The date of the Thera eruption is one of several critical pieces of evidence in ancient Middle Eastern chronology, and it is the sixth of The Six Pillars. Much of the controversy over its date surrounds two common misperceptions: 1) radiocarbon dating is an exact science, and 2) radiocarbon dating of eruption-related organic samples contradicts “the Egyptian historical chronology.”
The scientists who constructed the Radiocarbon International Calibration Curve (IntCal) know some of the causes of regional offsets but do not understand others. The archaeologists and scientists who utilize IntCal are generally far less aware of these causes, and some tend to credulously trust the accuracy of radiocarbon dating as if it were an exact science. Consequently, they find minor discrepancies in Thera-related dates confusing. However, with a common-sense approach, we understand that regional and circumstantial offsets exist and offer scientific explanations for the likely causes.
Some Egyptologists insist that radiocarbon dates related to the Thera eruption inexplicably contradict “the Egyptian historical chronology.” As impressive and ostentatious as this label is, that model assigns the Egyptian New Kingdom era to a timeframe that is over a century too late. Consequently, “historical” is an inappropriate adjective.
Two contemporaneous documents from ancient Egypt strongly imply a close temporal relationship between the eruption and the transition from the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Dynasty control of the Delta. Hence, we should compare eruption-related radiocarbon dates with Egyptian radiocarbon dates from this transition period. What does comparing dated materials from Thera and Crete with dynastic transition dates from Egypt reveal?
Radiocarbon-dated eruption-related samples from Palaikastro, Crete and Akrotiri, Santorini (Thera) were almost equivalent and spanned dates on IntCal13 that roughly equated the middle half of the seventeenth century BCE. Some samples from higher elevations on Thera had minor offsets that placed them a little later in the same century. (The creation of carbon-14 occurs in the atmosphere, and higher elevation areas tend toward slightly enriched levels of this isotope.)
Sequenced calibrated Fifteenth Dynasty radiocarbon-dated samples (from stratum D2 at Tell el-Daba in the Delta) span from the late 1700s through 1630 BCE. The sequenced range of dates of the one sample from the early Eighteenth Dynasty (stratum D1) is 1688-1601. The combination of these dates suggests the transition between the two dynasties was approximately in the middle of the 1600s BCE. In contrast, the 2010 Science article “Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt” included only the organic samples from the Eighteenth Dynasty that originated in Upper and Middle Egypt. The writers stated there was a 95% probability that the Eighteenth Dynasty began between 1570 and 1544 BCE.
Which of these two sets of dated organic samples essentially agreed with the radiocarbon dates related to Thera? Which location has environmental circumstances the most analogous to temperate-climate Crete, Santorini, and southern Germany (where the backbone of IntCal originates), 1) Tell el-Daba near the Mediterranean coast or 2) the desert of Upper and Middle Egypt?
Common sense should tell us that the problem is the nominal “Egyptian historical chronology.” Its advocates demonstrate confirmation bias in accepting dates that agree with their traditions and rejecting those that conform with the scientific evidence and much of the historical data. That conventional viewpoint is based entirely on unsubstantiated assumptions, such as the mistaken beliefs that the ancient Egyptians had only one calendar system throughout their history and that the Assyrian King List has no gaps after the Amarna Period synchronisms between Egypt and Assyria.
The scientists who formulated the new IntCal20 significantly improved the calibration curve by including annual data from the last several millennia, whereas IntCal13 typically used five-year segments. Nevertheless, they incorporated into the curve atypical seventeenth and sixteenth centuries BCE tree-ring radiocarbon data from two sites that were lower in carbon-14 than most of the contemporaneous tree-ring datasets. Their sole purpose was seemingly the accommodation of the erroneous “Egyptian historical chronology” by shifting Thera-related radiocarbon measurements to later dates. You can judge for yourself the legitimacy of this alteration.
The only genuine “Egyptian historical chronology” is a model that comprehensively considers all available evidence, incorporates second-millennium-BCE astronomical anchors, and is independent of fallacious traditions. The Six Pillars (soon to be published) reveals that model and, with multiple lines of evidence, identifies the absolute date of the eruption as 1650 BCE.
2 comments