The Minoan Thera eruption predates Pharaoh Ahmose: Radiocarbon dating of Egyptian 17 th to early 18 th Dynasty museum objects

PMCID: PMC12422448

PMID: 40929054

Abstract

The huge volcanic eruption at Thera (Santorini), situated in the Aegean Sea, occurred within the Late Minoan IA archaeological period. However, its temporal association with Egyptian history has long been a controversial subject. Traditionally, the eruption was placed in the early 18 th Dynasty, associated with Pharaoh Thutmose III as the youngest option or with Pharaoh Nebpehtire Ahmose as the oldest possibility. We investigated museum objects from the 17 th and early 18 th Dynasty, at the transition from the Second Intermediate Period to the New Kingdom, a period hardly studied with radiocarbon dating. Our research facilitated the first-ever direct radiocarbon time comparison between this Dynastic transition period and the Minoan Thera eruption. Detailed results are presented of a mudbrick from the Ahmose Temple at Abydos (British Museum), a linen burial cloth associated with Satdjehuty (British Museum), and wooden stick shabtis from Thebes (Petrie Museum), evaluated within a comprehensive context of historical Egyptian chronology options. Since the above items cannot be arranged in a stratigraphic sequence, Bayesian analysis could not be used. We adopted an alternative strategy within radiocarbon time space. Comparing our uncalibrated dates of 17 th and early 18 th Dynasty objects with a robust series of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates for the Minoan Thera eruption, it becomes clear that the two data sets have a different time signature. The Minoan eruption is older than the reign of Nebpehtire Ahmose, the first king of the 18 th Dynasty, who reunited Upper and Lower Egypt. Our calibrated results support a low chronology for his reign and the beginning of the New Kingdom. Previous radiocarbon dates of king Senusert III support a high chronology for the Middle Kingdom. Therefore, the Second Intermediate Period, sandwiched in between these united Egyptian Kingdoms, embodies a significant time interval, as also indicated by Bennett’s genealogical studies of the El-Kab governors.

Full Text

The Santorini or Thera volcano is situated in the Aegean Sea (Greece), about 120 km north of Crete (Fig 1). Its caldera is surrounded by the small islands of Thera, Therasia and Aspronisi. The volcano has produced quite a number of major explosive eruptions during the Quaternary [1]. The most famous one occurred during the Late Minoan IA, an archaeological period traditionally dated from about 1600/1580–1480 BCE [2,3]. Next to the volcano, the Minoan eruption buried the town of Akrotiri in southern Thera under thick layers of tephra [4]. Fine tephra was also found in eastern Crete, transported through the atmosphere by south-easterly winds [5–10].
Farther away, the Minoan eruption caused widespread deposition of volcanic tephra in the eastern Mediterranean region, in deep-sea sediments [11–14], Rhodes [15], Turkey [16], and possibly the Nile delta [17]. In addition, pieces of pebble-size pumice from the Minoan eruption, floating in the water, were transported by Mediterranean sea currents to shores around the eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt [18,19] and Sinai [20].
The erupted volume of the Minoan Thera eruption has been revised upward from ca 60 km3 [21] to about 80 km3 dense-rock equivalent (DRE), which would make it the largest known volcanic eruption in the world during the Holocene [22]. For comparison, the famous and well-documented eruption in 1883 of the Krakatau volcano [23–25], situated in the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra, produced significantly less magma, ca 13 km3 DRE. Nevertheless, the Krakatau eruption caused devastating tsunamis that killed at least 36,000 people and destroyed about 300 villages [26]. Dwelling upon the effects of the Krakatau eruption, the Greek archaeologist Marinatos [27] advanced a hypothesis suggesting that coastal settlements in Minoan Crete may also have been hit by tsunamis caused by the Thera eruption.
Conclusive evidence to substantiate this hypothesis remained elusive for a long time [15,28]. However, following initial archaeological indications at the coastal Minoan town of Palaikastro in north-eastern Crete [3,29], widespread geoarchaeological tsunami deposits, mixed with fine volcanic tephra from the Minoan Thera eruption, were discovered by the first author along the coast of Palaikastro and investigated together with his colleagues [8,30]. Subsequently, more tsunami deposits related to the Minoan eruption were found along the Mediterranean coast, near Caesarea in Israel [31], at the Minoan town of Malia in Crete [32], and in Turkey [33]. The recognition of palaeo-tsunami signatures requires expertise in the earth sciences [34].
Time is a critical dimension in studies dealing with the past, whether from a historical, archaeological or geological perspective. Different dating systems developed in each of these disciplines, leading sometimes to a problematic comparison of “time oranges” with “time apples”. Egyptian historical chronology has long been a basic framework in the eastern Mediterranean region to “calibrate” relative archaeological periodization into “real time”. The Minoan Thera eruption has traditionally been associated with the 18th Dynasty around 1500 BCE [3,4,15,18,27,35–38]. Suggestions have been made to link the time of the eruption with specific pharaohs, including Hatshepsut/Thutmose III [37] and Nebpehtire Ahmose [39].
Each dating method has its own history, development, and potential time resolution. Historical dating, based on written sources, as well as archaeological dating, based on material cultural data, preceded the development of time measurements based on natural science. Radiocarbon dating is a relative newcomer, based on nuclear physics [40]. Though 14C dating has its own limitations, it provides an independent measurement of time, intrinsically unrelated to the interpretation of literary data, ceramic sequences, and their interconnections. Radiocarbon dating of suitable organic materials in Egyptian, Aegean and Near Eastern archaeological, historical and geological contexts is a necessary approach to apply the same methodology across the region and across disciplines [41,42], as well as to evaluate Egyptian historical chronologies [43].
Standard deviations of radiocarbon dates of the Minoan eruption were rather large during the 1980s. Their calibration into calendar years, based on 14C measurements of dendrochronological datasets then available, indicated an eruption most likely in the Second Intermediate Period before the 18th Dynasty [44–47]. A number of archaeologists became convinced to accept a higher chronology, also on the basis of alternative interpretations of material cultural interconnections [48–52]. One of the first to explicitly place the Theran eruption within the Second Intermediate Period was Betancourt in 1987 [44]: “In conclusion, if we were to ignore earlier prejudices completely and erect a new Aegean chronology today, it would be somewhat different from the received tradition. This author withdraws many of the opinions he expressed a decade ago (Betancourt and Weinstein 1976) [53]; the Aegean Late Bronze Age probably began during the Hyksos period, and radiocarbon was correct all along”. Also Christos Doumas, the chief excavator at Akrotiri since the death of Marinatos in 1974, changed his initial understanding and accepted a high chronology [54,55].
The calibration curve, linking radiocarbon time to calendar time, has not remained static, as more detailed 14C measurements of dendrochronological datasets became available over the years. When the IntCal98 calibration curve [56], released in 1998, was in use, the Minoan Thera eruption was dated quite early in the 17th century BCE by Bayesian analyses, to ca 1650–1620 BCE [54], and to 1663–1599 BCE [57]. Since IntCal98 [56], hundreds of additional dendrochronological 14C dates have been measured with high precision [58], which have become incorporated in the present IntCal20 calibration curve [59], available since 2020. The new calibration curve also affected the possible age of the Minoan Thera eruption [58]. Consequently, new Bayesian analyses concerning the time of the Thera eruption were conducted by Manning [60], using the latest IntCal20 calibration curve, which resulted in the following 1σ and 2σ age ranges: 1606–1589 BCE (68.3% probability), 1609–1560 BCE (95.4% probability). Indeed, compared with his Bayesian calibration results [54] based on IntCal98 [56], the age range for the Thera eruption has become younger by roughly 40 years [60], using Bayesian analyses with the updated calibration curve IntCal20 [59].
Nevertheless, Manning maintained that the volcanic event occurred during the Second Intermediate Period [60]. However, Pearson et al. [61] suggested a younger date in the 16th century BCE for the Thera eruption and possible association with the reign of Ahmose, based on their annual dendrochronological datasets for the period 1700–1500 BCE. Another basis for their proposition is related to the Tempest Stela erected by Ahmose, describing a severe catastrophic rainstorm, interpreted by Ritner and Moeller [62] as having been caused by the Thera eruption. Thus, Pearson et al. [61] suggested that the volcanic event was probably coeval with the reign of Ahmose.
