Professional Documents
Culture Documents
75 plant samples of
known calendar age collected in Egypt during the eighteenth and
nineteenth
centuries AD. Crucially, these plants grew prior to the
construction of the first Aswan dam, which
began in 1899. Thus the
hydrology and growing conditions of the country were comparable to
those
of antiquity (see Dee et al. 2010). The plants we analysed were
predominantly terrestrial, but
it is important to note that reservoir
offsets in plant material are usually only significant in wholly
aquatic
species (see Olsson & Kaup 2001). Our results did show a very small
average offset (19 [+
or -] 5 years, towards older ages), but nothing
like the century-scale discrepancies outlined above.
More than 200
radiocarbon dates were then obtained on samples from the Dynastic
period. The
dates were incorporated in a Bayesian model which showed
that the radiocarbon results were
generally in close agreement with the
historical chronology (see Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010).
Despite our best efforts, however, some of the archaeological
samples obtained by our project
produced aberrant results (see Bronk
Ramsey et al. 2010, supplementary online material). Often the
sources of
error only came to light after the date was obtained. In this paper, we
share the insights
obtained by our sampling programme and compare them
with the broader patterns evident in the
ERD (the full release notice of
the ERD can be found in Rowland & Bronk Ramsey 2011). The main
aim
was to gauge the reliability of radiocarbon samples by material with
respect to the historical
chronology. Such comparisons are not
straightforward, however, for two main reasons. Firstly, no
one version
of the historical chronology is fixed or universally agreed, and
secondly, most
radiocarbon samples are unable to be allocated to precise
enough historical periods for the
comparison to be satisfactorily
achieved. Hence, the subset of 707 radiocarbon results chosen
here
comprises only those dates from our project and the rest of the ERD that
were assigned to
individual reigns from the First to the Thirtieth
dynasties at the time of publication. That is,
specifically to a single
reign as opposed to even a short series of consecutive reigns. The
historical
timeline used for the following comparisons was the consensus
chronology given in Shaw (2000:
479-83).
The unique case of Egypt
Radiocarbon dating ancient Egypt is uniquely challenging. The main
reason for this is the long
history of human settlement in the Nile
Valley. Although the traditional boundaries of the kingdom
extended more
than 1000km along the Nile, the land available for occupation was
limited to the
flanks of the river that were accessible to the annual
inundation (see Butzer 1976). Excluding the
Delta, this ranged in width
from just 2-18km (Hassan 1997). Such intensive occupation and
extended
use of the same sites increases the probability of the mixing of
material from different
time periods (of different radiocarbon ages).
For example, offerings were placed and replaced at
some pyramid sites
for centuries after the death of the ruler to whom the monument was
dedicated,
as part of the maintenance of royal mortuary cults (Verner
2002: 30-61; Kemp 2006: 163-92).
Similarly, many monuments were kept in
good condition and subject to restoration at later time
periods. Key
religious sites, such as the Temple of Amun at Karnak, were maintained
and extended
by successive rulers in order to honour the gods and
legitimise their place within the royal
lineage.
Furthermore, over time the significance of individual locations or
monuments could even become
lost or fundamentally altered. Noteworthy
examples include the redesignation of the tomb of the
First Dynasty king
Djer to the god Osiris during the Middle Kingdom (see Kemp 1975: 36-37,
and
Figure 3 below); the re-veneration of the Giza Sphinx (Fourth
Dynasty) as the sun god Horemakhet
during the Eighteenth Dynasty (Bryan
2000: 218-71); and the widespread desecration of the royal
tombs in the
late New Kingdom (see below). Such activities increase the probability
of finding
organic remains at a site that are later than its original
construction or use. Recycling and
replication was also a common feature
in ancient Egypt. Organic materials, particularly wood (see
below), were
often reused, which results in the radiocarbon age of the sample being
older than its
contextual or historical age. Replication causes the
opposite effect. For example, if a papyrus text
were transcribed many
times throughout history, the radiocarbon date on any one copy may
be
significantly later than the original.
The unique nature of http://www.nostringsdating.xyz the Egyptian environment adds to
the
depositional complexity. On a practical level, there are the challenges
presented by the quantity
of Nile silt that overlays many sites,
especially in the Delta, where archaeological material may be
found as
far as 15m below the surface. The accompanying high water table means
that pumping
equipment is now required for the excavation of such sites.
