https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7463-6034
Figures
Abstract
The unrivaled millennia-long historical chronology of ancient Egypt forms the backbone for archaeological synchronization across the entire Eastern Mediterranean region c. 3000-1000 BCE. However, for more than a century, scholars have wrangled over the correct calendrical positioning of this record, with older scenarios being referred to as ‘High’, and younger ones, ‘Low’ chronologies. Offsets between the two can be as great as a century, substantially confusing connections with other civilizations of the time. Here, we settle this debate for two major periods of political unity in ancient Egypt, the Old Kingdom (the Pyramid Age), and the Middle Kingdom. We introduce 48 high-precision radiocarbon dates obtained through rare access to museum collections as well as freshly excavated samples. By combining these new results with legacy radiocarbon data and with text records for reign lengths of kings within a Bayesian statistical framework, we show that the Low Chronology is no longer empirically supported for the Old and Middle Kingdoms, and resolve a long-standing historical schism.
Citation: Erdil P, Webster L, Kuitems M, Knoblauch C, Bestock L, Höflmayer F, et al. (2025) Resolution of the High versus Low debate for Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt. PLoS One 20(5): e0314612. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314612
Editor: Sandra Lösch, University of Bern, Institute of Forensic Medicine, SWITZERLAND
Received: September 13, 2024; Accepted: November 14, 2024; Published: May 28, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Erdil et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The radiocarbon analyses and project members at the University of Groningen were funded by the European Research Council project, ECHOES (Grant No. 714679). The radiocarbon analyses at the University of Oxford were funded by M.W. Dee’s Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship (ECF-2012-123). The first author was also supported by the Dutch Research Council (NWO, grant number PGW.21.013). The samples were obtained from Uronarti, Sudan by in the framework of the project, “Tracing Transformations” funded by the Austrian Science Fund (START-project Y 932-G25). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Being one of the most enduring of the early civilizations, establishing a reliable chronology for Egypt has been a major goal for historians. A unified chronology would not only be advantageous for dating events in Egypt itself, but also for resolving cause and effect relationships in political and cultural interactions across the wider region [1–3]. Specifically, the Old Kingdom (OK, c. mid-late 3rd millennium BCE, the ‘Pyramid Age’) and Middle Kingdom (MK, c. late 3rd/early 2nd millennium BCE) periods provide the key pillar for placing and linking the chronology of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in the ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean [4–8]. Many attempts have been made to create a robust and coherent timeline for this region [9–13]. Often the Minoan eruption of Thera (Santorini) has been used as a universal time marker, due to its impact on Greece, Anatolia and the wider Eastern Mediterranean; however, the absolute date of the eruption itself remains highly controversial [14–20].
Currently, most Egyptian history is underpinned by astronomical data, king-lists, and other official records on papyri and stone [21], which are open to multiple interpretations and have led to chronological ambiguity. The astronomical data include records of the rising of stars, lunar events, and various other celestial phenomena [22–27]. Amongst these, the most important are the so-called Sothic records, which describe the heliacal rising of the star Sirius (Egyptian Sopdet; Greek Sothis). This event marked the first day of the ancient Egyptian civil calendar [1,28]. Sothic dates are, on rare occasions, recorded alongside the regnal year of the contemporary Egyptian king, making these documents invaluable to chronological research. One of the earliest Sothic records comes from the Illahun Papyrus assigned to Year 7 of king Senusret III of the MK, a ruler known for military expeditions to Nubia and the Levant [1,25,27–32]. Different calendrical dates have been proposed for this document. For instance, Parker [22] calculated that this observation took place in 1872 BCE, thereby anchoring Senusret III’s reign and the long contiguous MK sequence precisely in time. This positioning has become known as the High Chronology. The same record was later dated by Krauss [33] to 1830 BCE using a different interpretation of where the observation was made. In combination with generally shorter reign lengths, this younger (lower) position of the Sothic date is pivotal to the Low Chronology. The correctness of these two alternatives, High and Low, has been actively debated for more than a century [1,26,29,30,34,35].
