27

1. Radiocarbon Dates and Early Egypt

The current consensus

The term “current consensus” means nothing more than “fashion”. At present Egyptology undergoes astounding changes regarding the dating of the first six dynasties of Ancient Egypt. The Fourth Dynasty is now usually dated “by consensus” from about 2550 BC to about 2450 BC. Experts and laymen alike are made to believe in it, but this dating is admittedly highly uncertain. It is not based on any evidence as one is made to believe. It represents only a dubiously calculated minimum. In the past some had proposed even much lower dates like 2250 BC, but this is now absolutely impossible to sustain. On the other hand, evidence is consistently and deliberately ignored. The now accepted dates for the Fourth Dynasty, 2550-2450 BC, already severely contradict the monumental evidence, which pleads for a century longer period and a few centuries higher dating scheme. Despite this, the establishment is not courageous enough to propose a new date of say 2650-2450 BC, 2750-2550 BC or even better, 2850-2650 BC, which is still on the low side. This resistance to change is mainly because re-assessing the Fourth Dynasty requires re-assessing all other Dynasties as well. It also calls for a possible return to older dating schemes, such as Breasted’s centuries-higher dates. However, herds of scholars are currently trying to establish exactly the opposite, namely ultra-low dating schemes. The latest dating schemes are supposed to be refinements and improvements to older schemes, routinely and tendentiously called “outdated”. Some find pleasure in upsetting any dating scheme in whatever manner they can, and they compete with one another for supremacy. So Egyptology has become a power struggle instead of a science.

Similarly, the general opinion today is that the First Dynasty started around 3100 BC. But even dates like 3600 BC or 2900 BC are accepted. Especially the earlier dates cannot be refuted because of the lack of evidence and even contra-indicative evidence for the current low dating schemes. All other dynasties are adjusted accordingly, currently ending the sixth dynasty somewhere around 2200 BC or as late as 2150 BC or even 2100 BC, depending on the authority being followed, while the evidence pleads for an end-date around 2300 BC instead.

Egyptologists are generally unbelievably uncritical in this matter, since they have not much else to go

on than what their favourite authorities or the establishment tell them. That is because they need a consensus for communicational purposes. Therefore, most do as if it is already certain that the First Dynasty started between 3100 BC and 2900 BC, because that is what most authorities now say, and they even dare call it “established”. The great public doesn’t know better, because the schemes of those authorities are promoted and defended a priori by a gang of loyal followers.

One only needs to search the internet to see how they all copy one another uncritically and without

28

presenting the evidence for any of the thus “established” opinions, while all sites are moderated or owned by someone who dictates one or other opinion without giving us the possibility of responding. So this is how today’s public is deceived into believing that they are reading summarized current facts, whether well-argued for or not argued for at all.

Unless you are a famous or acknowledged scholar teaching a certain opinion, your truly valid

arguments will never be cited or believed in. Academic authorities never allow a discussion of the problems behind their own opinions and they cannot deliver the evidence either. It’s what they learn at school. Not a single authority on the subject has yet given a solid reason why the Egyptian Dynasties should start around 3100, 2900, 3500, 3600 BC or whatever. They all follow convention. Once it was Breasted they followed, then Parker, now Kitchen or some other authority, all with their own biases. There exists even an “official” consensus, providing a false façade of certainty with so-called “averaged” dates to the year exact. However, these “exact” dates are all pure guesswork (though not entirely fiction). In reality there is only a generally accepted agreement that the first six dynasties of Egypt date from about 3100/3000 BC to about 2200/2150 BC, while it is acknowledged that these dates are only meant as minimum dates. And minimum dates they certainly are. A probable fault of respectively about 500-600 years upwards at the beginning of the Dynasties to about 100-150 years upwards by the end of the Sixth Dynasty is admitted. This important fact, however, is currently never stressed in books or in the media, since it does not help to convince the dumb audience of the ‘solidness’ of modern Egyptology, the façade which academics want to show in public.

The problems become all the more awkward when the Predynastic is involved. Here the differences with archaeological, geological and climatological data climb up from half a thousand to a thousand years or more. These huge differences are of course unacceptable. The currently accepted predynastic dates are only an extension of the accepted dynastic chronology, simply calculated backwards by minimum estimations. On these shaky grounds then the Ancient World History is hung. Assyriologists and other historians have been forced to follow the same line of minimalistic dating schemes in order to remain synchronized. And the transition from archaeological designations like Mesolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze, to what Egyptologists call Predynastic and Early Dynastic instead, poses yet another huge synchronization problem. This is simply because all predynastic and dynastic dates are artificially and deliberately kept unchanged, while the rest of the scientific world has already evolved to a better understanding of the past. Every expert in the field knows exactly what I am talking about and why the shoe does not fit, but who is going to solve it and how? Most historians follow authoritive opinions, not the real evidence. They may be aware of the problems, but they rather ignore them. I recently stumbled on an historian who simply found it convenient to follow the CAH (Cambridge Ancient History), regardless of evidence to the contrary, because the CAH is authoritive and ‘accepted’. Now do we wait for Einstein’s return, or are we going to solve the encountered problems ourselves?

When did the problems begin? To be able to date the Egyptian history, Egyptologists originally used the king list of the Coptic historian Manetho of the third century BC. This king list came down to us through a number of commentators, and the version of Africanus has proven itself to be most reliable and consistent with the monumental and archaeological evidence. Manetho’s first six dynasties were interpreted as comprising 1478 years. But there were great disagreements about certain key dates. Also, some dynasties in Manetho, mainly the second and Third Dynasties and the First and Second Intermediate Periods, seemed to be in excess as compared to the evidence of the monuments. Another problem was that Manetho’s work came down to us through various religiously biased Christian and Jewish commentators who also greatly disagreed among each other, some of whom stealthily changed not just a few of Manetho’s data or added comments as if they were Manetho’s.

Eventually the balance turned over to Parker’s use of the Turin Canon, a king list composed in the time

29

of Ramesses II, now housed in the museum of Turin in Italy. In this document the first six dynasties count only 955 years. The apparent difference with Manetho was a huge 523 years. Since the Turin Canon was about a thousand years older than Manetho, it was simply assumed that it was probably more accurate than Manetho too. The downside, however, is that the Papyrus of Turin came down to us in such small pieces, and its restoration was done so badly, that it already has proven itself to be useless for chronological purposes, especially regarding the Early and Old Kingdoms. Nevertheless, it was introduced as a basic dating tool.

Egyptologists are now forced to acknowledge that this manuscript does not represent a correct

chronology of the Early and Old Kingdom. Many reign lengths given by the papyrus are found to be incorrect, contradicting the monumental evidence. The manuscript suspiciously gives too many identical reign lengths in a row: 24, 24, 24 …, as noted by Mark Lehner in his most famous and absolutely top class work, “Pyramids”. Also the reign lengths of the Early Kingdom are unrealistically high in a row - 74, 72, 63, 95 ... 95, 54, 70. These cannot be reign lengths but are rather the ages at death of these kings. It’s like reading the Old Testament of the Bible: 40, 40, 40, 300, 400 et cetera. This means that the purported number of 955 years counted in the Turin Canon cannot be trusted at all.

It has become clear that the compiler of the Turin Canon was only guessing. The monumental evidence

proved that nearly all reign lengths in the Turin Papyrus concerning the Early and Old Kingdoms are mostly too low. Many Old Dynastic kings, like Snefru and Khufu, actually reigned tens of years longer. So there is still no agreement and no evidence at all! Accepting the current chronology, is identical to accepting fiction or ‘fashion’. One was better off with Manetho, despite the problems of the Intermediate Periods!

But the damage was already done. Why is this false chronology of Egypt still being defended against all

odds? Because there is nothing else to rely on! Redating the Early and Old Kingdoms affects both the predynastic and dynastic dynasties as well as all the synchronisms with Mesopotamia and the Levant. Changing the system is not so easily done as a century ago. The task to review the whole Ancient Egyptian chronology is enormous, and no one knows where to begin or what to believe. To ask millions of modern school books to be rewritten is not an easy option and needs to be darn good motivated and paid for today. Writing new school books requires careful planning to overcome the objections. Alternative models pop up from time to time, but they all have basically the same problem: they do not work!

The accepted dates for the Early and Old Kingdoms are now seriously disputed. Individually Egyptologists

acknowledge the problem, but collectively they all hold on to the chronology they have become accustomed to and through which they relate to each other’s work. Various dates are artificially kept young, because the current fixation on the Turin Canon leaves no room for earlier dates. Certain synchronisms with the current Assyrian and Babylonian chronologies also call for lower dates, but sometimes even these cannot be supported by the lowest possible Egyptian dates.

Something is clearly wrong with the current model, but no action is taken to turn the tables. In the

meantime Egyptology is screaming for a revision. But on what grounds do we set up a new, solidly based Egyptian chronology that does fit all the evidence? Let us start with the most recent hot potato: the calibrated radiocarbon evidence.

30

Calibrated carbon dates

New archaeological discoveries support the doubts. In 1984 the Egyptologists R. and D. Klemm took 64 organic samples from the surfaces of the Great and Central Pyramids of Gizeh and related monuments. In 1986 the “Pyramids Carbon-dating Project” under the leadership of Egyptologist Mark Lehner, together with Robert Wenke of the University of Washington, took fifteen samples of the cement of the Great Pyramid, seven of the Central Pyramid, six of the Lesser Pyramid and two of the Sphinx Temple. In 1987 H. Haas et al. concluded from these studies that the calibrated radiocarbon dates of the Old Kingdom of Egypt were generally 374 years higher than the conventional dates established for the archaeology in the ‘Cambridge Ancient History’ (H. Haas et al., 1987, pp. 585-606; Lehner: “Piramides”, Bosch en Keuning, De Bilt 1998, Dutch translation, p. 66).

Two of Lehner’s samples of the Great Pyramid were tested in the Radiocarbon Laboratory of the Southern Methodist University in Dallas Texas and the other thirteen were brought to the laboratories in Zürich in Switzerland, for dating by the more advanced acceleration method. The results were then calibrated and confirmed by the correct procedure through tree-ring samples. (M. Lehner: “The Complete Pyramids”, pp. 6, 66-67; and M. Lehner in “Venture Inwards”, Virginia Beach, May-June 1986, pp. 12-15. For a more detailed report of this research, see H. Haas, J. Devine, R. Wenke, M. Lehner, W. Wolfi en G. Bonani: “Radiocarbon Chronology and the Historical Calendar in Egypt”, in “Chronologies in the Near East”, BAR International Series 379, 1987, Oxford, England, pp. 585-606).