Furthermore, the soils along the
floodplain have been considerably
reworked by both the action of the annual inundation, and
thousands of
years of agricultural exploitation. These factors especially affect the
investigation of
settlement sites, as they were generally closer to the
river than the cemeteries, which were placed
higher up on sand geziras,
gravel terraces or escarpments. Thus, there is a strong bias in
the
excavated remains, and the radiocarbon record, toward mortuary contexts.
Moreover, the
combined effect of all this dynamism in the Egyptian
environment is the lack of distinct and
accessible vertical stratigraphy at some of the key sites (see Arkell & Ucko 1965).
The collection, storage of and access to archaeological remains
also plays a role in the reliability of
radiocarbon dating in Egypt. Due
to the current prohibition on the export of archaeological
materials
from Egypt, samples for radiocarbon dating may only come from museum
collections
elsewhere, unless they are to be dated at the conventional
radiocarbon facility in Cairo. Such
sources are inferior to freshly
excavated material on several counts. First, a large proportion
of
museum material was obtained by archaeologists prior to the Second World
War. Apart from the
obvious advancements in field practice since that
time, such excavations occurred prior to the
invention of radiocarbon
dating and the development of radiocarbon sampling protocols.
Further,
insufficient attention was also paid to archaeological recording by many
of the nineteenth
and early twentieth-century excavators. Many objects
now in museums and galleries are of
ambiguous provenance. Finally, many
objects have also been subject to conservation and
consolidation with
substances that are carbon-based and known to affect
radiocarbon
measurements. A common example is the use of collagen-based glues on
bone, where
the preferred extract for dating is itself collagen. Even
more difficulty arises where no records
remain of what treatments have
been applied.
Overview of published results
All the most common types of sample selected for radiocarbon dating
from ancient Egyptian
contexts were included in this study. However, as
the main objective was to evaluate the reliability
of each type,
measurements obtained on contexts prior to the First Dynasty are not
discussed here,
since there is no independent reference against which
their accuracy can be assessed. In fact, the
absolute chronology of the
prehistoric period is itself largely based on radiocarbon
results.
Notwithstanding, the same principles of sample selection apply to all
radiocarbon work
regardless of the historical period under study.
A total of 1007 dates have now been published for the First to the
Thirtieth dynasties of ancient
Egypt, including 239 by our project. Of
this data set, 707 could be allocated to individual reigns at
the time
of their publication. The dates are all available in the ERD, and are
plotted in Figure 1.
It is important to note that Figure 1 includes many measurements
made during the earliest years of
the radiocarbon method, and that the
data do cluster on the calibration curve, with many points
superimposed
on each other. However, the number of outliers to both younger and older
ages is
unmistakable. In this paper, it was our intention to identify
which samples were responsible for this
scatter so that the situation
could be improved in future. Notwithstanding, some of the patterns
in
the data are immediately informative. For example, practically no
radiocarbon dates correspond
to absolute ages before the First Dynasty.
This implies that the samples were indeed related to
human activity at
Dynastic sites, and that the scatter is likely to be connected to the
duration of
occupancy at those sites. The absence of older outliers in
the early Middle Kingdom, for example,
corresponds well with the
archaeological evidence for the foundation of a new capital at this
time
(see Grajetzki 2006: 28-31).
The proportion of radiocarbon dates by material is shown in Figure
2. The 'Short-lived plants'
category includes all of the
plant-based materials except the 'Textile' and
'Papyrus' samples, which
are shown separately. There are very
few samples of animal and human tissue, due to the poor
preservation of
collagen in Egypt (see below). A small number of bones have been dated,
as well as
a few items identified as skin and hair, which are included
in the 'Other' category.
As previously outlined, assessing the accuracy of the data is
problematic due to the uncertainty
inherent in the interpretation of
each sample and the positioning of the conventional chronology.
Further,
many of the dates represent duplicate measurements on the same item.
