PreprintPDF Available

Towards an absolute scientific date for the Egyptian New Kingdom, part 2: the New Moon dates

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract and Figures

Using modern astronomical parameters and based on handed-down dates for "days of the Feast of the New Moon", we propose the exact accession years for two Egyptian New Kingdom pharaohs:-1497 for Thutmose III, and-1297 for Rameses II. These accession dates comply well with recent radiocarbon dates. We also include some remarks about the eight years adjustment of the radiocarbon calibration curve (Intcal) which we have applied in our Egyptological studies. As it appears just now, this eventuality seems to be at least detected-but not yet acknowledged-in recent academic research.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 1 of 17
Towards an absolute scientific date for the Egyptian New Kingdom,
part 2: the New Moon dates
Petra Ossowski Larsson* and Lars-Åke Larsson, Sweden
* Corresponding author: petra@cybis.se
Abstract
Using modern astronomical parameters and based on handed-down dates for "days
of the Feast of the New Moon", we propose the exact accession years for two
Egyptian New Kingdom pharaohs: -1497 for Thutmose III, and -1297 for Rameses II.
These accession dates comply well with recent radiocarbon dates.
We also include some remarks about the eight years adjustment of the radiocarbon
calibration curve (Intcal) which we have applied in our Egyptological studies. As it
appears just now, this eventuality seems to be at least detected - but not yet
acknowledged - in recent academic research.
Introduction
An approximate scientific date for the Egyptian New Kingdom (18th to 20th Dynasty)
has been established as a result of a groundbreaking radiocarbon study by
Christopher Bronk Ramsey et al. (ref.1). The study utilizes radiocarbon wiggle-
matching of shortlived organic material from secure contexts sequenced according to
two historical chronologies (king lists). The chronology compiled by Ian Shaw (ref.2),
which also seems to be the consensus chronology in force, apparently gives the best
conformity towards the radiocarbon study. There is however a small offset (Shaw's
dates being generally a few years younger than the radiocarbon dates) which opened
up for the proposal that "the New Kingdom might have begun earlier by about a
decade than the consensus date of Shaw" (ref.1). This gets even more marked if you
consider our hypothesis that the dendrochronological time base of the radiocarbon
calibration curve might be eight years too young in the 2nd to 6th millennia BC (ref.3).
How could Shaw's "floating" chronology be placed almost correct in time? The list of
New Kingdom pharaohs is traditionally anchored in the absolute astronomical time-
line via a few written records of astronomical observations regarded as trustworthy.
These are a couple of so called "heliacal risings of Sothis" and dates for the "day of
the Feast of the New Moon", typically given as the regnal year of a certain pharaoh
plus the day in the Egyptian civil calendar. Due to remaining uncertainties various
alternative dynasty start dates have been proposed, Shaw's proposal being the
"middle chronology" with -1549 to -1294 for the 18th Dynasty, and -1294 to -1068 for
the Ramessid period (19th and 20th Dynasties). James Henry Breasted (ref.4) for
example opted for a some decades older "high chronology". There are also a number
of "low" chronologies, but these are not compatible with the new radiocarbon results
and thus will not be discussed here.
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 2 of 17
In part 1 of our Egyptian suite of articles we took a closer look at the Egyptian civil
calendar (ref.5). This was a solar calendar with a year of exactly 365 days distributed
to 12 months with 30 days each, and an additional "intercalary month" of 5 days. The
12 months were grouped into 3 seasons of 4 months each (hence 120 days),
beginning around midsummer with the flood season, followed by the growth season
starting late in October and finally the harvest season starting early in spring. New
Year was celebrated on I Thoth 1, the first day of the flood season.
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Intercalary
month
Thoth Phaophi Athyr Choiak Tybi Mechir Phamenoth Pharmuthi Pachons Payni Epiphi Mesore Hryw Rnpt
(1)
Akhet
(2)
Akhet
(3)
Akhet
(4)
Akhet
(1)
Peret
(2)
Peret
(3)
Peret
(4)
Peret
(1)
Shemu
(2)
Shemu
(3)
Shemu
(4)
Shemu
5 days
Flood season Growth season, winter Low water or harvest season, summer
Table 1: Months and seasons of the Egyptian civil calendar. A date can be given as a certain day (e.g.
20) either of a month of the year (e.g. IX Pachons 20) or a month of a season (e.g. (1) Shemu 20).
As the astronomical solar year is longer than the civil year, almost ¼ day, the
Egyptian civil calendar lagged about 1 day in 4 years. Therefore the civil year slowly
cycled backwards through the solar year, growing more and more out of phase with
the seasons. One full cycle, when the civil year again was about in phase with the
seasons, took 1460 (4 x 365) years. For this peculiarity the Egyptian civil calendar is
sometimes called the "wandering calendar".
When the Egyptian civil calendar was launched - we propose in -2781 at Memphis -
it was on the day for the heliacal rising of Sirius at this place and only two days after
midsummer. We propose that the Sirius observation was chosen as a straight for-
ward substitute for the more difficult observation of the summer solstice. For the first
four years the "Sothic date" (day for the heliacal rising of Sirius) was on I Thoth 1.
After four years the Sothic date shifted to I Thoth 2, and so on. This rigorous, non-
astronomical rule was perhaps the great benefit of the civil calendar which allowed a
longterm yearcount for administrative purposes. It also makes that we today can
firmly synchronize the Egyptian civil calendar with our calendar if we only know the
Julian date for the heliacal rising of Sirius in -2781 at Memphis. Modern astronomical
retrocalculations show that this date was July 16Jul. Read more about the civil
calendar and the heliacal rising of Sirius in ref.5. See also appendix A for an example
how the Sothic date wanders through the years.
With the Egyptian civil calendar established as an exact dating tool, we can now try
to synchronize the "days of the Feast of the New Moon" handed down from the New
Kingdom with our calendar. This will hopefully lead to absolute accession years for
the pharaohs of that time.
What is New Moon
New Moon is the first phase of a lunar month or lunation. A lunation has an average
length of 29.5306 days. The modern astronomical meaning of New Moon is when
Earth, Moon and Sun are aligned so that Moon is right between Earth and Sun and
invisible from Earth because only its backside is illuminated by sunlight. Only in this
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 3 of 17
conjunction a solar eclipse is possible, i.e. if the moon disk covers and obscures the
sun disk, as visible from a narrow string of places on Earth.
The ancients however were depending on naked-eye-observation, and called New
Moon when - after the above mentioned astronomical invisibility - the first thin
crescent of the waxing moon became visible in the western evening sky just after
sunset. The New Moon was and still is hailed by many cultures, and also the
Egyptians apparently observed the Feast of the New Moon as this is mentioned in
their annals and records, dated in the fashion of the Egyptian civil calendar.
However, consensus among Egyptologists seems to be that the ancient Egyptian
Feast of the New Moon - psdntjw - and start of next month fell on the day of
invisibility. Richard Parker (ref.6) argued that an indication for this is that the Egyptian
day began in the morning, though the new moon crescent becomes visible first in the
evening. Had the Egyptians reckoned their months from first visibility, their day would
have started at sunset as is the case for example in the Islamic calendar. Therefore
Parker postulated that the Egyptians watched the crescent of the waning moon
instead and that they, on the day when it no longer was visible in the eastern sky at
dawn, started their new month at sunrise. A strong argument for this is his
observation that two East-African tribes still reckon their months starting with the day
of invisibility. Parker also gave a wealth of Egyptological arguments and examples for
this hypothesis.