In stark contrast to the radiocarbon results of other monuments such as tombs, Lehner’s radiocarbon dates of the Great Pyramid were widely dispersed, ranging from 3809 ± 160 BC to 3101 ± 414 BC to 2853 ± 104 BC, or on average 3331 BC years. Only by excluding the possibly uncertain earliest average date 3809 BC and by averaging the average radiocarbon dates did the samples eventually average 2977 BC, meaning that the cement of the Great Pyramid could have been brought on between at least 3101 ± 414 BC and 2853 ± 104 BC. The Central Pyramid gave average radiocarbon dates varying from about 3196 to about 2753 BC, or on average 2988 BC. The Lesser Pyramid varied between 3076-2067 BC, or on average 2572 BC, and the Sphinx Temple between 2746-2085 BC, or on average 2416 BC. Although these other monuments gave less widely dispersed dates than the Great Pyramid, this could be due to the fact that much less samples were taken from these and other monuments than from the Great Pyramid.

The relatively late dates for the Lesser Pyramid suggest that this monument was still unfinished during the time of king Menkaura, and that a later pharaoh of the Old Kingdom undertook its restoration and casing, first using granite at the base and later limestone for the upper part. This scenario was proposed since the radiocarbon dating survey was carried out by the team of Mark Lehner. However, radiocarbon dates do not automatically represent building dates. Mark Lehner found at tier 58 of the Lesser Pyramid organic material that could have come from an animal that happened to be at this place. Radiocarbon-dating this material gave a date 900 years later than the date when the pyramid was expected to have been built (conventional date 2500-2450 BC). This takes us instead to around 1600-1550 BC, the early 18th dynasty, during king Ahmosis I, the last Egyptian king to have built a large pyramid, namely at Abydos. By then the Lesser Pyramid had already lost its casing long ago.

The organic cement samples of the pyramids were taken from the outer kernel stones that were once hermetically closed under the mantle. They say nothing of the time when the first building activities began or even when the mantle stones were finally placed. Lehner’s carbon dates are a good indication, but defining the age of the pyramids is a much more complicated problem.

Surprisingly, the earliest date 3809 ± 160 BC of the Great Pyramid was given by two charcoal samples from a top layer of the Great Pyramid. These samples could date to as early as 3969 BC or as late as 3649 BC. Various pieces of evidence suggest that all great pyramids were built over older monuments, but then we

31

would expect to find the earliest dates in lower and inner rather than in higher and outer layers. Anyhow, a wood sample from the same top layer gave a more realistic date of 3101 ± 414 BC. But this date has a much wider range, from 3515 BC to 2749 BC. Another sample from the same layer gave the date 3020 ± 131 BC. Thirteen other samples from the lower outside layers of the Great Pyramid, all radiocarbon except two, ranged from 3090 ± 153 to 2853 ± 104 BC.

The geologist Dr. Robert Schoch argued that these widely dispersed dates only make sense if it is assumed that the pyramids were built and rebuilt in several stages, suggesting that later pharaoh’s such as Khufu were only inheritors of existing monuments, not the original builders, and that they merely rebuilt or repaired previously constructed sections. The mortar used is of a gypsum compound that easily washes away after a fortnight of rain. Although such a fortnight never occurred in Egypt, mortar may have been added on the outside from time to time, especially in the lower sections, before these pyramids received their casing stones. The highest date suggests that the core of the Great Pyramid may already have been built as early as 3969-3649 BC, while most repairs were done between 3515 BC and 2749 BC before the mantle finally came on to protect the core. Another possible explanation is that older carbon material was used or reused in the mortar at the top intentionally to link the pyramid with the remote past. The usual suggestion is that the problem may be the charcoal, but charcoal like wood is very rarely a problem. The problem remains: how did older dated samples reach the top outer layers of such huge monuments as the pyramids of Gizeh. And so far Robert Schoch’s proposal makes the most sense.

In the current dating system, in which the First Dynasty is thought to start as late as around 3100 BC, the radiocarbon dates would seem to suggest that the pyramids were already built during the Late Predynastic or the Early First Dynasty, with the highest date reaching far into the Early Predynastic. This does not make sense, since other monuments of the Fourth and Third Dynasties also date about 374 years earlier than expected.

It therefore seems more likely that the Fourth Dynasty itself dates to about 374 years earlier than expected. The highest date alone would then point more realistically to the Late Predynastic, when many dynastic traits were already common and some signs of possible pyramid building are displayed. An earlier dating of the Fourth Dynasty is consistent with the fact that all Old and Early Kingdom monuments produced similar higher dates. The value of 374 years is however only an average of average radiocarbon dates with highly varying ranges from various Old and Early Kingdom periods. The actually dates per monument can be anywhere from 100 to 650 years older than the conventional dates from 2100 to 3100 BC respectively, conform the general calibration curve with its usual range of ± 100-170 years.

The radiocarbon dates in Mark Lehner’s survey were calibrated using the standard current in the 1980s. Recalibration with the new standard of 2004 would give slightly lower and tighter date ranges. However, I currently do not have Lehner’s uncalibrated dates, so I cannot yet recalibrate them for comparison.

The following table summarizes Lehner’s results on the mortar of the Great Pyramid:

32

Sample number Date BC Stone layer of the Great Pyramid

10B (charcoal) 3809 ± 160 198th course top platform, SW corner

10B (wood) 3101 ± 414 198th course top platform, SW corner

10A 3020 ± 131 198th course top platform, SW corner

11 2950 ± 164 Top platform, SW corner

08 3062 ± 157 108-109th course West side, NW corner

07 2909 ± 97 65th course West side, NW corner

06 3090 ± 153 25-26th course West side, NW corner

14 2998 ± 319 5th course South side, SE corner

13 2975 ± 168 5th course, SE corner

13 2864 ± 362 5th course SE corner

04 2971 ± 120 2nd course core block North side

05 2929 ± 100 2nd course North side, near NW corner

02 2909 ± 104 2nd course North side East face 2nd tier

01 2869 ± 94 2nd course North side East end

03 2853 ± 104 2nd course North face 2nd tier

Table 1. Mark Lehner’s list of cement samples and their carbon dates from the various layers of the Great Pyramid.

If we exclude the single extreme date of 3809 BC, the building of the Great Pyramid seems to have taken more than 248 years ± 414-104 years. It does seem strange that the earlier dates tend to occur at higher courses of the monument. But it corroborates the account of Herodotos, who explicitly states that the mantle stones of the Great Pyramid were brought on by starting at the top and successively going down to the base of the pyramid. Can we expect this to have taken the builders some 248 years?

Perhaps it did take 248 years, but we cannot prove it. Or can we? If it did take 248 years, then how long must it have taken the Egyptians to even build the core? Are we expect to believe that it took the Egyptians a thousand years or more to build this monster? Well, even that is possible. It is, a good reason to remain cautious and to suggest that the lowest date of 2853 ± 104 BC, coming from the (second) lowest course, is the more acceptable one for dating the Fourth Dynasty building activity at the site, namely for placing at least the mantle stones. This is already about 124 years lower than the proposed average of 2977 BC but still an astonishing 353 years earlier than the commonly accepted date of 2500 BC.

The publication of these carbon results of course came as a great shock. Most Egyptologists were stunned and remained silent. The first reaction was that the Egyptian builders may have used radiocarbon coming from hundreds of years older wood in their cement. But the researchers found in some of the samples reed and other short-lived material that cannot give the same result as old wood. These samples gave slightly lower dates than the charcoal sample, but their average result was the same as that of the wood. The old-wood theory as an explanation thus fails. All tested monuments from different periods consistently produced earlier carbon dates. It is impossible to insist that in all buildings only 400 years old wood was used. Such wood would become very rare, especially considering the enormous amount of mortar used for the Gizeh and other pyramids.

The 14C radiation starts after an organism dies. With wood the problem lies in the tree-rings. The Dendrochronological recalibration of 14C dates rests on the fact that every ring has its own 14C date

33

(JNS). Various tests have indicated that only the outer growth ring of a tree has a contemporaneous amount of 14C, that is, it is in equilibrium with the atmospheric 14C. The inner and older year-rings are already dead and have 14C ages representative of the years that have elapsed since they were outer rings. Therefore, a 14C date for a sample cut from the inner part of a log would not be representative of the time of the cutting of the tree but would always be older. The magnitude of the radiocarbon date error varies in different regions and with different trees, depending on how old the trees are and from which part of it (inner, outer or mixed) the radiocarbon-dated wood samples came. Many archaeologists do not know this fact. Even the Orientalist W.F. Albright, was amazed upon hearing it. The outer and therefore youngest part of a tree is hardly ever used as building material. It usually ends up as waste and possibly as ingredient in mortar, in which case the radiocarbon dates which come from the mortar of the pyramids should indeed be regarded as trustworthy.

So when it comes to radiocarbon dates from samples of wood from a building, such as planks and beams, we should expect slightly higher date results than those from samples of waste as found in mortar. It depends on the type of wood, the age of the tree and the used part, how far off the date result may be from the true building age. But then again, wood can be reused in a later building project, or wasted et cetera. We also have no way of knowing how long a log has been lying around unused. It is therefore possible that sometimes old wood was used. However, considering the sparsity of wood in Egypt and the enormous quantities of wood needed to make the mortar for the pyramids, it remains preposterous to even suggest that all Early and Old Kingdom monuments consistently contained only 400 years old wood, in order to get rid of the embarrassing evidence that our Egyptian chronology is so greatly in error; let alone to suggest that the age of all wood samples would consistently follow the calibration curve: only 100-200 years too old in the second millennium BC, gradually climbing up to 300-400 years too old in the third millennium BC, and 500-700 years too old in the fourth millennium BC and so on. The problem of carbon-dates versus historical dates therefore cannot be explained away with the old-wood theory. The truth of the matter is that our Egyptian chronology is consistently too low, and this has to be rectified.

In analysing the above table, two things are immediately apparent. The dates are hundreds of years older than expected, and the total range of average dates is almost a 1000 years. If we include the highest and lowest extremes it is more than 1200 years, averaging out to 3359 BC ± 610 years. If we exclude the highest date from the charcoal samples the average is still 3132 BC ± 383 years. This is odd, since the Great Pyramid is generally supposed to have been built in only 20 years or less and only in the Fourth Dynasty, and by a single king called Khufu only! Why then do we encounter such a large range of dates? This also caused some consternation with Mark Lehner himself as he admitted in an interview with the ARE magazine Venture Inward in the May-June 1986 issue: “In short, the carbon dates show, depending on which sample you take, that the [conventional] Egyptian chronology is between 200 to 1200 years off. You can nearly look at it like a bel curve, and if you cut it in the middle, you can summarize the results by saying our dates are 400 to 450 years too early for the Old Kingdom Pyramids, especially those of the Fourth Dynasty....Now this is really radical....I mean it'll make a big stink. The Giza pyramid is 400 years older than Egyptologists believe.” (M. Lehner, 1986, p. 12-14).

Lehner stressed that all of his radiocarbon tests were done under very strict scientific processes, which is usually enough to qualify these dates for total acceptance by all scholars. But strangely enough nearly no one reacted to his results and conclusions. On the contrary, his implications were completely ignored and were not abundantly publicized or even considered in the academic or public press. The academic world was stunned. We are confronted with a failing Egyptology.