This issue is
especially relevant to the Egyptian record, as in the
early days of radiocarbon dating Egyptian
objects were often used as
inter-laboratory 'known-age' references. For example, the same
plank of
wood from a funerary boat of Senusret III appears to have been
dated by the British Museum (BM22, Barker & Mackey1959), the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA-900, Berger et al.
1965),
the University of California Riverside (UCR-126, Taylor 1975), the Tata
Institute (TF-564,
Agrawal & Kusumgar 1975), the University of
Groningen (GrN-1157, Long 1976), and the University
of Chicago (C-18,
Hassan & Robinson 1987). The supporting information published with
most dates
is insufficient for all such replications to be identified,
so no adjustment for this problem was
attempted. Finally, the small
average offset in radiocarbon measurements for Egypt, proposed by
Dee et
al. (2010) was included in all the calibrated dates discussed here.
Wood
Trees suitable for load-bearing timber are not indigenous to Egypt.
Palms, sycamores, acacias and
tamarisk were present, but wood required
for large-scale construction had to be sourced abroad at
much expense
and effort. Expeditions to obtain cedar from the Levantine uplands began
at the
foundation of the state (see Wilkinson 1999: 161) and, from the
New Kingdom onwards, they were
extended to other locations such as
Cyprus (Moran 1992). Consequently, timber was a precious
resource that
was frequently reclaimed and recycled. In addition to the complication
of material
reuse, long-lived wood is not usually considered appropriate
for high-precision radiocarbon dating
due to the problem of inbuilt age
(McFadgen 1982; Dee et al. 2009). Inbuilt age is a combination of
growth
age (the difference between the age of the wood sampled and the bark
edge) and storage
age (the time between felling and use) and acts to
produce a date that is non-systematically older
than the context in
question. However, long-lived wood may be used for
'wiggle-match' dating (see
Bronk Ramsey et al. 2001). By using
the age gaps (i.e. number of intervening rings) between the
dated
samples, chronological modelling can be used to produce high-precision
estimates for the
felling date of the timber. The problem in applying
this technique to Egypt is that most indigenous
species do not preserve
easily distinguishable, annual tree-rings.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Charcoal
The inbuilt age problem that affects dates on wood also affects
charcoal samples, where it is even
more difficult to detect and avoid
(see Dee et al. 2009). As a result, radiometric dates on charcoal
are
generally regarded as only termini post quos. However, if the species
from which the charcoal
was derived can be identified, the dates may be
considered more reliable. For example, inbuilt age
may be discounted if
the original material were demonstrably a short-lived shrub.
Moreover,
Bayesian approaches are currently being trialled that may soon allow
results to be
generated that more reliably represent the historical (or
depositional) date of the charcoal sample,
rather than just the
biological age of the antecedent tree. In some very rare cases, a
charcoal date
may be younger than expected. Such an occurrence is not a
shortcoming of the radiocarbon method
per se, but arises as a result of
local soil dynamics. Charcoal is resistant to degradation and
is
potentially mobile, thus it may prove intrusive in a given context (see
Bubenzera et al. 2007).
Bone and ivory
Collagen, the fibrous protein of bone and ivory, is the component
least likely to be chemically
modified during deposition. As a result,
it is the preferred fraction for almost all radiocarbon dates
on this
material. Unfortunately, collagen is often poorly preserved in
Egypt's hot, arid environment.
A quick check for the likelihood
that a sample will furnish a reliable radiocarbon date is to measure
the
percentage of nitrogen present in the whole bone powder. Usually a value
of greater than 0.7
per cent nitrogen by weight of bone powder is
required for pre-treatment to be considered
worthwhile (Brock et al.
2010). The hardness and durability of ivory also means, in much the
same
way as wood, that there is always the possibility the material has been
reused.
Much work has been directed at whether the mineral component of
bone, apatite, could be used for
palaeodietary studies and radiocarbon
dating (Krueger 1991; Lee-Thorp & van der Merwe 1991). In
the arid,
sandy sediment characteristic of many Egyptian cemeteries, it is
http://www.onlinehookups.xyz likely
the key problem of exchange with groundwater carbonate
would be minimal
(see Zazzo & Saliege 2011); however, dating the mineral content of
bone is still
an approach that is rarely considered suitable for
high-precision work.
