE (95%); Start of MK 2058–2045 BCE (68%), 2065–2037 BCE (95%); End of MK 1819–1806 BCE (68%), 1825–1799 BCE (95%).
  • Middle Kingdom accession dates for most rulers peak 10–15 years earlier than even most High Chronology estimates, with or without the seasonal offset; the Senusret III tie-point is confirmed as early 19th century BCE.

Methods

  • New samples for the Old Kingdom were short-lived organic materials from museum collections (Natural History Museum, London; Petrie Museum, London; World Museum, Liverpool; Cambridge University). For the Middle Kingdom, short-lived plants and tree rings from two acacia timber beams were sampled from the fortress of Uronarti, Sudan. Samples were pretreated and measured by AMS at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit and the Centre for Isotope Research, Groningen.
  • The new and legacy 14C dates were combined with text records for reign lengths in a Bayesian statistical framework using OxCal 4.4 and IntCal20. A collection of 18 Bayesian models tested multiple reign-length scenarios (Hornung et al., Kitchen, Shaw, Gautschy) and varying applications of a seasonal effect.
  • One Old Kingdom measurement was modern and excluded; one Middle Kingdom sample failed due to low carbon yield. Three samples were pretreated and measured in duplicate and showed excellent agreement.

Limitations

  • Stated: conclusions rely on the most recent data and assumptions, including latest calibration records, reign orders, and reign lengths; because of the Bayesian approach, major revisions to these prior information sources would lead to alternative conclusions.
  • Evident: the Old Kingdom lacks reliable Sothic records, so its chronology remains truly floating in time; the paper notes that a previous OK sequence was defined by only 17 14C dates, though this study expands it to 33.
  • Evident: one OK measurement was modern and excluded, and one MK sample failed due to low carbon yield, reducing the effective dataset.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0314612

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

3 of 41 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    One of the earliest Sothic records comes from the Illahun Papyrus assigned to Year 7 of king Senusret III of the Middle Kingdom.

    “One of the earliest Sothic records comes from the Illahun Papyrus assigned to Year 7 of king Senusret III of the MK, a ruler known for military expeditions to Nubia and the Levant [1,25,27–32].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 8 sources checked
    • cites [1] WA Ward, 1992, The present status of Egyptian chronology, Bull Am Schools Orient Res source
    • cites [25] Gautschy R. Lunar and Sothic data from the archive of el-Lahun revisited: chronology of the Middle Kingdom. In: Horn M, et al., editors. Current research in Egyptology 2010 proceedings of the eleventh annual symposium. Oxbow Books; 2011. pp. 53–61. source
    • cites [27] A Spalinger, 2018 source
    • cites [28] T. de Jong, 2006, The heliacal rising of Sirius. source
    • cites [29] L Borchardt, 1899, Der zweite Papyrusfund von Kahun und die zeitliche Festlegung des mittleren Reiches der ägyptischen Geschichte, Z Ägyptische Sprache Altertumskunde

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [30] KA Kitchen, 1991, The chronology of ancient Egypt, World Archaeology source
    • cites [31] T Schneider, 2008, Das Ende der kurzen Chronologie: eine kritische Bilanz der Debatte zur absoluten Datierung des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit, Egypt and the Levant source

      The available passages contain publication metadata and the paper’s title, but no article text addressing the Illahun Papyrus. Searches for Illahun, Sothic dates, and Senusret III’s seventh year returned no relevant passage, so this copy cannot verify the attribution. (LLM, conf=0.75)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [32] E Marcus, 2016, Radiocarbon verification of the earliest astro-chronological datum, Radiocarbon source
  • Findingown data

    The accession date of king Senusret III is in the early 19th century BCE.

    “Confirming the early 19th century BCE age of this tie-point is not only crucial to the MK but to the dating of other events of the ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The wood beams from Uronarti date to the original construction of the fortress.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The reign orders and lengths used in the models are correct.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The latest calibration records used in the models are correct.
  • Findingown data

    The results for the accession dates of most Middle Kingdom rulers peak 10-15 years earlier than even most High Chronology estimates, with or without the seasonal offset.