One problem is that the carbon dates of the Great Pyramid do not reflect the date of a king Khufu, but

34

merely that of the cement smeared between the outer core stones, before the mantle stones came on! The conviction that Khufu alone is the builder blurs any objective conclusion. The believers cannot imagine any other scenario than that Khufu built the Great Pyramid. However, it is not only carbon dates that point to older building phases of this and other monuments on the Gizeh plateau.

The 1983-84 ‘Pyramids Carbon-dating Project’, directed by the Egyptologists Mark Lehner and Robert Wenke, also discovered a sample of wood from one of the two boats, buried in the pits along the south side of the Great Pyramid. This sample produced an average calibrated carbon date of 3400 BC. In fact, a calibrated 1 Sigma range of 3520-3100 BC can be established. This independent result corresponds with the dates obtained by Mark Lehner’s carbon-dating of the mortar samples from the Great Pyramid, averaging 3359 BC ± 610 years. The 3400 BC date also corresponds with the Pole Star Alignment Theory for the construction date of the Great Pyramid which holds that the descending passage was aligned with the polestar Thuban (Alpha Draconis) in 3434 BC, now more precisely calculated to be 3410 BC. Since the date 3400 BC is 900 years earlier than the expected date of 2500 BC, it was of course immediately dismissed by the conventional Egyptologists, adamant to save Egyptology the embarrassment! But taken at face value, this date simply means that at least the base of the Great Pyramid, which must have been built before the boat pits were built and through which also the descending passage was cut, was built some 600 years before the mantle stone were finally placed during the Fourth Dynasty. This is fully consistent with Lehner’s wide range of carbon dates of the Great Pyramid and with Robert Schoch’s proposal of older building phases.

The pyramids of Gizeh then were not only much older than expected, they were also much older than the Fourth Dynasty itself and thus had a longer building time than expected. The gaps between the average date 3400 BC of the boat and the Great Pyramid’s highest average date 3809 BC and the next highest average date 3101 BC may therefore reflect at least three building phases, with a break between 3809 BC and 3400 BC, and another break between 3400 BC and 3101 BC, after which most repairs would have been done until 2853 BC at the latest. All this then happened before the mantle stones were added. In fact, the addition of the mantle stones is the only activity that can conceivably be attributed to Khufu in the Fourth Dynasty, but only if the Fourth Dynasty itself began with king Snefru around 2950 BC. This scenario can be accounted for through various other, independent means. There have been some recent attempts to deduce a new historical chronology from the carbon dates (see for instance Radiocarbon, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1998, P. 561-569), but these proved to be futile, because carbon dates themselves do not represent exact historical dates. They vary too widely. For instance, the Great Stepped Pyramid at Saqqara, attributed to Netjerkhat Djoser, gave a carbon date of 4650 BP, which due to the wiggles in the calibration curve calibrates (with the use of the Intcal04 calibration curve and the Calib calculation method) to three possible date ranges. In the order of probability these are:

1. 3638-3308 BC (70%); 2. 3241-3104 BC (24%); and 3. 3304-3265 BC (6%).

In theory only one of these can be correct, but in reality any date in between or just outside these ranges could be just as well correct. We cannot rely on scholarly opinions in this matter either. We need other objective methods and criteria to facilitate true historical dates. For the time being we have three options to deduce at least a single date from the above probability ranges. One option is to take the highest percentage of probability (in this case 70%) for granted and accept the centre date of 3473 ± 165 BC. Another option is to take the centre date of the total range (100%) and accept a centre date of 3371 ± 267 BC. It follows that this result does not differ much from the Fourth Dynasty results, and thus gives some food for thought. A third option is to follow the general curve of calibrated radiocarbon dates through the Dynasties. For instance if we have a general and relative idea of the durations of the Old an Early Kingdom

35

Dynasties, and a similarly general and relative idea of calibrated radiocarbon dates ranging from the Predynastic to the end of the Old Kingdom, we can compare and interpolate a number of date ranges. This leads to the conclusion that the Second Dynasty must date to 3350-3100 BC, and that Djoser’s Stepped Pyramid too was already a much older monument which he did not build himself. Firstly, it may mean that the two different pyramid building styles of the Third and Fourth Dynasties were in reality the styles of two contemporary and competing builder guilds, one active at Saqqara (the Stepped Pyramid), the other at Gizeh. Secondly, it suggests that we should look for the start of these competing building activities in the First and Early Second rather than in the Third and Fourth Dynasties. There are several other reasons for suggesting this scenario, not in the least the enormous amount of pottery found in the Great Stepped Pyramid, dating from the time of Narmer, the last of the Predynastic kings, the founder of the First Dynasty and the father of the first Dynastic king Hor Aha Men, down to and including Khasekhemui, the last of Second Dynasty Kings, the founder of the Third Dynasty and the father of king Netjerkhat (Djoser) of that Dynasty. Another reason is that Early Dynastic and even Predynastic pottery has also been found in and around the Pyramid complexes at Gizeh, something even Mark Lehner did not think of as he still believes in Khufu as the sole builder.

A justified conclusion It is not only the pyramids of Egypt. The Old Kingdom dating problem is universal. Outside of Egypt independent carbon tests have led to the exact same conclusion, namely that cultures from the same period date on average 400 years earlier than currently expected. This topic is discussed in a more recent article in the journal Radiocarbon, titled "Radiocarbon challenges Archaeo-historical Time Frameworks in the Near East: The Early Bronze Age of Jericho in Relation to Egypt", written by Hendrik J Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht (found at http://cio.eldoc. ub.rug.nl/ FILES/root/ 2001/Radiocarbon Bruins/2001Radio carbonBruins. pdf). The article states, for instance, that stratified radiocarbon dates from Early Bronze Jericho (Trench III) on short-lived material are significantly older than conventional archaeo-historical time frameworks. The calibrated carbon date of Stage XV Phase li-lii (Early to Middle Early Bronze I Kenyon) is 450-100 years older. Stage XVI Phase lxi-lxii (Early Bronze II Kenyon) is 500-200 years older. Stage XVI Phase lxii-lxiii (destructive end of Early Bronze II) is 300-200 years older. Stage XVII Phase lxviii a - lxix a (Early Bronze III) is 300-100 years older than conventional archaeo-historical time estimates.

Since archaeologists are fairly certain that Early Bronze II started around the death of the second king Djer of Egypt’s First Dynasty, these carbon dates imply that Early Bronze II did not start around 3100/3050 BC but rather around 3500 BC, consistent with Djer’s reign ending around 3500 BC. Thus the First Dynasty started around 3600 BC. Early Bronze II is considered to end simultaneously with the end of the Second Dynasty, at the start of the Third Dynasty signifying the start of Early Bronze III. This then implies that the transition from Early Bronze II to Early Bronze III did not occur as late as 2700-2600 BC but rather around 3100-3000 BC. The end of Early Bronze III, generally dated to the end of the Sixth Dynasty, must therefore date to around 2300 BC not 2200-2100 BC. Some Egyptologists place this end at the end of the third king of this Dynasty, Pepi II, which would imply a slightly earlier date, circa 2400 BC, but the discrepancies remain about 100-200 years. Thus, carbon dates from all over the world are totally consistent in their earlier dates for the same archaeological periods.

36

As the beginning of the archaeological Chalcolithic Age in the Near East became to be dated a 1000 years older, from circa 4000 BC in the 1960s to circa 5000 BC in current perception based on carbon dating, it should not be surprising at all that the Early Bronze Age and related Egyptian dynasties also yield carbon dates that are consistently older by a few hundred years than current archaeo-historical time frameworks. I refer to yet another article, written in 2004 by Michael G. Hasel of the Institute of Archaeology Southern Adventist University (found at http://issuu.com/sauarch/docs/radiocarbon?mode=embed&documentId=081120193324-27d261901b974ff5a43872eb2b810f02&layout=grey), as well as to the issue of the journal Nature with Colin Renfrew’s article, titled “Kings, Tree Rings and the Old World” (found at http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/nature/renfrew1.pdf), written in 1996, and with Kuniholm et al.’ “Anatolian Tree Rings and the Absolute Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean, 2220-718 BC” (found at http://dendro.cornell.edu/articles/kuniholm1996.pdf).

The calibrated carbon evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of an older Early Bronze Age and of older dates for the first six dynasties of Ancient Egypt. We cannot keep on closing our eyes for the obvious and insist that every country must have used only 400 years old wood for their building activities, especially since many of the carbon results now do not involve wood at all in order to avoid such accusations! So before we are able to solve such enigmatic mysteries as ‘who built the pyramids’ we must first do something about the absolutely flawed conventional chronology of Egypt itself. This means that the Early Bronze Age and Egypt's Early and Old Kingdoms should be simultaneously back-dated. The current Egyptian chronology should therefore not be regarded as already ultimately fixed, but it certainly must retain its relative archaeological and cultural synchronisms. The historical chronology of absolute dates must change if its archaeological chronology changes. Both relative and absolute chronologies must be in sync before we can ever hope to get better results. Today the scientific dating method is not an isolated "problem" of the New Kingdom only anymore (H.J. Bruins, “the new 14C evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of an older Early Bronze Age and older dates for Dynasties 1-6”, in "Near East chronology: towards an integrated 14C time foundation," Radiocarbon 43, 2001, p. 1151). It involves the whole Egyptian framework, from the Early Predynastic down to the Late Period as well as world history.

The conclusion is justified that the Fourth Dynasty itself is indeed about 374 years older than expected. Lehner’s carbon tests of various Old Kingdom tombs in Saqqara gave on average 400-450 years earlier dates. Independent earlier carbon tests on the human remains from the Great Step Pyramid at Saqqara, formerly rejected, confirm this. An earlier independent carbon test on the bark and decomposed wood (first thought to be dried flowers) found on the empty un-inscribed anonymous sarcophagus, thought to be that of Sekhemkhat of the Third Dynasty, in the so-called “Buried Step Pyramid” at Saqqara, gave a nearly 600 years older calibrated date than expected, namely around 3220-2950 BC, or 3085 ± 135 BC. This was of course rejected at the time. The hip-bone of a girl who died 18 years old, found in the third (from North) deep shaft of the Great Step Pyramid, hermetically sealed beneath the third and fourth building stage, together with a seal impression of Netjerkhat, who therefore seems to have built these two stages, was carbon-dated to about 3300 BC. This date was of course also rejected! We can now finally see these earlier rejected dates in their proper perspective and may have to accept them after all.

We cannot keep on rejecting and ignoring carbon results that do not agree with prevailing opinions, without solid arguments to the contrary. There are no solid arguments to the contrary. We must add all formerly rejected dates to the growing bulk of new evidence and start working on a better Egyptian chronology. We have three independent carbon tests for the Great Stepped Pyramid, giving us the dates 3473 ± 165 BC (70%) or 3371 ± 267 BC (100%), 3300 BC and 3085 ± 135 BC. If we accept the lowest centre date of 3085 BC or circa 3100 BC for the beginning of the Third Dynasty, we must also accept a date of at least around 2950 BC for the beginning of the Fourth Dynasty, 2700 BC for the beginning of the Fifth

37

Dynasty, and 2500 BC for the beginning of the Sixth Dynasty, which then indeed must end at the latest in 2300 BC. Taking for granted the evidence for dating the Early Bronze Phases I-III in respect to the Early Dynasties, we cannot object to dating the First Dynasty to 3600 BC and consequently the Second Dynasty to about 3350 BC.