We do not really believe that a culture celebrates the Feast of the New Moon on the
only day in the moon cycle when the moon is invisible. Already Parker had a few
examples which indicate that psdntjw could anyway be the day of first visibility. But a
strong indication comes from Anthony Spalinger (ref.7) who describes the order of
monthly moon-specific days in the festival calendar of Rameses III at Medinet Habu
as follows:
We would dare the following interpretation: day 29 is the day of last visibility of the
old crescent in the morning. Day 30 is the day of invisibility, dedicated to the fertility
god Min, the "protector of the moon". On this day the new moon is "conceived". Day
29 and 30 were always determined through observation, by the priests (or somebody
else). If so, day 1 (psdntjw) would be the day of the new moon's "birth", with first
visibility of the waxing crescent in the evening in about 70% of cases. In case the
moon did not appear on day 1, it most probably would do so on day 2. This reasoning
presupposes that day 30 always "came to pass", but this is not unthinkable as the old
(fully observational) moon calendar became outdated at the inauguration of the civil
calendar which had a schematic month length of 30 days. Note that full moon in
Rameses III's festival calendar always is on day 15 (i.e. schematic), though astrono-
mically full moon varies between barely 14 days and up to 16 days after conjunction.
Therefore, in this article we will consistently assume the day of first visibility for the
Feast of the New Moon (psdntjw). We will anyway see if this assumption is correct
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 4 of 17
when we compare the handed-down Egyptian observation dates with our simulated
New Moon dates.
The New Moon dates of the New Kingdom
For synchronization with our calendar New Moon dates are most useful because they
almost certainly were observed (i.e. not calculated, see reasoning above), and the
place of observation is not critical. Here follows the evaluation of three well-known
New Moon observations from the Egyptian New Kingdom - all referring to psdntjw -
two for the reign of Thutmose III and one for the reign of Rameses II:
1. From the annals of king Thutmose III (ref.4a, §430):
Year 23, first month of the third season, on the twenty-first day, the day of the
feast of the new moon, corresponding to the royal coronation, early in the
morning, behold, command was given to the entire army to move.
This is the run-up of the famous battle of Megiddo between Egypt and the kingdoms
of Canaan. Breasted summarizes the entire campaign for that year (ref.4a, §409) and
opts for a (Julian) date in the middle of May for the battle of Megiddo, which was 17
days later than the "Feast of Coronation" (hence very early in the king's 23rd year).
2. From the great Karnak building inscription of king Thutmose III (ref.4a, §608):
My majesty ordered that the foundation ceremony should be prepared at the
approach of the day of the Feast of the New Moon, to extend the measuring-line
upon this monument. In the year 24, second month of the second season, the
last day (of the month), on the day of the tenth feast of Amon in--- the god
rested (on) his great throne.
Both dates have been disputed, no.1. for its relation to the actual date of the battle of
Megiddo (see ref.8 and references therein), and no.2. if the Feast of the New Moon
was exactly on the mentioned date or one day later (ref.9). For reasons which will
become apparent we postulate that VI Mechir 30 was the day before the Feast of the
New Moon which would have been on VII Phamenoth 1. From the text of no.1.
however there is little doubt that IX Pachons 21 in the 23rd year of Thutmose III was a
New Moon day, and it is hard to determine astronomically if VI Mechir 30 or
VII Phamenoth 1 in the kings 24th year is exactly 22 lunations later. As date no.1. is
only a few days later than the king's Feast of Coronation day, almost two years (649
or 650 days) elapsed until date no.2. 649 days corresponds to 21.98 lunations (of
29.5306 days), and 650 days corresponds to 22.01 lunations.
3. From the Papyrus Leiden I.350 (ref.10)
Regnal year 52. The second month of winter, day 27, in Pi-Ramesse-miamun.
The New-moon festival. Deliveries of the servant Ptahptenro: fine bread: 80
white triangular loaves of the hall(?). Deliveries of the general: fine bread: 100
white loaves. There arrived the chief of the towing-men Raciay in the morning.
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 5 of 17
This is an entry from a ship's log from the 52nd year of Rameses II, stating that the
II Peret 27 (VI Mechir 27) was a Feast of the New Moon day. Then follows a record of
bread deliveries to the ship's crew, and the registration of a visitor.
Also the distances between the first two and the third observation must be divisible
by whole numbers of lunations in order to synchronize the events astronomically and
find a common solution. To check that this is true is more complicated as we do not
know the exact number of years between the two pharaohs' accession dates. We
know however that the coronation of Thutmose III took place on IX Pachons 4, and
the coronation of Rameses II on XI Epiphi 27 (ref.11). Between these dates are 83
days, this means the difference between the accession dates is x years (of 365 days)
+ 83 days.
The number of days from the coronation to the New Moon date can be calculated as:
New Moon
observation
regnal
years -1 * 365 days + number of days between coronation date and New Moon date
1. 22 8030 IX Pachons 4 to IX Pachons 21 = 17 days : 8047
2. 23 8395 IX Pachons 4 to VII Phamenoth 1 = 302 days : 8697
3. 51 18615 XI Epiphi 27 to VI Mechir 27 = 215 days : 18830
So the distance in days between observation 1. and 3. is at least 83 + 18830 - 8047
= 10866 days, and between observation 2. and 3. at least 83 +18830 - 8697 = 10216
days.
But how many whole years of 365 days are between Thutmose III's and Rameses II's
accession years? Shaw (ref.2), and also Hornung et al. (ref.11), specify 200 years
which seems to be viable in Bronk Ramsey's radiocarbon study (ref.1). So let's
calculate with that number. 200 years amount to 73000 days in the Egyptian civil
calendar, that means we have to add 73000 days to the distances above. Between
observation 1. and 3. are thus totally 10866 + 73000 = 83866 days which
corresponds to 2839.97 lunations (of 29.5306 days), a satisfactory match.
Between observation 2. and 3. are totally 10216 + 73000 = 83216 days
corresponding to 2817.96 lunations, also this a satisfactory match.
Note: The next instance for a satisfactory match is only 11 years away, that means that the distance x
between the accession years could as well be 189 (as e.g. claimed in ref.12), or 211 years. As we
assume that such a departure would have been noticable in the radiocarbon study, we accept the
difference of 200 years between Thutmose III's and Rameses II's accession years in this study.
Table 2 gives a summary of what we know about the three New Moon dates of the
New Kingdom, their consensus years according to the middle chronology and their
approximate radiocarbon dates.
Pharaoh and
regnal year (New
Moon)
Month and day
(New Moon)
Consensus year
middle chronology
(ref.2)
Year Bronk Ramsey
radiocarbon (ref.1),
minus 8 years (ref.3)
Central years in
the synchronized
parts of table 3
Thutmose III 23
rd
IX Pachons 21 -1456 ~ -1474 -1474
Thutmose III 24
th
VII Phamenoth 1 -1454 ~ -1472 -1472
Rameses II 52
nd
VI Mechir 27 -1227 ~ -1243 -1245
Table 2: Summary of the New Moon dates of the New Kingdom, and their approximate dating.
