Radiocarbon, Wine Jars and New Kingdom Chronology

May combine two claims.

The recent re-clearance of the tombs of Horemheb and Sety I in the Valley of the Kings found no wine dockets later than Year 14 in Horemheb's tomb and no wine dockets later than Year 8 associated with material from the tomb of Sety I.

“This rather neat picture was, however, exploded by the recent re-clearance of the tombs of Horemheb and Sety I in the Valley of the Kings, since in Horemheb's tomb no wine dockets later than Year 14 were found, whilst no wine dockets later than Year 8 were associated with material from the tomb of Sety I.”

May combine two claims.

Wine dockets found in Tutankhamun's tomb document Years 4, 5, 9, 10, and 31, with some Year 5 and Year 9 dockets referring to the Estate of Tutankhamun.

“Wine dockets found in Tutankhamun's tomb document Years 4 (six times), 5 (twelve times), 9 (six times), 10 (once) and 31 (once), all without references to the king concerned, although four of the Year 5, and one of the Year 9 dockets do say that the wine comes from the Estate of Tutankhamun, and thus a correlation with Tutankhamun is certain.”

May combine two claims.

Dockets from Deir el-Medineh refer to Years 3, 14, 17, 30 and 36, whilst a Year 23 docket attributed to Amenophis III comes from Dahshur.

“Dockets from Deir el-Medineh refer to Years 3, 14, 17, 30 and 36, 30 whilst a Year 23 docket attributed to Amenophis III comes from Dahshur.”

May combine two claims.

The only certain dates known for Ramesses I are Year 1 on the stela Strasbourg 1378, and a stela unearthed in Karnak, whilst Year 2 is found on the Louvre stela C57 from Buhen.

“The only certain dates known for Ramesses I are Year 1 on the stela Strasbourg 1378, and a stela unearthed in Karnak, whilst Year 2 is found on the Louvre stela C57 from Buhen.”

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

References to a Heb sed of Hatshepsut occur on an obelisk apparently erected in Year 16.

“References to a Heb sed of Hatshepsut occur on an obelisk which was apparently erected in Year 16”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The Lateran obelisk inscription records that the obelisk lay on its side for thirty-five years before Tuthmosis IV erected it.

“This bears an inscription added by Tuthmosis IV who records how the obelisk lay on its side for thirty-five years before he erected it.”

May combine two claims.

For Amenophis II, with a minimum secure date of twenty-three years, forty elite tombs are known.

“For Amenophis II, minimum secure date twenty-three years: forty tombs.112”

• cites [112]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

For Amenophis III, with a minimum secure date of thirty-eight years, thirty-seven elite tombs are known.

“For Amenophis III, minimum secure date thirty-eight years: thirty-seven tombs.113”

• cites [113]Not matched

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

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

Close examination of Papyrus BM 10056 indicated only two numerals and not three, so a Year 30 is ruled out.

“Such a hypothesis cavalierly overrides the close examination of the indicated that, in their opinion, there were only two numerals and not three, hence a Year 30 is ruled out.75”

• cites [75]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Inscriptions at Karnak refer to both a Heb-sed and a renewal of the Heb sed under Amenophis II.

“Inscriptions at Karnak refer to both a Heb-sed and a renewal of the Heb sed under Amenophis II”

May combine two claims.

KV 42 was clearly made during the reign of Tuthmosis III and was only utilised during the reign of Amenophis II at the earliest.

“KV 42, clearly made during the reign of Tuthmosis III, was only utilised during the reign of Amenophis II at the earliest, 120”

• cites [120]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Two dated inscriptions of Year 7 refer to Iaret as king's daughter, king's sister and Great Royal Wife, so Iaret was certainly a Great Royal Wife by that year.

“Two dated inscriptions of Year 7 refer to the king's daughter, king's sister and Great Royal Wife, Iaret, hence Iaret was certainly a Great Royal Wife by that year.”

May combine two claims.

The dates for Tuthmosis III were derived from 49 radiocarbon samples in the 2010 study, but were essentially deduced from intervening reign lengths in the 2013 study.