Concerning the identity of pharaoh Ahmose, a brief elucidation is required here in the context of our article. The 17th Dynasty king Senakhtenre was until recently only known with his throne name (prenomen), i.e., Senakhtenre. He was the grandfather of king Nebpehtire Ahmose [63], founder of the 18th Dynasty. Possible birthnames (nomen) were tentatively suggested, Tao [64] or Siamun [63]. However, in 2012, Biston-Moulin [65] discovered at Karnak (Thebes) that Ahmose is the real birthname (nomen) of king Senakhtenre. Therefore, he is in fact Ahmose I, a term usually given to his grandson, who can now be regarded as Ahmose II. But the 26th Dynasty king Amasis is often referred to as Ahmose II. To avoid confusion, Cahail [66] recommended using both the throne name and birthname for the respective Ahmose kings of the 17th to 18th Dynasty, and/or using the Roman numerals (I) and (II) in parenthesis. The Pharaoh Ahmose in our article is Nebpehtire Ahmose (II), even if only the name Ahmose is used for brevity.
Manning [67] discussed and evaluated the vexing problems of dating spread on the radiocarbon calibration curve plateau 1620–1540 BCE in relation to the Minoan Thera eruption. He also addressed the radiocarbon dates of the olive shrub at Therasia and came to different conclusions than Pearson et al [68]. His latest Bayesian analyses, published in 2024, concerning the date of the Minoan Thera eruption resulted in the following age ranges: (1σ) 1612–1602 or 1613–1602 BCE, (2σ) 1616–1589 or 1618–1584 BCE. The peak value with the highest probability of his modeled eruption date is situated around 1608 BCE [67].
Concerning ancient Egypt, a large radiocarbon study was conducted between 1984 and 1995, focusing on monumental buildings, including pyramids and tombs of the Early Dynastic Period, the Old and Middle Kingdom [69,70]. The authors sampled organic material from monuments linked to specific kings or sections of Dynastic history. They dated charcoal, wood, plant remains, and humates from mudbricks and mud mortar in between building stones. The precision of radiocarbon measurement was often limited in those days, leading to relatively large standard deviations. Moreover, results from the same monument were often inconsistent, whilst their combined average tended to produce older dates than historical age assessments for the Old Kingdom [70]. A reanalysis of the above radiocarbon dates regarding 4th Dynasty monuments was conducted by Dee et al. [71], using the OxCal calibration program [72] and its function to detect outliers [73]. Their Bayesian analysis and removal of outliers produced new radiocarbon calibration results, showing much closer agreement with historical Dynastic age assessments [71].
The most comprehensive and robust radiocarbon investigation so far of Egyptian Dynastic history was published by Bronk Ramsey et al. [74], including the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms. Their investigation was based on short-lived plant remains, usually from museum collections, associated with specific pharaohs or sections of the historical chronology. A number of samples from the monumental buildings project [69,70] were also used in their 14C measurements. Bayesian models were developed by the authors [74], combining their radiocarbon dates with historical data of the sequence and reign-lengths of the successive pharaohs in order to model the accession year of each pharaoh in the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms. The authors emphasized that “the radiocarbon dates provide the only linkage in the model to the calendar time scale” [74]. Their Bayesian model tends to favor a higher (older) historical Egyptian chronology [75] rather than a lower (younger) chronology [76].
However, the historically problematic First and Second Intermediate Periods were not included in their investigation for obvious reasons. Bayesian sequence modelling, the principal methodology in their research, cannot be conducted for these Intermediate Periods. Knowledge about sequences of kings and their respective reign lengths in these periods are usually uncertain and full of lacunas, but such information is essential to enable sequence modelling [77]. Moreover, it is difficult to find organic samples in museums linked to specific historical figures of the First and Second Intermediate Periods.
The temporal position of Pharaoh Nebpehtire Ahmose forms a key anchor regarding these research objectives. The reign of Ahmose began as king of the 17th Dynasty in Upper Egypt, dominated by the ancient cities of Thebes and Abydos (Fig 1). His reign lasted 25 years and 4 months, according to Manetho [78]. Politically, the beginning of the New Kingdom may be placed at the conquest of Avaris (Fig 1) when king Ahmose defeated the Hyksos empire and reunified Upper and Lower Egypt. The conquest of Avaris occurred not later than ca year 18 in the reign of Ahmose [79]. However, in terms of traditional historical classification following Manetho, the beginning of the 18th Dynasty is placed with the accession year of Ahmose, for which, unfortunately, no historical dates have so far been found [80].
Ahmose erected the so-called Tempest or Storm Stela early in his reign at Karnak, located in the northern part of Thebes (Fig 1). The text of this remarkable stela describes an extraordinary severe rainstorm, characterized by clouded skies and darkness, which caused widespread destructions, apparently witnessed by Ahmose himself. Some of the phenomena mentioned in the stela were interpreted by a number of scholars as possibly related to the volcanic eruption at Thera [62,81–84]. Other scholars have argued against the above linkage [85–87], suggesting alternative translations and interpretations of the hieroglyphic text. Therefore, the important question is whether the reign of Nebpehtire Ahmose is coeval with the Minoan Thera eruption?
Historically, the time period of Ahmose’s reign is by no means fixed. Egyptological age assessments of his rule range from 1580–1557 BCE [88] to 1524–1499 BCE [89]. Using Bayesian sequence analysis of a series of 18th Dynasty radiocarbon dates, coupled with historical information, Bronk Ramsey et al. [43] modeled the accession year of Ahmose. The resulting age ranges are 1566–1552 BCE (1σ) and 1570–1544 BCE (2σ), using OxCal [72,90] with the IntCal04 calibration curve [91]. A different Bayesian model by Quiles et al [92], focusing on the 18th Dynasty, included astronomical Sothic and Lunar data, historical reign length options, and radiocarbon dates of Sennefer’s tomb and the eastern cemetery at Deir el-Medineh. Using the IntCal09 calibration curve [93] and OxCal [72,90], this model yielded younger age ranges for the accession year of Ahmose: 1557–1537 BCE (1σ) and 1564–1528 BCE (2σ) [92].
However, both Bayesian models did not include radiocarbon dates specifically related to Nebpehtire Ahmose or the other early kings of the 18th Dynasty prior to Thutmose III. This shortcoming was acknowledged by Bronk Ramsey et al. [43]:: “there are no dates for specific reigns before that of Thutmose III, and so dates earlier than this are based primarily on the reign-length information included in the model”. The preceding Second Intermediate Period was not involved in these investigations. Therefore, the modeled age ranges for the accession year of Ahmose should be considered tentative.
Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting information (SX Checklist).
The most important object in our investigation is a mudbrick stamped with the throne name Nebpehtire of pharaoh Ahmose, kept in the British Museum. Another relevant item, also from the British Museum, is a linen burial cloth associated with Queen Satdjehuty. She was the second wife of the 17th Dynasty Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao. The latter king was succeeded by Kamose, who was the predecessor of Nebpehtire Ahmose [63]. Another series of samples associated with the 17th Dynasty are wooden stick shabtis, originating from Thebes (Fig 1), which were collected by Sir Flinders Petrie and are kept in the Petrie Museum [94,95]. We received samples from six stick shabtis.
Concerning the Ahmose mudbrick, the methodology to measure the time of mudbrick production is based on 14C dating of plant (straw) fragments, which were added to soil mud from Nile sediment in the process of mudbrick fabrication [96]. However, the alluvial Nile soil may also contain older inherited plant remains and organic compounds, transported by the Nile or from past human activities in the soil, which could result in radiocarbon dates older than the actual time of mudbrick production [70,97]. Studying mudbrick morphology at the microscopic scale may provide additional information regarding organic constituents. Therefore, an already detached but intact aggregate (lump) of the Ahmose mudbrick, having a size of a few centimeters in length, width and thickness, was sent to a specialized laboratory [98] for impregnation with polyester resin under vacuum to harden the soft mudbrick. A thin section was made for microscopic examination.
Radiocarbon dating of all samples was carried out at the Centre for Isotope Research of Groningen University, the Netherlands. The samples with GrA number were measured with the 2.5MV Tandetron AMS [99], which was replaced in 2017 by a Micadas AMS system [100]. The dates measured by the latter system have a GrM number. Regarding quality control, the Groningen radiocarbon laboratory always participates in international 14C intercomparisons, including the recent Glasgow International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (GIRI), see Scott et al. [101]. In addition, extensive 14C intercomparison dating was conducted between selected laboratories, including Groningen, using large series of dendrochronologically dated samples [102,103]. The results underline the reliability and excellent quality of the Groningen radiocarbon laboratory. Concerning the time period of the Minoan Santorini eruption, tree rings of a new series of dendrochronologically dated oak wood from the Netherlands were 14C dated in Groningen [104] and incorporated into the IntCal20 calibration curve [59].