Short-lived plant remains
Due to the poor preservation of bone collagen, and the problem of
inbuilt age with wood and
charcoal, on most occasions the best sample
type for Egyptian contexts is short-lived plant material.
Even after
separating out textiles and papyrus, this set still comprises
considerable variety, ranging
from seeds and grasses, to reeds and
flowers. In general, such specimens will have incorporated no
more than
a few years of growth and therefore act as good proxies for dating their
contexts. The
one main limitation of short-lived plant samples relates
to their certainty of association (see
Waterbolk 1971; van Strydonck et
al. 1999) with the archaeological event being dated. As fragments
of
short-lived plant material are generally light and mobile, they can
sometimes be intrusive, either
as a result of environmental transport,
or because of site disturbance at a later time (see Figure
3).
Therefore, it is of utmost importance that the radiocarbon sample is
either cut from a specific
artefact of known provenance, or obtained
from a sealed context. Clearly the former presents
challenges,
especially where it relates to the destructive sampling of objects of
aesthetic or cultural
value. Fortunately, a good number of the materials
that have consistently produced accurate dates
for Egypt are not prized
display pieces but reeds and straw from matting and basketry, and
seeds
from funerary offerings and grain silos.
Funerary offerings
A special subset of short-lived plant samples consists of votive items such as ceremonial wreaths and
bouquets of flowers placed in
tombs. Such offerings represent the ideal combination of shortlived
material (assuming one would never lay dead flowers) with a specific
archaeological event
(the burial). We measured several such items for
our project (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2010). A series of
short-lived plants
from the tomb of Tutankhamun all returned results that were consistent
with the
expected historical age; however, the dates made on funerary
wreaths were more variable. From an
historical perspective, it was the
latter results that actually proved more informative. All of the
royal
tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty were looted in antiquity (with the
exception of
Tutankhamun), and thus steps were taken in the late New
Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period
to protect and rebury the mummies.
On some occasions, the wreath dates obtained by our project
were clearly
commensurate with reburial events, indicating the renewal of wreaths by
priests often
many several centuries later. On a couple of occasions
they even appear to indicate reburial events
for which no evidence has
hitherto been uncovered (see McAleely, forthcoming).
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Mud-bricks and jar seals
Mud containing organic fragments such as grasses and twigs was
widely used by Egyptians as a
building material and to secure jars and
locks. The mud is often found impressed with a seal, or
stamped with a
name, and hence would again appear to provide datable sample material
directly
linked to a historical context. However, significant
discrepancies have been observed when
radiocarbon measurements have been
made on organics from mud, especially from jar seals of the
Early
Dynastic period. The historical chronology does not extend to this
period, but if the data we
obtained are plotted against all other
radiocarbon dates for the First and Second dynasties (Figure
4), on
balance it appears as though the mud contexts are erroneously old.
Furthermore, two dates
were also obtained on seals for King Narmer of
Dynasty 0 that were several hundred years older
than expected.
It is not clear why the natural age of organic material within jar
seals should be so offset, especially
when the dates obtained on
mud-bricks have been largely satisfactory. The explanation we
consider
most plausible relates to possible differences in the preparation of
mud-bricks and jar
seals. Mud-bricks were usually tempered with fresh
chaff or straw, though this was not always the
case, and at Amarna for
example, no vegetal matter was included (Kemp 2000: 78-103).
However,
normally load-bearing bricks were prepared with considerable quantities
of plant
material for reinforcement. In comparison, jar seals consisted
of two separate components: a
'stopper' made from reeds, straw
or even pottery, which protected the contents from being
contaminated,
and then a semi-permeable seal made literally from handfuls of mud. It
was the
latter that was often impressed with a specific motif or name.
It appears that the plant material
already present in the mud itself was
sometimes sampled for dating. Such fragments may be
significantly older
than their historical context, depending on their residence time in the
original
sediment. That is to say, the plants would not have absorbed
any depleted carbon during deposition,
but a significant amount of time
may have elapsed between their death and their inclusion in the jar
seal
being dated. The photographs in Figure 5 support this hypothesis, as it
is clear the organics in
the mud-brick are more integral to the
structure of the material and, upon inspection under a light
microscope,
the plant material in the jar seals exhibited a morphology that was
consistent with
prolonged exposure to a waterlogged environment.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Papyrus
The principal writing medium of the Dynastic period, Cyperus
papyrus, may also offer a direct link
between short-lived plant
material, ideal for radiocarbon dating, and explicit historical
information.