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 6 of 17
As we do not know (yet) which years in our CE-calendar correspond to the regnal
years given, we make three 40-years-tables (A, B and C) which are centered around
the approximate radiocarbon dates (95% probability ranges ~25 years). These tables
are also synchronized with each other according to the reasoning above. This means
that each table covers the range of most probable radiocarbon dates for each
pharaoh. See table 3.
For each year in the tables (table 3, columns AA, BA and CA) the Sothic date -
before the Great year -1321 (Sothic date on I Thoth 1) for Thutmose III and after the
Great Year -1321 for Rameses II - is taken from the table in Appendix A. Example:
for years -1456 and -1454 the Sothic date is XII Mesore 2, for -1227 it is I Thoth 24.
See columns AB, BB and CB.
From this we can count the number of days between the Sothic date and the New
Moon date mentioned in the observations. Example: XII Mesore 2 to IX Pachons 21 =
71 days, XII Mesore 2 to Phamenoth 1 = 151 days, I Thoth 24 to VI Mechir 27 = 153
days. See table 3,columns AC, BC & CC.
Now we can convert the New Moon dates to Julian dates, if we set a suitable Julian
start date for the civil calendar. In this case we choose July 16 as observed at
Memphis (Cairo) when the civil calendar was launched (this date is also the very first
Sothic date in that calendar, ref.5). Example: 71 days from July 16 we find May 6,
151 days from July 16 we find February 15, 153 days from July 16 we find December
16. See table 3, columns AD, BD and CD.
For each year in the tables we also simulate the date for the day of the New Moon
first visibility (ref.13) around the determined observed date (table 3, columns AE, BE
and CE). If the observed date is on the same day, or up to one day later than the
simulated date to allow for an observation delay, we have a match. Apparently there
is one perfect match (red with yellow highlights in table 3) which gives -1475 for
Thutmose III's 23rd regnal year, -1473 for his 24th regnal year, and -1246 for
Rameses II's 52nd regnal year. Hence the accession years for the pharaohs would be
-1497 for Thutmose III, and -1297 for Rameses II. These dates are also in perfect
compliance with Bronk Ramsey's radiocarbon study (ref.1) minus our proposed eight
years because of a dendrochronological error in the radiocarbon calibration curve
(ref.3), see our reasoning in ref.5.
To test the hypothesis that the Feast of the New Moon - psdntjw - fell on the day of
invisibility, we can reduce the simulated New Moon dates (table 3, columns AE, BE
and CE, results not shown) with one day. There are now two more possible options -
one 14 years before and one 11 years after the perfect match - but both include one
"impossible observation", i.e. the observation was made before it astronomically was
possible.
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 8 of 17
Discussion and Conclusions
The accession years -1497 for Thutmose III has never been proposed as far as we
can determine. -1297 for Rameses II does appear in the older literature (e.g. ref.14),
but this date is apparently not based on New Moon dates but on the "Era of
Menophres" remark by Theon which sets the first year of Rameses I near to the
Great Year -1321 in the Egyptian civil calendar (ref.5). Instead three other solutions -
all with 200 years between the two pharaohs - have been discussed in different
waves (refs. 15 and 16, and references therein). These are: -1478/-1278,
-1489/-1289 and -1503/-1303, the first being the current consensus solution favored
by Shaw (ref.2) and Hornung et al. (ref.11).
Accession year
Thutmose III
Accession year
Rameses II
A: 23
rd
year
Thutmose III
B: 24
th
year
Thutmose III
C: 52
nd
year
Rameses II
-1478 -1278 -1456 -1454 -1227
-1489 -1289 -1467 -1465 -1238
-1503 -1303 -1481 -1479 -1252
Table 4: Options for the dating of Thutmoses III and Rameses II discussed in different waves by
Egyptologists. The option on the first row is the current consensus solution. Compare with the table 5,
blue highlighted rows.
We see at once that there are no matches for these years in table 3. This changes
however if we re-generate the table with the start date July 19Jul for the heliacal rising
of Sirius at Memphis in -2781 (table 5). July 19Jul has been used - and is still used -
for the conversion of Egyptian civil dates to Julian calendar dates since the discovery
of the Egyptian civil calendar, though this start date has been astronomically
outdated for some time (ref.5). This means that the accession years for Thutmose III
and Rameses II discussed so far by Egyptologists still depend on one wrong,
outdated parameter value.
A closer look at table 5 reveals that there is no "perfect" match for all three New
Moon observations for any of the accepted options (highlighted in blue). Most
troubling is the large number of "impossible" observations, i.e. that the first crescent
of the waxing moon was observed before this was astronomically possible. A
universal remedy to this problem is of course to propose that the Feast of the New
Moon fell on the day of invisibilty (ref.6), which would lower the simulated dates (table
5, columns AE, BE and CE) with one day (as they are for first visibility). With start
date July 16Jul such an ad-hoc solution is not necessary, as there is one perfect
match in table 3.
But even with this amendment most of the options in table 5 remain "imperfect". As
Ronald Wells remarks in the appendix to the first chapter of ref.7, Comments on the
use of lunar month lengths in absolute dating, bad fit as high as nearly 30% between
observations and retrocalculations is readily accepted within Egyptology. With such a
high accepted error rate it is extremely difficult if not impossible to point out a specific
solution. Or as Bradley Schaefer put it (ref.17):
In summary, sadly, I conclude that the current large uncertainties in predicting
lunar visibility and in ancient Egyptian procedures do not allow for any possible
astronomical solution of Egyptian absolute chronology with lunar dates.
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 10 of 17
We would not have bothered presenting one further uncertain solution to the New
Kingdom New Moon dates, if we had not realized the crucial flaw regarding the
conversion of Egyptian civil dates to Julian dates: the start date of the civil calendar.
Using the astronomically much more probable July 16Jul was a game changer and led
to one perfect match, which is backed up by Bronk Ramsey's radiocarbon study
(which as well had to be adjusted by eight years using basic natural science).
Consequently we propose the exact accession dates -1497 for Thutmose III, and
-1297 for Rameses II. Note that the accession dates of all other New Kingdom rulers
have to be extrapolated or interpolated from that, but Shaw's king list (ref.2) appears
to be a good start. See also Appendix A.
Further we propose that the day of first visibility of the waxing moon crescent was
what the Egyptians called psdntjw or the day of the Feast of the New Moon, and that
they were able to "predict" this day by the observation of last visibility of the waning
moon crescent. Therefore the Karnak building inscription of Thutmose III (2. New
Moon date) quotes the approach of the day of the Feast of the New Moon.
Lastly, we want to add some remarks about the eight years adjustment of the
radiocarbon calibration curve (Intcal) which we have applied in our Egyptological
studies. As it appears just now, this eventuality seems to be at least detected - but
not yet acknowledged - in recent academic research.
Following our dendrochronological analysis of the Belfast raw data (ref.18), we dated
the floating long prehistoric part of the Irish oak chronology in 2017 tentatively eight
years older than conventionally assumed (ref.3). As the Belfast chronology is a main
part of the dendrochronological base of the radiocarbon calibration curve, such a
correction would affect that curve as well. The first indication that we might be right
came in 2018 with an article by Charlotte Pearson et al. (ref.19) measuring annual
radiocarbon values of tree-rings from bristlecone pine (which we regard as absolutely
dated) and Irish oak during the 17th and 16th centuries BC. The bristlecone pine
measurements appear slightly older than the Irish oak measurements, a fact that has
been quantified to be 6.4 ±2 radiocarbon years in a recent article by Sturt Manning et
al. (ref.20). The plain mean value of the 87 Irish oak measurements of ref.19 is 5.4
years younger than the mean value of the corresponding bristlecone pine
measurements.