We still have to calibrate these suggested dates further by independent other means, but this general outline is already basically correct within ± 50 years. We are on the verge of accepting a new and more correct chronology of Ancient Egypt, but we are not there yet. The academic world is not yet ready to accept these obvious but embarrassing facts.

Since all archaeological sites in the world are now abundantly being carbon-dated, we cannot leave the Egyptian chronology behind and then expect to see correct synchronisms. Some Egyptologists already date the first dynasty loosely around 3500 BC, but for this they use only their ‘gut feelings’ or lean on older but still accepted authorities like Breasted, as long as it concerns the Predynastic, in which they seem to have a greater freedom. They have no evidence for their conviction and still avoid collisions with the establishment. They do that by schizophrenically suddenly reverting to conventional dates as soon as it comes to Dynastic times, which is like dropping a cake to the floor. From that point onward they suddenly decline from considering the consequences of carbon dates for the whole dating system. The paradigm can only shift if a complete new chronology is offered, well argued for, well tested, and with solid key dates, solving neigh all anomalies. Presenting such a chronology is my goal, and it took me nearly fifty years of research to collect the necessary arguments. These are often hard to come by as they are usually suppressed, stacked away and forgotten, never to be discussed anymore.

The dates provided by Mark Lehner and H. Haas et al. in the 1980s were calibrated according to the then current standard of 1986, which yielded a date of about 3750 BC for the beginning of the First Dynasty, 3450 BC for the Second Dynasty, 3200 BC for the Third Dynasty and 3000 BC for the Fourth Dynasty. The new calibration standard of 2004, now of 2009, yields slightly lower dates. This means that the First Dynasty more likely dates closer to 3600 BC, the Second Dynasty to 3350 BC, the Third Dynasty to 3100 BC and the Fourth to 2925 BC. I eventually discovered unexpected new means to confirm and refine these dates, even to the extent that I can now date these Dynasties correctly to the year exact. This discovery will be disclosed in later chapters of this work. For now I will simply repeat the proper radiocarbon dates for the first six Dynasties in the following table:

Dynasty Conventional minima Conventional maxima Calibrated radiocarbon dates

I 3100-2900 BC 3750-3500 BC 3600-3350 BC

II 2900-2700 BC 3500-3100 BC 3350-3100 BC

III 2700-2550 BC 3100-2900 BC 3100-2925 BC

IV 2550-2400 BC 2900-2700 BC 2925-2700 BC

V 2400-2300 BC 2700-2500 BC 2700-2500 BC

VI 2300-2150 BC 2500-2300 BC 2500-2300 BC

Total 950 years 1450 years 1300 years

In this table we can clearly see that the radiocarbon dates correspond rather well with the conventionally accepted maximum dates and not at all with the conventionally accepted minimum dates. But it is this minimum scheme which is usually deliberately put forward to students, who unwittingly accept it as final without being properly informed of the existence of a maximum scheme let alone of a radiocarbon scheme. The establishment simply wants everyone to believe in their proposed minimum scheme, which is still based on their false interpretation of the Turin Canon in opposition to Manetho’s chronology of Egypt, which brings us the maximum accepted scheme. Later I will demonstrate that also the oldest known king list, facilitated by the Palermo Stone and its seven fragments and dated to the Early Fifth

38

Dynasty at the latest, unexpectedly supports Manetho’s dates and the radiocarbon scheme and alas not at all the conventional minimum scheme as one is usually led to believe by the establishment.

Deliberately suppressed radiocarbon evidence The earliest evidence favouring the calibrated carbon chronology comes unwittingly from the opposing conventional camp. Egyptologists namely used to defend the current chronology with carbon samples from the First Dynasty tombs. The tests seemed to point to a date around 3100-3000 BC for the beginning of the First Dynasty. The wood of the roof beams of tomb 3035 of Hemeka at Saqqara from the time of the fifth king Den Hasti gave in 1950 the two uncalibrated carbon dates 2852 BC ± 260 years and 3010 BC ± 240 years (averaging to respectively 4802 ± 260 BP and 4960 ± 240 BP; see Radiocarbon, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1980, p. 1017-1020, 1980: ‘Archaeology and Radiocarbon Dating’, by Willard Frank Libby, 1979) , in which Egyptologists immediately saw a confirmation of the Turin Papyrus. It gave them a great sense of certainty, which still prevails. Similar results from the earliest experiments in uncalibrated carbon dating were done on samples of acacia wood from the Third Dynasty’s Great Stepped Pyramid to test the carbon dating hypothesis of Willard F. Libby’s team, and the results were conform the conventional dating of this pyramid around 2700-2600 BC. But all these early date results were later stealthily kept uncalibrated, because the necessary correction – since 1967 the standard procedure – didn’t fit the already hardened opinion that they have it right! This general conviction is also why a top archaeologist like Amihai Mazar of Palestine in his work “Archaeology of the Land of the Bible - 10,000-586 B.C.E” (Doubleday, New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland), written in 1992, still refused to use calibrated radiocarbon dates, while being unbiased enough to accept raw radiocarbon dates as a valid dating tool and to ignore any biblical dating concerns. For the same reason many other archaeologists think it is safer to mention only uncalibrated carbon dates when it comes to dating Early Predynastic sites, especially those in the Western Sahara and in Nubia. This they do to ease the growing tension between the far too low conventional Predynastic dates and the calibrated carbon dates which are often criticized as being far too high without anyone providing the evidence for such a subjective notion. There is no evidence whatsoever against calibrated radiocarbon dates, while the evidence against the conventional scheme is only piling up.

Using the currently most precise Intcal04 calibration curve (Reimer et al. 2004) and the Calib calculation method, and choosing for the highest percentage of probability in the 1-sigma (standard deviation) area, the two uncalibrated dates from the wood samples from tomb 3035 would now instead date to 3945-3334 BC (96%) and 3997-3510 BC (92%). Their centre dates are thus 3640 ± 306 BC and 3754 ± 244 BC. But when we look at the graphical representation of the calibration curve, it is clear that due to a great wiggle in the curve the first sample can also point to a centre date of either circa 3650 BC or circa 3550 BC. The second sample date has no such wiggle in the calibration curve, and is centred around 3720 BC. So we actually have in these two cases three possible centre dates: 3750 BC, 3650 BC and 3550 BC. We can look at this problem also from another point of view. The first sample gives three date ranges: 3945-3334 BC (96%), 3211-3190 BC (2%), 3153-3136 BC (2%). Combined these three date ranges give a 100% date range of 3945-3136 BC, or on average 3541 ± 405 BC. The second sample also gives three date ranges: 3997-3510 BC (92%), 3425-3382 BC (5%), 4038-4019 BC (3%). Combined these three date ranges give a 100%

39

date range of 4038-3382 BC, or on average 3710 ± 328 BC. In whatever way we look at these two carbon results, the centre dates remain about the same and nowhere near the generally accepted date of circa 2950 BC for King Den Hasti. These dates do not represent the time of building King Den’s tomb, but the age of the wood used for its construction. However, even if we allow say 300-100 years for the old wood problem, King Den must still have lived at least around 3450 BC, five centuries earlier than the conventional date. Similarly the old uncalibrated carbon results of the acacia wood sample from the Great Stepped Pyramid would calibrate to 3500-3335 BC (0.85), which in view of the old wood problem may actually date to 3300-3100 BC! We cannot say today, that the First Dynasty began in 3100-3000 BC and the Great Stepped Pyramid in 2700-2600 BC, and then claim that carbon dates support this view. They don’t.

We have another example. Carbon dates in the 1950’s were 5256 ± 230 BP for the Predynastic Egyptian site El-Omari near Cairo, and 6300 ± 200 BP for wheat and barley grain samples from the Upper K level of the Fayum A period (Fayum II), were also in general agreement with the expectations of Egyptologists. However, these dates would now calibrate to respectively 4334-3926 BC (86%) and 3877-3804 BC (13%) for El-Omari, and 5474-5044 BC (100%) for Fayum A. These results are now indeed accepted and agreed upon by Egyptologists. That Predynastic carbon dates are more readily accepted by Egyptologists, is mainly due to the fact that the early Predynastic era does not directly interfere with pre-existing conventional ‘historical’ notions, so they think. Egyptologists usually care more about the precise dating of the famous king Tutankhamun in the 18th dynasty, closer to the present, than about the dating of some nameless chief in the Predynastic. But also the fact that these dates were based on short-lived samples played a role in the process of acceptance.

Further confirmation comes from a recent research in the northeast of ‘South City’ near Naqada, which area in Upper Egypt according to the finds of mud brick architecture, earth ware, mud seal impressions and cereal remains was only occupied during the early dynastic period, probably connected to the royal food supply. Two seals showed rows of animals, characteristic of the reign of the first king Aha. The finds were evidence of continuity in this area through the second dynasty (Wilkinson, ed. 2001, p. 337). An undisturbed part of the area gave in the 1980s the calibrated carbon date of 3440 ± 70 BC (Béatrix Midnant-Reynes, 1992, ed. 2000, p. 198). The new calibration curve of 2004 now yields a more likely calibrated date of about 3340 ±70 BC. This confirms that the Second Dynasty must date from at least about 3340 BC, and thus king Aha from about 3600 BC. The older settlement layers from before Aha are found south and southwest of this area and must be redated accordingly. Strangely enough, the very same authors who faithfully presented these carbon dates, did not even take note of the consequences of their claims, but simply went on dating the First Dynasty as usual to 3000-2900 BC (if not later). They never questioned themselves for a single moment as to whether they were right to do so (notably a much revered Egyptologist like Toby H. Wilkinson), as if they were wearing special pink glasses against all possible implications of calibrated carbon dates, even after faithfully mentioning such dates. Does that make sense? It doesn’t.

The great public thinks that radiocarbon dates support the conventional chronology. Nothing is further from the truth. The greatest part of the conventional chronology of Egypt conflicts with the calibrated carbon dates and with the archaeological evidence in general. It is not commonly recognized, but some conventional historians are troubled by the results of carbon dates applied to archaeological objects. They are confronted with the fact that their theoretical scheme is wrong, and therefore choose to consistently ignore all radiocarbon dates. Some academics are more aware of the problems than others, because these happen to touch their own field of research. They sometimes go to extremes to avoid or minimize the contradiction, and even go so far as to lower carbon results on their own account, while others see only a small problem and think there is not much contradiction. In fact the implications of the radiocarbon chronology are so great that up till

40

now not many historians have been prepared to let go of their familiar historical schemes in favour of the carbon dates. As R. Hedges mentioned:

“… material is often submitted for dating in the spirit of adding a scientific

precision to the archaeologists’ pre-existing beliefs.” – R. Hedges, 1981, p. 700.