Although rarely attributable to individual reigns without
the input of palaeographers, papyrus has
demonstrated a very high rate
of dating reliability. In fact, 88 per cent of the
radiocarbon
measurements made on Egyptian papyri from a specific reign overlapped
with the
historical estimates given in Shaw (2000: 479-83). This comes
in spite of considerable evidence for
the reuse of papyrus throughout
antiquity (see Caminos 1986: 43-61; Parkinson & Quirke 1995:
47).
This may be due to better detection of palimpsests by spectroscopic techniques such as infrared
reflectography and X-ray fluorescence. Also,
on occasions where contamination is suspected, the
problem is often
obvious before radiocarbon pre-treatment is attempted. This was
certainly true for
papyrus 10038 b+c (see OxA-15314 and VERA-3727 in
ERD) from the Egyptian Museum Berlin,
analysed as part of our project.
In that case, adhesive http://www.sexysinglegirl.xyz contamination
was suspected at the outset and the
final results were indeed inconsistent with the rest of the set.
Textiles
Fragments of Egyptian textile, mostly from linen clothing or
wrappings used in mummification, have
also provided a regular source of
sample material for radiocarbon dating. A total of 66 per cent of
the
radiocarbon dates on textiles agree with historical estimates, a result
that is comparable with
the database as a whole. However, the causes of
the anomalous results are not immediately obvious.
Inconsistent
measurements are found throughout Egyptian history and across a range of
locations.
Further explanation is hampered by the shortage of contextual
information published with the
dates. Nonetheless, one of the most
probable causes is that a high proportion of the textiles were
actually
mummy wrappings. This is significant because the process of
mummification involved the
application of many ointments and
preservatives, some of which are not readily removed by
routine
radiocarbon pre-treatment methods. Cautionary advice concerning the
dating of such items
was presented by Cockitt & David (2007), where
bitumen, on both textiles and human tissue, was
singled out as a key
source of carbon contamination. However, this problem was not
encountered in
our project. On the contrary, a series of six samples of
bandaging and threads were obtained from
the mummy of Horemkenesi, all
of which produced highly consistent and predictable results (see
Figure
6).
Other materials
Of the myriad of other biogenic materials that make up the
remaining samples submitted for
radiocarbon dating, three warrant
further comment: leather, hair and shell. Leather has only been
dated on
a few occasions, and is often problematic. Firstly, it is very fragile
and frequently does not
withstand pre-treatment chemistry, and secondly,
the tanning process often involves the application
of exogenous
substances that may become so intrinsically bound as to be chemically
interlinked
with the hide itself. Hair is also very fragile and must be
pre-treated very carefully, but it is
frequently better preserved by
Egypt's arid environment than bone collagen. Hence, hair
samples
may provide a good alternative source for future radiocarbon dates.
Furthermore, analysis
of hair provides stable carbon and nitrogen
isotope information that may be used for palaeodietary
reconstruction.
Marine and freshwater shell dating is heavily dependent on knowledge of
the
habitat of the individual species and on the likely offsets due to
reservoirs of geological carbonate in
the local water and terrain. In
terms of high-precision dating, a detailed set of reference data
for
Egypt, against which mollusc shell dates could be adjusted, is now
difficult to establish, as the
local environment was so completely
transformed by the construction of the Aswan dam. Ostrich
eggshell is
common at some Egyptian sites, but is questionable as a material for
high-precision
dating. Vogel et al. (2001) have suggested that eggshell
carbon appears to derive in part from the
intake of fossil lime during
the laying period. As a result, dates are often older than expected
by
about 180 years, and also show considerable variability.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
Summary by material
A summary table of the reliability of Egyptian samples is given
below (Table 1). In total, 66 per cent
of the calibrated date ranges (at
95 per cent probability) overlapped with the regnal dates given in
Shaw
(2000: 479-83). As explained above, this data set includes all results,
from the first
measurements made by the scientific method to obvious
outliers, such as samples dating to the
modern era, which are likely to
be museum additions or items mistakenly recovered at the time
of
excavation. Nonetheless, it was the intention of this paper to highlight
the myriad of problems
facing archaeologists selecting samples for
ancient Egypt to ensure that in future the proportion of
errant results
is reduced.