Pretreatment of our samples usually involved the standard acid-base-acid (ABA) procedure, also termed acid-alkali-acid (AAA). But samples with low amounts of carbon were only pretreated with acid. Following pretreatment, the carbon in each sample was combusted to CO2 gas, subsequently reduced to graphite [105]. Next, the graphite was pressed into targets mounted in a sample wheel, which was loaded into the ion source of the AMS machine for measurement of 12C, 13C, and 14C amounts. For extremely small samples the graphite procedure is not used, but the CO2 gas source of the combusted sample is used to measure 14C.
The radiocarbon dates are reported by convention in 14C years BP [106], using the oxalic standard and Libby half-life, and including normalization for isotope fractionation. The 14C dates are calibrated from radiocarbon years into calendar years, using the the OxCal software program v4.4.4 [72,90] and the IntCal20 calibration curve [59], which is based on dendrochronological tree ring dates covering the past 14,000 years. The cal prefix – cal BCE in our study – specifies that the dates result from radiocarbon dating and subsequent calibration.
Calibration of the Gaussian BP date into calendar years results in a probability distribution with an irregular shape, which is no longer Gaussian. This is caused by the non-linear, irregular shape of the calibration curve, resulting from variations in the 14C content of the atmosphere through time. Hence the relationship between 14C time (BP) and calendar time (cal CE or BCE) is not linear. The 1σ and 2σ probabilities of a calibrated non-Gaussian probability distribution are calculated by calibration software. The resulting calibrated 14C dates are reported as age ranges. When viewed on the calendric time-scale, the corresponding multiple summing of the 14C-probabilities does not represent a dating probability in the traditional sense. This issue has been treated statistically in detail by Bronk Ramsey in the development of the OxCal program [72,90]. Using this program, we present for each investigated museum object a graphic figure of the calibrated radiocarbon age. The peaks have a higher probability, while the low parts of the graph have a lower probability. The median calibrated value is also reported as an additional characterization, signifying the central part of the total calibrated age range, i.e., 50% is older and 50% is younger. However, it has to be kept in mind that the median value of an irregular non-Gaussian calibrated age range does not necessarily represent a high probability. For bimodal distributions the median may even correspond to a time segment with low probability.
It has to be kept in mind that radiocarbon dates in conventional 14C years BP constitute the primary measurement result of radiocarbon dating [106]. radiocarbon dates are subject to , caused by [54,56,58–61,67,68,91,107]. However,
remain . Relative dating within 14C time space can give meaningful results. Taking a significant group of individual radiocarbon dates of a certain event such as the Minoan Thera eruption, or of a historical segment of Egyptian history, such as the transition period from the 17th to 18th Dynasty, then each group of dates may show a distinct time signature in conventional 14C years BP. Such an approach facilitates judgement which group is older and which group is younger, even when the exact time in calendar years is not specifically addressed.
Radiocarbon dating by itself cannot determine the accession year and reign length of a king. Calibration into calendar years does not produce a precise point date, but a probability range. Therefore, historical chronologies form the basis of dynastic Egypt and its kings. Nevertheless, different interpretations of historical sources led to different chronologies. Here radiocarbon dating can make an important contribution, indicating which historical chronology over a certain period is to be preferred: “high, middle or low” [43,108]. Therefore, first an analysis is given of historical Egyptian chronologies relevant to the subject of our investigation, before presenting and discussing our radiocarbon dating results of museum objects derived from Abydos and Thebes (Fig 1), related to the 17th Dynasty, Ahmose (II), and the early 18th Dynasty.
Major literary sources about the history of ancient Egypt are Manetho’s Aegyptiaca [78] and the Papyrus Turin [109], but both have their limitations. The writings of Manetho are only known “from fragmentary and often distorted quotations” [78, p. viii]. The Papyrus Turin, written during the Ramesside Period, listing kings of Egypt with their length of reign, was discovered around 1823, but has since disintegrated into more than 300 fragments [109]. These fragments were rearranged as good as possible into columns and lines by Gardiner [110] and more recently by Ryholt [63], complicated by the problem of missing pieces and floating fragments. Other important sources comprise “hard” attestations of kings and high officials of the Second Intermediate Period found on monuments, stela, sculptures, tombs, seals, scarabs, and other archaeological objects [63,65,111–116]. Recent excavations in southern Egypt (Fig 1) at Abydos [111,112,116] and Tell Edfu [115] have uncovered particularly novel findings in this respect.
The 16th and 17th Dynasty were defined by Manetho, but transmitted confusingly by secondary sources. “The Sixteenth Dynasty were kings of Thebes, 5 in number; they reigned for 190 years” according to Syncellus, quoting Eusebius [78, p. 93]. However, quoting Africanus, a contradictory account is conveyed by Syncellus: “The Sixteenth Dynasty were Shepherd Kings again, 32 in number; they reigned for 518 years” [78, p. 93]. The term “Shepherd Kings” was already used by Africanus for the northern 15th Dynasty [78, p. 91] and subsequently also for the 17th Dynasty together with Theban kings: “The Seventeenth Dynasty were Shepherd Kings again, 43 in number, and kings of Thebes or Diospolis, 43 in number. Total of the reigns of the Shepherd Kings and the Theban kings, 151 years”, according to Syncellus [78, p. 95].
Winlock [117] suggested in 1947 to relate 6 kings known from epigraphic attestations to the 16th Dynasty (Antef V, Rahotep, Antef VI, Antef VII, Sebekemsaf II, Djehuty) and 3 kings to the 17th Dynasty (Senakhtenre, Seqenenre, Kamose). The latter 3 kings preceded the reign of Nebpehtire Ahmose, the first king of the 18th Dynasty. However, Winlock [117] did not attempt to relate these 9 kings to the Turin King-list. This was done more recently.
Table 1 shows four scholarly associations of attested kings with the Turin King-list (TK) from column 10, line 30, until column 11, line 31 [63,118–120]. The structure of these TK columns in Table 1 is based on Allen [119], being virtually identical to the reconstruction by Ryholt [63], except for the last line, i.e., 11/35 in the latter and 11.31 in the former. Below this line the Papyrus Turin was cut away in ancient times and we can only speculate about its original continuation.
Several scholars, including Franke [118], used the term “17th Dynasty” to include all the known Theban kings between the late 13th and 18th Dynasty, as reviewed in detail by Schneider [121]. Franke [118] associated 15 Theban kings with Turin King-list 10/31–11/14. The next line TK 11/15 contains the phrase , being a summation line of the number of kings listed above (Table 1). The number 5 does not fit, but Von Beckerath [122,123] suggested that the original number must have been 15, which would indeed accommodate the number of lines for kings above the summation line, an interpretation supported by Ryholt [63]. The original TK text has not survived in TK 10/31 and 11/10–14, but Franke [118] also suggested kings for these 6 lines (Table 1). He estimated a cumulative reign length of about 86 years for the 15 Theban kings, from ca 1625 BCE until 1539 BCE, his preferred date for the accession year of Nebpehtire Ahmose and the beginning of the 18th Dynasty. In addition, Franke [118] was the first to argue for a separate local Abydos Dynasty, but he did not attempt to relate such a dynasty to the Turin King-list.
Ryholt [63, p. 151–162] associated TK 10/31–11/14 with the Theban 16th Dynasty (Table 1), also suggesting kings for lines without surviving names (TK 11/10–14). The 15 kings of the 16th Dynasty reigned in his assessment for about 67 years from ca 1649–1582 BCE (Table 1). He assigned the remainder of the Turin King-list from TK 11/16–35 to the Abydos Dynasty [Ryholt [63], p. 163–166}, which he considered “either contemporary with or later than the Sixteenth Dynasty” [63, p.164]. Therefore, neither the 17th nor the 18th Dynasty can be found in the surviving part of the Turin King-list, according to Ryholt [63,109].
However, Allen [119] related TK 11.16 to 11.31 to the 17th Dynasty (Table 1). These differences of opinion regarding dynastic association are also influenced by the lack of dynastic heading lines in this section of the Turin King-list. Therefore, it is not easy to make firm relations with Manetho’s 16th and/or 17th Dynasties. The above suggestion by Allen [119] seems less likely, because the 5 partially surviving names in this section of the Turin King-list cannot be associated with attested names of known 17th Dynasty kings.
Archaeological excavations at South Abydos in 2014 uncovered the decorated tomb of king Woseribre Seneb-Kay, a hitherto unknown ruler of the Second Intermediate Period [116,120]. The name of this Abydos king fits the partial preserved text in the Turin King-list at 11/16 and 11/17 , as explained by Wegner [120, p. 298], see Table 1. The above discovery confirms the previously suggested association by Ryholt [63, p. 164–165] of these TK lines with the Abydos Dynasty, as well as the absence of the 17th Dynasty in the Turin King-list.