A similar dilemma exists for the OK, but here the chronology remains truly floating in time. The main reason is that no reliable Sothic records are available from the OK, although other astronomical linkages have been attempted [27,36]. Some scholars have argued for the possibility of Sothic-dated stone vessels from Dynasty V (OK); although these interpretations also remain speculative and open to debate [26,37].
Radiocarbon (14C) dating has been applied to ancient Egyptian history ever since the development of the method [38] and it continues to contribute to understanding of the civilization. Examples include the results obtained on the coffin of the famous king Tutankhamun and the funerary boat of king Khufu adjacent to the Great Pyramid of Giza [39–41]. However, some of these early studies produced results which diverged from historical expectations by hundreds of years. These offsets were caused by a variety of reasons, such as differences between the inherent and historical age of specific items (so-called inbuilt age), insufficient removal of contaminants, or ambiguity in the archaeological attributions [42]. The resolution of many of these discrepancies was important to the establishment of 14C dating as the pre-eminent tool in chronological research.
The most significant application thus far of 14C dating and Bayesian modeling to ancient Egypt was published by Bronk Ramsey et al. [43]. Their study utilized 211 14C dates from a wide range of Egyptian contexts linked with specific kings, and, combined with text data on the reign-lengths of these rulers, resulted in a science-based absolute chronology. While this analysis accurately positioned the New Kingdom (NK, c. mid-late 2nd millennium), a conclusive result for the OK and MK was not achieved, mainly due to the limited amount of relevant sample material available for these periods. For example, an almost equivalent probability was still allocated to both High and Low Chronologies for many royal accession dates of the MK. The situation for the OK was even more unsatisfactory, with the position of this 500-year contiguous sequence defined only by 17 14C dates. Consequently, several key chronological debates relating to the OK and MK remained unresolved.
Since this time, there have been significant developments in the field of 14C dating. First, a new iteration of the Northern Hemisphere calibration curve, the mathematical function used to convert raw 14C data into calendar time ranges, has recently been released that offers higher accuracy and precision than ever before (IntCal20) [44]. This update includes additional reference data over the mid-2nd millennium BCE, which especially enables the MK period to be studied at higher resolution. A further refinement concerns a regional offset to the calibration curve proposed for ancient Egyptian materials [45]. This small-scale discrepancy, often known as the ‘seasonal effect’, was attributed to a local growing season or latitudinal effect, perhaps modulated by changing climatic regimes [46]. Its magnitude was initially estimated to be 19 ± 5 14C yr BP, a figure obtained by comparing a dataset of known-age annual samples that were in the inundation zone of the Nile with the IntCal04 curve [45]. However, recent analyses against IntCal20 have revised it down to 12 ± 5 14C yr BP [47].
In our study, 160 14C dates (48 new and 112 previously published) are employed in a new suite of Bayesian chronological models for the OK and MK in order to produce the most substantive science-based chronology ever compiled for these two periods. Our results indicate that, for the first time, we can define a single coherent position for this pivotal historical sequence.
Materials and methods
New samples for 14C dating were collected from secure ancient Egyptian contexts relating to OK and early (Dynasty XII) MK periods. For the OK, permissions were gained to sample short-lived organic materials with known archaeological provenance from the collections of the Natural History Museum, London; the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, London; World Museum, Liverpool; and Cambridge University (listed in Table 1). The samples were pretreated using the routine procedures of [52] and dated at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) (see S1 File).
For MK, short-lived plants and tree rings from two timber beams (acacia, Vachellia tortilis, FK-001-01 and FJ-001-04) were sampled from the fortress of Uronarti, Sudan. The samples were obtained by the Uronarti Regional Archaeological Project (URAP) with the official permission and collaboration of the National Corporation of Antiquities and Museums, Sudan. The new excavations have confirmed that the construction of the fortress took place during the reign of Senusret III [53]. The short-lived organic materials on the site have a clear stratigraphic sequence which includes the materials from the earliest wall structures and foundation layers for the construction of the fortress (Unit FA) as well as subsequent occupation layers (Unit FI) [53] (see Table 2).