More comparative studies using absolutely dated tree-ring chronologies (bristlecone
pine ref.21, cedar ref.22) and German oak have been made after a rapid radiocarbon
excursion (Miyake event type) was detected around -660 (ref.23). German oak raw
data for the pre-550 BC period is generally unpublished and unavailable, so we know
nothing about its dendrochronology. However, when the completion of the European
supra-long oak chronologies was announced in 1984 (ref.24), the synchronization of
the pre-550 BC chronology for south central Germany with the prehistoric part of the
Belfast chronology was claimed. If this synchronization is correct, also pre-550 BC
German oak would conventionally be dated eight years too young, if we are right (see
figure 1).
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 11 of 17
Figure 1: Original Fig.2 of ref.24: Critical links between chronologies from Ireland, England, north and
south Germany over the period AD 200 to 1200 BC. West Germany = Hollstein chronology.
With our dating suggestions: minus eight years (light green bars) (ref.3) for N.Ireland = Belfast Long
and synchronous German chronologies, plus 218 years (dark grey bars) (ref.18) for GarryBog (GB2),
Swan Carr and the Roman complex of the English and German chronologies. N.Ireland = BelfastAD
(white bar) in the upper right corner has an absolute date, though we can not replicate its alledged
match (t=7.0) towards Roman Southwark.
German oak is the other main part of the dendrochronological base of the
radiocarbon calibration curve. NB: the -660 radiocarbon excursion should appear
around -886 (conventional) in Irish and English oak (GB2 and Swan Carr), if we are
right (see figure 1).
Both studies using annual radiocarbon measurements of dendrochronological dated
German oak have diagrams where these measurements are compared with annual
measurements of other, absolutely dated wood: bristlecone pine (ref.21, figure 4) and
japanese cedar (ref.22, figure 2). Both these figures show a slight offset, the peak of
the radiocarbon excursion appearing a few years later in the measurements from
German oak. The article by Simon Fahrni et al. (ref.21) allows a quantification, as it
includes the measured radiocarbon years for the alledged absolute dendro years.
Depending on how the bristlecone pine measurements are dated (there is a
confusion regarding their BC dates (!)), and if only Tree 15 or also four
measurements of Tree 70a (early wood only) are included, the plain mean value of
the German oak measurements is between 7.6 and 4.4 years younger than the mean
value of the corresponding bristlecone pine measurements. However it remains
enigmatic why the bristlecone pine series is terminated in 661 (662?) BC, one or two
years before the radiocarbon peak in German oak in 660 BC. Was there perhaps
something the authors did not want to show?
Even though the mainstream scientists apparently have observed the slight offset for
European oak in their new high-resolution data, they seem to close their eyes
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 12 of 17
regarding its consequences. Our hypothesis that this offset is due to an error in the
dendrochronological linkage of the supra-long oak chronologies forming the basis of
the radiocarbon calibration curve is still regarded too brutal to be considered. The
new annual measurements are instead used to "amend" or "replace" the old
calibration curve in an effort to - among other things - lower the date for the Minoan
eruption of Thera, which scientific late 17th century BC date has become more and
more untenable (see e.g. refs.19, 20, 25). But while desperately searching for
possible 16th century dates for the eruption, scientists ignore that a mega volcanic
eruption should have left expressed traces in the ice cores as well. However there is
null in the record until the middle of the 15th century (ref.26). Also this circumstance
seems far too brutal to be considered yet.
Unfortunately, the reluctance to swiftly assimilate new or changed natural scientific
findings seems to restrain and delay research in Egyptology and more generally in
the historical sciences including archaeology. Only strict interdisciplinary thinking,
considering also - and chiefly - recent natural scientific observations, can make that
we get anywhere soon regarding a truly absolute chronology in antiquity and
prehistory.
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 13 of 17
References
1. Bronk-Ramsey, C., Dee, M.W., Rowland, J.M., Higham, T.F.G., Harris, S.A., Brock, F., Quiles, A.,
Wild, E.M., Marcus, E.S. and Shortland, A.J. 2010. Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic
Egypt. Science 328: 1554 –1557. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44683433_Radiocarbon-
Based_Chronology_for_Dynastic_Egypt
2. Shaw, I. ( Ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000).
3. Ossowski Larsson P. & Larsson L.Å. (2017). Miyake Events from a dendrochronological point of
view. ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15276.26241.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316141198_Miyake_Events_from_a_dendrochronological_p
oint_of_view
4. Breasted J.H. Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents (Chicago: 1906),
a. Part II. http://etana.org/sites/default/files/coretexts/14897.pdf
b. Part III. http://etana.org/sites/default/files/coretexts/14898.pdf
5. Ossowski Larsson P. & Larsson L.Å. (2020). Towards an absolute scientific date for the Egyptian
New Kingdom, part 1: the Egyptian Civil Calendar revisited. ResearchGate DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.33028.07049.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338543618_Towards_an_absolute_scientific_date_for_the_
Egyptian_New_Kingdom_part_1_the_Egyptian_Civil_Calendar_revisited
6. Parker R.A., The Calendars of Ancient Egypt. Chicago 1950.
https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/saoc26.pdf
7. Spalinger A., Feasts and Fights: Essays on Time in Ancient Egypt. Yale Egyptological Sudies 10.
New Haven 2018.
8. Freewalt J. (2014). The battle of Megiddo (Thutmose III): a battle analysis. Ancient Warfare -
HIST611 A001 Fall 14, Dr. Leda Ciraolo, American Military University, page 3.
https://www.academia.edu/9935634/Battle_Report_The_Battle_of_Megiddo_Thutmose_III_
9. Wente E.F. (1975). Thutmose III's Accession and the Beginning of the New Kingdom. Journal of
Near Eastern Studies Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 265-272.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/372429?journalCode=jnes
10. Janssen, J.J.: Two ancient Egyptian ship's logs. Papyrus Leiden I 350 verso and Papyrus Turin
2008+2016. Brill, Leiden 1961.
11. Ancient Egyptian Chronology. Edited by Hornung E.,Krauss R. and Warburton, D.A. Brill, Leiden,
Boston 2006. https://archive.org/details/AncientEgyptianChronology_201303
12. Gautschy R. (2012). 4 Chronology of the Egyptian New Kingdom revisited. In: Current Research in
Egyptology 2012: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium University of Birmingham. Ed.
McGarrity L. et al. https://books.google.se/books?id=la-
mAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT91&lpg=PT91&dq=gautschy+new+kingdom+revisited&source=bl&ots=tQUXnrtE
rx&sig=cZmw_crPBxJEOqZL8XZVD9YJwM4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi83YuNx4TaAhVE2CwKH
SEQBY8Q6AEIQDAE#v=twopage&q&f=false
13. Simulation done with Stellarium, http://www.stellarium.org . With light pollution 1 (minimum) and
extinction coefficient 0.35 as proposed by Bradley Schaefer for the observation of the heliacal rising of
Sirius in the Nile delta (ref.17)
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 14 of 17
14. General History of Africa. Vol. II. Ancient Civilizations of Africa. Edited by G. Mokhtar. Paris:
Unesco; London: Heinemann Educational Books; Berkeley: University of California Press; 1981.