If the belief system of the traditional archaeologist (or historian) is confirmed, then he will honour the method, in the other case he will just as easily become a hard-headed opponent, and ignore the evidence.

The habit of suppressing or ignoring scientific evidence if it doesn’t suit the theory is universal and is done quite openly without second thoughts, although not always intentionally. In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduced their report with these words:

“14C dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A

famous colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: “If a 14C date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it.” Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method.” (see “C 14 dating and Egyptian Chronology” in Ingrid U. Olsson ed., “Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium Held at the Institute of Physics at Uppsala University”).

Or they faithfully report or publish the ‘anomalous’ data but do not evaluate them, so they will usually go unnoticed! Another way of dulling the sharp disagreements between the accepted chronology and the results of carbon tests is described by Israel Isaacson. In this case nothing was purposely hidden, but two different approaches were applied. In one and the same year the University of Pennsylvania tested wood from a royal tomb in Gordion, capital of the short-lived Phrygian Kingdom in Asia Minor, and from the palace of Nestor in Pylos, in S.W. Greece. In Gordion the result was 1100 BC; in Pylos 1200 BC. However, according to the accepted chronology, the difference should have been nearly 500 years. 1200 BC for Pylos at the end of the Mycenaean age was well acceptable, but 1100 BC for Gordion was not, because the expected “historical” date was closer to 700 BC. Dr. Ralph came up with a solution for Gordion. The beams from the tomb were squared and the inner rings could easily have been four to five hundred years old when the tree was felled. But in Pylos the description of the tested wood indicates that these were also squared beams - yet the proposed corrective was not applied here, because 1200 BC was the anticipated figure, fitting the theory. Was this “scientific” thinking of Dr. Ralph? No, it was deliberate ignorance and suppression of facts. In the late 1970s, when carbon dates began to be calibrated on the basis of tree-ring dating, the “problem” soon became visible for the third millennium BC and earlier. In the year 1976 R. D. Long looked at the published carbon dates and found that they were generally older than the historical chronology. He could not accept this and immediately pronounced that the calibrated carbon dates were not applicable to Egypt, because the corrections were based on American trees. That conclusion is now outdated since the usage of European trees gave the same results. A year later J. Callaway and J. Weinstein produced a chronology for Early Bronze Palestine, based on published carbon dates (J. Callaway & J. Weinstein, 1977, pp. 1-16). This was so much against their “historical conception” – and especially their biblical conception – that they simply rejected no less than 25 of the 55 dates, which they described as “disappointing”. This is a good example of the arbitrary use of information by historians!

41

Several attempts have been made to correlate carbon dating with the historical chronology (Rowton 1960; Mellaart 1979; Hassan and Robinson 1987; Schwartz and Weiss 1992). The most extensive correlation of carbon dating and historical chronology was published in 1979 by James Mellaart. (1979:11). Mellaart proposed an improved chronology that completely satisfied the then available carbon dates (J. Mellaart, 1979, pp. 6-18). He was so brutally battered by his colleagues that he soon withdrew his proposal (for the battering, see J. Weinstein, 1980, pp. 21-4, and B. J. Kemp, 1980. pp. 25-28; for the redrawal, see J. Mellaart, 1980, pp. 225-227), as he risked losing his job. So great is the power of the institution of Egyptology. Mellaart was right, but his colleagues felt threated in their belief system.

In the meantime carbon dating has undergone some changes, and the results are now slightly less high and more precise than in the early days. Also, the carbon dates Mellaart cited were derived primarily from timber samples, which often date a century or two higher than short-lived sample. In any case, Mellaart was right when he stated that

“the so-called dilemma [between historical chronology and 14C dating] then is a myth, a creation of supporters of the middle and low chronologies” (1979:18).

His conclusions have met with vigorous resistance among Assyriologists and Egyptologists (Kemp 1980; Munn-Rankin 1980; Weinstein 1980). Of course, they themselves were the ‘myth-makers’ targeted by Mellaart. To be fair, Mellaart’s extreme position was forced due to the then available carbon dates, but the problem was more complex than he admitted. In 1960 Rowton tried to use uncalibrated dates to support the Middle Chronology of Babylon I, but unconvincingly. His carbon dates for Hammurabi’s accession year were 1757 ± 106 BC (charcoal) and 1581 ± 133 BC (reed mat). Rowton cannot be faulted for publishing insufficient data, since in his days carbon dates were uncalibrated and less precise than at present. Once calibrated according to the Intcal04 calibration curve and the Calib calculation method, these old carbon dates translate to 2211-1948 BC (90%) and 2034-1688 BC (100%). The centre dates are 2080 BC (charcoal) and 1861 BC (reed mat). Here too the charcoal result is significantly higher than the short-lived reed mat result. The last date is quite close to Hammurabi’s true accession date 1848 BC according to the High Chronology of Babylon I, based on the astronomical results of the Venus tablets of Ammizaduga! So Rowton’s carbon dates did not support the Middle Chronology at all. The growing bulk of carbon dates consistently supports the High Chronology instead, not only in Mesopotamia but in Egypt and the Levant as well. So it is about time that our historical model is being scrutinized and updated accordingly.

The impasse continues between Egyptologists, Assyriologists, and those working in carbon dating. According to the recent articles from the Near East Chronology Symposium held in Jerusalem, Israel published in Radiocarbon (2001), the carbon dates still vary significantly from historical dating. Bruins and van der Plicht (2001) show in a detailed case that high-quality stratified carbon dates from Early Bronze Jericho are ‘100-300 years older than conventional archaeo-historical time estimates’ (Bruins 2001:1151). Braun (2001:1279) concludes from another study, which also resulted in high carbon dates, that

‘the logical outcome of an acceptance of those new dates [from the southern Levant and Egypt] puts such a strain on chronological correlations between the carbon data and the archaeological record, that the entire system would no longer be tenable if accepted.’

Despite the cautionary remarks by Braun, Bruins (2001:1151) submits that ‘the new carbon evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of an older Early Bronze Age and older dates for Dynasties 1-6.’

In fact, it is precisely the carbon dates that have increased the estimates of ages of prehistoric periods. Bruins and van der Plicht (2001:1330) write:

42

“As a result of 14C dating, the latter periods have indeed “become” much older. In the 1950s and early 1960s, when Albright (1960) wrote the above time assessments, it became quite fashionable to assign the Chalcolithic on archaeological estimates to about 4000-3100 BC and EB-I to about 3100-2900 BC. However, 14C dating has changed the picture completely! The Chalcolithic is now understood to have begun almost 1000 years earlier, close to 5000 BC. The transition between the Chalcolithic and EB-I has also been pushed back by many hundreds of years to somewhere in the early to mid-4th millennium.”

Michael G. Hasel in an article (‘Recent Developments in Near Eastern Chronology and Radiocarbon Dating’) summarizes: this statement demonstrates that the most recent calibrated carbon data from the ancient Near East continues to push the prehistory of the region further back in time. Bruins supports this trend and goes on to suggest that carbon data should act as a corrective to early dynastic Egyptian history. In a paper presented to the American Schools of Oriental Research Bruins went over the recent publication of carbon dates from 170 samples from building materials associated with the pyramids (Bonani et al. 2001:1297). The samples related to the Great Pyramid of Gizeh, sent to two different labs, resulted in 45 % of calibrated dates ranging from 2783-2715 BC with a 95.4 % probability (Bruins 2003). Since this remains 200-300 years higher than the modern dates of this ruler, Bruins suggested that the carbon dates be used as a corrective to Egyptian chronology and that Egyptologists should consider reverting to the chronology of Breasted proposed nearly a century ago.

Choosing for higher dates for the Old Kingdom solves the problems of synchronisms with Syro-Palestine and Mesopotamia. In the great Syrian city Ebla, higher Egyptian dates solve a dispute about the date of destruction of the palace from level IIB1 and its sensational archive, containing objects of king Khafra of the Fourth Dynasty and of king Pepi I of the Sixth Dynasty, in a pre-Sargonic context, that is before Sargon I of Akkad, thus before 2334 BC in the Middle Chronology, or more likely correct, before 2389 BC in the High Chronology. The higher dates also solve the problems of synchronism at Byblos, and explain why various Egyptian Fifth and Sixth Dynasty objects were found in level KIV, followed by a destruction level. Not earlier than in level JI, which was rebuilt after an unknown period, were objects found from the Sargonic Kingdom of Akkad, dated to 2334-2154 BC in the Middle Chronology (Saghieh, 1983, p. 131) or to 2389-2211 BC in the High Chronology. In contrast to this the complete lack of synchronism between the Old Kingdom of Egypt and Sargonic Mesopotamia in the conventional system would seem improbable if these two kingdoms existed at the same time. In the carbon chronology the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties of Egypt would respectively date to about 2700-2500 and 2500-2300 BC, while in the current chronology these dynasties are dated to as late as 2450-2200 BC or 2323-2150 BC or sometimes to 2345-2184/1 BC and impossible to sustain. Take your pick.

The carbon chronology also offers more room for the First Intermediate Period in Egypt, which most Egyptologists and Archaeologists would gladly embrace. Yet, the controversy persists, not in the last place simply because of hard-headed stubbornness of certain revered authorities. Thus the Israeli archaeologist Amihai Mazar still refuses to use carbon dates for archaeological finds from the fourth and third millennium BC (A. Mazar, 1990, p. 28), because they conflict with the general view on Egyptian dates. Others simply don’t calibrate carbon dates for the sixth millennium BC and earlier and prefer to mention only uncalibrated dates designated as years BP (“Before Present”, that is: before 1950, sometime before 2000). Hardly ever do they mention the calibration curve and its calculation method. Carbon dates that do not fit the expectations are mostly arbitrarily dismissed as “probably contaminated”. The extent of the problem, with which carbon dates have confronted us since 1979, can best be illustrated with the following figure:

43

Figure 1. This is a graphic representation of the differences between the average calibrated carbon dates and the dates according to the current conventional chronology. The carbon dates are taken from (1) B. Kemp in ‘Amarna Reports I’ (EES, 1984), p. 185; (2) and (4) ‘Expedition’ 32:3 (Kreta subjects) (1990), p. 3; (3) Historical dates from the volcanic eruptions on the island Thera (Santorini), dated to about 1550 BC to about 1480 BC versus the carbon dates

44

of the Theran Conference with dates varying between 1680 BC and 1619 BC; (5) ad (12) H. Haas et al: ‘Radiocarbon chronology and the historical calendar in Egypt’ in O. Aurenche et al. (editors): ‘Chronologies in the Near East’, part II (1987), p. 606; (13) ‘Horizon’ (BBC 2). Download for free the calibration curve Intcal04 for all dates from 24.050 BC on the following internet address: http://archaeology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=archaeology&cdn=education&tm=15&gps=98_332_953_556&f=11&tt=13&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04.htm. One can also make use of the following high precision online calibration calculator: http://archaeology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=archaeology&cdn=education&tm=10&gps=454_512_953_556&f=11&tt=13&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/

The above graphic representation is already somewhat outdated, but the general idea is still prevalent. The lack of Middle and New Kingdom carbon dates, at the time when this graph was composed, were mostly due to decisions to cut expenses on carbon research. It was thought that the Middle and New Kingdom chronology was known to such exactness that no carbon tests were needed. However, carbon dating has now become less expensive and more sophisticated, allowing a precision of sometimes less than ± 5 years in the raw 14C data BP, which allows for a precision of ± 20-50 years or less in the calibrated date results BC from the Middle Kingdom onward. And this precision is regarded more than useful by modern archaeologists and Egyptologists. The historical dates of the Middle and New Kingdoms and even of the Third Intermediate Period are namely still only certain within a margin of ± 35-50 years, but the calibrated carbon dates consistently point to the upper limits of that range, while the proponents of the “accepted” chronology consistently maintain the lower limits without regards to carbon dating. So it is imperative to carbon-date these periods and to settle certain issues.