Additional care was taken to sample the timber beams from the base (primary) levels of the fortress (S1 Fig). As far as the archaeological evidence suggests, there was no reconstruction of the main fortification walls of the fortress, which were the first features to be built [53]. It is thus reasonable to assume that the wood beams date to the original construction of the fortress. The details of the Uronarti specimens are listed in Tables 2 and 3 and further discussed in S1 File.
Tree rings were subjected to the α-cellulose extraction protocol, whereas the short-lived samples were pretreated using routine holocellulose extraction protocol [54]. These samples were graphitized and measured by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) at the Centre for Isotope Research (CIO), Groningen. The resulting 14C ages are incorporated into revised Bayesian models for the OK and MK using the OxCal software [55,56] version 4.4 with IntCal20 [44].
All necessary permits were obtained for all the new samples mentioned above, which complied with all relevant regulations. Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information (S2 File, Checklist).
Results
The new 14C results and their calibrated date ranges are listed in Tables 1-3. One measurement from the OK dataset turned out to be modern and was excluded from the remainder of the analysis, and one sample from the MK data set failed due to a low carbon yield. Three samples were pretreated and measured in duplicate and showed excellent agreement (GrM-22708 and GrM-22709, χ2 = 0.01 versus 3.8, df = 1; GrM-24031 and GrM-24042, χ2 = 0.89 versus 3.8, df = 1; GrM-30071 and GrM-30094, χ2 = 0.18 versus 3.8, df = 1) [57].
A considerable proportion of our data set (including 37 new 14C dates) is associated with the pivotal reign of Senusret III. Many of these were individual tree rings from structural beams, recently excavated from this king’s fortress at Uronarti in Nubia (modern-day Sudan, see S1 File).
A collection of 18 Bayesian statistical models were produced for the OK and MK, taking into account several potential parameters such as multiple reign-length scenarios [4,21,25,26, 58, 59] and varying applications of a seasonal effect. The rationale for, and the link to, the codes for all these models can be found in the S1 File. A summary of key modeled dates is given in Table 4.
These models incorporate different reign length configurations by refs. Hornung et al. [21] (model P1), Kitchen [4] (model P2), Shaw [59] (model P3).Outputs of accession dates for individual OK and MK kings are given in the S2 and S3 Tables. All dates in BCE.
Discussion
The results we obtained for the OK were consistent with earlier 14C studies. Even though our chronological models are the most comprehensive ever constructed for this period (33 14C dates), our results act to reaffirm the High chronological estimates achieved previously (Fig 1) [43]. Indeed, the Low chronological position (blue vertical line in Fig 1) [21] is ruled out at 95% probability. A key strength of our data set is that it was distributed evenly across the OK, whereas previous models for the period were largely cantilevered out from Dynasty III and IV on the basis of reign-length estimates. Our results also continue to underscore the congruence between the 4.2 ka aridification event (c. 2250 BCE) and the political fragmentation that concluded the OK (instigating the First Intermediate Period, FIP) [60,61]. Some scholars contend that the centralized state was already irreparably damaged by the time this climatic downturn set in [62,63], but such adverse conditions would have compounded the challenges at hand.
(grey) (A) the start of the OK, (B) the start of the First Intermediate Period (FIP). The probability density functions shown represent 3 different OK models which incorporate different reign length interpretations: Hornung et al. [21] (blue), Kitchen [4] (green), Shaw [59] (red) with horizontal bars indicating the 95.4% range. Using the same color codes of reign length assumptions, the vertical lines demarcate the absolute dates for the start of the OK and FIP from each of these historical chronologies, where available (the Hornung et al. [21] estimate lies off the scale ~ 2118 BCE).
Unlike all previous studies, our MK models (comprising 127 14C dates) are able to distinguish between the High and Low chronological scenarios. Irrespective of the reign-length configuration employed, the models exclusively support the High chronological positions. Our estimates for the beginning and end of the MK are of unprecedented precision, with the latter juncture shifted several decades earlier than many previous estimations (Fig 2). Specifically, we highlight our results for the accession date of king Senusret III on Fig 3. It was during his reign that the decisive Sothic observation was documented. Confirming the early 19th century BCE age of this tie-point is not only crucial to the MK but to the dating of other events of the ancient Near East and Eastern Mediterranean. In fact, our results for the accession dates of most MK rulers peak 10-15 years earlier than even most High Chronology estimates. This pattern is evident with or without the application of the seasonal offset (S2 Fig). In short, our results align the entire MK sequence with the High Chronology and provide no empirical support for the Low chronological positioning. The resolution of this important timeline raises the prospect of a more coherent and integrated approach to studying this defining region of the ancient past.