“the dates for Tuthmosis III were derived from 49 radiocarbon samples in the 2010 study, but were essentially deduced from intervening reign lengths in the 2013 study.”

May combine two claims.

The conventional low chronology is at the extreme earliest edge of the 2010 two sigma range, slightly less so in the 2013 result.

“In every case, however, the conventional low chronology is at the extreme earliest edge of the 2010 two sigma range, slightly less so in the 2013 result.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The samples in the 2010 radiocarbon model were more closely linked to the actual reign of the named king than the 2013 model.

“the samples were more closely linked to the actual reign of the named king, than the 2013 model, in which the samples were not so well-dated”

May combine two claims.

The Gebel Barkal stela's Year 11 is likely a misreading and should be reassigned to Year 3.

“If, with van Dijk, the stela is reassigned to Year 3, where stylistically it clearly belongs, then the highest attested year date for Seti I is Year 9, known in several instances.”

• cites van DijkNot matched

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

May combine two claims.

The New Kingdom radiocarbon chronology of Bronk Ramsey et al. was originally based on 80 samples extending over the reigns of Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III to Ramesses IX and results in accession dates for kings from Tuthmosis III to Ramesses II.

“The New Kingdom radiocarbon chronology of Bronk Ramsey et al, was originally based on 80 samples which extend over the reigns of Hatshepsut/Tuthmosis III to Ramesses IX, results in the following accession dates at a 68% (1 sigma) and a 95% (2 sigma) probability (only the reigns from Tuthmosis III to Ramesses II, for which carbon 14 dates exist are listed):”

• cites [5]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Wine dockets applied to the shoulder of amphorae at the time they were filled do not name the pharaoh; their inscriptions are generally confined to a year date, the type of product, its quantity and quality, the source of production, and in the case of wine, the vintner responsible.

“Wine dockets, applied to the shoulder of amphorae at the time they were filled, unfortunately do not name the pharaoh; inscriptions, at their most complete, being generally confined to a year date, the type of product, its quantity and quality, the source of production, and in the case of wine, the vintner responsible.”

• cites [18]Not matched

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

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

The conventional low chronology (after Krauss 2007) places Year 1 of Tuthmosis III in 1479 BC and Year 1 of Ramesses II in 1279 BC.

“Since 1479 BC had to be equivalent to Year 1 of Tuthmosis III, this resulted in the conventional 'low chronology' (after KRAUSS, 2007 17 ):”

• cites KRAUSS, 2007Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

If Horemheb reigned for only fifteen years, and Seti I only nine, then Mininiuy's career spanned about forty years.

“If Horemheb reigned for only fifteen years, and Seti I, only nine, then Mininiuy's career spanned, a perhaps more reasonable, forty years.”

May combine two claims.

The only dated wine dockets attributed to Ay are three of Year 1 and one of Year 2, but monuments attest his Years 3 and 4, so a reign of four years is clear.

“The only dated wine dockets attributed to Ay are three of Year 1 and one of Year 2, but monuments attest his Years 3 and 4, so a reign of four years is clear.”

May combine two claims.

A downdating of Tuthmosis III from 1479 to 1468 does not account for all the extra years, forcing adjustment of the reign lengths of later kings.

“but a downdating of Tuthmosis III from 1479 to 1468 does not account for all the extra years, with the result that they are forced to adjust the reign lengths of the later kings.”

May combine two claims.

Conventional Egyptian chronology, at least before 2008, was based to a large extent on lunar correlations, most notably the Year 52 Ramesses II Piramesse lunar date and the Year 23 Tuthmosis III Megiddo lunar date, which indicate that a minimum 197 years elapse between Year 1 of Tuthmosis III and Year 1 of Ramesses II.

“Conventional Egyptian chronology, at least before 2008, was based, to a large extent, on lunar correlations, most notably the Year 52 Ramesses II Piramesse lunar date and the Year 23 Tuthmosis III Megiddo lunar date, which indicate that a minimum 197 years elapse between Year 1 of Tuthmosis III and Year 1 of Ramesses II”

• cites [13]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

In Year 9 work commenced in the Aswan quarries on obelisks that were finished by Ramesses II, implying that Seti I could not have lived much past his ninth year.

