You are on page 1of 12

Synchronising radiocarbon dating and the Egyptian

historical chronology by improved sample selection.


[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
Literary sources from the Dynastic period of ancient Egypt provide the framework for anchoring
chronology in the eastern Mediterranean throughout the Bronze Age. A network of linkages and
synchronisms based on similarities in material culture radiate out from Egypt across the region.
Such connections are fundamental to the early historical chronologies of north-east Africa, the
Aegean and the Near East. For several decades, however, discrepancies between the Egyptian
historical chronology and radiocarbon dating have been a source of controversy in the region, most
famously in relation to the Minoan eruption of Thera (Friedrich et al. 2006; Bietak & Hoflmayer
2007; Manning 2007; Bruins 2010). For the last five years, our team has explored the possible
reasons for such discrepancies. Our findings suggest that the primary cause was sample selection,
both in the past and in our own research. It has become apparent that selecting radiocarbon
samples for Dynastic Egypt is particularly challenging and requires an awareness of a number of
different scientific and archaeological factors. Here, we explore the nature of this complexity and
explain why some materials have previously produced inaccurate results. All of the most
common materials sampled for radiocarbon dating are discussed. The patterns uncovered in our
own data were also evident in a database of published radiocarbon results that we have collated and
made available online (the Egyptian Radiocarbon Database, henceforward ERD). Our conclusions
point the way forward for the proper application of the radiocarbon method to Egypt and the wider
region.
Egyptian chronology played a key role in the development of radiocarbon dating. The first 'knownage' samples used by Libby to verify his method came from Egyptian archaeological contexts (see
Arnold & Libby 1949). Unfortunately, however, recurrent discrepancies between radiocarbon and
historical dates have dented confidence in the accuracy of the method in Egypt. Some highprofile examples include the radiocarbon dates obtained for Khufu's funerary boat (Stuckenrath &
Ralph 1965, c. 600-700 years older than expected) and wood from the tomb of Tutankhamun
(Nakhla & Mohammed 1974, c. 200-300 years older than expected). In a substantial recent project,
Bonani et al. (2001) made 269 radiocarbon measurements on Egyptian samples. The data set
showed marked variability, and once more revealed significant offsets from historical dates to both
younger and older ages. For example, the measurements made on the Great Pyramid
were approximately 50-300 calendar years older than historical estimates. Importantly, the Bonani
et al. (2001) study suggested that contamination derived from museums or laboratories could not be
the primary reason for such offsets, as the samples were all obtained from freshly excavated sites
and the analyses conducted at three different laboratories. Our team, at the University of Oxford
and Cranfield University, also recently completed a study of Dynastic Egypt. Its central objective
was to determine the reason for the offsets by obtaining a new set of radiocarbon samples on shortlived materials that were unimpeachably well contextualised. It was intended that every sample be
associated with the reign of a specific pharaoh, thereby allowing us to compare radiocarbon
measurements directly with historical dates. In order to achieve the highest levels of precision
possible, the dates were modelled using Bayesian statistical techniques.
Before analysing the archaeological samples, we first investigated whether an environmental
process could have affected the accuracy of radiocarbon dating in Egypt. This involved measuring

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%

You might also like