    “In fact, our results for the accession dates of most MK rulers peak 10-15 years earlier than even most High Chronology estimates. This pattern is evident with or without the application of the seasonal offset (S2 Fig).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The wood beams from Uronarti date to the original construction of the fortress.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The reign orders and lengths used in the models are correct.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The latest calibration records used in the models are correct.
  • Premisecitation

    The Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom periods provide the key pillar for placing and linking the chronology of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in the ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean.

    “Specifically, the Old Kingdom (OK, c. mid-late 3rd millennium BCE, the ‘Pyramid Age’) and Middle Kingdom (MK, c. late 3rd/early 2nd millennium BCE) periods provide the key pillar for placing and linking the chronology of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in the ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean [4–8].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [4] KA. Kitchen, 2000, Regnal and genealogical data of ancient Egypt (absolute chronology I) the historical chronology of ancient Egypt, a current assessment.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [5] M Bietak, 2007, Introduction: High and low chronology.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] F Höflmayer, 2017, Chronological conundrums: Egypt and the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant, JAEI
    • cites [7] F Höflmayer, 2022, A synchronized early Middle Bronze Age chronology for Egypt, the Levant, and Mesopotamia, J Near East Stud source
    • cites [8] F. Höflmayer, 2022, Establishing an absolute chronology of the Middle Bronze Age. source
  • Premisecitation

    The construction of the Uronarti fortress took place during the reign of Senusret III.

    “The new excavations have confirmed that the construction of the fortress took place during the reign of Senusret III [53].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [53] L Bestock, 2020, Leather, mud and grain: the 2018 excavations in Uronarti fortress, Sudan & Nubia

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8
  • May combine two claims. 9

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The correctness of the High and Low chronologies has been actively debated for more than a century.

    “The correctness of these two alternatives, High and Low, has been actively debated for more than a century [1,26,29,30,34,35].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [1] WA Ward, 1992, The present status of Egyptian chronology, Bull Am Schools Orient Res source
    • cites [26] R Gautschy, 2017, A new astronomically based chronological model for the Egyptian Old Kingdom, J Egypt Hist source
    • cites [29] L Borchardt, 1899, Der zweite Papyrusfund von Kahun und die zeitliche Festlegung des mittleren Reiches der ägyptischen Geschichte, Z Ägyptische Sprache Altertumskunde

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [30] KA Kitchen, 1991, The chronology of ancient Egypt, World Archaeology source
    • cites [34] R Krauss, 2021, Late Old Kingdom chronology–another model, Egypt and the Levant source

      The available copy’s abstract (no page number provided) describes an alternative Old Kingdom chronology to Gautschy’s model. Searches for High and Low chronologies and a century-long debate found no passage addressing how long those alternatives have been debated. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [35] JA Belmonte, 2023, Astronomy and chronology. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Egyptian seasonal effect was revised to 12 ± 5 14C yr BP against IntCal20.

    “However, recent analyses against IntCal20 have revised it down to 12 ± 5 14C yr BP [47].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [47] SW Manning, 2020, Radiocarbon offsets and old world chronology as relevant to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia and Thera (Santorini), Sci Rep source

      The Discussion (‘Radiocarbon offsets and their causes’) revises the estimated typical seasonal offset for maximally offset regions, including Egypt and the southern Levant, to approximately 12 ± 5 ¹⁴C years. But the Results (‘Egyptian New Kingdom radiocarbon time series versus IntCal20’) give the Egyptian New Kingdom offset against IntCal20 as approximately 16 ± 4 ¹⁴C years. The claim presents the broader seasonal estimate as the Egypt-specific result. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Old Kingdom chronological models, comprising 33 radiocarbon dates, reaffirm the High chronological estimates achieved previously and rule out the Low chronological position at 95% probability.

    “Even though our chronological models are the most comprehensive ever constructed for this period (33 14C dates), our results act to reaffirm the High chronological estimates achieved previously (Fig 1) [43]. Indeed, the Low chronological position (blue vertical line in Fig 1) [21] is ruled out at 95% probability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [43] Ramsey Bronk, 2010, Radiocarbon-based chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Science source
    • cites [21] E Hornung, 2006 source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The reign orders and lengths used in the models are correct.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The latest calibration records used in the models are correct.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The Middle Kingdom models, comprising 127 radiocarbon dates, are able to distinguish between the High and Low chronological scenarios, and irrespective of the reign-length configuration employed, they exclusively support the High chronological positions.