Abridged edition 1990.
15. Casperson, L.W. (1986). The lunar dates of Thutmose III. Journal of Near Eastern studies 45/2,
139-150. https://www.jstor.org/stable/544226
16. Casperson, L.W. (1988). The lunar date of Ramesses II. Journal of Near Eastern studies 47/3,
181-184. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/37766507.pdf
17. Schaefer B.E. 2000. The heliacal rise of Sirius and ancient Egyptian chronology. Journal for the
History of Astronomy, Vol. 31, Part 2, 149 - 155. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JHA....31..149S
18. Ossowski Larsson P. & Larsson L.Å. (2015). Dendrochronological dating of Roman time.
ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.5129.6806.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275083761_Dendrochronological_Dating_of_Roman_Time
19. C. L. Pearson, P. W. Brewer, D. Brown, T. J. Heaton, G. W. L. Hodgins, A. J. T. Jull, T. Lange, M.
W. Salzer, Annual radiocarbon record indicates 16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption. Sci.
Adv. 4, eaar8241 (2018). https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaar8241
20. S. W. Manning, B. Kromer, M. Cremaschi, M. W. Dee, R. Friedrich, C. Griggs, C. S. Hadden,
Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz1096 (2020).
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/12/eaaz1096
21. Fahrni, S., Southon, J., Fuller, B., Park, J., Friedrich, M., Muscheler, R., Wacker, L.,Taylor, R.
(2020). SINGLE-YEAR GERMAN OAK AND CALIFORNIAN BRISTLECONE PINE 14C DATA AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE HALLSTATT PLATEAU FROM 856 BC TO 626 BC. Radiocarbon, 1-19.
doi:10.1017/RDC.2020.16 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/singleyear-
german-oak-and-californian-bristlecone-pine-14c-data-at-the-beginning-of-the-hallstatt-plateau-from-
856-bc-to-626-bc/D27639AFEDF468D019D8FCC85BC6F670
22. Sakurai, H., Tokanai, F., Miyake, F. et al. Prolonged production of 14C during the ~660 BCE solar
proton event from Japanese tree rings. Sci Rep 10, 660 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-
57273-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-57273-2
23. Park, J., Southon, J., Fahrni, S., Creasman, P., & Mewaldt, R. (2017). Relationship between solar
activity and Δ14C peaks in AD 775, AD 994, and 660 BC. Radiocarbon, 59(4), 1147-1156.
doi:10.1017/RDC.2017.59 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/relationship-
between-solar-activity-and-14c-peaks-in-ad-775-ad-994-and-660-
bc/EFBDD78DEFAAA02B1CB9C3A24933B912
24. Pilcher, J.R., Baillie, M.G.L., Schmidt, B. and Becker, B., 1984. A 7,272-year tree-ring chronology
for western Europe. Nature 312 (5990), 150-152. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31978801
25. Van der Plicht, J., Bronk Ramsey, C., Heaton, T., Scott, E., & Talamo, S. (2020). RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS IN CALIBRATION FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES.
Radiocarbon, 1-23. doi:10.1017/RDC.2020.22
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/recent-developments-in-calibration-for-
archaeological-and-environmental-samples/671DCC8A4A38ACF57786EFC659E5D8F6
26. Ossowski Larsson P. & Larsson L.Å. (2015). When was the Minoan eruption of Thera?
ResearchGate DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.4942.1287.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281847922_When_was_the_Minoan_eruption_of_Thera
Tailpiece: Ruins of Luxor, from the south west by David Roberts R.A. (1846). Source: Library of
Congress. https://lccn.loc.gov/2002717582
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 15 of 17
Appendix A: Sothic dates with tentative regnal years for the New Kingdom
The direct assignation of all possible Sothic dates in the Egyptian civil calendar to the corresponding four-years
period in the Julian calendar (youngest to oldest) is taken from a schematic calendar (i.e. without observation of
Sirius), see Appendix B in ref.5. The accession years for Thutmose III and Rameses II are the result of this article,
and are most probably absolute. However, reign lengths and accession years of other New Kingdom pharaohs are
taken from Shaw's king list (ref.2), and therefore may be subject to adjustments when this becomes necessary.
Year
CE
Sothic
date Pharaoh
-1086
II Phaophi
29
-1087 Rameses XI
-1088 Rameses XI
-1089 Rameses XI
-1090
II Phaophi
28
Rameses XI
-1091 Rameses XI
-1092 Rameses XI
-1093 Rameses XI
-1094
II Phaophi
27
Rameses XI
-1095 Rameses XI
-1096 Rameses XI
-1097 Rameses XI
-1098
II Phaophi
26
Rameses XI
-1099 Rameses XI
-1100 Rameses XI
-1101 Rameses XI
-1102
II Phaophi
25
Rameses XI
-1103 Rameses XI
-1104 Rameses XI
-1105 Rameses XI
-1106
II Phaophi
24
Rameses XI
-1107 Rameses XI
-1108 Rameses XI
-1109 Rameses XI
-1110
II Phaophi
23
Rameses XI
-1111 Rameses XI
-1112 Rameses XI
-1113 Rameses XI
-1114
II Phaophi
22
Rameses XI
-1115 Rameses XI
-1116 Rameses XI
-1117 Rameses X/
Rameses XI
-1118
II Phaophi
21
Rameses X
-1119 Rameses X
-1120 Rameses X
-1121 Rameses X
-1122
II Phaophi
20
Rameses X
-1123 Rameses X
-1124 Rameses X
-1125 Rameses X
-1126
II Phaophi
19
Rameses IX/
Rameses X
-1127 Rameses IX
-1128 Rameses IX
-1129 Rameses IX
-1130