(grey) (A) the start of the MK (B) the end of the MK. The probability density functions shown represent 3 different MK models which incorporate different reign length interpretations: Hornung et al. [21] (blue), Kitchen [4] (green), Shaw [59] (red) with horizontal bars indicating the 95.4% range. Using the same color codes of reign length assumptions, the vertical lines demarcate the absolute dates for the start and end of MK from each of these historical chronologies, where available.
[43] (grey) calibrated using IntCal20. The probability density functions shown represent 4 different MK models which incorporate different reign length interpretations: Hornung et al. [21] (blue), Kitchen [4] (green), Shaw [59] (red) and Gautschy [25] (two options, magenta) with horizontal bars indicating the 95.4% range. Using the same color codes of reign length assumptions, the vertical lines demarcate the absolute dates for the start of the reign of Senusret III from each of these historical chronologies, where available.
Conclusions
As an essential tool in archaeological research, 14C dating has continuously contributed to our understanding of ancient Egyptian chronology and recent advancements in the field offer even greater insight. In particular, the increase in research on single tree rings has resulted in improved calibration curves and enabled ever finer resolution, which in turn are allowing us to resolve long-standing chronological debates.
In this paper, we present an updated chronology for the OK and MK. Our conclusions rely on the most recent data and assumptions, including the latest calibration records, reign orders and lengths. Because of the Bayesian approach taken, any major revisions to these sources of prior information would lead to alternative conclusions. Nonetheless, the results that we present here offer the most refined synthesis possible on the basis of existing data and methods.
In sum, our findings reaffirm earlier 14C-based studies for the OK, and rule out the Low Chronology for the MK. This offers more reliable synchronization with other contemporary ancient Near Eastern and Eastern Mediterranean civilizations.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Wooden support beams were found within the remains of the Uronarti fortress.
(A) A typical example of the adequate state of preservation of a wooden beam. (B) The size of the beams compared with the mudbrick work. (C) The red arrow indicates the location of a beam within the fortress wall. (Photos by Lyndelle Webster).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314612.s001
(PNG)
S2 Fig. The results for the accession date of king Senusret III from various MK models compared to Bronk Ramsey et al. [43] (grey) using IntCal20 without any seasonal effect applied.
The resulting probability density functions of 4 different MK models which incorporate different reign length interpretations: Hornung et al. [21] (blue), Kitchen [4] (green), Shaw [59] (red), Gautschy [25] (two options, magenta) with horizontal bars indicating the 95.4% range. Vertical lines indicate the traditional absolute dates for the accession of Senusret III, using the same colours for the respective reign length schemes.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314612.s002
(PNG)
S3 Fig. The results for Dynasty XII rulers from the MK P4 model.
95.4% probability ranges are shown. Traditional absolute dates for the rulers’ accession based on High [59] and Low [21] chronologies is shown for comparison as vertical bars (red and blue respectively). The probability density functions when the model is calibrated against IntCal20.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314612.s003
(PNG)
S1 Table. The Illahun papyri dated by Bronk Ramsey et al.
[43], and two published results on the Illahun Sothic Papyrus (OxA-23170 and OxA-23171) [32] listed stratigraphically. Our models incorporated the prior assumption that these documents could be regarded as forming a relative sequence in each reign, based on the inscribed regnal years.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314612.s004
(PDF)
S2 Table. The modelled 95% ranges for the OK rulers.
Models calibrated with IntCal20.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314612.s005
(PDF)
S3 Table. The modelled 95% ranges for the MK rulers.
