ANTHROPOLOGY Dating Pharaonic Egypt Hendrik J. Bruins ncient literary sources of Phara- ‘onic Egypt constitute the historical cornerstone of time in the eastern Mediterranean region during the Bronze and Iron Ages (the third to first millennia B.CE), Historical chronologies for ancient Egypt are based on abundant but fragmen- tary written sources, and various chrono- logical interpretations exist (J-$), Radio carbon dating has the potential to verify those interpretations (6). On page 1554 of this issue, Bronk Ramsey ef al (7) present a comprehensive and sophisticated radio carbon dating study on the chronology of Pharaonic Egypt, involving 211 samples. ‘The short-lived plant samples for "C dating ‘were selected from individual funerary con- texts in various museum collections. Each sample could be associated with the reign of a particular Pharaoh or with a specific sec- tion of the historical chronology. ‘Ben-Gurion Univesity ofthe Negev, Jacob Blastln Insts for Desert Research and Depsrment of Bibl, Archaeology nd cer Neat Ester tie, Sede Boke Campus, 64990, la Ema: brin@bgu aca womsciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 328 Bronk Ramsey ef al. developed three separate multiphase models for each major period—Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and New Kingdom-—to obtain high-precision C chronologies. The C model results for the Old Kingdom have an average calendri- cal precision of76 years and correspond with the historical consensus chronology aecord- ing to Shaw (4). The Middle Kingdom results have an average calendrical precision of 53 years, also favoring the conventional histor. ical chronology. The New Kingdom results, based on 128 “C dates with an average calen- drical precision of 24 years, however, donot support the younger (low) historical chronol- coy options, 5), but are nearest the con- sensus chronology (4) with the 18th Dynasty beginning in 1550 B.C.E. The model actually favors a slightly older beginning of the New Kingdom ata. 1560 BCE. ‘The enormous voleanic eruption at San- torini in the Acgean Sea during the Late Minoan A period (8, 9)is key stratigraphic time marker in the eastern Mediterranean region during the second millennium BCE. Radiocarbon dating and modeling of Egyptian dynasties are strengthening the links between historical chronology {and archaeological associations, However, a vexing time difference exists of 100 to 150 years between archaeo-histor- ical dating and radiocarbon dating of the eruption (see the figure) Concerning "C dating, how do the new results for dynastic Egypt (7) relate to the Minoan Santorini eruption? The most pre cise radiocarbon date of the eruption is 1627 to 1600 BCE., obtained by wigale match- ing ofa sequence of “C-dated tree rings from an olive tee found on Thera, buried in tephra (10), Radiocarbon dates from the archacologi- cal site of Akrotiri (Thera) (8) on short-lived plant remains related to the Minoan Santo- ‘ini eruption yielded an average date (uncal- iprated) of 3350 10 years before the pres- ent (*C yr BP) (11). Remarkably similar “C dates were obtained from Crete on animal bones found at Palaikasiro in Late Minoan 1A context with voleanic ash ofthe Minoan San- torini eruption and related tsunami deposits 3350 +t 25 yr BP. along the promontory and 3352 + 23 yr BP.at the inland archaeological site (12). By comparing these "C dates (J0- 12) with the new radicearbon-based chronal- 18,JUNE 2010 14891490 PERSPECTIVES ° | cee nom ira coin e a 4 ‘ell Dab' phases BCE 1900 A IE Acre ncay oe HEE Ninom Son euptin = tuscan date re Hehe etc Utes | | Setting on a date. Dating and association complexities regarding Egyptian dynastic chronology in the Second millennium 8... Fm top to bottom: (1) Radiocarbon dating (yellon) (26) and archaeo-tstorical dating (blue) (13-25) ofthe Aegean Late Mincan IA perio in relation tothe ated (10) and archaeo- historical dated (2-15) Samorn\ eruption (re. (2) The new radiocarbon and modeling rest yllom by Bronk Ramsey etal of Egyptian dnastc chronology over the selected time interval. A lage part (blank) of the Second Intermediate Period was not investigated owing tothe lack of secure samples. (3) The ™C results (jello) (24) of various archaeological phases of Tel el-Dabya (4) The much younger archaeo-historicaldat- ing (blue) by Bitak ofthe same phases (13,24). (5) The association ofthe Tel el-Dab'a phases (13,14) with the young (ow) Egyptian historical chronology (blue. ‘ogy for dynastic Egypt (7), it emerges thatthe ‘Minoan Santorini eruption is older than the MC dates (both uncalibrated and calibrated) for the beginning of the New Kingdom (see the figure) However, according to archaeo-historical