Conclusions
Radiocarbon dates for Egypt have too often proved incompatible with
historical estimates. This
review has shown that such discrepancies are
primarily the result of flawed sample selection. For
an accurate result
to be achieved, it is imperative that the cessation of carbon exchange
by the
organic material coincides with the event being dated. This
entails avoiding materials that may
include inbuilt age, such as wood
and charcoal, and other durable materials like ivory that may have
been
reclaimed and reworked. Secondly, it involves a comprehensive knowledge
of the historical
and environmental history of the site in question.
Tomb robbery, building restoration and the
replacement of offerings are
all potential causes of divergent results. Finally, there must be
an
explicit paper trail between excavation and museum. Although many of
these issues are common
to other archaeological contexts, and the
sampling of museum collections in general, it is also clear
that ancient
Egypt presents a uniquely challenging case. Moreover, due to the
strength of the
established historical chronology, in order for
radiocarbon dating to be of relevance to the field of
Egyptology,
exemplary precision and accuracy is a prerequisite. The results of our
project (Bronk
Ramsey et al. 2010) show that this can be achieved when
sufficient care is taken in sample
selection. By reviewing our findings
and combining them with the considerable number of
radiocarbon results
now published for Dynastic Egypt, a series of patterns have emerged
that
should allow the process of sample selection to be conducted more
effectively in future.
Received: 4 October 2011; Accepted: 13 December 2011; Revised: 16
January 2012
References
AGRAWAL, D.P. & S. KUSUMGAR. 1975. Tara Institute radiocarbon
date list XI. Radiocarbon 17(2):
219-25.
ARKELL, A.J. & P.J. UCKO. 1965. Review of Predynastic
development in the Nile Valley. Current
Anthropology 6: 145-66.
ARNOLD, J.R. & W.E LIBBY. 1949. Age determinations by
radiocarbon content: checks with samples
of known age. Science 110:
678-80.
BARKER, H. & J. MACKEY. 1959. British Museum natural
radiocarbon measurements I.
Radiocarbon 1: 81-86.
BERGER, R., G.J. FERGUSSON & WE LIBBY. 1965. UCLA radiocarbon
dates IV. Radiocarbon 7:
336-71.
BIETAK, M. & F. HOFLMAYER. 2007. Introduction: high and low
chronology, in M. Bietak & E.
Czerny (ed.) The synchronisation of
civilisations in the eastern Mediterranean in the second
millennium BC
III: 13-24. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
BONANI, G., H. HASS, Z. HAWASS, M. LEHNER, S. NAKHLA, J. NOLAN, R.
WENKE & W..
WOLFLI. 2001. Radiocarbon dates of Old and Middle
Kingdom monuments in Egypt. Radiocarbon
43(3): 1297-1320.
BROCK, E, T.F.G. HIGHAM & C. BRONK RAMSEY. 2010. Pre-screening
techniques for identification
of samples suitable for radiocarbon dating
of poorly preserved bones. Journal of Archaeological
Science 37: 855-65.
BRONK RAMSEY, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of
stratigraphy: the OxCal
program. Radiocarbon 37(2): 425-30.
BRONK RAMSEY, C., H. VAN PER PLICHT & B. WENINGER. 2001. Wiggle
matching radiocarbon
dates. Radiocarbon 43(2A): 381-89.
BRONK RAMSEY, C., M.W. DEE, J.M. ROWLAND, T.F.G. HIGHAM, S.A.
HARRIS, F. BROCK, A.
QUILES, E.M.
WILD, E.S. MARCUS & A.J. SHORTLAND. 2010. Radiocarbon-based
chronology for Dynastic Egypt.
Science 328(5985): 1554-59.
BRUINS, H.J. 2010. Dating Pharaonic Egypt. Science 328(5985):
1489-90.
BRYAN, B.M. 2000. The 18th Dynasty before the Amarna period, in I.