“and in Year 9 work commenced in the Aswan quarries on a number of obelisks that were clearly finished by his successor, Ramesses II, which implies that Seti I could not have lived much past his ninth year.”

May combine two claims.

The Gebel Barkal stela, dated to Year 11, would be an anomaly, which can only be explained as an exception, an old-fashioned provincial sculptor, or a misreading of the Year date.

“Dated to Year 11, the Gebel Barkal stela would thus be an anomaly, which can only be explained as a) an exception to the rule, b) an 'old fashioned' provincial sculptor, or c) a misreading of the Year date.”

May combine two claims.

If Horemheb reigned for a maximum fifteen years, then Tutankhamun must have died before his Year 10 grape harvest, and Sety I before the wine harvest of his Year 9.

“The fact that Horemheb reigned for a maximum fifteen years is now finding widespread accord, and if that is accepted, then, by the same argument, Tutankhamun must have died before his Year 10 grape harvest, and Sety I before the wine harvest of his year 9.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The 2013 model allows for a short or long reign for Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis II and Horemheb, but makes no attempt to link Egyptian chronology with the neighbouring Near East.

“The 2013 model allows for a short or long reign for Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis II and Horemheb, but makes no attempt to link Egyptian chronology with the neighbouring Near East.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The number of years that have to be removed from the reigns of Tutankhamun and Horemheb, based on the wine dockets alone, amounts to fourteen years.

“However the number of years which have to be removed from the reigns of Tutankhamun and Horemheb, based on the wine dockets alone, amount to fourteen years, but a downdating of Tuthmosis III from 1479 to 1468 does not account for all the extra years, with the result that they are forced to adjust the reign lengths of the later kings.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The fact that Horemheb reigned for a maximum fifteen years is now finding widespread accord.

“The fact that Horemheb reigned for a maximum fifteen years is now finding widespread accord, and if that is accepted, then, by the same argument, Tutankhamun must have died before his Year 10 grape harvest, and Sety I before the wine harvest of his year 9.”

May combine two claims.

Before Year 4 all representations of Seti I carved on stelae depict him as standing upright, and only from Year 4 onwards does the stooping posture begin to replace the erect one.

“Before Year 4 all representations of Seti I carved on stelae depict him as standing upright, and only from Year 4 onwards does the stooping posture begin to replace the erect one, which is then used simultaneously with the traditional upright stance for a few years, with the bowing posture becoming predominant in his later years.”

• cites [58]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

On astronomical grounds, 1468 BC as Year 1 of Tuthmosis III is a possibility, though it involves an error of one day in the lunar calculations.

“However, as indicated above, on astronomical grounds, 1468 BC as Year 1 of Tuthmosis III is a possibility, though it involves an error of one day in the lunar calculations on the part of Tuthmosis III's astronomers.”

May combine two claims.

Based on the evidence of the extant dockets, Sety I's reign should be reduced by two years, Horemheb by at least 13 years, and Tutankhamun by one year.

“The result of the above survey would indicate that, based on the evidence of the extant dockets, Sety I's reign should be reduced by two years, Horemheb by at least 13 years and Tutankhamun by one year.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The time span between Year 1 of Tuthmosis III and Year 1 of Ramesses II is conventionally fixed at 200 years.

“However, as the time span between Year 1 of Tuthmosis III and Year 1 of Ramesses II is 'conventionally' fixed at 200 years it would seem impossible to remove some sixteen years from the usually accepted chronology, although recently both Krauss and Warburton, and latterly Schneider, have done just that.”

May combine two claims.

It is surprising that no wine younger than Year 14 was found in the tomb of Horemheb, and none later than Year 8 was found associated with the tomb of Seti I.

“it is surprising that no wine younger than Year 14 was found in the tomb of Horemheb, even allowing for the fact that the tomb was plundered and none later than Year 8 was found associated with the tomb of Seti I.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: At Tutankhamun's burial, the king was buried with the newest wine available along with perhaps some particularly good wines from earlier years.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

References to a Heb sed festival of Merenptah are historically suspect.