II Phaophi
18
Rameses IX
-1131 Rameses IX
-1132 Rameses IX
-1133 Rameses IX
-1134
II Phaophi
17
Rameses IX
-1135 Rameses IX
-1136 Rameses IX
-1137 Rameses IX
-1138
II Phaophi
16
Rameses IX
-1139 Rameses IX
-1140 Rameses IX
-1141 Rameses IX
-1142
II Phaophi
15
Rameses IX
-1143 Rameses IX
-1144 Rameses VIII/
Rameses IX
-1145 Rameses VIII
Year
CE
Sothic
date Pharaoh
-1146
II Phaophi
14
Rameses VIII
-1147 Rameses VII/
Rameses VIII
-1148 Rameses VII
-1149 Rameses VII
-1150
II Phaophi
13
Rameses VII
-1151 Rameses VII
-1152 Rameses VII
-1153 Rameses VII
-1154
II Phaophi
12
Rameses VI/
Rameses VII
-1155 Rameses VI
-1156 Rameses VI
-1157 Rameses VI
-1158
II Phaophi
11
Rameses VI
-1159 Rameses VI
-1160 Rameses VI
-1161 Rameses V/
Rameses VI
-1162
II Phaophi
10
Rameses V
-1163 Rameses V
-1164 Rameses V
-1165 Rameses IV/
Rameses V
-1166
II Phaophi
9
Rameses IV
-1167 Rameses IV
-1168 Rameses IV
-1169 Rameses IV
-1170
II Phaophi
8
Rameses IV
-1171 Rameses III/
Rameses IV
-1172 Rameses III
-1173 Rameses III
-1174
II Phaophi
7
Rameses III
-1175 Rameses III
-1176 Rameses III
-1177 Rameses III
-1178
II Phaophi
6
Rameses III
-1179 Rameses III
-1180 Rameses III
-1181 Rameses III
-1182
II Phaophi
5
Rameses III
-1183 Rameses III
-1184 Rameses III
-1185 Rameses III
-1186
II Phaophi
4
Rameses III
-1187 Rameses III
-1188 Rameses III
-1189 Rameses III
-1190
II Phaophi
3
Rameses III
-1191 Rameses III
-1192 Rameses III
-1193 Rameses III
-1194
II Phaophi
2
Rameses III
-1195 Rameses III 8
-1196 Rameses III
-1197 Rameses III
-1198
II Phaophi
1
Rameses III
-1199 Rameses III
-1200 Rameses III
-1201 Rameses III
Year
CE
Sothic
date Pharaoh
-1202
I Thoth 30
Sethnakht/
Rameses III
-1203 Sethnakht
-1204 Tausret/
Sethnakht
-1205 Tausret
-1206
I Thoth 29
Saptah/Tausret
-1207 Saptah
-1208 Saptah
-1209 Saptah
-1210
I Thoth 28
Saptah
-1211 Saptah
-1212 Sety II/Saptah
-1213 Sety II
-1214
I Thoth 27
Sety II
-1215 Sety II
-1216 Sety II
-1217 Sety II
-1218
I Thoth 26
Amenmessu/
Sety II
-1219 Amenmessu
-1220 Amenmessu
-1221 Merenptah/
Amenmessu
-1222
I Thoth 25
Merenptah
-1223 Merenptah
-1224 Merenptah
-1225 Merenptah
-1226
I Thoth 24
Merenptah
-1227 Merenptah
-1228 Merenptah
-1229 Merenptah
-1230
I Thoth 23
Merenptah
-1231 Rameses II/
Merenptah
-1232 Rameses II
-1233 Rameses II
-1234
I Thoth 22
Rameses II
-1235 Rameses II
-1236 Rameses II
-1237 Rameses II
-1238
I Thoth 21
Rameses II 60
-1239 Rameses II
-1240 Rameses II
-1241 Rameses II
-1242
I Thoth 20
Rameses II
-1243 Rameses II
-1244 Rameses II
-1245 Rameses II
-1246
I Thoth 19
Rameses II
-1247 Rameses II
-1248 Rameses II 50
-1249 Rameses II
-1250
I Thoth 18
Rameses II
-1251 Rameses II
-1252 Rameses II
-1253 Rameses II
-1254
I Thoth 17
Rameses II
-1255 Rameses II
-1256 Rameses II 42
-1257 Rameses II 41
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 16 of 17
Year
CE
Sothic
date Pharaoh
-1258
I Thoth 16
Rameses II 40
-1259 Rameses II 39
-1260 Rameses II 38
-1261 Rameses II 37
-1262
I Thoth 15
Rameses II 36
-1263 Rameses II 35
-1264 Rameses II 34
-1265 Rameses II 33
-1266
I Thoth 14
Rameses II 32
-1267 Rameses II 31
-1268 Rameses II 30
-1269 Rameses II
-1270
I Thoth 13
Rameses II
-1271 Rameses II
-1272 Rameses II
-1273 Rameses II
-1274
I Thoth 12
Rameses II
-1275 Rameses II
-1276 Rameses II
-1277 Rameses II
-1278
I Thoth 11
Rameses II 20
-1279 Rameses II
-1280 Rameses II
-1281 Rameses II
-1282
I Thoth 10
Rameses II
-1283 Rameses II
-1284 Rameses II
-1285 Rameses II
-1286
I Thoth 9
Rameses II
-1287 Rameses II
-1288 Rameses II 10
-1289 Rameses II
-1290
I Thoth 8
Rameses II
-1291 Rameses II
-1292 Rameses II
-1293 Rameses II
-1294
I Thoth 7
Rameses II
-1295 Rameses II
-1296 Rameses II
-1297 Sety I/
Rameses II 1
-1298
I Thoth 6
Sety I
-1299 Sety I
-1300 Sety I
-1301 Sety I
-1302
I Thoth 5
Sety I
-1303 Sety I
-1304 Sety I
-1305 Sety I
-1306
I Thoth 4
Sety I
-1307 Sety I
-1308 Sety I
-1309 Sety I
-1310
I Thoth 3
Sety I
-1311 Sety I
-1312 Rameses I/ Sety I
-1313 Horemheb/
Rameses I
-1314
I Thoth 2
Horemheb
-1315 Horemheb
-1316 Horemheb
-1317 Horemheb
-1318
I Thoth 1
Horemheb
-1319 Horemheb
-1320 Horemheb
-1321 Horemheb
-1322
Hryw Rnpt
5
Horemheb
-1323 Horemheb
-1324 Horemheb
-1325 Horemheb
Year
CE
Sothic
date Pharaoh
-1326
Hryw Rnpt
4
Horemheb
-1327 Horemheb
-1328 Horemheb
-1329 Horemheb
-1330
Hryw Rnpt
3
Horemheb
-1331 Horemheb
-1332 Horemheb
-1333 Horemheb
-1334
Hryw Rnpt
2
Horemheb
-1335 Horemheb
-1336 Horemheb
-1337 Horemheb
-1338
Hryw Rnpt
1
Horemheb
-1339 Horemheb
-1340 Horemheb
-1341 Ay/Horemheb
-1342
XII Mesore
30
Ay
-1343 Ay
-1344 Ay
-1345 Tutankhamun/ Ay
-1346
XII Mesore
29
Tutankhamun
-1347 Tutankhamun
-1348 Tutankhamun
-1349 Tutankhamun
-1350
XII Mesore
28
Tutankhamun
-1351 Tutankhamun
-1352 Tutankhamun
-1353 Tutankhamun
-1354
XII Mesore
27
Akhenaten/
Neferneferuaten
/Tutankhamun
-1355 Akhenaten/
Neferneferuaten
-1356 Akhenaten/
Neferneferuaten
-1357 Akhenaten
-1358
XII Mesore
26
Akhenaten
-1359 Akhenaten
-1360 Akhenaten
-1361 Akhenaten
-1362
XII Mesore
25
Akhenaten
-1363 Akhenaten
-1364 Akhenaten
-1365 Akhenaten
-1366
XII Mesore
24
Akhenaten
-1367 Akhenaten
-1368 Akhenaten
-1369 Akhenaten
-1370
XII Mesore
23
Amenhotep III/
Akhenaten
-1371 Amenhotep III
-1372 Amenhotep III
-1373 Amenhotep III
-1374
XII Mesore
22
