Synchronisation de datation au radiocarbone et la

chronologie historique gyptienne par slection

d'chantillons amliors.
"\"\\\"\\\\\\\" [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]\\\\\\\\nIntroduction \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nLiterary 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nEgyptian chronology played a key role in the development
of radiocarbon dating. The first 'known-age' 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 high-profile 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 short-lived 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. \\\\\\\\nBefore 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). \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nDespite 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). \\\\\\\\nThe
unique case of Egypt \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nRadiocarbon 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nFurthermore, 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 reveneration 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 http://www.sitesrencontressex.xyz 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nThe unique nature of 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). \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nThe 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nOverview of published
results \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nAll 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nA 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nIt 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). \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nThe 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nAs 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 (BM-22, Barker & Mackey1959), the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA-900, Berger et al. 1965), the University of California Riverside (UCR126, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nWood \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nTrees 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n[FIGURE 1 OMITTED] \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n[FIGURE 2
OMITTED] \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nCharcoal \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nThe 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). \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBone and ivory \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nCollagen, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nMuch 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 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nShort-lived plant remains \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nDue 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nFunerary offerings \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nA special subset of shortlived plant samples consists of votive items such as ceremonial wreaths and bouquets of flowers
placed in tombs. Such offerings represent the ideal combination of short-lived 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). \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n[FIGURE 3 OMITTED] \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nMud-bricks and jar
seals \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nMud 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nIt is not clear why the natural age of
organic material within jar seals should be so offset, especially when the dates obtained on mudbricks 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n[FIGURE 4 OMITTED] \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n[FIGURE 5
OMITTED] \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nPapyrus \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nThe 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: 4361; 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
contamination was suspected at the outset and the final results were indeed inconsistent with the
rest of the set. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nTextiles \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nFragments 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). \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nOther
materials \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nOf 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 pretreated 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n[FIGURE 6 OMITTED] \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nSummary by