“References to a Heb sed festival of Merenptah are historically suspect”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Amenophis III ruled into his thirty-eighth year at least.

“since Amenophis III ruled into his thirtyeighth year at least, then this king Oros is presumably Amenophis III.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

A long co-regency is currently unfashionable.

“However a long co-regency is currently unfashionable”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

It is unknown from what point Tuthmosis IV reckoned the thirty-five years.

“However, we do not know from what point Tuthmosis IV reckoned these thirty-five years.”

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

If the thirty-one years credited to Amenophis II by Manetho are added to his first three years of co-regency, Amenophis II had a total reign of thirty-four years.

“which, if added to the thirty one years credited to Amenophis II by Manetho, gives Amenophis II a total reign of thirty-four years.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

1476 BC as the start of Tuthmosis III's reign is astronomically impossible.

“who starts the reign of Tuthmosis III in, the astronomically impossible, 1476 BC”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

Wines delivered to Deir el-Medineh came only from estates of the reigning king.

“Helck has argued for the fact that the wines delivered to Deir el-Medineh 'immer nur aus Anlagen des regierenden Königs beliefert wird'.98”

• cites HelckNot matched

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

May combine two claims.

Adding the missing years to the reign of Ay is theoretically possible but would seriously lengthen the careers of Maya, Horemheb, and Ramesses I.

“To add these years to the reign of Ay is theoretically possible, but would seriously lengthen the careers of such men as the Overseer of the Treasury, Maya, and the military commanders and later pharaohs, Horemheb and Ramesses I.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

1294 BC as an accession date for Ramesses II is astronomically impossible.

“However this has great problems since 1294 BC as an accession date for Ramesses II is astronomi-cally impossible.”

May combine two claims.

The 2013 radiocarbon chronology gives accession dates for Tuthmosis III between 1496 and 1477 BC (68%) and between 1502 and 1470 BC (95%).

“Tuthmosis III between 1496 and 1477 BC between 1502 and 1470 BC”

• cites [10]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

If the remaining free years in the period 1479-1279 are given to Tuthmosis IV, he would have reigned approximately twenty-two years.

“Still if the remaining free years in the period 1479-1279 are given to Tuthmosis IV then he would have reigned for approximately twenty-two years”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Heb sed festivals were almost invariably first celebrated in a king's Year 30, and subsequently at three or four year intervals.

“Heb sed festivals were almost invariably first celebrated in a king's Year 30, and subsequently at three or four year intervals.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Amenophis I certainly began his reign as a co-regent of Ahmose.

“as it is known that Amenophis I certainly began his reign as a co-regent of Ahmose”

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

With no co-regency, the Year 1 docket at Malkata would be of Akhenaten, and Years 8 and 9 would be of Amenophis III, with an eleven year break until the next extant year, Year 20.

“With no co-regency then the Year 1 would be of Akhenaten, and Years 8 and 9 would be of Amenophis III, with an eleven year break until the next extant year, Year 20.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: There was no co-regency between Amenophis III and Akhenaten.

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

Papyrus BM 10056 is almost illegible and was read as Year 30, attributed to Tuthmosis III by Glanville but credited to Amenophis II by Redford.

“This is almost illegible, yet was read as year 30, and attributed to Tuthmosis III by Glanville, 73 but, on the basis of internal evidence, credited to Amenophis II by Redford”

• cites GlanvilleNot matched

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

• cites RedfordNot matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The kings of the early Eighteenth Dynasty only counted the years of their sole reign.

“That Manetho only records thirty-one years is explained by the supposition, which seems likely, that the kings of the early Eighteenth Dynasty only counted the years of their sole reign.”

May combine two claims.

The 2010 radiocarbon chronology gives accession dates for Tuthmosis III between 1494 and 1483 BC (68%) and between 1498 and 1474 BC (95%).