Based on the Abbott Papyrus, dating to the reign of Ramesses IX, Winlock [64] made in the 1920s pioneering field investigations at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) aiming to reconstruct the chronological order of 17th Dynasty kings. Modern archaeological research here is continuing [124–128]. Concerning chronology, Ryholt [63] suggested tentative reign lengths for his sequence of 9 kings of the 17th Dynasty (Table 2), but Polz [126, p. 218] stated: “In the current state of knowledge, it seems impossible to assign even a vague number of regnal years to specific kings and hence to the entire dynasty – none of these rulers’ names can be identified on the last preserved page of the Turin King List” (Table 2).
The number of attested Theban kings between the late 13th and the end of the 17th Dynasty increased from 9 in 1947 [117] to 15 in 1988 [118] and to 24 in 1997 [63]. More changes are likely in future research, as expressed succinctly by Marée [114, p. 241]: “… many kings remain unplaced and without dynastic attribution, their names being attested in the epigraphic record but not preserved in the Turin King-list”. A detailed investigation by Marée [114] of some 40 stela and statuettes led him to identify works made by the same artists at a sculpture workshop at Abydos. Thus, he concluded that the kings Rahotep Sekhemre-wahkhau, Wepwawetemsaf Sekhemre-neferkhau, and Pantjeny Sekhemre-khutawy probably ruled in that order shortly before the reign of Sobekemsaf II Sekhemre-wadjkhau. Concerning their dynastic attribution, Marée [114] considered these kings to belong either to the late 16th or early 17th Dynasty. However, Ryholt [63] and Wegner [120] suggested that Wepwawetemsaf and Pantjeny belong to the Abydos Dynasty.
The above uncertainties underline that historical chronological assessments of the 16th, 17th and Abydos Dynasties in southern Egypt are rather tentative in the current state of knowledge. Different opinions exist, which will not be reviewed here, whether the 16th Dynasty and the Abydos Dynasty were coeval from their beginnings or whether one preceded the other, and to what extent they developed during the late 13th Dynasty or after the collapse of the 13th Dynasty. Another question is the “boundary” between the 16th and 17th Dynasty, both in terms of timing and political cause? The bottom line is that the actual beginning of the 17th Dynasty and its duration remain ambivalent, while the chronology of its attested kings, though tentatively suggested by Ryholt [63] cannot be determined according to Polz [125,126], due to lack of data (Table 2).
Concerning the sequence of the last three kings of the Theban 17th Dynasty, there is general agreement: Senakhtenre Ahmose (I), Seqenenre Tao, and Wadjkheperre Kamose (Tables 1 and 2). The last king arising from this 17th Dynasty family is Nebpehtire Ahmose (II). He reunited Upper and Lower Egypt following his victory over the northern 15th Dynasty and the conquest of Avaris, approximately in year 18 [79,118] of his reign (Table 2). However, Manetho placed the beginning of the 18th Dynasty at his accession year.
Estimations for year 1 of Ahmose (II) are usually based on historical data of successive reigns of kings (dead-reckoning) backward in time from the 26th Dynasty, while considering possible overlapping coregencies, Sothic and Lunar data, as well as foreign synchronisms. Such assessments produced a variety of accession years for Ahmose (II), ranging from 1580 BCE [88] to 1524 BCE [89]. Six historical chronologies for kings of the early 18th Dynasty are shown in Table 2 [75,76,88,89,129,130].
A unique chronology for the Second Intermediate Period was developed by Bennett [113], based on genealogical investigations of the governors of El-Kab, located ca 80 km south of Thebes (Fig 1). Successive generations of these governors can be synchronized with certain kings of the 13th, 16th and 18th dynasties [113]. Employing a minimal time-length reconstruction, Bennett [113] showed that at least 8 generations of El-Kab governors bridge the chronologically problematic part of the Second Intermediate Period.
The vizier Ay of El-Kab can be associated with the reign of the 13th Dynasty king Merhetepre Ini (Table 3). This king is named in column 8, line 4 of the Turin King-list, being the 34th king of the 13th Dynasty [63, p. 73]. The continuous genealogy ends after 8 generations in the early 18th Dynasty (Table 3): governor Renni of El-Kab died during the reign of Amenhotep I, the son of Nebpehtire Ahmose (II). Using a time frame of 25 years of government service by high officials per generation, based on Bierbrier [131], although this number may also be higher [132,133], the time length suggested by Bennett for the 8 generations of El-Kab governors is 8 x 25 = 200 years. Adopting again a minimal time-length approach, Bennett placed the death of governor Renni near the end of Amenhotep’s reign, which is ca 45 years after the accession of Nebpehtire Ahmose (II). This number has to be subtracted from the above 200 years, resulting in a time distance of 155 years between year 1 of Merhetepre Ini to year 1 of Ahmose (Table 3).
The Turin King-list has preserved the regnal time length of many 13th Dynasty kings, for whom Bennett calculated a total of 74 years (Table 3). But 14 TK king lines of the 13th Dynasty lack reign length data, particular after TK 8/8 [63], p. 73, 408], 4 lines after king Merhetepre Ini. Suggesting only one regnal year for each of these 14 kings (Table 3), Bennett [113] took again a minimalistic chronological approach. Going further backward in time to the Middle Kingdom, he calculated 72 years from the 7th year of king Senusert III until the end of the 12th Dynasty (Table 3), thereby adopting the now prevailing interpretation that Senusert III had a reign of 19 years [134]. The 7th year of Senusert III is usually related to a heliacal rising of Sirius, as written on a papyrus from EI-Lahun (Berlin Museum Papyrus 10012) dated to the 19th century BCE. Therefore, Senusert 7th year is considered an astronomical chronological anchor in the Middle Kingdom. Various attempts have been made to calculate this Sothic date in relation to lunar observations recorded in other papyri of the 12th Dynasty, as reviewed and reassessed by Rose [135].
In conclusion, Bennett’s historical genealogical chronometric studies provide a direct time link between the 12th and the 18th dynasty, independent of unresolved matters concerning the respective chronological relationships between the 13th, 15th, 16th and 17th Dynasties. Moreover, the genealogical time distance between year 1 of Merhetepre Ini to year 1 of Nebpehtire Ahmose is of the fall of Avaris and the archaeology of Tell el-Dab’a [18,136,137]. Bennett [113, p. 241] concluded that his chronometric studies (Table 3) support a for the Middle Kingdom and a for the beginning of the New Kingdom.
The collection of the British Museum in London includes an unbaked clay brick bearing the stamped prenomen of Pharaoh Ahmose (II), i.e., Nebpehtire in hieroglyphic script. Since the name Ahmose was quite common during the late 17th Dynasty, the prenomen, also termed cartouche name or throne name, makes the connection of the mudbrick with Pharao Ahmose (II) unmistakable. The mudbrick is derived from the excavations by Randall-MacIver and Mace [138] of the Ahmose Temple at Abydos (Figs 1 and 2) during their 1899–1901 campaign. The mudbrick was donated in 1900 to the British Museum by the Egypt Exploration Fund. Its registration number is 1900,1015.56 and the BM number is EA 32689.
Randall-MacIver and Mace reported that the mudbricks used in the construction of the Ahmose Temple “” [138, p. 76, pl xxxii]. The dimensions of mudbrick EA 32689 in the British Museum, also derived from their excavations at the Ahmose Temple, are quite similar: 15½ inches long, 7½ wide, and 4½ thick. More recent excavations at the site were conducted by Harvey [111,112].
Mudbricks in ancient Egypt were produced in rectangular wooden frames (molds) without top or bottom. These empty frames were placed on a suitable flat landscape surface sprinkled with sand and straw to enable easy removal of the mudbricks after initial drying. The wet mud mixture was poured into the rectangular frames, which guaranteed the production of mudbricks more or less identical in size [96]. A number of possible causes may lead to variations in the size of mudbricks made in rectangular molds of equal size: a slightly uneven underground, non-uniform shrinkage upon drying, and some erosion during handling [139].
Yamamoto and Creasman [139] conducted an investigation about the size of mudbricks in relation to Dynastic history. The Middle Kingdom mortuary temple of the 12th Dynasty king Senusert III at South Abydos was built with large mudbricks about 42 × 21 × 14 cm in size, while the associated town, also a royal initiative, used large bricks measuring about 39 × 19 × 12 cm [139]. The mudbricks from the Temple of Ahmose at Abydos have the following size ranges in centimeters, based on the above data by the excavators [138] and brick EA 32689 in the British Museum: 41.9–39.4 cm long, 19.1–19.0 cm wide, and 14.0–11.5 cm thick. These sizes are strikingly similar to the mudbricks used about 300 years earlier by Senusert III, also at Abydos. After defeating the Hyksos, Pharaoh Ahmose (II) may have been inspired by the architecture of the powerful Middle Kingdom at Abydos to build his own Temple, using mudbricks of similar size.