After Mellaart only Lehner dared target the conventional Egyptian chronology with new carbon dates. This time colleagues chose for ultimate silence. Maybe because he did not venture on proposing a new chronological model on the basis of his finds as Mellaart and others did. They at least had no defence, since they themselves use calibrated and uncalibrated carbon dates arbitrarily to suit their own theories. The objections against calibrated carbon dates are mainly associated with the second millennium BC, in which one thought to have a solid historical basis for dating the 12th to 22nd dynasties of Egypt! They didn’t have a solid historical basis at all, but they upheld that idea anyway.

Another problem is that carbon dates put questions to the familiar interpretation of the Bible and issues of faith. Many rich financers support archaeologists only if they announce the expected results, and the greatest financers are still the Christian communities and fanatics. And whoever wants to remain popular with their employers, colleagues and the media, adjusts to these expectations. The church dictates that king Salomon belongs to the Iron Age. Although the Early Bronze Age of Palestine shows an empire that fits the expectations perfectly and the Iron Age not at all, the financers force archaeologists to keep smiling and keep on digging for the non-existing king Salomon in the 10th century BC.

The objections against calibrated carbon dates now extend to the 4th and 3rd millennium BC, in which one also thought to have a solid basis for the Predynastic and the Early and Old Kingdoms. The necessity to review the historical scheme is increasing. In the year 1987 the archaeologist F. Hole summed up the problem for the period between 6000 and 4000 BC in the Mesopotamian archaeology on the basis of carbon dates:

“In view of the prevailing lack of sites ascribed to this phase, not to mention

the lack of stratigraphic evidence for a substantial gap time, we can hardly be comfortable with the situation: a chronological ‘fault-line’ on either side of sites, but across which the evidence is scarce or non-existent. While calibration of dates has resolved some problems, it has created this giant enigma. The possibilities are as follows: 1) the calibration curve is wrong; 2) the date

45

ascribed to written history is wrong; 3) archaeological stratification has been grossly misinterpreted; (4) the region was depopulated for a thousand years; or 5) the ceramics in use during this period are not diagnostic. Since none of these seem feasible, the enigma remains.” – F. Hole, 1987, p. 562.

Hole tries to keep an open mind and elaborates on the problem as broad as possible. By doing so however he diverts the attention from the real problem: the accepted dating system. The possibility that the area of Mesopotamia was depopulated for a thousand years also happens to be the case in the Fayum area of Egypt between 6200 and 5200 BC in the carbon chronology. This could mean that there might be a connection between the cultural demise in both areas at the same time, maybe through collective migrations due to drastic climatic changes. That the accepted dates for the written history are incorrect is also quite possible. The other possibilities can hardly be taken serious.

Applying the Calibrated Carbon Chronology

In a later Chapter, ‘Radiocarbon Dating Controversy Part 2’, I will continue to study and lay down the implications of calibrated radiocarbon dating and discuss the results of the latest survey of the David Koch Team in 1995. The efforts of this team to refute the earlier results of Mark Lehner and others have failed miserably, but the outcome of this survey was that slightly lower dates for the Early Dynasties should be considered for the Early and Old Kingdoms than those of 1985. This is also reflected in the results of my own independent research. I will now discuss the application of the radiocarbon chronology as a practical guide in setting up and refining a solidly based historical framework, instead of only trying to confirm or disprove expected dates or uphold theoretical views as usual.

As noted by Johannes van der Plicht and Hendrik J. Bruins, Egyptologists have generally been very sceptical of carbon results, often ignoring carbon dating altogether. It is certainly not easy to give up established viewpoints in any scientific field. However, strong accumulative evidence is now emerging from carbon dating. Bruins and van der Plicht (2001) show in considerable detail that carbon dating is definitely challenging archaeo-historical time frameworks in Egypt and the southern Levant for the Early Bronze Age and the early parts of Egyptian history. High-precision dating of short-lived organic samples from Early Bronze Jericho (Bruins and van der Plicht 1998, 2001) yielded carbon results unambiguously older than Kenyon’s archaeological age assessment (Kenyon 1981: Kenyon and Holland 1983). A detailed comparison and analysis of their results from Jericho through cultural archaeological linkages with ancient Egypt seems to confirm that the early parts of Egyptian history ought to be considerably older by at least some 100 to 300 years (Bruins and van der Plicht 2001).

Indeed, the great importance of a high-precision calibrated carbon chronology of Near Eastern archaeology (Bruins and Mook 1989) is its intrinsic independence of complex archaeological associations with historical calendars. Thus, carbon dating has the potential to break through circular reasoning and built-in biases. For instance, different chronological opinions exist among scholars concerning archaeological associations between Egypt, the Levant, and the Aegean during the 2nd millennium BC (Bietak 1991; Dever 1992; Weinstein 1992; Manning 1995, 1999). The Iron Age chronology controversy concerns archaeological strata in Israel in another example (Balter 2000).

46

Recent studies of radiocarbon dates from the 12th to 18th Dynasties conducted by Hendrik J. Bruins, demonstrate what is going on in current Egyptology. The results of these studies correspond perfectly to my own independent research based on monumental sources and new astronomical dating methods. The following illustration comes from Bruins’ article “Dating Pharaonic Egypt”, in Science Vol. 328, 18 June 2010, published by AAAS (www.sciencemag.org):

Figure 2. The above illustration, taken from “Dating Pharaonic Egypt” by Hendrik J. Bruins, in Science Vol. 328, 18 June 2010, published by AAAS (www.sciencemag.org), gives us an overview of the conflict between conventional Egyptian dynastic chronology and radiocarbon dating of the second millennium BC. From top to bottom: (1) Radiocarbon dating (yellow) and archaeo-historical dating (blue) of the Aegean Late Minoan IA period in relation to the

14C-dated and archaeo-historical dated Santorini (Thera) eruption. (2) The new radiocarbon and modelling results

(yellow) by Bronk Ramsey et al. of Egyptian dynastic chronology over the selected time interval. A large part (blank) of the Second Intermediate Period was not investigated owing to the lack of secure samples. Yet it is already clear from this survey that the 12

th Dynasty ran from circa 2000 BC to 1825 BC, followed by the self-rule of the 13

th Dynasty

and the Hyksos (15th

) Dynasty, then the 18th

Dynasty from 1580 BC and after the Hyksos expulsion from 1560 onwards. (3) The

14C results (yellow) of various archaeological phases of Tell el-Dab a (Avaris). (4) The much younger

(and generally considered far too young) archaeo-historical dating (blue) by Bietak of the same phases. (5) The association of the Tell el-Dab a phases with the Low Egyptian historical chronology as presented by Bietak (blue).

The conclusion of Bruins here is that the 14C date results from Tell el-Dab a (Avaris) are systematically older by about 100-200 years than the Ultra-Low Egyptian historical chronology presented by Bietak. The radiocarbon dating in fact conforms perfectly well to the astronomical dating methods of the High Chronology of both Egypt and Mesopotamia, and a renewed analysis of their synchronisms and the dates of this era according to the Turin Canon, which document so far has been grossly misinterpreted by the conventional Egyptologists. I’ll come back to this issue in the appropriate chapters dealing with this era.

47

Surprisingly, carbon dating does not seem to exist in the majority of the chronological battles, neither as an item on the agenda nor as an argument in the debate. However, a change in attitude and at least awareness among archaeologists towards carbon dating in Egypt and the Bronze and Iron Ages of the Near East is at long last beginning to emerge. However, most if not all are passive bystanders and simply await the winner to emerge from this on-going battle among the top Egyptologists and archaeologists. After more than 40 years of continuous and silent self-study on the subject, I have finally decided not to sit and wait any longer and to actively participate in these discussions by simply publishing my findings.

One problem with carbon dates remains that they can never be exact to the year, regardless of the gained precision in the last decades. They sometimes vary considerably and are only true within a certain percentage of probability, depending on the range, in the early strata usually ± 100-200 years or more, although currently more usually becoming considerably smaller, based on multiple raw carbon dates with a precision of sometimes less than ± 10 in the 1-sigma area, mainly due to the consistent focus on using short-lived samples and better techniques. One can basically choose from any date within a given range: high, low or middle (average), and this range can be stretched for instance by simply calibrating a carbon date in the 2-sigma area. For instance, with a date like 4465 BC ± 190 years, one can take the highest (4655 BC), the lowest (4275 BC), the average (4465 BC) or any date in between or even a date just outside the given range. So if someone wants to deny the value of a date range, they can simply do that. Normally we should take the average or middle date as most probably correct, and the difference with the chronological model should generally not be more than a century in the Old Kingdom and half a century in the New Kingdom, but regarding the Old Kingdom we also must acknowledge the differences between the 1984 carbon results, averaging about 374 years earlier than expected, with a general spread of ± 200 years, and the more scrutinized 1995 carbon results, averaging only about 200 or actually 275-300 years earlier than expected, but with a wider spread of ± 400 years – except for the Great Step Pyramid and the Lesser Pyramid (see Chapter ‘Carbon Dating Controversy Part 2).

These differences may have resulted from the current use of the IntCal04 calibration curve, and the Calib calculation method, in contrast to the curve and calculation method prevalent in the 1980s. The refined calibration curves of 1986 used by Mark Lehner usually give slightly higher results and wider ranges than the new standards since 1993. Mark Lehner, who had also participated in the 1995 survey, mentions in the 2009-2010 Annual Report of the AERA (Anctient Egyptian Research Association) his concerns about the way the carbon dates were treated by the David Koch Team (http://www.aeraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/AR_2010.pdf). Lehner was wise enough to conceal his dismay in public at the time and for a long time thereafter, since David Koch was the big financer of the team. And ultra-conventional figures like Zahi Hawass and Shawki Nakhla of the Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) were also made part of the team, obviously to keep an eye on the results that were not supposed to contradict the claims of the establishment. The purpose of the new survey was none other than to rehabilitate the conventional scheme and to find ways to lessen the conflicting carbon results.