Shaw (ed.) The Oxford history
of ancient Egypt. 218-71. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
BUBENZERA, O., A. HILGERSA & H. RIEMERB. 2007. Luminescence dating and archaeology of
Holocene fluvio-lacustrine sediments of Abu
Tartur, Eastern Sahara. Quarternary Geochronology
2:314-21.
BUTZER, K.W.. 1976. Early hydraulic civilization in Egypt: a study
in cultural ecology. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
CAMINOS, R.A. 1986. Some comments on the reuse of papyrus, in M.L.
Bierbrier (ed.) Papyrus:
structure and usage: 43-61. London: British
Museum Press.
COCKITT, J.A. & A.R. DAVID. 2007. The radiocarbon dating of
ancient Egyptian mummies and their
associated artefacts: implications
for Egyptology, in M. Cannata (ed.) Current research in
Egyptology 2006:
proceedings of the seventh annual symposium: 43-53. Oxford: Oxbow.
DEE, M.W., C. BRONK RAMSEY, A.J. SHORTLAND, T.F.G. HIGHAM &
J.M. ROWLAND. 2009.
Reanalysis of the chronological discrepancies
obtained by the Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments
project. Radiocarbon 51
(3): 1061-70.
DEE, M.W., F. BROCK, S.A. HARRIS, C. BRONK RAMSEY, A.J. SHORTLAND,
T.F.G HIGHAM &
J.M.
ROWLAND. 2010. Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset
in the radiocarbon record for
ancient Egypt. Journal of Archaeological
Science 37(4): 687-93.
ERD: Egyptian Radiocarbon Database. Available at:
https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/egyptdb/db.php
(accessed 4 April 2012).
FREIDRICH, W.L., B. KROMER, M. FRIEDRICH, J. HEINEMEIER, T.
PFEIFFER & S. TALAMO.
2006. Santorini eruption radiocarbon dated to
1627-1600 BC. Science 312(5773): 548.
GRAJETZKI, W. 2006. The Middle Kingdom of ancient Egypt.. history,
archaeology and society.
London: Duckworth.
HASSAN, EA. 1997. The dynamics of a riverine civilisation: a
geoarchaeological perspective on the
Nile Valley, Egypt. World
Archaeology 29(1): 51-74.
HASSAN, F.A. & S.W. ROBINSON. 1987. High-precision radiocarbon
chronometry of ancient Egypt,
and comparisons with Nubia, Palestine and
Mesopotamia. Antiquity 61:119-35.
KEMP, B.J. 1975. Abydos, in W. Helck & E. Otto (ed.) Lexikon
der Agyptologie: I: 28-41. Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz.
--2000. Soil (including mud-brick architecture), in PT. Nicholson
& I. Shaw (ed.) Ancient Egyptian
materials and technology: 78-103.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--2006. Ancient Egypt: anatomy of a civilization. London:
Routledge.
KRUEGER, H.W. 1991. Exchange of carbon with biological apatite.
Journal of Archaeological
Science 18: 355-61.
LEE-THORP, J.A. & N.J. VAN DER MERWE;. 1991. Aspects of the
chemistry of modern and fossil
biological apatites. Journal of
Archaeological Science 18: 343-54.
LONG, R.D. 1976. Ancient Egyptian chronology, radiocarbon dating
and calibration. Zeitschrift fur
Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
103: 30-48.
MANNING, S.W. 2007. Clarifying the 'high' v.
'low' Aegean/Cypriot chronology for the mid-second
millennium
BC: assessing the evidence, interpretive frameworks, and current state
of the debate, in
M. Bietak & E. Czerny (ed.) The synchronisation of
civilisations in the eastern Mediterranean in the
second millennium BC
III: 101-38. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
MGALEELY, S. Forthcoming. Garlands from the Deir el-Bahri Cache, in
A.J. Shortland & C. Bronk
Ramsey (ed.) Radiocarbon and the
chronologies of ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxbow.
MCFADGEN, B.G. 1982. Dating New Zealand archaeology by radiocarbon.
New Zealand Journal of
Science 25: 379-92.
MORAN, W. 1992. The Amarna letters. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins
University Press.
NAKHLA, S.M. & F.M. MOHAMMED. 1974. Cairo natural radiocarbon
measurements I.