Furthermore, within Egyptian Dynastic history the addition of a stamp on mudbricks began during the reign of Nebpehtire Ahmose [111,139,140]. Comparing the image (Fig 3) of a brick from the Temple of Ahmose published in 1902 [138] with the photograph of brick EA 32689 in the British Museum, taken by the first author (Fig 4), it can clearly be seen, notwithstanding the crack running through the latter mudbrick, that the stamped throne name Nebpehtire of Ahmose (II) is the same in both images.
Photograph from Randall-MacIver and Mace, 1902, Plate xxxii [138], reproduced under a CC BY license with permission and courtesy of © The Egypt Exploration Society, London.
The time link with Ahmose in our radiocarbon investigation is via mudbrick EA 32689, bearing his prenomen Nebpehtire. When was this brick made during his reign? Almost a century after the excavations at Abydos [138], a new archaeological survey of the Ahmose Pyramid complex (Fig 2) was initiated in 1993 by Stephen Harvey, who conducted various excavations that yielded important results [111,112]. The Ahmose Pyramid was as far as we know the last Royal Pyramid in Egypt, but the building disintegrated and only a mound of rubble survived (Fig 2). The Ahmose Temple was built adjacent to the Pyramid, on its north-eastern side (Fig 2). The excavations by Harvey [111,112] of the Ahmose Temple uncovered on its eastern side fragments of a battle narrative with horses and chariots, soldiers and ships. Hieroglyphic texts indicate these scenes to represent the battles of Ahmose against the Hyksos, as their capital Avaris (Fig 1) is mentioned in these texts. The new findings by Harvey clearly indicate that the construction of the Ahmose Temple and Pyramid occurred after his victory over the Hyksos, possibly during or after year 22 in his reign [111,112]. The year 22 of Ahmose is specifically recorded in the important Turah limestone quarries, which the king reopened [80,111]. Table 2 shows the following historical dating options for year 22 of Ahmose, when the mudbricks for his Temple were probably made: 1558 BCE [88], 1548 BCE [129], 1528 BCE [75], 1526 BCE [130], 1517 BCE [76]. 1502 BCE [89].
Fragments of plant remains (straw) are clearly visible within the investigated Ahmose mudbrick (Fig 5). We also determined the color of the mudbrick, which is a significant characteristic. Its color can be categorized as greyish brown to dark greyish brown, 10YR 5/2–10YR 4/2, according to the Munsell soil color chart. Such a color fits type A mudbricks [96], usually made from fine-grained sediments deposited under low energy conditions and seasonal water logging, resulting in poor oxygenation.
Investigations to determine the species of plant remains (straw) in mudbricks are rare. We are not aware of any study on this subject concerning ancient Egyptian bricks. The only research in this field known to us is a study by Hendry and Kelly [141] about plant content of adobe bricks from buildings made by monks in Spanish California (1697–1821). The examined mudbricks were found to contain organic matter chopped to about 5 cm in length. “Wheat and barley straw constituted the favorite organic material, but many other substances were employed, the choice apparently being determined by whatever was available at different seasons. Weeds of all kinds were extensively used, particularly those with fibrous stems, such as wild rye, sedges, tules, filaree, tarweeds, and various grasses, but the finding of other miscellaneous materials suggests that much of the general refuse from the mission was also utilized” [141, p. 372]. These significant findings suggest that the term “straw” should not be limited to cereal grasses, but may refer also to other plants having fibrous stalks and stems.
Which plants were possibly used in the area of Abydos (Fig 1) for adding straw in the production of mudbricks during the reign of Ahmose (II)? A thin section of the Ahmose mudbrick EA 32689 exhibited a number of plant remnants, often poorly preserved, due to desiccation and deterioration over time. Comparatively large voids within the mudbrick matrix may be the only memory of plant fragments that once occupied these spaces. However, one plant fragment in the mudbrick thin section displayed excellent preservation, facilitating botanical evaluation, though its length is only 1.4 mm (Fig 6).
Prof. Arlene M. Rosen (University of Texas at Austin, Department of Anthropology) kindly gave her expertise assessment regarding Fig 6. A large section of mesophyll tissue is visible, characterized by sizeable cells up to ca 100 micron, whereas the thin epidermis layer is situated at its upper part. The problem with identifying plant parts from thin sections is that the orientation is usually not ideal for an accurate identification. A top view of the epidermal tissue would have been better instead of the current side view. Nevertheless, small silicified cell bodies (phytoliths) are visible in the upper epidermis layer (Fig 6), which appear to be of a type often defined as “cones”, having a size of about 10 micron. If they are cones, the plant would be a sedge, i.e., belonging to the Cyperaceae family, with genera such as Cyperus and Scirpus.
Sedges have solid stems and narrow grasslike leaves, growing in marshy or irrigated grounds. They are used for matting, basketry, and straw [142–144]. The morphologically distinct conical shapes of phytoliths in sedge plants are present in the epidermal cells of leaves and stems [145]. Indeed, these parts of the plant, particularly the stems, could have been chopped up to provide straw for mudbrick fabrication. Conical phytoliths of leaves and stems may have a rounded, rectangular or square base [146]. The latter two shapes are actually visible with respect to the phytoliths in the epidermis of the microscopic plant fragment (Fig 6B) in the Ahmose mudbrick. A thin section gives of course a two-dimensional cut through the phytoliths, not showing their three-dimensional shape.
How did the 1.4 mm small sedge plant fragment end up in Ahmose brick EA 32689? There are two main possibilities. (1) It may have been derived from “fresh” living sedge plants chopped for straw at the time of mudbrick fabrication. The term “papyrus straw” [147] is not uncommon. (2) An “old” plant fragment already present in the seasonally wet soil, before its usage during the reign of Ahmose for making the mudbrick. In the latter case, the sedge plant fragment could be significantly older than the time of mudbrick fabrication, perhaps originating from sedimentary Nile debris or from human activities since Predynastic times. For example, all 1st Dynasty kings and the last two kings of the 2nd Dynasty were buried at Abydos, around 3000 BCE, in an area called Umm el-Qaab [148]. Mudbricks, obviously made from alluvial soils in the adjacent Nile Valley, were extensively used at this site in tombs, funerary enclosure walls, and temples.
Radiocarbon dating of mudbricks, based on embedded straw fragments, added during the time of mudbrick fabrication, has given reliable results [97]. For example, straw in mudbricks and in mud mortar between limestone building stones of the Middle Kingdom 12th Dynasty Pyramid of Senusert II at lllahun yielded radiocarbon dating results agreeable with the historical chronology [70]. However, more often the 14C dating results of organic material in mudbricks and mud seals were found to be older by many decades and even centuries than historical age assessments [70,71,97]. An explanation was suggested by Dee et al [97, p. 877]: “It appears that the plant material already present in the mud itself was sometimes sampled for dating. Such fragments may be significantly older than their historical context, depending on their residence time in the original sediment.” Based on the above findings and experience, the youngest 14C result within a series of radiocarbon dates from a specific mudbrick is more likely to represent the “fresh” vegetation added to the mud at the time of brick fabrication.
Concerning the Ahmose mudbrick, the sampling of clean straw without attached mudbrick material proved to be surprisingly difficult. The plant fragments are very brittle and strongly attached to the clayey mudbrick matrix. The surface of the mudbrick with the stamped prenomen Nebpehtire (Fig 4) shows plant fragments that resemble straw in terms of their yellowish color, shape and size: fibrous stems up to 0.5 cm wide and up to about 5 cm long (Fig 5). However, only one piece of pure straw, already partly loose, could be extricated successfully from the surface of the mudbrick, as destructive sampling is not allowed. This single pure straw fragment, sample GrA-64347, without attached mudbrick material, belongs to the largest plant size remains in the Ahmose mudbrick. The sample, although very thin, contained sufficient carbon to undergo full AAA pretreatment (Table 4). Its radiocarbon date of 3230 ± 60 BP (Table 4) is the youngest and most important result in the series of 14C measurements we obtained for the Ahmose mudbrick.