Models calibrated with IntCal20.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314612.s006
(PDF)
S1 File. Supplementary text on materials and methods.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314612.s007
(DOCX)
S2 File. Inclusivity in global research checklist.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314612.s008
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Pieter Baas from Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden and the laboratory staff of the Centre for Isotope Research, Groningen. We also extend our gratitude to the following institutions who collaborated on this research: World Museum in Liverpool, Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology in London, University of Cambridge and Natural History Museum in London. We would also like to thank Dr. Judith Bunbury and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on an earlier version of this article.
References
- 1. Ward WA. The present status of Egyptian chronology. Bull Am Schools Orient Res. 1992;288:53–66.
- 2.
Shortland AJ. An introduction to Egyptian historical chronology. In: Shortland AJ, Bronk Ramsey C, editors. Radiocarbon and the chronologies of ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2013. pp. 37–50.
- 3.
Höflmayer F. Radiocarbon dating and Egyptian chronology—From the “Curve of Knowns” to Bayesian modeling. In: The Oxford handbook of topics in archaeology. Oxford: Oxford Academic; 2016.
- 4.
Kitchen KA. Regnal and genealogical data of ancient Egypt (absolute chronology I) the historical chronology of ancient Egypt, a current assessment. In: Bietak M, editor. The synchronisation of civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloss Haindorf, 15th-17th November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th-12th May 1998. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press; 2000. pp. 39–52.
- 5.
Bietak M, Höflmayer F. Introduction: High and low chronology. In: Bietak M, Czerny E, editors. The synchronisation of civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C. III. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press; 2007. pp. 13–23.
- 6. Höflmayer F, Cohen SL. Chronological conundrums: Egypt and the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant. JAEI. 2017;13:1–6.
- 7. Höflmayer F, Manning SW. A synchronized early Middle Bronze Age chronology for Egypt, the Levant, and Mesopotamia. J Near East Stud. 2022;81:1-24.
- 8.
Höflmayer F. Establishing an absolute chronology of the Middle Bronze Age. In: Radner K, Moeller N, Potts DT, editors. The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East, Volume II: From the end of the third millennium BC to the fall of Babylon. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2022.
- 9.
Bietak M, editor. The synchronisation of civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C. Proceedings of an International Symposium at Schloss Haindorf, 15th-17th November 1996 and at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 11th-12th May 1998. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press; 2000.
- 10.
Bietak M, editor. The synchronisation of civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C. II. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press; 2003.
- 11. Manning SW, Bronk Ramsey C, Kutschera W, Higham T, Kromer B, Steier P, et al. Chronology for the Aegean Late Bronze Age 1700-1400 B.C. Science. 2006;312:565–9.
- 12. Manning SW, Griggs CB, Lorentzen B, Barjamovic G, Ramsey CB, Kromer B, et al. Integrated tree-ring-radiocarbon high-resolution timeframe to resolve earlier second millennium BCE Mesopotamian chronology. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0157144. pmid:27409585
- 13.
Bietak M, Czerny E, editors. The synchronisation of civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium B.C. II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference, Vienna, 28th of May – 1st of June 2003.Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press; 2007.
- 14. Friedrich WL, Kromer B, Friedrich M, Heinemeier J, Pfeiffer T, Talamo S. Santorini eruption radiocarbon dated to 1627-1600 B.C. Science. 2006;312:548.
- 15. Manning SW, Höflmayer F, Moeller N, Dee MW, Bronk Ramsey C, Fleitmann D, et al. Dating the Thera (Santorini) eruption: archaeological and scientific evidence supporting a high chronology. Antiquity. 2014;88:1164–79.
- 16. Kutschera W. On the enigma of dating the Minoan eruption of Santorini. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(16):8677–9. pmid:32291333
- 17. Manning SW. Second Intermediate period date for the Thera (Santorini) eruption and historical implications. PLoS One. 2022;17(9): e0274835. pmid:36126026
- 18. Pearson C, Sigl M, Burke A, Davies S, Kurbatov A, Severi M, Cole-Dai J, Innes H, Albert PG, Helmick M. Geochemical ice-core constraints on the timing and climatic impact of Aniakchak II (1628 BCE) and Thera (Minoan) volcanic eruptions. PNAS Nexus. 2022;1.