“Tuthmosis III between 1494 and 1483 BC between 1498 and 1474 BC”

• cites [5]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Both the 1468-1279 BC and 1479-1290 BC chronological scenarios are too short.

“Both scenarios, 1468-1279 BC and 1479-1290 BC., however have the problem that they are too short”

May combine two claims.

A king usually celebrated his first Heb sed festival in Year 30 and his second in Year 34.

“since a king usually celebrated his first Heb sed festival in Year 30, and his second in Year 34, 79”

• cites [79]Not matched

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

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

If there were a long co-regency, the Years 8 and 9 dockets could also be of Akhenaten, and there would be no apparent eleven year gap in the extant Malkata dockets.

“However if there were a (long) co-regency, then the Years 8 and 9 could also be of Akhenaten, and there would thus be no apparent eleven year gap in the extant Malkata dockets”

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

The pottery from the reigns of Amenophis II and Tuthmosis IV forms a distinct entity, easily distinguishable from what comes before and after.

“all are agreed that the pottery from the reigns of Amenophis II and Tuthmosis IV form a distinct entity, easily distinguishable from what comes before and after.”

• cites [148]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Devecchi and Miller suggest the only reliable date for the accession of Kadashman-Enlil II is to add 96 years to the accession date of Burnaburiash II.

“rather suggest the only reliable date for the accession of Kadashman-Enlil II is to add 96 years to the accession date of Burnaburiash II.”

• cites [168]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Devecchi and Miller concluded that there is nothing to substantiate the synchronism between Ramesses II's Year 16 and Kadashman-Enlil II's Year 1.

“Devecchi and Miller have re-examined the presumed link between Ramesses II's Year 16 and Kadashman Enlil II's Year 1 and concluded that there is nothing to substantiate the synchronism”

• cites [168]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Ramesses II came to the throne in 1290 BC.

“Ramesses II would have come to the throne in 1290 BC”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

KV 48 is ascribed to the reign of Amenophis II, and KV 36 (Maiherpere) to the reign of Tuthmosis IV.

“KV 48 is ascribed to the reign of Amenophis II, 117 and KV 36 (Maiherpere) to the reign of Tuthmosis IV, 118”

• cites [117]Not matched

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

• cites [118]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Pottery found in KV 21, 27, 44, and 45 has led to the suggestion that KV 21 dates to the reign of Amenophis II at the earliest, KV 28 to that of Tuthmosis IV, and KV 27 and KV 45 to the period Tuthmosis IV to early Amenophis III.

“Pottery found in KV 21, 27, 44, and 45 has also led to the suggestion that KV 21 dates to the reign of Amenophis II at the earliest, KV 28 to that of Tuthmosis IV, and KV 27 and KV 45 to the period Tuthmosis IV -early Amenophis III.123”

• cites [123]Not matched

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

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

No historical or chronological arguments based solely on evidence of age at death of a mummy can be considered valid.

“no historical or chronological arguments based solely on evidence of age at death of a mummy can be considered valid”

• cites [147]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

KV 32 was evidently designed for a queen and may also have been carved during Tuthmosis IV's reign.

“In addition KV 32, evidently designed for a queen, 126 may also have been carved during Tuthmosis IV's reign.”

• cites [126]Not matched

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

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

Nemirovsky, through a reanalysis of the Hittite text KBo I 10, has put forward arguments which effectively move Hattusili III one decade earlier than his conventional position.

“Nemirovsky, through a reanalysis of the Hittite text KBo I 10, has put forward a number of arguments which effectively move Hattusili III one decade earlier than his conventional position”

• cites [161]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

There is no proof that Horemheb and/or Khay began their careers in Year 1 of Amenophis II.

“since there is no proof that either Horemheb and/or Khay began their careers in Year 1 of Amenophis II.”

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

If Burnaburiash II corresponded with Tutankhamun, then Tutankhamun would have had to come to the throne in 1323 BC at the latest.

“then the latter would have had to come to the throne in 1323 BC at the latest.”

May combine two claims.

The Amarna letters show that Burnaburiash II was in correspondence with Amenophis III and Akhenaten.

