Cited by 8Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesAncient Egypt and ArchaeologyAncient and Medieval Archaeology Studies

Radiocarbon Calibration in the Mid to Later 14th Century BC and Radiocarbon Dating Tell el-Amarna, Egypt

Manning, S. W., Kromer, B., Dee, M. W., Friedrich, M., Higham, T. F. G., Ramsey, C. Bronk·2013·Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/j.ctvh1dmh2.14

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A model combining available 14C dates and historical constraints indicates a maximum possible offset around the time of the burial of Tutankhamun of ~19 14C years versus IntCal20.

    “A model combining the available 14C dates and the historical constraints7, 33,50 (Supplementary Table S3) indicates a maximum possible offset around the time of the burial of Tutankhamun of ~ 19 14C years versus IntCal20 (Fig. 4b).”
  • For Egypt, an offset allowance of 19 ± 5 14C years was proposed and appears necessary to achieve plausible protohistoric dates.

    “The partial exception is Egypt, where an offset allowance of 19 ± 5 14C years was proposed (16, 23) and appears necessary to achieve plausible protohistoric dates (23, 24).”
  • Mainstream assessments of historical sources place the time range for the accession of Tutankhamun and his death likely in his 9th or 10th year, somewhere between ~1336/1325 and 1327/1316 BCE.

    “Mainstream assessments of historical sources place the time range for the accession of Tutankhamun (the king and his court subsequently leave Amarna for Memphis early in his reign) and his death likely in his 9th or 10th year, somewhere between ~1336/1325 and 1327/1316 BCE (23, 24, 49).”
  • Rerunning the Tutankhamun data set analysis against IntCal13 and comparing against IntCal04 and Hd GOR shows a likely best fit versus the Hd GOR range.

    “The placement of the Tutankhamun data set rerunning the analysis in (24) against IntCal13 and comparing against IntCal04 and Hd GOR similarly shows a likely best fit versus the Hd GOR range (Fig. 4A, inset).”
  • For the time range of this study, Hd GeO values compare well with previous Seattle LLGPC measurements on GeO 1700 to 1500 BCE, Oxford (OxA) AMS 14C measurements on GeO 1354 to 1303 BCE and on Anatolian juniper from the late 21st to 20th centuries BCE, and Keck AMS 14C measurements on BCP 795 to 625 BCE.

    “Hd GeO values compare well with previous Seattle LLGPC measurements on GeO 1700 to 1500 BCE (15), Oxford (OxA) AMS 14C measurements on GeO 1354 to 1303 BCE (24) and on Anatolian juniper from the late 21st to 20th centuries BCE (figs. S2 and S3) (46), and Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, University of California, Irvine AMS 14C measurements on BCP 795 to 625 BCE (fig. S4)”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 8

Authors
Manning, S. W., Kromer, B., Dee, M. W., Friedrich, M., Higham, T. F. G., & Ramsey, C. B.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Radiocarbon and the Chronologies of Ancient Egypt
Publisher
Oxbow Books
Published
2013-05-31
Pages
121-145
OpenAlex
W2945611948
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.30
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Oxbow Books (publishedVersion)
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
radiocarbon calibration, Tell el-Amarna, 14th century BC, Late Bronze Age, chronology, Egyptian chronology, radiocarbon 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.

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