Amenhotep III
-1375 Amenhotep III
-1376 Amenhotep III
-1377 Amenhotep III
-1378
XII Mesore
21
Amenhotep III
-1379 Amenhotep III
-1380 Amenhotep III
-1381 Amenhotep III
-1382
XII Mesore
20
Amenhotep III
-1383 Amenhotep III
-1384 Amenhotep III
-1385 Amenhotep III
-1386
XII Mesore
19
Amenhotep III
-1387 Amenhotep III
-1388 Amenhotep III
-1389 Amenhotep III
-1390
XII Mesore
18
Amenhotep III
-1391 Amenhotep III
-1392 Amenhotep III
-1393 Amenhotep III
Year
CE
Sothic
date Pharaoh
-1394
XII Mesore
17
Amenhotep III
-1395 Amenhotep III
-1396 Amenhotep III
-1397 Amenhotep III
-1398
XII Mesore
16
Amenhotep III
-1399 Amenhotep III
-1400 Amenhotep III
-1401 Amenhotep III
-1402
XII Mesore
15
Amenhotep III
-1403 Amenhotep III
-1404 Amenhotep III
-1405 Amenhotep III
-1406
XII Mesore
14
Amenhotep III
-1407 Amenhotep III
-1408 Thutmose IV/
Amenhotep III
-1409 Thutmose IV
-1410
XII Mesore
13
Thutmose IV
-1411 Thutmose IV
-1412 Thutmose IV
-1413 Thutmose IV
-1414
XII Mesore
12
Thutmose IV
-1415 Thutmose IV
-1416 Thutmose IV
-1417 Thutmose IV
-1418
XII Mesore
11
Amenhotep II/
Thutmose IV
-1419 Amenhotep II
-1420 Amenhotep II
-1421 Amenhotep II
-1422
XII Mesore
10
Amenhotep II
-1423 Amenhotep II
-1424 Amenhotep II
-1425 Amenhotep II
-1426
XII Mesore
9
Amenhotep II
-1427 Amenhotep II
-1428 Amenhotep II
-1429 Amenhotep II
-1430
XII Mesore
8
Amenhotep II
-1431 Amenhotep II
-1432 Amenhotep II
-1433 Amenhotep II
-1434
XII Mesore
7
Amenhotep II
-1435 Amenhotep II
-1436 Amenhotep II
-1437 Amenhotep II
-1438
XII Mesore
6
Amenhotep II
-1439 Amenhotep II
-1440 Amenhotep II
-1441 Amenhotep II
-1442
XII Mesore
5
Amenhotep II
-1443 Thutmose
III/Amenhotep II
-1444 Thutmose
III/Amenhotep II
-1445 Thutmose
III/Amenhotep II
-1446
XII Mesore
4
Thutmose III
-1447 Thutmose III
-1448 Thutmose III
-1449 Thutmose III
-1450
XII Mesore
3
Thutmose III
-1451 Thutmose III
-1452 Thutmose III
-1453 Thutmose III
-1454
XII Mesore
2
Thutmose III
-1455 Thutmose III
-1456 Thutmose III
-1457 Thutmose III
-1458
XII Mesore
1
Thutmose III
-1459 Thutmose III
-1460 Thutmose III
-1461 Thutmose III
Dating New Kingdom - New Moon, draft, 2020-05-10, Page 17 of 17
Year
CE
Sothic
date Pharaoh
-1462
XI Epiphi
30
Thutmose III 36
-1463 Thutmose III
-1464 Thutmose III
-1465 Thutmose III
-1466
XI Epiphi
29
Thutmose III
-1467 Thutmose III
-1468 Thutmose III 30
-1469 Thutmose III 29
-1470
XI Epiphi
28
Thutmose III 28
-1471 Thutmose III 27
-1472 Thutmose III 26
-1473 Thutmose III 25
-1474
XI Epiphi
27
Thutmose III 24
-1475 Thutmose III 23
-1476 Thutmose III/
Hatshepsut
-1477 Thutmose III/
Hatshepsut
-1478
XI Epiphi
26
Thutmose III 20/
Hatshepsut 20
-1479 Thutmose III/
Hatshepsut
-1480 Thutmose III/
Hatshepsut
-1481 Thutmose III/
Hatshepsut
-1482
XI Epiphi
25
Thutmose III/
Hatshepsut
-1483 Thutmose III/
Hatshepsut
-1484 Thutmose III/
Hatshepsut
-1485 Thutmose III/
Hatshepsut
-1486
XI Epiphi
24
Thutmose III/
Hatshepsut
-1487 Thutmose III/
Hatshepsut
-1488 Thutmose III 10/
Hatshepsut 4
-1489 Thutmose III 9/
Hatshepsut 3
-1490
XI Epiphi
23
Thutmose III 8/
Hatshepsut 2
-1491 Thutmose III 7/
Hatshepsut 1
-1492 Thutmose III 6
-1493 Thutmose III 5
-1494
XI Epiphi
22
Thutmose III 4
-1495 Thutmose III 3
-1496 Thutmose III 2
-1497 Thutmose II/
Thutmose III 1
-1498
XI Epiphi
21
Thutmose II
-1499 Thutmose II
-1500 Thutmose II
-1501 Thutmose II
-1502
XI Epiphi
20
Thutmose II
-1503 Thutmose II
-1504 Thutmose II
-1505 Thutmose II
-1506
XI Epiphi
19
Thutmose II
-1507 Thutmose II
-1508 Thutmose II
-1509 Thutmose II
-1510
XI Epiphi
18
Thutmose I/
Thutmose II
-1511 Thutmose I
-1512 Thutmose I
-1513 Thutmose I
-1514
XI Epiphi
17
Thutmose I
-1515 Thutmose I
-1516 Thutmose I
-1517 Thutmose I
Year
CE
Sothic
date Pharaoh
-1518
XI Epiphi
16
Thutmose I
-1519 Thutmose I
-1520 Thutmose I
-1521 Thutmose I
-1522
XI Epiphi
15
Amenhotep I/
Thutmose I
-1523 Amenhotep I
-1524 Amenhotep I
-1525 Amenhotep I
-1526
XI Epiphi
14
Amenhotep I
-1527 Amenhotep I
-1528 Amenhotep I
-1529 Amenhotep I
-1530
XI Epiphi
13
Amenhotep I
-1531 Amenhotep I
-1532 Amenhotep I
-1533 Amenhotep I
-1534
XI Epiphi
12
Amenhotep I
-1535 Amenhotep I 9
-1536 Amenhotep I 8
-1537 Amenhotep I 7
-1538
XI Epiphi
11
Amenhotep I 6
-1539 Amenhotep I 5
-1540 Amenhotep I 4
-1541 Amenhotep I 3
-1542
XI Epiphi
10
Amenhotep I 2
-1543 Ahmose/
Amenhotep I 1
-1544 Ahmose
-1545 Ahmose
-1546
XI Epiphi 9
Ahmose
-1547 Ahmose
-1548 Ahmose
-1549 Ahmose
-1550
XI Epiphi 8
Ahmose
-1551 Ahmose
-1552 Ahmose
-1553 Ahmose
-1554
XI Epiphi 7
Ahmose
-1555 Ahmose
-1556 Ahmose
-1557 Ahmose
-1558
XI Epiphi 6
Ahmose
-1559 Ahmose
-1560 Ahmose
-1561 Ahmose
-1562
XI Epiphi 5
Ahmose
-1563 Ahmose
-1564 Ahmose
-1565 Ahmose
-1566
XI Epiphi 4
Ahmose
-1567 Ahmose
-1568 Ahmose
-1569
Preprint
Full-text available
The rock-cut Great Temple at Abu Simbel in Nubia built by Rameses II has been associated with the royal jubilee of the pharaoh. Based on our proposed accession year-1297, we can demonstrate that the first few jubilees of the king would have been celebrated when the traditional civil date for the festival (V Tybi 1) coincided with the climax of the autumnal lightshow at Abu Simbel. We regard this coincidence as a proof that we indeed have identified the absolute (astronomical) year for Rameses II's accession.