    “Unlike all previous studies, our MK models (comprising 127 14C dates) are able to distinguish between the High and Low chronological scenarios. Irrespective of the reign-length configuration employed, the models exclusively support the High chronological positions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The wood beams from Uronarti date to the original construction of the fortress.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The reign orders and lengths used in the models are correct.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The latest calibration records used in the models are correct.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The estimates for the beginning and end of the Middle Kingdom are of unprecedented precision, with the end shifted several decades earlier than many previous estimations.

    “Our estimates for the beginning and end of the MK are of unprecedented precision, with the latter juncture shifted several decades earlier than many previous estimations (Fig 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The wood beams from Uronarti date to the original construction of the fortress.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The reign orders and lengths used in the models are correct.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The latest calibration records used in the models are correct.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    One measurement from the Old Kingdom dataset turned out to be modern and was excluded from the analysis.

    “One measurement from the OK dataset turned out to be modern and was excluded from the remainder of the analysis, and one sample from the MK data set failed due to a low carbon yield.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A regional offset to the calibration curve has been proposed for ancient Egyptian materials, attributed to a local growing season or latitudinal effect, perhaps modulated by changing climatic regimes.

    “A further refinement concerns a regional offset to the calibration curve proposed for ancient Egyptian materials [45]. This small-scale discrepancy, often known as the ‘seasonal effect’, was attributed to a local growing season or latitudinal effect, perhaps modulated by changing climatic regimes [46].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [45] MW Dee, 2010, Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset in the radiocarbon record for ancient Egypt, J Archaeol Sci source
    • cites [46] SW Manning, 2014, High-precision dendro-14C dating of two cedar wood sequences from First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom Egypt and a small regional climate-related 14C divergence, J Archaeol Sci source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Bronk Ramsey et al. accurately positioned the New Kingdom but did not achieve a conclusive result for the Old and Middle Kingdoms, mainly due to limited relevant sample material.

    “While this analysis accurately positioned the New Kingdom (NK, c. mid-late 2nd millennium), a conclusive result for the OK and MK was not achieved, mainly due to the limited amount of relevant sample material available for these periods.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [43] Ramsey Bronk, 2010, Radiocarbon-based chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Science source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Sothic records describe the heliacal rising of Sirius, which marked the first day of the ancient Egyptian civil calendar.

    “Amongst these, the most important are the so-called Sothic records, which describe the heliacal rising of the star Sirius (Egyptian Sopdet; Greek Sothis). This event marked the first day of the ancient Egyptian civil calendar [1,28].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] WA Ward, 1992, The present status of Egyptian chronology, Bull Am Schools Orient Res source
    • cites [28] T. de Jong, 2006, The heliacal rising of Sirius. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    One sample from the Middle Kingdom dataset failed due to a low carbon yield.

    “One measurement from the OK dataset turned out to be modern and was excluded from the remainder of the analysis, and one sample from the MK data set failed due to a low carbon yield.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Most Egyptian history is currently underpinned by astronomical data, king-lists, and other official records on papyri and stone, which are open to multiple interpretations and have led to chronological ambiguity.

    “Currently, most Egyptian history is underpinned by astronomical data, king-lists, and other official records on papyri and stone [21], which are open to multiple interpretations and have led to chronological ambiguity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] E Hornung, 2006 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Egyptian seasonal effect was initially estimated at 19 ± 5 14C yr BP against IntCal04.

    “Its magnitude was initially estimated to be 19 ± 5 14C yr BP, a figure obtained by comparing a dataset of known-age annual samples that were in the inundation zone of the Nile with the IntCal04 curve [45].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [45] MW Dee, 2010, Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset in the radiocarbon record for ancient Egypt, J Archaeol Sci source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The paper's conclusions rely on the most recent data and assumptions, including the latest calibration records, reign orders and lengths; major revisions to these sources of prior information would lead to alternative conclusions.

    “Our conclusions rely on the most recent data and assumptions, including the latest calibration records, reign orders and lengths. Because of the Bayesian approach taken, any major revisions to these sources of prior information would lead to alternative conclusions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The reign orders and lengths used in the models are correct.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The latest calibration records used in the models are correct.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Three samples were pretreated and measured in duplicate and showed excellent agreement.