Radiocarbon 16(1): 1-5.
OLSSON, I.U. & E. KAUP. 2001. The varying radiocarbon activity
of some recent submerged
Estonian plants grown in the early 1990s.
Radiocarbon 43(2B): 809-20.
PARKINSON, R.B. & S. QUIRKE. 1995. Papyrus. London: British
Museum Press.
REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W. BECK, PG.
BLACKWELL, C. BRONK
RAMSEY, C.E.
BUCK, G.S. BURR, R.L. EDWARDS, M. FRIEDRICH, P.M. GROOTES, T.P.
GUILDERSON, I. HAJDAS,
T.J.
HEATON, A.G. HOGG, K.A. HUGHEN, K.E KAISER, B. KROMER, EG.
MCCORMAC, S.W.
MANNING, R.W. REIMER, D.A. RICHARDS, J.R. SOUTHON, S.
TALAMO, C.S.M. TURNEY, J. VAN DER PLIGHT & C.E. WEYHENMEYER.
2009. IntCal09 &
marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves,
0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51 (4): 111150.
ROWLAND, J.M. & C. BRONK RAMSEY. 2011. Online C14 database for
Egypt. Egyptian
Archaeology 38: 33-34.
SHAW, I. (ed.) 2000. The Oxford history of ancient Egypt. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
STUCKENRATH, J.R. & E.K. RALPH. 1965. University of
Pennsylvania radiocarbon dates VIII.
Radiocarbon 7:187-99.
TAYLOR, R.E. 1975. UCR radiocarbon dates II. Radiocarbon 17(3):
396-406.
VAN STRYDONCK, M., D.E. NELSON, P. CROMBE, C. BRONK RAMSEY, E.M.
SCOTT, J. vAN DER
PLIGHT & R.E.M. HEDGES. 1999. What's in a 14C
date, in J. Evin, C. Oberlin, J.P. Daugas & J.F.
Salles (ed.) 3rd
International Symposium 14C and Archaeology: 433-48. Lyon: Societe
Prehistorique
Francaise.
VERNER, M. 2002. The pyramids: their archaeology and history.
London: Atlantic Books.
VOGEL, J.C., E. VtSSER & A. FULS. 2001. Suitability of ostrich
eggshell for radiocarbon dating.
Radiocarbon 43(1): 133-37.
WATERBOLK, H.T. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society
37: 15-33.
WILKINSON, T.A.H. 1999. Early Dynastic Egypt. London: Routledge.
ZAZZO, A. & J.F. SALIEGE. 2011. Radiocarbon dating of
biological apatites: a review.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology 310(1-2): 52-61.
M.W. Dee (1) *, J.M. Rowland (2), T.EG. Higham (1), A.J. Shortland
(3), F. Brock (1), S.A. Harris (4)
& C. Bronk Ramsey (1)
(1) Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art,
University of Oxford, Dyson
Perrings Building, South Parks Road, Oxford
OX1 3QY, UK (Email:
michael.dee@rlaha.ox.ac.uk;
thomas.higham@rlaha.ox.ac.uk;
fiona.brock@rlaha.ox.ac.uk;
christopher.ramsey@rlaha.ox.ac.uk)
(2) Egyptology, Freie Universitat Berlin, Altensteinstrasse 33,
Berlin 1195, Germany (Email:
joanne.rowland@fu-berlin.de)
(3) Centre for Archaeological and Forensic Analysis, Cranfield
University, Shrivenham, Swindon
SN6 8LA, UK (Email:
a.shortland@cranfield.ac.uk)
(4) Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford
OX1 3RB, UK (Email:
stephen.harris@plants.ox.ac.uk)
* Author for correspondence
Table 1. The reliability of the subset of 707 dates by material, based
on the proportion that
produced calibrated ranges which overlapped
with the historical dates published in Shaw (2000:
479-83).
No. of
Sample type Total dates accurate dates Reliability
Short-lived plants 274 178
65%
Charcoal 196 110 56%
Wood 129 100 78%
Textile 68 45 66%
Papyrus 26 23 88%
Other 12 6
50%
Bone 2 2 100%
Overall 707 464 66%