The combined 1984 and 1995 studies produced 235 new dates, including 42 from the Khufu Pyramid

alone. One major objection of Lehner (pages 31-32) was that the team preferred to follow Swiss colleagues to take a weighted mean value for all 14C dates for a given monument, and then calibrate that mean, rather than calibrating each individual date. Bonani et al. 2001 thus gave a calibrated average date for each monument. On this point there was a fairly spirited e-mail exchange just before Christmas 1999. To Mark Lehner it seemed that averaging all the 42 dates for a pyramid like Khufu’s, which builders occupied for over twenty years, made no sense. The Great Pyramid is more like an archaeological site than a discrete object. Calibrating a mean, even a weighted mean with a Chi square test, obscured conspicuous differences between the 1984 and 1995 dates, and silenced signals inherent in the anomalous results and wide scatter, features especially pronounced for the gigantic pyramids of the early Old Kingdom. But Lehner had no say in the procedures of the team. After all, he was the hated culprit who had instigated

48

the wrath of the establishment ten years earlier. On page 32 Lehner als recapitulates that Sturt W. Manning, writing in 2003 about radiocarbon dating and Egyptian chronology for the “Handbook of Egyptian Chronology”, published in 2006, did not see in Haas et al. 1987 or Bonani et al. 2001 a problem of radiocarbon dating for Egyptian chronology. Manning stated:

‘... the interpretation of Bonani et al. is based on two inappropriate starting points. First,

there is no allowance for likely average sample age at time of use (i.e. “old wood” age) for random wood/charcoal samples not known to be outer tree rings, and second, Bonani et al. use average values for the radiocarbon age of sample sets which contain significant internal variation ...’

Lehner emphasized the second objection of Manning. Manning also pointed out a compounding factor

that induces old age in our pyramid samples: the well-known plateau in the calibration curve for the early 3rd Millennium BC. As determined by measurements on the rings of long-lived trees, radiocarbon remained relatively constant in the atmosphere between 2900 and 2500 BC. The result of this is that during these 400 years “several calendar periods have similar radiocarbon ages.” A 14C date within this half-millennium can have multiple intercepts with the calibration curve, resulting in several possible calibrated dates distributed over long time spans. To illustrate his point, Manning did a simulated radiocarbon age for the date 2587 ± 50 BC, allowing 50 years for the average age of wood the builders would have used as fuel, and a 50 years error margin. He observed:

‘And what we find is that the shape of the calibration curve...yields a calibrated age that seems 100-300

years too old in the main and only just includes the real date at the very end of the calibrated range at 95.4% probability.’ (emphasis Lehner’s).

This realization is of course an eye opener and very close to the idea Lehner’s colleague John Nolan had

pursued with calibrated dates on individual samples to see if the 2 Sigma probability range would perhaps at least touch the conventional date! Apparently it didn’t.

On pages 32 and 33 Lehner also mention that in January of 2007, Joanne Rowland and Christopher

Bronk Ramsey of the Oxford team contacted him about the possibility of running further measurements on any samples remaining from the 1995 project and reassessing the dates. What Lehner did not spell out so much is that the actual purpose of Ramsey et al. was to rehabilitate the value of the conventional dates using a new trick: Bayesian algorithm. The Bayesian trick is nothing but a biased method to combine carbon dates with the opinions of conventional Egyptologists, thus tempering the outcome of real carbon dates, and by limiting the upper ranges of the carbon dates further by using an arbitrary algorithm that supposedly would account for the actually unknown factor of “old wood”, Ramsey et al managed to limit the discrepancies to only 76 years for the Old Kingdom. And to cover up the false intentions Ramsey called his dates “radiocarbon dates” which they were not. This trick is invalid but has of course won the hearts of many conventional Egyptologists, willing to close their eyes for the falsehood of the Bayesian method, a method which is known to be only good for filtering spam in emails and for collecting people’s opinions but not for manipulating the results of pure scientific data that should be completely independent of anyone’s opinion, period. The conventional Egyptologist Erik Hornung (Hornung, E.: “Introduction.” In Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East, edited by E. Hornung, R. Krauss, and D. Warburton, pp. 1–16. Leiden: Brill, 2006.), expressed his concern:

“Egyptian chronology is still the touchstone by which all of the other chronologies in the ancient world are measured and the issue of its reliability is thus central.”

This concern is the only reason why figures like Erik Hornung and Bronk Ramsey dislike carbon dating as it invalidates the reliability of the conventional Egyptian chronology, considered to be “the touchstone by which all of the other chronologies in the ancient world are measured.” Guess what, the conventional

49

Egyptian chronology is not that touchstone, not anymore. Carbon dates will stay and Bayesian dates will be exposed as a deliberate smoke screen formed by invalid data manipulation. Whatever the case, carbon dating in itself is certainly not enough. We still need independent other methods and pieces of evidence to facilitate exact dates for comparison. In fact, I did find independent reasons to agree with a slightly more sober average of 375-250 years earlier dates for the Fourth Dynasty, and 690-580 years earlier dates for the First Dynasty. On the one hand we have the archaeological, astronomical and monumental evidence, but we also still have written sources such as the Royal Annals (Palermo Stone and its fragments) of the Fifth Dynasty and other King Lists, which is our next subject.

Another problem with carbon dates is that sometimes samples from the same place can give one or more carbon dates that are unexpectedly high or low. Researchers can decide to reject these. But there are no scientific criteria to do so. Such decisions are made subjectively, even if some mathematical formula is used to do the selecting job. And what happens if we have only one or two carbon dates for the same object or event? Can we really decide whether one of them is more valid than the other? Of course not, and in such a case no mathematical formula can decide for us either. We can pull this magic trick only on the basis of a theory or personal opinion. We should not rely on such but look at the grand picture and search for independent other evidence before doing anything else. If we are lucky, we may be able to interpolate the most likely correct date.

It remains clear that we urgently need to correct the current chronology of Egypt. Calibrated carbon dates for the archaeological ages associated with the Predynastic are already on average seven to ten centuries higher than the conventional chronologies allow for. One cannot keep on using both systems, mixed or unmixed, whenever it suits a theory, without getting into trouble. Lehner’s results for the Fourth Dynasty are perfectly in accord with all modern carbon dates of any period we know of, so the choice should be easy to make. We cannot ignore them for the sake of conventional accepted Egyptology, and wait for the David Koch team to do yet another indecisive carbon test if they ever will. We already use calibrated carbon dates in every historical and archaeological field except in Egyptology. Not the dating of the pyramids, but the adjusting of the Egyptian Dynasties themselves to the carbon chronology is our first priority.

Adjusting the conventional chronology to the carbon chronology will also solve the controversy of the Great Sphinx and its temples on the Gizeh plateau, which according to the geological research by Robert Schoch should date several thousands of years before the Fourth Dynasty. Schoch came up with a quite conservative date of 7000-5000 BC for the first two building phases of the Sphinx. But since Schoch also relied on the conventional dating of the Fourth Dynasty upon which he based all his calculations, his dates for the Sphinx should be adjusted to at least 7500-5500 BC in my Improved High Chronology. Other discoveries, like the Lascaux-type rock art in Upper Egypt, dated to at least 8000 BC, and the connection of the Egyptian culture to the cow worship and sacrifice at the astronomical stone circle site of Nabta Playa in the western desert of Upper Egypt (Lower Nubia), carbon-dated to about 5800-4700 BC, can be explained only if we adjust the conventional dates of the Predynastic to the carbon chronology. We will suddenly realize that the Nabta Playa cow worshipping culture is astronomically, calendric and culturally connected to the Early Kingdom of Egypt and its famous Apis bull cult.

Nabta Playa was abandoned around 3350-3300 BC, according to the carbon dates. Adjusting the dates of the Early Dynasties shows continuity from the Nabta Playa cow worshipping pastoral culture to the bull worshipping urban culture of the Early Dynasties. It has already been noticed that the pastoral people of the Western Desert (especially Nabta Playa), coming en mass with their herds of cattle to the Nile Valley and down to the Delta, probably had a great influence on the rise of the Early Kingdom, which can be perfectly demonstrated in the carbon chronology. This transition may have been noted by Manetho in the reign of Nebra Kakau (Manetho’s Kaiechos’), the second king of the Second Dynasty, dated to 3309-3270

50

BC in the Improved Chronology: ‘In his reign the bulls, Apis at Memphis and Mnevis at Heliopolis, and the goat (Ban) of Mendes were worshipped as gods’. This is a strange statement when we know that Apis was already worshipped since the beginning of the First Dynasty. Therefore, it most likely signifies a major change in the religious practices due to a change in the balance of the cattle-worshipping population at the beginning of the Second Dynasty. It may be of interest that this change occurred after a great earthquake in the reign of the former king Hetepsekhemui Bedjau (Manetho’s Boethos), 3347-3309 BC, causing a chasm to open at Bubastis, in which many people perished, according to Manetho. Earthquakes have always been rare in Egypt, but Bubastis is situated in an unstable region (see H.G. Lyons in ‘Cairo Scientific Journa, I, 1907, p. 182). It stands on an earthquake line, which runs all the way to Crete. A deep boring made at Bubastis failed to reach bedrock. This confirms the validity of Manetho’s remarks. In the current chronology there is an unsurpassable gap between the end of Nabta Playa and the beginning of the dynasties, which simply doesn’t make sense. This gap is non-existent in the Improved Chronology. Especially interesting is the coinciding of the abandonment of both Nabta Playa and Abydos in Upper Egypt at the beginning of the second dynasty, after which the cultural conflicts between North and South, the unprecedented appearance of a Seth-king (Peribsen), climatic changes and a major exodus of people from nearly all the old Delta cities, especially in the Eastern Delta, leading the Second Dynasty to its downfall, coinciding with a population explosion in the Sinai.

The tomb of a very early ruler in Omari produced the calibrated carbon date 4600-4400 BC (Debono & Mortensen, 1990, p. 81). This date didn’t fit the current historical view and so it was either ignored or tentatively ‘adjusted’ by F.A. Hassan to 4100 BC without scientific proof (F. A. Hassan, 1995, p. 674). In the Improved Chronology there is no conflict: Omari simply dates from circa 4700 BC! The carbon dates for Omari in fact varied from 4795 BC ± 150 years to 4465 BC ± 190 years. In the following list I round all dates off to the nearest 50 years, since carbon dates can never be used as exact dates. I compare these with the general consensus, and add minimal and maximal dates separately, but we would be fooling ourselves and others if we would average out the averages, minima’s or maxima’s any further than this: Sites Consensus (±) Calibrated 14C-date (±) Low (±) High (±)

Omari A 4000-3750 BC. 4800-4450 BC. 4650-4300 4950-4650 Omari B and Maadi A 3750-3200 BC. 4450-3900 BC. 4300-3700 4650-4100 Maadi B and Heruan (near Helwan) 3300-3000 BC. 4000-3400 BC. 3800-3250 4200-3550

Table 2. The calibrated carbon dates give the correct dating of the sites Omari, Maadi and Heruan (near Helwan). These sites were deserted half-way the Second Dynasty (3400 BC ± 200 years in the average calibrated carbon chronology). The consensus dates are the product of the incorrect current Dynastic chronology, based on the flawed interpretation of the Turin Canon. The low dates (‘Low’) could be used to correct them. Compare the carbon dates to those of the archaeological periods of the Near East.