    “Three samples were pretreated and measured in duplicate and showed excellent agreement (GrM-22708 and GrM-22709, χ2 = 0.01 versus 3.8, df = 1; GrM-24031 and GrM-24042, χ2 = 0.89 versus 3.8, df = 1; GrM-30071 and GrM-30094, χ2 = 0.18 versus 3.8, df = 1) [57].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [57] GK Ward, 1978, Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique, Archaeometry source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results align the entire Middle Kingdom sequence with the High Chronology and provide no empirical support for the Low chronological positioning.

    “In short, our results align the entire MK sequence with the High Chronology and provide no empirical support for the Low chronological positioning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The wood beams from Uronarti date to the original construction of the fortress.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The reign orders and lengths used in the models are correct.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The latest calibration records used in the models are correct.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The Old Kingdom dataset was distributed evenly across the Old Kingdom, whereas previous models for the period were largely cantilevered out from Dynasty III and IV on the basis of reign-length estimates.

    “A key strength of our data set is that it was distributed evenly across the OK, whereas previous models for the period were largely cantilevered out from Dynasty III and IV on the basis of reign-length estimates.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
16 of 16

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The wood beams from Uronarti date to the original construction of the fortress.

    “It is thus reasonable to assume that the wood beams date to the original construction of the fortress.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The reign orders and lengths used in the models are correct.

    “Our conclusions rely on the most recent data and assumptions, including the latest calibration records, reign orders and lengths.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The latest calibration records used in the models are correct.

    “Our conclusions rely on the most recent data and assumptions, including the latest calibration records, reign orders and lengths.”
3 of 3

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Table 1 calls bone specimens plant samples

    Minor

    Table 1 describes its samples as plants, but it includes specimens identified as bone.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. KA. Kitchen, 2000, Regnal and genealogical data of ancient Egypt (absolute chronology I) the historical chronology of ancient Egypt, a current assessment., 39
  2. M Bietak, 2007, Introduction: High and low chronology., 13
  3. Bietak M, editor. The synchronisation of civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloss Haindorf, 15th-17th November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th-12th May 1998. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press; 2000.
  4. M Bietak, 2003, The synchronisation of civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C. II
  5. Krauss R, Warburton DA. The basis for the Egyptian dates. In: Warburton DA, editor. Time’s up! Dating the Minoan eruption of Santorini: acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007. Aarhus University Press; 2007. pp. 125–44.
  6. WMF Petrie, 1898, Deshasheh 1897: fifteenth memoir of the Egyptian Exploration Fund, Egypt Exploration Fund
  7. WJ Murnane, 1977, Ancient Egyptian coregencies. Studies in Oriental Civilization 40
  8. Höflmayer F. The southern Levant, Egypt, and the 4.2 ka BP event. In: Meller H, Arz HW, Jung R, Risch R, editors. 2200 BC: a climatic breakdown as a cause for the collapse of the Old World? 7th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany, October 23-26, 2014 in Halle (Saale). Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte; 2015. pp. 113–30.
  9. M. Bárta, 2015, Long term or short term? Climate change and the demise of the Old Kingdom., 177

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Erdil, P., Webster, L., Kuitems, M., Knoblauch, C., Bestock, L., Höflmayer, F., Beeckman, H., Fuller, D. Q., Manning, S. W., & Dee, M. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Austrian Academy of Sciences (AT)
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • Brown University (US)
  • Royal Museum for Central Africa (BE)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Cyprus Institute (CY)
Corresponding author
Erdil, Pınar
ORCID
Venue
PLOS One
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2025-05-28
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
e0314612
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0314612
PMC
PMC12119019
OpenAlex
W4410809522
Semantic Scholar
7f46a7c08fd4fe978d50010f8b0e336d569dfa04
Cited by
3
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
FWCI
12.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (PGW.21.013)
  • H2020 European Research Council (714679 (ECHOES))
  • Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship (ECF-2012-123)
  • Austrian Science Fund (START-project Y 932-G25)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
Keywords
Egyptian chronology, Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom Egypt, radiocarbon dating, Bayesian chronology, Egyptian kings, museum collections
MeSH terms
Egypt, Ancient, Archaeology, Bayes Theorem, Egypt, Humans, History, Ancient, Radiometric Dating

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-22.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-22.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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