Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-tx7qf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-06T09:43:45.807Z 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*
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
Save PDF (2 mb)View PDF[Opens in a new window]
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 inRadiocarbon 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.

Type
Statistical Applications
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. p13–23.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.Radiocarbon43(3):1297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey,C.1995.Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program.Radiocarbon37(2):425–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey,C.2001.Development of the radiocarbon calibration program.Radiocarbon43(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.Radiocarbon31(3):1019–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck,CE,Kenworthy,JB,Litton,CD,Smith,AFM.1991.Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration.Antiquity65(249):808–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck,CE,Litton,CD,Smith,AFM.1992.Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events.Journal of Archaeological Science19(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 C43(3):489–503.Google Scholar
Christen,JA.2003.Bwigg: an internet facility for Bayesian radiocarbon wiggle matching.Internet Archaeology7. Available athttp:/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 Archaeology23(2):201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauss,R.2004.Manetho's Twelfth Dynasty and the standard chronology.The Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities29.Google Scholar
Lehner,M,Nakhla,S,Hawass,Z,Bonani,G,Wenke,R,Nolan,J,Wetterstrom,W.1999.Dating the pyramids.Archaeology52(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 Science25:379–92.Google Scholar
McFadgen,BG,Knox,FB,Cole,TRL.1994.Radiocarbon calibration curve variations and their implications for the interpretation of New Zealand Prehistory.Radiocarbon36(2):221–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellaart,J.1979.Egyptian and Near Eastern chronology: a dilemma?Antiquity53(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 Research288:53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterbolk,HT.1971.Working with radiocarbon dates.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society37:15–33.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.Archaeometry23(1):19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access