Archaeological Period Palestine & Syria Egypt Chalcolithic (Copper) I 5200-4800 BC No Jericho exists, wet

conditions in the Western Negev and in Egypt

Chalcolithic (Copper) II 4800-4100 BC 4800-4450 BC 4450-3900 BC

Omari A Omari B & Maadi A

Early Bronze I 4100-3500 BC Jericho re-emerges. Egyptian colonies in S. Palestine and Mesopotamian colonies in Syria, ca 3700-3500 BC.

4000-3400 BC Maadi B & Heruan (near Helwan)

51

Now we can finally see how closely the Eastern Delta of Egypt and Southern Palestine were related as early as 4000-3400 BC, in which it becomes clear why we see so many common cultural elements in Omari, Maadi and Jericho.

Of great importance is that historically the end of Maadi B and Heruan is supposed to be in the mid-Second Dynasty, but as we can see from the table above this end is carbon-dated to between 3550-3250 BC, or on average 3400 BC. This dating corresponds perfectly with our dating of the Second Dynasty in the Improved Chronology but doesn’t fit the conventional chronology at all. It is in line with the general curve of the calibrated carbon chronology, which indeed places the mid-Second Dynasty around 3250 BC. In an article of Kathryn A. Bard (‘Radiocarbon Dates from Halfiah Gibli (Abadiyeh), a Predynastic Settlement in Upper Egypt’, Radiocarbon, Vol. 45, Nr 1, 2003, pp. 123-130) efforts are made to tell us how the Predynastic should be dated in the carbon chronology, but this article bases itself on Hassan’s ‘adjusted’ version of the predynastic carbon dates, which is therefore invalid. It is again only intended to consolidate current expectations. The article of Kathryn A. Bard provides carbon dates from two predynastic sites, Halfiah Gibli and Semaineh, and the carbon dates range from 5060 ± 110 BP to 4020 ± 80 BP, that is calibrated in the 1-sigma area 3964-3760 BC (92%) to 2677-2460 BC (92%). Eight of the twelve sample-groups were in the range from 5060 ± 110 BP to 4680 ± 65 BP, that is 3760 BC (92%) to 3475-3370 BC (69%). It is however not clear what is being dated here. All of the ceramics excavated at Halfiah Gibli are from the Naqada Ic to Naqada IIb-c phases (Sally Swain, personal communication), but it is unknown which phases the samples represent because clear strata are lacking. The article merely compares the carbon results with the conventional scheme according to Hendrickx’s Chronology, based on Hassan’s dates. And as we have seen Hassan has already fooled us by first dropping no less than 500-300 years from the original calibrated carbon dates, providing no scientific proof whatsoever! This renders Kathryn’s whole research project worthless for absolute dating purposes. Another example of a worthless study in her article is the following. A wood sample (SH-150, DRI-2907) was found by Stephen H. Savage next to a Meidum ware sherd from the Old Kingdom, 5-10 centimetres below the surface. Other pottery in this feature, which was thought to be a kiln for Old Kingdom bread moulds, was a great mixture of Old and New Kingdom wares with some Predynastic potsherds. The majority of sherds were Old Kingdom bread moulds. The carbon date was 4933 ± 136 BP, calibrated in the 1-sigma area to 3821-3633 BC (70%) and 3942-3856 BC (24%), the whole range being 3942-3540 BC. The article comments on this as follows:

“Although this sample was collected in an Old Kingdom context, its calibrated dates are much earlier, suggesting a disturbed feature with a mixture of artefacts from different periods (Predynastic and Old Kingdom).”

Such a disturbed stratum cannot be used as evidence for dating either the Old Kingdom or the Predynastic. The comment illustrates the author’s difficulty to understand the consequences of this find. Efforts have been made by Stephen H. Savage in ‘Towards an AMS Radiocarbon Chronology of Predynastic Egyptian Ceramics’ to date the Predynastic, using materials collected in 1902-1903 from the Predynastic Egyptian cemetery N7000 at Naga-ed-Dêr in Upper Egypt (Lythgoe 1905; Lythgoe and Dunham 1965), recovered as part of the Hearst Expedition to Egypt and curated at the Hearst Museum. These are similarly vague and unusable. The samples of short-lived materials had similar carbon dates ranging from 4950 ± 60 BP to 4505 ± 70 BP, calibrated in the 1-sigma area to 3781-3658 BC (100%) to 3347-3263 BC (36%) and 3246-3101 BC (64%). Again eight of the sixteen sample groups ranged from 4950 ± 60 BP to 4605 ± 65 BP, rendering 3781-3658 BC (100%) to 3515-3422 BC (48%) and 3384-3331 BC (29%). Savage too was biased towards the

52

conventional dating scheme for the Predynastic, simply using Hassan’s tentatively ‘adjusted’ carbon dates to correlate the collected carbon dates to the expected dates for certain predynastic phases, but he does suggest that this scheme should be pushed back a century, which he based on the associated pottery.

Savage mentions an interesting sample BM-1127A from Tomb 100 at Hieraconpolis (Nekhen) which yielded a problematic carbon date of 12,900 ± 120 BC (Burleigh 1963:364) but also a more realistic Tomb 100 (BM-1127B) sample which had a calibrated 1-sigma range of 235 years at 3900-3665 BC (Burlei 1983:364). In contrast to what Savage thought, this last date is really useful, despite the wide range. Its centre date is 3783 BC. In the Improved Chronology Tomb 100 can indeed be estimated to date around 3900-3890 BC, based on both its archaeological position in relation to the First Dynasty and on some later historical-literary information about this era.

The three periods of Omari, Maadi and Heruan in the Delta conveniently correspond to the three main cultural horizons of predynastic Egypt called Naqada I, II and III respectively, after the oldest predynastic site Naqada in Upper Egypt. To fit the carbon chronology their conventional dates (4000, 3600 and 3300 BC, or according to others as late as 3800, 3500 and 3200 BC) must also be corrected to about 4700, 4400 and 4050 BC, or at least about 4550, 4250 and 3900 BC. The Amrah culture of Upper Egypt is now also called Naqada I. The Amrah culture was named after the area of Amrah, south of Abydos. In the carbon chronology it would date about 5000-4700 BC or at least 4850-4550 BC; it was the continuation of the Badari culture, which was already carbon-dated 5700-4700 BC or at least 5550-4550 BC and therefore might even be called ‘Naqada 0’.

The Badarian culture was the first carbon-dated culture to become a problem for conventional Egyptology; not only because the carbon dates were so much higher than expected, but also because the Badarian culture partly and locally continued through all Naqada phases. Naqada II was first found at Gerzeh, 5 kilometres northeast of Meidum, near the Fayum, south of Memphis, in the nearby places Haraga and Abusir el-Melek, and recently at Minshat Abu Omar in the Eastern Delta. Therefore the cultural horizon Naqada II was first called Gerzean, which in the earlier days could not be distinguished from Naqada III. The Maadi culture in the North spread to Minshat Abu Omar in the Eastern Delta and to Buto in the Western Delta, but disappeared in those places near the end of Naqada II, as it was replaced by the southern Naqada II culture, around 4000 BC or at least 3850 BC. There seems to be a hiatus in the Egyptian burials around 4200-4000 BC or at least 4050-3850 BC, during which the transition took place. This unexplained hiatus is also seen in Palestine.

Table of sequence dates of Predynastic Egyptian pottery Period Sequence

Date BC (Petrie) BC (Modified) BC (Improved) Eastern Delta

Tasian (Fayum I) Badarian Amratian (Naqada I) Gerzean (Naqada II) Semainean (Naqada III) First Dynasty

20 21-29 30-37 38-60 61-78 78-82

7400 5500 4000

5000-4500 4500-3200 3200

7000-6000 5700-4500 4600-4300 4300-4000 4000-3600 3600-3300

Omari A & B, Maadi A Omari B, Maadi A Maadi B, Heruan Maadi B, Heruan

Table 3.

Based on the average curve of the calibrated carbon chronology of 1984, moderated by the average 1995 carbon results, a more elaborate table emerges below:

53

Cultures of Lower Egypt Start (±) Cultures of Upper Egypt Start (±)

Quranic (= Fayum I or B) (Mesolithic) 6950 BC El-Kab (Nekheb-Nekhen) (Mesolithic) 6950 BC End Quranic (Fayum I or B) – hiatus 6050 BC Badari I (Neolithic) 5650 BC Fayum II (or A) (Neolithic) 5050 BC Badari II (continuation) 5050 BC - city Merimde (Chalcolithic) 4800 BC - city Girga (? This, Thiny), Badari III 4800 BC Omari A, Buto I 4550 BC Naqada I: Naqada, Nekhen I, Amrah 4550 BC End Merimde II/Omari A/Fayum II 4350 BC Naqada I-c/d 4350 BC Maadi A, Buto II, Gerzeh (Naqada II) 4300 BC Naqada II: Nekhen II, Gebelein 4250 BC End Maadi A culture – hiatus 4050 BC Naqada II-c/d – hiatus 4050 BC Naqada III: Heruan (Helwan), Tura 3920 BC Naqada III: Abydos 3920 BC Naqada III-b (dynasty ‘0’) 3750 BC Naqada III-b (dynasty ‘0’) 3750 BC First dynasty 3600 BC First dynasty 3600 BC

Table 4. The predynastic periods of Upper and Lower Egypt according to the lower end of the average calibration curve, corresponding to the more moderate 1995 average carbon results.

Other independent arguments are needed to set true key dates. Fortunately, I did find evidence favouring this moderate carbon chronology. Renewed excavations at Abydos done by a team led by Günter Dreyer of the German Institute have yielded new radiocarbon age estimates (Hassan and Serrano n.d.), also favouring the moderate carbon chronology for dynasty 1. Since carbon dates are not exact, they can only serve as a general guide. This is one reason why historians rather stay behind on the carbon evidence and cling onto so-called ‘established’ dates, which they don’t have to explain to others and can refer to in their communications without feeling guilty of propagating an unconventional approach. To change their views they mostly seek authoritive approval. One such ´authority´ is scriptural proof, but they forget that even the dating of written records are highly dependent on the position the records are given within a certain dating model, which in turn is highly dependent on certain prevailing ´authoritive´ opinions. And so a circular argument is usually maintained to bar alternative views.

To honour the understandable need for scriptural proof for accepting the carbon chronology, I will proceed to review our historical options in king lists such as Manetho, the Royal Annals and the Turin Canon, each in their own rights, in comparison with the monumental, archaeological and astronomical evidence.