- 19. Pearson C, Sbonias K, Tzachili I, Heaton TJ. Olive shrub buried on Therasia supports a mid-16th century BCE date for the Thera eruption. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):6994. pmid:37117199
- 20. Manning SW. Problems of dating spread on radiocarbon calibration curve plateaus: The 1620-1540 BC example and the dating of the Therasia olive shrub samples and Thera volcanic eruption. Radiocarbon. 2024;66:341–70.
- 21.
Hornung E, Krauss R, Warburton D, editors. Ancient Egyptian chronology. Brill; 2006.
- 22.
Parker RA. The calendars of ancient Egypt. University of Chicago Press; 1950.
- 23. Parker RA. Ancient Egyptian astronomy. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A. 1974;276: 51–65.
- 24.
Krauss R, Warburton DA. The basis for the Egyptian dates. In: Warburton DA, editor. Time’s up! Dating the Minoan eruption of Santorini: acts of the Minoan Eruption Chronology Workshop, Sandbjerg November 2007. Aarhus University Press; 2007. pp. 125–44.
- 25.
Gautschy R. Lunar and Sothic data from the archive of el-Lahun revisited: chronology of the Middle Kingdom. In: Horn M, et al., editors. Current research in Egyptology 2010 proceedings of the eleventh annual symposium. Oxbow Books; 2011. pp. 53–61.
- 26. Gautschy R. A new astronomically based chronological model for the Egyptian Old Kingdom. J Egypt Hist. 2017;10: 69–108.
- 27.
Spalinger A. Feasts and fights: Essays on Time in Ancient Egypt. Yale Egyptological Institute; 2018.
- 28.
de Jong T. The heliacal rising of Sirius. In: Hornung E, Krauss R, Warburton D, editors. Ancient Egyptian chronology. Brill; 2006. pp. 432-438.
- 29. Borchardt L. Der zweite Papyrusfund von Kahun und die zeitliche Festlegung des mittleren Reiches der ägyptischen Geschichte. Z Ägyptische Sprache Altertumskunde. 1899;37: 89–103.
- 30. Kitchen KA. The chronology of ancient Egypt. World Archaeology. 1991;23: 201–8.
- 31. Schneider T. Das Ende der kurzen Chronologie: eine kritische Bilanz der Debatte zur absoluten Datierung des Mittleren Reiches und der Zweiten Zwischenzeit. Egypt and the Levant. 2008;18: 275–313.
- 32. Marcus E, Dee MW, Bronk Ramsey C, Higham T, Shortland A. Radiocarbon verification of the earliest astro-chronological datum. Radiocarbon. 2016;58:735–9.
- 33. Krauss R. Sothis- und Monddaten. Studien zur astronomischen und technischen Chronologie Altägyptens. Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge; 1985.
- 34. Krauss R. Late Old Kingdom chronology–another model. Egypt and the Levant. 2021;31:293–300.
- 35.
Belmonte JA, José J. Astronomy and chronology. In: Belmonte JA, editor. Astronomy of ancient Egypt: a cultural perspective. Springer; 2023. pp. 467–529.
- 36. Spence K. Ancient Egyptian chronology and the astronomical orientation of pyramids. Nature. 2000;408(6810):320–4. pmid:11099032
- 37. Habicht ME, Gautschy R, Siegmann R, Rutica D, Hannig R. A new Sothis rise on a small cylindrical jar from the Old Kingdom. Göttinger Miszellen. 2015;247: 41–50.
- 38. Arnold JR, Libby WF. Age determinations by radiocarbon content; checks with samples of known age. Science. 1949;110(2869):678–80. pmid:15407879
- 39. Stuckenrath R, Ralph EK. University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates VIII. Radiocarbon. 1965;7:187–99.
- 40. Nakhla SM, Mohammed FM. Cairo natural radiocarbon measurements I. Radiocarbon. 1974;16:1–5.
- 41. Derricourt RM. Radiocarbon chronology for Egypt and North Africa. J Near East Stud. 1971;30: 271–92.
- 42. Dee MW, Rowland JM, Higham TF, Shortland AJ, Brock F, Harris SA. Synchronising radiocarbon dating and the Egyptian historical chronology by improved sample selection. Antiquity. 2012;86:868–83.