material \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nA 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nConclusions \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nRadiocarbon 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nReceived: 4 October 2011;
Accepted: 13 December 2011; Revised: 16 January
2012 \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nReferences \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nAGRAWAL, D.P. & S. KUSUMGAR. 1975. Tara
Institute radiocarbon date list XI. Radiocarbon 17(2): 219-25. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nARKELL, A.J. & P.J.
UCKO. 1965. Review of Predynastic development in the Nile Valley. Current Anthropology 6: 14566. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nARNOLD, J.R. & W.E LIBBY. 1949. Age determinations by radiocarbon content:
checks with samples of known age. Science 110: 678-80. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBARKER, H. & J. MACKEY.
1959. British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements I. Radiocarbon 1: 8186. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBERGER, R., G.J. FERGUSSON & WE LIBBY. 1965. UCLA radiocarbon dates IV.
Radiocarbon 7: 336-71. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBIETAK, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBONANI, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBROCK, 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: 85565. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBRONK RAMSEY, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy:
the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2): 425-30. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBRONK RAMSEY, C., H. VAN PER
PLICHT & B. WENINGER. 2001. Wiggle matching radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 43(2A): 38189. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBRONK RAMSEY, C., M.W. DEE, J.M. ROWLAND, T.F.G. HIGHAM, S.A. HARRIS,
F. BROCK, A. QUILES, E.M. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nWILD, E.S. MARCUS & A.J. SHORTLAND. 2010.
Radiocarbon-based chronology for Dynastic Egypt. Science 328(5985): 155459. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBRUINS, H.J. 2010. Dating Pharaonic Egypt. Science 328(5985): 148990. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBRYAN, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBUBENZERA, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBUTZER, K.W.. 1976. Early hydraulic
civilization in Egypt: a study in cultural ecology. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nCAMINOS, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nCOCKITT, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nDEE, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nDEE, M.W., F. BROCK,
S.A. HARRIS, C. BRONK RAMSEY, A.J. SHORTLAND, T.F.G HIGHAM &
J.M. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nROWLAND. 2010. Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset in the
radiocarbon record for ancient Egypt. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(4): 68793. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nERD: Egyptian Radiocarbon Database. Available
at: https:\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/c14.arch.ox.ac.uk\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/egyptdb\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/db.php (accessed 4
April 2012). \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nFREIDRICH, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nGRAJETZKI, W. 2006. The Middle Kingdom of ancient Egypt..
history, archaeology and society. London: Duckworth. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nHASSAN, EA. 1997. The
dynamics of a riverine civilisation: a geoarchaeological perspective on the Nile Valley, Egypt.
World Archaeology 29(1): 51-74. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nHASSAN, F.A. & S.W. ROBINSON. 1987. Highprecision radiocarbon chronometry of ancient Egypt, and comparisons with Nubia, Palestine
and Mesopotamia. Antiquity 61:119-35. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nKEMP, B.J. 1975. Abydos, in W. Helck & E.
Otto (ed.) Lexikon der Agyptologie: I: 28-41. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n--2000.
Soil (including mud-brick architecture), in PT. Nicholson & I. Shaw (ed.) Ancient Egyptian materials
and technology: 78-103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n--2006. Ancient
Egypt: anatomy of a civilization. London: Routledge. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nKRUEGER, H.W. 1991.
Exchange of carbon with biological apatite. Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 35561. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nLEE-THORP, J.A. & N.J. VAN DER MERWE;. 1991. Aspects of the chemistry of
modern and fossil biological apatites. Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 34354. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nLONG, R.D. 1976. Ancient Egyptian chronology, radiocarbon dating and
calibration. Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 103: 3048. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nMANNING, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nMGALEELY, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nMCFADGEN, B.G. 1982. Dating New Zealand archaeology by
radiocarbon. New Zealand Journal of Science 25: 379-92. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nMORAN, W. 1992. The
Amarna letters. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nNAKHLA, S.M. &
F.M. MOHAMMED. 1974. Cairo natural radiocarbon measurements I. Radiocarbon 16(1): 15. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nOLSSON, I.U. & E. KAUP. 2001. The varying radiocarbon activity of some recent
submerged Estonian plants grown in the early 1990s. Radiocarbon 43(2B): 80920. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nPARKINSON, R.B. & S. QUIRKE. 1995. Papyrus. London: British Museum
Press. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nREIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W. BECK,
PG. BLACKWELL, C. BRONK RAMSEY, C.E. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nBUCK, G.S. BURR, R.L. EDWARDS, M.
FRIEDRICH, P.M. GROOTES, T.P. GUILDERSON, I. HAJDAS, T.J. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nHEATON, 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nTALAMO, 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): 1111-50. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nROWLAND, J.M. & C.
BRONK RAMSEY. 2011. Online C14 database for Egypt. Egyptian Archaeology 38: 3334. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nSHAW, I. (ed.) 2000. The Oxford history of ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nSTUCKENRATH, J.R. & E.K. RALPH. 1965. University
of Pennsylvania radiocarbon dates VIII. Radiocarbon 7:187-99. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nTAYLOR, R.E. 1975.
UCR radiocarbon dates II. Radiocarbon 17(3): 396-406. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nVAN 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. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nVERNER, M. 2002. The pyramids: their archaeology and history. London:
Atlantic Books. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nVOGEL, J.C., E. VtSSER & A. FULS. 2001. Suitability of
ostrich eggshell for radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 43(1): 133-37. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nWATERBOLK,
H.T. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 37: 1533. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nWILKINSON, T.A.H. 1999. Early Dynastic Egypt. London:
Routledge. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nZAZZO, A. & J.F. SALIEGE. 2011. Radiocarbon dating of biological
apatites: a review. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 310(1-2): 5261. \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\nM.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) \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n(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) \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n(2) Egyptology,
Freie Universitat Berlin, Altensteinstrasse 33, Berlin 1195, Germany (Email: joanne.rowland@fuberlin.de) \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n(3) Centre for Archaeological and Forensic Analysis, Cranfield University,
Shrivenham, Swindon SN6 8LA, UK (Email: a.shortland@cranfield.ac.uk) \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n(4) Plant
Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3RB, UK (Email:
stephen.harris@plants.ox.ac.uk) \\\\\\\\n\\\\\\\\n* Author for correspondence \\\\\\\\n 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% \\\\\\\"\\\"\"