“the Amarna letters show that Burnaburiash II was in correspondence with Amenophis III, Akhenaten and, in Kitchen's opinion, Tutankhamun”

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

Bourriau has suggested that the pottery of Phase 3A also began to appear during the reign of Tuthmosis IV.

“Bourriau has recently suggested that the pottery of Phase 3A also began to appear during the reign”

• cites [151]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Kara-indash's demise is generally placed around 1415/1405 BC.

“whose demise is generally placed around 1415/1405 BC”

• cites [159]Not matched

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

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

In the latest reviews of Mesopotamian chronology by orientalists, Burnaburiash II is not thought to have corresponded with Tutankhamun.

“in the latest reviews of Mesopotamian chronology by orientalists, Burnaburiash II is not thought to have corresponded with Tutankhamun.”

• cites [167]Not matched

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

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The reign of Burnaburiash II is dated to either 1360-1333 or 1350-1323 BC.

“The reign of Burnaburiash II is dated to either 1360-1333 or 1350-1323 BC.”

May combine two claims.

Extant records prove that Tuthmosis III reigned into his 54th year and Amenophis III outlived the wine harvest of his 38th year, so both must have lived longer than the estimated ages of their mummies.

“extant records prove that Tuthmosis III reigned into his 54 th year whilst Amenophis III outlived the wine harvest of his 38 th year, and hence both must have lived longer than the estimated ages of their mummies.”

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

Hope points out that pottery from the reigns of Amenophis II and Tuthmosis IV comprises one of the most innovative phases of the New Kingdom.

“Only Hope makes no formal division here but points out that pottery from the reigns of Amenophis II and Tuthmosis IV comprise one of the most innovative phases of the New Kingdom.”

• cites [149]Not matched

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

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

If Year 10 of Mursilis II is equivalent to 1312 BC, then Horemheb should have acceded to the throne in 1314/1313 BC.

“if Year 10 of Mursilis II is equivalent to 1312 BC, then Horemheb, who, following Wilhelm, became king of Egypt in Mursilis II's Year 8/9, should have acceded to the throne in 1314/1313 BC”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The disputed record of a solar eclipse attributed to Year 10 of Mursilis II refers to an eclipse, equated with the one experienced at Hattusha on June 24, 1312 BC.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

If exactly two hundred years elapsed between Year 1 of Tuthmosis III and Year 1 of Ramesses II, then Year 1 of Tuthmosis III would fall in 1490 BC.

“if exactly two hundred years elapsed between Year 1 of Tuthmosis III and Year 1 of Ramesses II, then Year 1 of Tuthmosis III would fall in 1490 BC”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Kara-indash was in contact with the Assyrian Assur-bel-nise-su.

“who himself was in contact with the Assyrian Assur-bel-nise-su (1417-1409/1407-1399 BC).”

May combine two claims.

X-ray estimates of the ages of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis III give 35-40 and 30-35 years respectively.

“estimates obtained for the ages of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis III via X-rays give 35-40 and 30-35 years respectively”

• cites [142]Not matched

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

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

Krauss has argued that Nipkhururia is an aberrant form of Napkhururia, and thus Akhenaten was the recipient of EA 9.

“Krauss has argued that Nipkhururia is nothing but an aberrant form of Napkhururia, and thus Akhenaten was the recipient of EA 9”

• cites [165]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Since Ramesses I does not appear to have ruled for more than two years, Seti I is left with a reign of approximately eighteen years on the low chronology.

“Since Ramesses I does not appear to have ruled for more than two years, then Seti I is left with a reign of approximately eighteen years.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

If the lower age-at-death estimates for Tuthmosis IV are correct, it would be unlikely that he had a long reign; if the 30-40 estimate is nearer the truth, a long reign is possible.

“If the former are correct, then it would indeed be unlikely that Tuthmosis IV had a long reign, but if the last is nearer the truth, then a long reign is possible.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The mummy labelled with the cartouche of Tuthmosis IV, found in the tomb of Amenophis II, is really his.

May combine two claims.