- 43. Bronk Ramsey C, Dee MW, Rowland JM, Higham TF, Harris SA, Brock F, et al. Radiocarbon-based chronology for Dynastic Egypt. Science. 2010;328:1554–7.
- 44. Reimer PJ, Austin WE, Bard E, Bayliss A, Blackwell PG, Bronk Ramsey C, et al. The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon. 2020;62:725–57.
- 45. Dee MW, Brock F, Harris SA, Bronk Ramsey C, Shortland AJ, Higham TF, Rowland JM. Investigating the likelihood of a reservoir offset in the radiocarbon record for ancient Egypt. J Archaeol Sci. 2010;37:687–93.
- 46. Manning SW, Dee MW, Wild EM, Bronk Ramsey C, Bandy K, Creasman PP, et al. High-precision dendro-14C dating of two cedar wood sequences from First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom Egypt and a small regional climate-related 14C divergence. J Archaeol Sci. 2014;46:401–16.
- 47. Manning SW, Wacker L, Büntgen U, Bronk Ramsey C, Dee MW, Kromer B, et al. Radiocarbon offsets and old world chronology as relevant to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia and Thera (Santorini). Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):13785. pmid:32807792
- 48. Petrie WMF. Deshasheh 1897: fifteenth memoir of the Egyptian Exploration Fund. Egypt Exploration Fund; 1898.
- 49.
Posener-Kriéger P, de Cenival JL, editors. Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum; 1968.
- 50. Leonard W, Loat S. A sixth dynasty cemetery at Abydos. J Egypt Archaeol. 1923;9:161–3.
- 51.
Yamamoto K. A late Old Kingdom burial assemblage from Abydos: tomb F109, excavated by the EEF in 1908. In: Regulski I, editor. Abydos: The Sacred Land at the Western Horizon. Leuven; 2019.
- 52. Brock F, Higham T, Ditchfield P, Bronk Ramsey C. Current pretreatment methods for AMS radiocarbon dating at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Radiocarbon. 2010;52:103–12.
- 53. Bestock L, Knoblauch C. Leather, mud and grain: the 2018 excavations in Uronarti fortress. Sudan & Nubia. 2020;24:31–42.
- 54. Dee MW, Palstra SWL, Aerts-Bijma AT, Bleeker MO, De Bruijn S, Ghebru F. Radiocarbon dating at Groningen: new and updated chemical pretreatment procedures. Radiocarbon. 2020;62:63–74.
- 55. Bronk Ramsey C. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon. 1995;37:425–30.
- 56. Bronk Ramsey C. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon. 2009;51: 337–60.
- 57. Ward GK, Wilson SR. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry. 1978;20: 19–31.
- 58.
Murnane WJ. Ancient Egyptian coregencies. Studies in Oriental Civilization 40. The Oriental Institute; 1977.
- 59.
Shaw I. The Oxford history of ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press; 2000.
- 60.
Höflmayer F. The southern Levant, Egypt, and the 4.2 ka BP event. In: Meller H, Arz HW, Jung R, Risch R, editors. 2200 BC: a climatic breakdown as a cause for the collapse of the Old World? 7th Archaeological Conference of Central Germany, October 23-26, 2014 in Halle (Saale). Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte; 2015. pp. 113–30.
- 61. Younes MA, Bakry A. The 4.2 ka BP climate event in Egypt: integration of archaeological, geoarchaeological, and bioarchaeological evidence. Afr Archaeol Rev. 2022;39: 315–44.
- 62.
Butzer KW. Sociopolitical discontinuity in the Near East C. 2200 B.C.E.: scenarios from Palestine and Egypt. In: Dalfes HN, Kukla G, Weiss H, editors. Third millennium BC climate change and Old World collapse. Springer; 1997. pp. 245–96.
- 63.
Bárta M. Long term or short term? Climate change and the demise of the Old Kingdom. In: Kerner S, Dann R, Bangsgaard P, editors. Climate and ancient societies. Museum Tusculanum Press; 2015. pp. 177-96.