The single piece of straw (GrA-64347) has a δ13C value of −12.4 ‰ (Table 4). Hence the straw is not derived from C3 cereal plants such as wheat or barley, but from a plant with C4 photosynthesis, which include the sedge family (Cyperaceae) and many (sub)tropical grasses. Moreover, a thin section of the Ahmose mudbrick (Fig 6) revealed the presence of a small plant fragment, 1.4 mm long, belonging to the Cyperaceae family. The sedges are the second most important C4 family, with approximately 1500 C4 plant species [149]. The Cyperaceae or sedges also constitute a major family in the Egyptian flora, composed of 47 species with many C4 plants [150], including papyrus (Cyperus papyrus). The hieroglyph symbol for sedge ? is also the symbol representing Upper Egypt. The sedge symbol occurs in one of the five titles of Pharaoh: “He of the Sedge and Bee” ?, whereby the bee represents Lower Egypt. Both symbols combined define the Pharaoh involved as king of Upper and Lower Egypt [151]. Various δ13C values of ancient Egyptian papyrus, dated by the AMS labs at Oxford (OxA) and Vienna (VERA), range from −7.8 ‰ to −11.5 ‰ [152]. Fresh papyrus organic matter (Cyperus papyrus) from Lake Victoria in Kenya gave δ13C values of −13.45 ± 0.62‰ [153]. Our δ13C measurement, −12.4 ‰, of the pure straw sample (GrA-64347) from the Ahmose mudbrick sits in between these values.
The other samples consisted of mudbrick lumps, derived from an already disintegrated part of the Ahmose brick, visible in the lower right bottom part of Fig 4. These mudbrick lumps provided 5 samples for radiocarbon dating: GrA-59737, GrM-15973, GrM-15201, GrM-14176, GrM-14177 (Table 4). The δ13C values of these samples are typical for C3 plants. Besides cereals, there are also C3 sedge plants, which grow along the Nile riverbank, such as Scirpus tuberosus Desf having a δ13C value of −24.3‰ (OxA-16343) [154]. It is important to realize that the δ13C values of samples GrA-59737, GrM-15973, GrM-15201, GrM-14176, GrM-14177 resulted from a mixture of unknown plant fragments of various sizes (>0.2 mm), not from a single piece of straw. Therefore, their δ13C data do not represent a single plant species and could even be a mixture of a majority of C3 plants and a minority of C4 plant remains.
Visible plant fragments in these mudbrick lumps could not be extracted intact under dry conditions, as they disintegrated and pulverized into tiny pieces with mudbrick soil still remaining attached. All mudbrick lump samples were soaked in water and pretreated with hydrochloric acid (HCl). Only sample GrA-59737 was large enough, and not too delicate, to undergo full AAA pretreatment (HCl acid wash, followed by an alkali NaOH wash, and a final HCl acid wash). The various washings, also with pure water, were usually done over a sieve (filter) with openings of 0.2 mm (200 micron) in order to remove the very fine mud particles and concentrate the coarser particles including plant fragments of various sizes larger than 0.2 mm. Following pretreatment, sample GrA-59737 had a high carbon content of 46.9%. Its uncalibrated radiocarbon date is 3290 ± 40 BP, about 60 radiocarbon years older than the single pure straw sample GrA-64347 (Table 4).
The other 4 mudbrick lump samples (GrM-15973, GrM-15201, GrM-14176, GrM-14177) were too small or too fragile and received only the first pretreatment step (A). Sample GrM-15973 contained a significant amount of organic plant fragments of various sizes (>0.2 mm), resulting in a high carbon content of 23.3%. The uncalibrated radiocarbon date of GrM-15973 is 3285 ± 45 BP, virtually the same as the date 3290 ± 40 BP of the previous mudbrick lump sample GrA-59737 (Table 4).
Following pretreatment, sample GrM-15201 was found to have a low carbon content of merely 4.4% C. Therefore, the sample used for 14C dating must have contained a sizable amount of non-organic mudbrick soil particles, besides plant fragments and perhaps also soil organic carbon. Its uncalibrated 14C date, 3385 ± 20 BP, is about 100 radiocarbon years older than the two previous results from mudbrick lump samples, and about 160 years older than the single pure straw sample (Table 4).
Mudbrick samples GrM-14176 and GrM-14177 contained hardly any carbon. Their amounts of C could not be expressed in percentages and could not be converted into graphite for measurement by the Micadas AMS. Hence, their extremely low amounts of carbon were 14C dated as two aliquots of gas, whereby the 14C dating result, 3335 ± 75 BP, is in fact the combined average of both measurements. This result is about 100 radiocarbon years older than the 14C date of the pure straw fragment (Table 4).
The carbon content of alluvial loamy clay soils in the Nile Valley of central and southern Egypt is in the range of 1.5% to 2.7% [155]. Soil organic carbon is usually hundreds or even a few thousand years older than the live vegetation growing on the soil surface [156,157]. How can we differentiate between plant remains and soil organic carbon older than the time of mudbrick fabrication and “fresh” plant remains (straw) added in the process of making the mudbrick? It seems to be expected that the “fresh straw” will have a larger size than the older plant remains and soil organic carbon. Concerning the 5 dates we obtained of different sub-samples of the Ahmose mudbrick, 4 dates (GrA-59737, GrM-15973, GrM-15201, GrM-14176/14177) are derived from mud with mixed organic remains larger than the sieve openings of 0.2 mm. Only one sample (GrA-64347) consisted of a single piece of straw without attached soil mud. This straw fragment was a few cm long and up to 5 mm wide, belonging to the largest size of visible plant remains in the Ahmose mudbrick. Therefore, this largest single plant fragment, without attached soil mud, is regarded by us as representing the actual radiocarbon time of mudbrick fabrication(Table 4): 3230 ± 60 BP (GrA-64347).
The investigation by Bonani et al [70], which included radiocarbon dating of ancient Egyptian mudbricks, also produced concrete examples of large differences between the 14C date of a mudbrick lump sample and the separate 14C date of straw only, derived from the same mudbrick. The authors took mudbrick samples at Dashur from the Middle Kingdom Pyramid of king Amenemhet III (12th Dynasty). Sample DRI-2948 consisted only of straw, collected from a mudbrick, giving a 14C date of 3442 ± 41 BP. On the other hand, a lump sample of the same mudbrick, DRI-2958, containing all organic constituents including straw, yielded a much older 14C date of 4452 ± 73 BP, a difference of about 1000 radiocarbon years! The authors added a footnote to sample DRI-2958: “date includes older organic content in clay used for brick making” [70], p. 1311). However, the 14C date of the straw (DRI-2948, 3442 ± 41 BP) is compatible with historical chronologies. We calibrated this result, using OxCal [72,90] with the latest calibration curve IntCal20 [59], yielding a 95.4% probability date of 1881–1626 cal BCE. Historical dates for the reign of king Amenemhet III range from a high of 1859–1813 BCE [158, p. xix] to a low of 1818–1773 BCE [79]. Hence, the calibrated radiocarbon date of the straw fits the above historical time options.
We include here a theoretical assessment to illustrate how “contamination” with older organic fragments may influence the radiocarbon date of mudbrick lump (bulk) samples in comparison with the 14C date of pure straw from the same mudbrick. A 14C date is obtained by measuring the so-called activity ratio 14a, which is the ratio of the 14C radioactivity of the sample and that of a reference material, oxalic acid [106]. The sample contains two groups of organic constituents: the “pure” material (straw added at the time of mudbrick fabrication) and “contamination” (older plant and organic fragments already present in the alluvial Nile soil used for mudbrick fabrication). In order to quantify the contribution of the “contaminant” to the 14C result of the “measured” mudbrick lump sample, we need to know the date of the “pure” straw material. In addition, we have to know the mass fraction of the “contaminant” and its 14C age. We use the following mathematical relation between the three 14a activities: (1) “measured” mudbrick lump sample, (2) “pure” straw, and (3) “contamination” consisting of other organic components:
The resulting value for the “pure” straw sample is 14a(pure) = 0.6688, which results in a 14C age of 3231 BP, that is in fact GrA-64347, 3230 BP (Table 4).
Calibration of 14C dates into calendar years enables comparison of the Ahmose mudbrick with historical chronology options (Tables 2 and 3). Let us first calibrate the most precise 14C date we obtained, 3385 ± 20 BP (GrM-15201), derived from a mudbrick lump sample with a low carbon content of only 4% (Table 4). Using the OxCal program [72,90] with the IntCal20 calibration curve [59], the 68.3% probability calibrated age ranges (Fig 7) are 1729–1725 (4.1%), 1689–1628 (64.2%) cal BCE, while the broader 95.4% probability ranges are 1741–1710 (20.4%), 1698–1619 (75.0%) cal BCE.