The 1493-1290 BC correlation for the first years of Tuthmosis III and Ramesses II is probably correct, or at least more correct than other synchronisms.

“which might, therefore, suggest that the 1493 -1290 BC correlation for the first years of Tuthmosis III and Ramesses II is probably 'correct,' or at least 'more correct,' than other synchronisms.”

May combine two claims.

Ramesses II would then come to the throne in 1290 BC, with Kadashman-Enlil II succeeding Kadashman-Turgu in circa 1254 BC.

“Ramesses II would then come to the throne in 1290 BC, with the result that Kadashman Enlil II would succeed Kadashman-Turgu in circa 1254 BC, or Ramesses II's Year 36”

May combine two claims.

With Tuthmosis III coming to the throne in 1493 BC, the start of the New Kingdom can be placed in 1565 BC.

“with Tuthmosis III coming to the throne in 1493 BC, the start of the New Kingdom can then be placed in 1565 BC”

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

Should the 1350-1323 BC date for Burnaburiash II be chosen, then Amenophis III's Year 30 would fall in 1353/1352 BC.

“Should, however the 1350-1323 BC date for Burnaburiash II be chosen then not only would it be a perfect fit in that Amenophis III's Year 30 would fall in 1353/1352 BC”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The length of time covered by the reigns of Amenophis II and Tuthmosis IV would be raised from thirty six years to between fifty-four and fifty six on the high chronology, and between sixty-five and sixty-seven years on the ultra-high chronology.

“the length of time covered by the reigns of Amenophis II and Tuthmosis IV would be raised from thirty six years, on the (2007) KRAUSS chronology quoted here, to between fifty-four and fifty six on the high chronology, and between sixty-five and sixty-seven years on the ultra-high chronology.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Devecchi and Miller's calculation results in an accession date for Ramesses II in 1295 BC.

“This thus results in an accession date for Ramesses II in 1295 BC, a date never seriously considered by Egyptolo-gists.”

May combine two claims.

These inconsistencies arise because Bronk Ramsey et al followed a model in which Tuthmosis IV was given a short reign, and both Horemheb and Sety I reigns which now appear to be too long.

“These inconsistencies arise because Bronk Ramsey et al followed a model, in which Tuthmosis IV was given a short reign, and both Horemheb and Sety I reigns which now appear to be too long.”

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

The correlation linking Horemheb and Mursilis II is now accepted in Schneider's latest analysis.

“a correlation which is now accepted in Schneider's latest analysis.”

• cites [157]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Wilhelm's original position (that Ramesses II came to the throne in 1290 BC) is likely to be correct and would be confirmed by his linking of Horemheb and Mursilis II.

“Wilhelm's original position is not only likely to be correct, but would also be confirmed by his linking of Horemheb and Mursilis II”

May combine two claims.

Both Horemheb and Seti I had shorter reigns, of 14-15 and no more than 9 years respectively.

“this also means that both Horemheb and Seti I had shorter reigns, -of 14-15 and no more than 9 years respectively”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The Deir el-Medina Year 19 wine docket of the estate of Tuthmosis IV would obey Hornung's rule that the wine delivered to the village always came from the vineyards of the ruling pharaoh.

“the Deir el-Medina Year 19 wine docket of the estate of Tuthmosis IV would again 'obey' Hornung's rule that the wine delivered to the village always came from the vineyards of the ruling pharaoh.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Ceramicists conventionally divide New Kingdom pottery into four major phases, with the last three divided into subphases.

“Ceramicists conventionally divide New Kingdom pottery into four major phases 1-4, with the last three being divided into subphases”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Estimates of Tuthmosis IV's age at death have varied from 25 years, 28 years, about 30, and most recently between 30 and 40 years.

“estimates of Tuthmosis IV's age at death have varied from 25 years, 138 28 years, 139 about 30, 140 and, most recently, between 30 and 40 years.141”

• cites [138]Not matched

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

• cites [139]Not matched

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

• cites [140]Not matched

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

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The mummy labelled with the cartouche of Tuthmosis IV, found in the tomb of Amenophis II, is really his.