dating, the eruption took place during the ‘New Kingdom (18th Dynasty), around 1500 B.CE. (13-15), The discrepancy between the two dating methodologies is also reflected by the two alternative dates for the Aegean Late Minoan A archaeological period: (i)ea.1710 to 1600 BCE. by "C dating (76) and (it) ca 1575 to 1480 BCE. according to archaeo- historical dating (13-15). The two deviating. chronologies forthe crucial Late Minoan 1A period, during which the Santorini eruption ‘occurred, show that one has to be very care- ful not to mix dates from one methodology (C) with the other (archaeo-historical), as it may lead to inaccurate archaeological and historical associations (/2) ‘Tell el-Dab'a, situated in the eastern Nile Delta, is a key archaeological site, having ‘a detailed sequence of phases associated, respectively, with the Middle Kingdom, the 13th Dynasty, the Hyksos Period, and the 18th Dynasty (13, 14) (see the figure). From the radiocarbon dating of short-lived plant mate rial from many archaeological phases of Tell el-Daba, a graphic overview of the calibrated C results after sequencing, was presented in, relation to the stratigraphy (74). Comparison ‘of these "C results with the “C investigation by Bronk Ramsey ef al. of dynastic Egypt ‘gives rise to a problem. Phases D1.2-1.1 of Tell el-Dab'a are associated with the begin- ning of the New Kingdom, dated by Bietak (13, 14) on historical-archaeological consid erations toca. 1530 to 1480 B.C.E. However, the calibrated "C age range for these strata, afler sequencing, is ca. 1720 to 1640 BCE, (4, which is much older than the results by Bronk Ramsey et al. forthe beginning of the New Kingdom, ca. 1550 to 1560 BCE. Hence, atime difference of ~90 to 170 years exists between two investigations for the beginning of the 18th Dynasty, ‘What is erroneous here—the "C dates by cone study (7) or the other (14)? or the asso- ciations between the Tell el-Daba archaeo- logical phases and dynastic history, as the MC results from Tell el-Daba are systemati- cally older by ca. 100 to 200 years than the Egyptian historical chronology (/3, 14)? or the associations between the various funerary archacological contexs fiom museum collee- tions and dynastic history (7)? The last pos sibility seems unlikely, given the coherence between the "C dating results trom multiple archaeological sources. On the other hand, Tell el-Dab'a has detailed archaeological linkages with the Aegean and the Near East (13, 14) Therefore, not only Tell el-Dabsa is involved in this enigma, but the Middle and Late Bronze Age archaeology of the Aegean and the Levant as well ‘The systematic investigation by Bronk Ramsey er al. marks a great step forward in the corroboration and refinement of Egyptian dynastic chronology with radiocarbon dating However, much of the Second Intermediate Period, including the Hyksos Period, was not included in the above investigation, as secure samples are rare. Given the enigmatic “C dates from Tell el-Dab'a, a key site in relation to the Second Intermediate Period and the beginning ofthe New Kingdom, it would be very important to conduct systematic radio- ‘carbon research of multiple-source sam- ples from the 13th Dynasty and the Hyksos Period. Moreover, C dating of other Middle and Late Bronze Age archaeological sites in the region will enable association of archaco- logical strata with the new radiocarbon-dated Egyptian historical chronology (7). which ‘may lead to solution ofthe complex multi- disciplinary problems in establishing a chro- nology for the second millennium B.C.E. References 1, sass Satis und Mande Sut 2 extn Innchen und ednacen Chverlie Apes (Petras muse Hiden, Germay. 983). 2. KA Khe, Wace 23, 2071990, 5. vn acer, Chonolage de Parson apt Wag Pon aber, Mae, Gera. 2997, 4 Shan Te Of stay of Acer opt Ord ‘ni Pres, ner, 200. 5. mung Kis DA Watton Es, Aces Ea tan Choniogy Bl oie, be ethers 2000) 6, EA Hasan, 3 Robin Aroq 6,19 (987. 2 € Bron ary eel, Scece 3261584 2010, 1.6 Doms, Thr Rompe of he en Aegean {Thanes and Hutson, London, 198), 9, H Soon et AGU 87,337 2008, Treerhet al Seen 312, $48 2008 ity. Marg, M Galimer,Rdacar 325 2008, 12 He] ro an de P| Malay Raia fen, 397 2009. 128, Met Te Srconton of ions inthe Eestemledeerraneon te Seo Milena I te, eran dr Ostrich Aaaem de Wisner, 2003), po. 2-33, 14. MBit, Fine o The Snchvntsation of (Golson nie Eten Mederoncan the Second ‘Mileniom BC, M Bek Cy, esa er ‘Saterechicen Aadere der Waser, View 20 pp. 15-23 15.1 Mian Tie Ul Oar the Minoan rap tan of Sanart |Henerter, WL eich (Monogapt a ie Oansh nut at Aen, 0, ‘hens 2009p. 15-170. 16, SIMMaoning eal, Sorc 332, 565 (2008. saaelence 91410 1BJUNE 2010 VOL328 SCIENCE wwwrsciencemag.org,