These results of mudbrick lump sample GrM-15201 (Fig 7) are much older than all historical dating options (Table 2) for the reign of Nebpehtire Ahmose. The mudbrick from the Temple of Ahmose at Abydos (Fig 2) was most likely fabricated in year 22 of his reign [80,111,112], which would be 1558 BCE (Table 2) in the highest historical age assessment [88]. The calibrated radiocarbon date of GrM-15201 is older by 61–183 years (1741–1619 cal BCE). Therefore, mudbrick lump sample GrM-15201 is much older than the time of mudbrick fabrication, apparently due to “contamination” with older organic matter in the alluvial mud. The calibration result shows that a precise date is not necessarily an accurate date. Sample GrM-15201 can be safely rejected in relation to the fabrication time of the Ahmose mudbrick.
Let us now consider the only radiocarbon date (GrA-64347, 3230 ± 60 BP) we have of a single piece of pure straw, which belongs to the largest plant fragments visible in brick EA 32689 (Fig 5). The comparatively large standard deviation of 60 yr BP results in a broad calibrated age range (Fig 8). Using OxCal [72,90] with IntCal20 [59], the age range 1542–1427 cal BCE (66.4%) has the highest probability, visually shown by the tallest peaks of the calibrated age graph (Fig 8). The center of these two peaks are positioned around 1500 cal BCE and 1470 cal BCE, respectively. Also the median value of 1498 cal BCE coincides with the highest peak.
Taking into account that mudbrick fabrication probably occurred around year 22 of Ahmose’s reign [80,111,112], the low historical chronologies by Krauss and Warburton [89] and Hornung et al. [76], respectively 1502 BCE [89] and 1517 BCE [76] for Ahmose year 22, are nearest to the calibrated radiocarbon date of both peaks. Such an indication is certainly significant. However, also other historical dating options for year 22 of Ahmose (Table 2) fit, with somewhat lower probability, the wide calibrated age range (Fig 8) of 1542–1427 cal BCE (66.4%), except for the two highest chronologies, i.e., 1558 BCE [88] and 1548 BCE [129].
Since sample GrA-64347 is a C4 plant, as shown by its δ13C value of −12.4 ‰ (Table 4), it may have been a sedge growing throughout the year in the riverine Nile valley in areas where there is enough soil moisture. Sedge plants and reeds are perennial, requiring soil moisture in every month of the year, so they will also grow in the late summer season when 14C in the air is at a maximum [159]. Therefore, we consider it inappropriate to make a minor correction for a possible reservoir effect that might have been caused if the plant would have grown only in the late winter season when 14C in the air is at a minimum [159]. Such a minor correction would have made our date even somewhat younger, because the IntCal20 and previous calibration curves are based on tree rings of wood that were growing in the northern hemisphere particularly during the summer 14C maximum [154,159,160].
Concerning the 4 mudbrick lump samples, their botanical plant content is unknown, except for a mudbrick lump that was used to make a thin section, whereby microscopic analysis showed the presence of a sedge plant fragment (Fig 6). There are also many other perennial reed-like grasses [161] in the Nile Valley that may have been used for providing straw in mudbrick production throughout the year. Therefore, we also consider it unjustified to make a minor correction for a possible reservoir effect regarding the mudbrick lump samples (GrA-59737, GrM-15973, GrM-15201, GrM-14176/14177), as we cannot know whether the unknown plant remains were only growing in the late winter season when 14C in the air is at a minimum [159].
Three radiocarbon dates are derived from samples with a high carbon content (Table 4): GrA-64347, GrA-59737, GrM-15973. Assuming that the two mudbrick lump samples (GrA-59737, GrM-15973) contained a significant amount of straw fragments, we may combine these dates with the 14C date of the pure straw sample (GrA-64347). The resulting weighted average date of 3276 ± 27 BP is statistically acceptable, passing the chi-square test: df = 2 T = 0.7(5% 6.0). Calibrating this average date results in the age ranges shown in Fig 9. The calibrated age with the highest relative probability, i.e., the highest peak, is 1545–1504 cal BCE (48.9%). The central part of the highest peak is situated around 1520 cal BCE (Fig 9). Year 22 of Ahmose in the historical chronology by Hornung et al. [76], i.e.,1517 BCE, is closest to this peak result, indicating again that our radiocarbon dating “straw” results of the mudbrick are most supportive of the younger historical chronologies regarding Ahmose. However, at somewhat lower probability, most historical Egyptian chronology options for year 22 of Ahmose (Table 2) fit this age range, except for the high chronologies [88,129]. The lower peak in the 1σ range (Fig 9) has a calibrated age range of 1607–1582 cal BCE with a probability of 19.3%. This time range, situated in the 17th Dynasty, can be excluded as it is older than all historical age assessments for year 22 of Ahmose (Table 2).
Concerning the average of three radiocarbon dates of the Ahmose mudbrick (Fig 9), based on samples with a high carbon content, it must be emphasized again that the inclusion of two 14C dates containing a mixture of straw and mudbrick material probably gave a result that is too old, due to the likely presence in the mud of organic “contaminants” predating the time of mudbrick production. Therefore, we consider the radiocarbon age (Fig 6) of the single piece of pure straw (GrA-64347, 3230 ± 60 BP) to be the most reliable date for the Ahmose mudbrick, supporting a low chronology for the reign of Ahmose.
Radiocarbon dating corroborates the unique historical chronology investigation by Bennett [113], based on his genealogical study of the governors of El-Kab. Bennett was able to bridge a problematic part of the Second Intermediate Period, as detailed above (Table 3). He calculated a minimum time interval of 315 years between year 7 of Senusert III (12th Dynasty) and year 1 of Nebpehtire Ahmose [113]. Such a block of time, which includes the Second Intermediate Period, can only be accommodated, according to Bennett [113, p 241], by “a high chronology for the Middle Kingdom (year 7 of Senusert III= 1872 or 1866) and a low chronology for the New Kingdom (year 1 of Ahmose = 1539)”.
Concerning Senusert III, there are a number of radiocarbon dating studies, supporting a high chronology for the Middle Kingdom [43,162,163]. The investigation by Bronk Ramsey et al. [43] included 10 high-quality radiocarbon dates in relation to Senusert III, which yielded the following modeled calibrated age ranges for his accession year: 1σ 1884–1860 cal BCE, 2σ 1889–1836 cal BCE. The historical dates suggested by Bennett [113] for year 7 of Senusert III are 1872 or 1866 BCE, both fitting very well within these radiocarbon dating results.
Our investigation of the Ahmose mudbrick EA 32689, stamped with his throne name Nebpehtire (Fig 4), provide the first ever radiocarbon measurements regarding his reign and the beginning of the 18th Dynasty. Our calibrated radiocarbon date (Fig 8) of the large single piece of straw (GrA-64347), representing the time of fabrication of the Ahmose mudbrick from the Temple of Ahmose at Abydos (ca year 22 of his reign), supports a low chronology for year 1 of Nebpehtire Ahmose.
Satdjehuty was the daughter of Pharaoh Senakhtenre Ahmose [65] and Queen Tetisheri, who were the grandparents of Pharaoh Nebpehtire Ahmose (Table 2). Satdjehuty became queen as the second spouse of the next 17th Dynasty king Seqenenre Tao in the region of Thebes in upper Egypt. He seemed to have opened the war against the Hyksos 15th Dynasty and eventually died in battle, as indicated by the severe wounds visible in his mummified head. The senior spouse of Seqenenre Tao was Queen Akhotep I. They were the parents of Nebpehtire Ahmose [63].
The actual finding spot of Satdjehuty’s burial remains unknown, as no data exist about their discovery around 1820. Perhaps the necropolis of Dra Abu el-Naga, located west of the Nile at Thebes (Fig 1), may be a possibility [124]. Evaluating the association of Satdjehuty with burial cloth EA 37106, it has to be kept in mind that there is a gap of about 60 years between the discovery of Satdjehuty’s burial remains ca 1820 and the purchase of the mummy mask and linen mummy-wrappings by the British Museum in 1880 from Morten & Son. The items were inspected by Samuel Birch, who suggested that the mask and the textiles had belonged to the same person, i.e., Satdjehuty (Minutes of the British Museum Trustees Standing Committee, 8 May 1880). The acquisition notes by the British Museum inform that the items were “From the sale of the collection of Samuel Hull of Uxbridge (c. 1799-1880). The mask, together with other objects, had probably been obtained by Samuel Hull’s brother, John Fowler Hull (1801-1825) during his visit to Egypt in 1824 (as noted by his fellow-traveller John Madox)”.