Article
Full-text available
The curves recommended for calibrating radiocarbon ( ¹⁴ C) dates into absolute dates have been updated. For calibrating atmospheric samples from the Northern Hemisphere, the new curve is called IntCal20. This is accompanied by associated curves SHCal20 for the Southern Hemisphere, and Marine20 for marine samples. In this “companion article” we discuss advances and developments that have led to improvements in the updated curves and highlight some issues of relevance for the general readership. In particular the dendrochronological based part of the curve has seen a significant increase in data, with single-year resolution for certain time ranges, extending back to 13,910 calBP. Beyond the tree rings, the new curve is based upon an updated combination of marine corals, speleothems, macrofossils, and varved sediments and now reaches back to 55,000 calBP. Alongside these data advances, we have developed a new, bespoke statistical curve construction methodology to allow better incorporation of the diverse constituent records and produce a more robust curve with uncertainties. Combined, these data and methodological advances offer the potential for significant new insight into our past. We discuss some implications for the user, such as the dating of the Santorini eruption and also some consequences of the new curve for Paleolithic archaeology.
Article
Full-text available
A single Northern Hemisphere calibration curve has formed the basis of radiocarbon dating in Europe and the Mediterranean for five decades, setting the time frame for prehistory. However, as measurement precision increases, there is mounting evidence for some small but substantive regional (partly growing season) offsets in same-year radiocarbon levels. Controlling for interlaboratory variation, we compare radiocarbon data from Europe and the Mediterranean in the second to earlier first millennia BCE. Consistent with recent findings in the second millennium CE, these data suggest that some small, but critical, periods of variation for Mediterranean radiocarbon levels exist, especially associated with major reversals or plateaus in the atmospheric radiocarbon record. At high precision, these variations potentially affect calendar dates for prehistory by up to a few decades, including, for example, Egyptian history and the much-debated Thera/Santorini volcanic eruption.
Preprint
Full-text available
In this article we take a closer look at the Egyptian civil calendar and its primary sources to see if this provides useful understanding for the Egyptian chronology. Scientific dates for e.g. the Egyptian New Kingdom do still not comply fully with the historical consensus chronology in force. This might be due to the lingering use of outdated scientific parameters, perhaps because of historical bias at Egypt's transition from sovereign kingdom to Roman province.
Article
Full-text available
The mid-second millennium BCE eruption of Thera (Santorini) offers a critically important marker horizon to synchronize archaeological chronologies of the Aegean, Egypt, and the Near East and to anchor paleoenvironmental records from ice cores, speleothems, and lake sediments. Precise and accurate dating for the event has been the subject of many decades of research. Using calendar-dated tree rings, we created an annual resolution radiocarbon time series 1700–1500 BCE to validate, improve, or more clearly define the limitations for radiocarbon calibration of materials from key eruption contexts. Results show an offset from the international radiocarbon calibration curve, which indicates a shift in the calibrated age range for Thera toward the 16th century BCE. This finding sheds new light on the long-running debate focused on a discrepancy between radiocarbon (late 17th–early 16th century BCE) and archaeological (mid 16th–early 15th century BCE) dating evidence for Thera.
Article
Full-text available
Since the AD 775 and AD 994 Δ ¹⁴ C peak (henceforth M12) was first measured by Miyake et al. (2012, 2013), several possible production mechanisms for these spike have been suggested, but the work of Mekhaldi et al. (2015) shows that a very soft energy spectrum was involved, implying that a strong solar energetic particle (SEP) event (or series of events) was responsible. Here we present Δ ¹⁴ C values from AD 721–820 Sequoiadendron giganteum annual tree-ring samples from Sequoia National Park in California, USA, together with Δ ¹⁴ C in German oak from 650–670 BC. The AD 721–820 measurements confirm that a sharp Δ ¹⁴ C peak exists at AD 775, with a peak height of approximately 15‰ and show that this spike was preceded by several decades of rapidly decreasing Δ ¹⁴ C. A sharp peak is also present at 660 BC, with a peak height of about 10‰, and published data (Reimer et al. 2013) indicate that it too was preceded by a multi-decadal Δ ¹⁴ C decrease, suggesting that solar activity was very strong just prior to both Δ ¹⁴ C peaks and may be causally related. During periods of strong solar activity there is increased probability for coronal mass ejection (CME) events that can subject the Earth’s atmosphere to high fluencies of solar energetic particles (SEPs). Periods of high solar activity (such as one in October–November 2003) can also often include many large, fast CMEs increasing the probability of geomagnetic storms. In this paper we suggest that the combination of large SEP events and elevated geomagnetic activity can lead to enhanced production of ¹⁴ C and other cosmogenic isotopes by increasing the area of the atmosphere that is irradiated by high solar energetic particles.
Working Paper
Full-text available
Cosmic abrupt radionuclide enrichment events provide a new exciting possibility for the exact dating and synchronization of organic samples or annually resolved sequences of organic samples using 14C measurement. Ice cores can be synchronized to the same events using 10Be measurement instead. The two globally assured events in 775 and 994 have already proved the worth of this concept. We propose that a third event has been spotted between -2467 and -2465 in bristlecone pine, perhaps together with another event ten years later between -2457 and -2455. By detecting that double-event in wood from the Belfast Long chronology it would be possible to once and for all time determine a definitive date for this European key oak chronology. We also propose that Belfast Long has to be dated eight years earlier than conventionally assumed. This small offset would have far-reaching consequences for the internal linkage of the entire Belfast chronology, and moderate consequences for the radiocarbon calibration curve.
Research
Full-text available
The Minoan eruption of the Thera (Santorini) volcano provides an archaeological key marker for the Bronze Age chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean civilizations. However, the exact date for this large eruption is still unknown. Based on published tree ring and ice core chronologies, we investigate the candidates for major volcano eruptions in the middle of the second millennium BC. This is our contribution to the Thera debate.
Research
Full-text available
Based on published and otherwise available tree-ring data, we have analyzed the dendrochronological support for the current dating of Roman activities in western Europe. Manuscript rejected by Tree-Ring Research, details of peer review see: www.cybis.se/dendro
Article
As part of the ongoing effort to improve the Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon ( ¹⁴ C) calibration curve, this study investigates the period of 856 BC to 626 BC (2805–2575 yr BP) with a total of 403 single-year ¹⁴ C measurements. In this age range, IntCal13 was constructed largely from German and Irish oak as well as Californian bristlecone pine ¹⁴ C dates, with most samples measured with a 10-yr resolution. The new data presented here is the first atmospheric ¹⁴ C single-year record of the older end of the Hallstatt plateau based on an absolutely dated tree-ring chronology. The data helped reveal a major solar proton event (SPE) which caused a spike in the production rate of cosmogenic radionuclides around 2610/2609 BP. This production event is thought to have reached a magnitude similar to the 774/775 AD production event but has remained undetected due to averaging effects in the decadal calibration data. The record leading up to the 2610/2609 BP event reveals a 11-yr solar cycle with varying cyclicity. Features of the new data and the benefits of higher resolution calibration are discussed.