The splendid mummy mask with a golden skin shows that Satdjehuty was a woman of the highest rank in the royal family [164,165]. Some of the linen mummy-wrappings bear inscriptions, even mentioning the name of Satdjehuty, while others do not. For example, a hieroglyphic inscription in red pigment appears on a fragment of a linen mummy-wrapping, stating “Given in the favour of the god’s wife, king’s wife and king’s mother Ahmose Nefertari may she live, so Satdjehuty” [166]. The text seems to imply that the linen cloth was donated for the burial of Satdjehuty by her niece Queen Ahmose-Nefertari, the wife of Nebpehtire Ahmose. Concerning Satdjehuty’s mummy mask, Strudwick [164] noted: “The feather effect o

Sections

"[{\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.g001\", \"pone.0330702.ref001\", \"pone.0330702.ref002\", \"pone.0330702.ref003\", \"pone.0330702.ref004\", \"pone.0330702.ref005\", \"pone.0330702.ref010\"], \"section\": \"The Thera eruption during the Late Minoan IA period\", \"text\": \"The Santorini or Thera volcano is situated in the Aegean Sea (Greece), about 120 km north of Crete (Fig 1). Its caldera is surrounded by the small islands of Thera, Therasia and Aspronisi. The volcano has produced quite a number of major explosive eruptions during the Quaternary [1]. The most famous one occurred during the Late Minoan IA, an archaeological period traditionally dated from about 1600/1580\\u20131480 BCE [2,3]. Next to the volcano, the Minoan eruption buried the town of Akrotiri in southern Thera under thick layers of tephra [4]. Fine tephra was also found in eastern Crete, transported through the atmosphere by south-easterly winds [5\\u201310].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref011\", \"pone.0330702.ref014\", \"pone.0330702.ref015\", \"pone.0330702.ref016\", \"pone.0330702.ref017\", \"pone.0330702.ref018\", \"pone.0330702.ref019\", \"pone.0330702.ref020\"], \"section\": \"The Thera eruption during the Late Minoan IA period\", \"text\": \"Farther away, the Minoan eruption caused widespread deposition of volcanic tephra in the eastern Mediterranean region, in deep-sea sediments [11\\u201314], Rhodes [15], Turkey [16], and possibly the Nile delta [17]. In addition, pieces of pebble-size pumice from the Minoan eruption, floating in the water, were transported by Mediterranean sea currents to shores around the eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt [18,19] and Sinai [20].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref021\", \"pone.0330702.ref022\", \"pone.0330702.ref023\", \"pone.0330702.ref025\", \"pone.0330702.ref026\", \"pone.0330702.ref027\"], \"section\": \"The Thera eruption during the Late Minoan IA period\", \"text\": \"The erupted volume of the Minoan Thera eruption has been revised upward from ca 60 km3 [21] to about 80 km3 dense-rock equivalent (DRE), which would make it the largest known volcanic eruption in the world during the Holocene [22]. For comparison, the famous and well-documented eruption in 1883 of the Krakatau volcano [23\\u201325], situated in the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra, produced significantly less magma, ca 13 km3 DRE. Nevertheless, the Krakatau eruption caused devastating tsunamis that killed at least 36,000 people and destroyed about 300 villages [26]. Dwelling upon the effects of the Krakatau eruption, the Greek archaeologist Marinatos [27] advanced a hypothesis suggesting that coastal settlements in Minoan Crete may also have been hit by tsunamis caused by the Thera eruption.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref015\", \"pone.0330702.ref028\", \"pone.0330702.ref003\", \"pone.0330702.ref029\", \"pone.0330702.ref008\", \"pone.0330702.ref030\", \"pone.0330702.ref031\", \"pone.0330702.ref032\", \"pone.0330702.ref033\", \"pone.0330702.ref034\"], \"section\": \"The Thera eruption during the Late Minoan IA period\", \"text\": \"Conclusive evidence to substantiate this hypothesis remained elusive for a long time [15,28]. However, following initial archaeological indications at the coastal Minoan town of Palaikastro in north-eastern Crete [3,29], widespread geoarchaeological tsunami deposits, mixed with fine volcanic tephra from the Minoan Thera eruption, were discovered by the first author along the coast of Palaikastro and investigated together with his colleagues [8,30]. Subsequently, more tsunami deposits related to the Minoan eruption were found along the Mediterranean coast, near Caesarea in Israel [31], at the Minoan town of Malia in Crete [32], and in Turkey [33]. The recognition of palaeo-tsunami signatures requires expertise in the earth sciences [34].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref003\", \"pone.0330702.ref004\", \"pone.0330702.ref015\", \"pone.0330702.ref018\", \"pone.0330702.ref027\", \"pone.0330702.ref035\", \"pone.0330702.ref038\", \"pone.0330702.ref037\", \"pone.0330702.ref039\"], \"section\": \"Timing the Minoan Thera eruption in relation to Dynastic Egypt\", \"text\": \"Time is a critical dimension in studies dealing with the past, whether from a historical, archaeological or geological perspective. Different dating systems developed in each of these disciplines, leading sometimes to a problematic comparison of \\u201ctime oranges\\u201d with \\u201ctime apples\\u201d. Egyptian historical chronology has long been a basic framework in the eastern Mediterranean region to \\u201ccalibrate\\u201d relative archaeological periodization into \\u201creal time\\u201d. The Minoan Thera eruption has traditionally been associated with the 18th Dynasty around 1500 BCE [3,4,15,18,27,35\\u201338]. Suggestions have been made to link the time of the eruption with specific pharaohs, including Hatshepsut/Thutmose III [37] and Nebpehtire Ahmose [39].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref040\", \"pone.0330702.ref041\", \"pone.0330702.ref042\", \"pone.0330702.ref043\"], \"section\": \"Timing the Minoan Thera eruption in relation to Dynastic Egypt\", \"text\": \"Each dating method has its own history, development, and potential time resolution. Historical dating, based on written sources, as well as archaeological dating, based on material cultural data, preceded the development of time measurements based on natural science. Radiocarbon dating is a relative newcomer, based on nuclear physics [40]. Though 14C dating has its own limitations, it provides an independent measurement of time, intrinsically unrelated to the interpretation of literary data, ceramic sequences, and their interconnections. Radiocarbon dating of suitable organic materials in Egyptian, Aegean and Near Eastern archaeological, historical and geological contexts is a necessary approach to apply the same methodology across the region and across disciplines [41,42], as well as to evaluate Egyptian historical chronologies [43].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref044\", \"pone.0330702.ref047\", \"pone.0330702.ref048\", \"pone.0330702.ref052\", \"pone.0330702.ref044\", \"pone.0330702.ref053\", \"pone.0330702.ref054\", \"pone.0330702.ref055\"], \"section\": \"Radiocarbon dating of the Minoan Thera eruption: Changes in calibration curves and dates\", \"text\": \"Standard deviations of radiocarbon dates of the Minoan eruption were rather large during the 1980s. Their calibration into calendar years, based on 14C measurements of dendrochronological datasets then available, indicated an eruption most likely in the Second Intermediate Period before the 18th Dynasty [44\\u201347]. A number of archaeologists became convinced to accept a higher chronology, also on the basis of alternative interpretations of material cultural interconnections [48\\u201352]. One of the first to explicitly place the Theran eruption within the Second Intermediate Period was Betancourt in 1987 [44]: \\u201cIn conclusion, if we were to ignore earlier prejudices completely and erect a new Aegean chronology today, it would be somewhat different from the received tradition. This author withdraws many of the opinions he expressed a decade ago (Betancourt and Weinstein 1976) [53]; the Aegean Late Bronze Age probably began during the Hyksos period, and radiocarbon was correct all along\\u201d. Also Christos Doumas, the chief excavator at Akrotiri since the death of Marinatos in 1974, changed his initial understanding and accepted a high chronology [54,55].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref056\", \"pone.0330702.ref054\", \"pone.0330702.ref057\", \"pone.0330702.ref056\", \"pone.0330702.ref058\", \"pone.0330702.ref059\", \"pone.0330702.ref058\", \"pone.0330702.ref060\", \"pone.0330702.ref054\", \"pone.0330702.ref056\", \"pone.0330702.ref060\", \"pone.0330702.ref059\"], \"section\": \"Radiocarbon dating of the Minoan Thera eruption: Changes in calibration curves and dates\", \"text\": \"The calibration curve, linking radiocarbon time to calendar time, has not remained static, as more detailed 14C measurements of dendrochronological datasets became available over the years. When the IntCal98 calibration curve [56], released in 1998, was in use, the Minoan Thera eruption was dated quite early in the 17th century BCE by Bayesian analyses, to ca 1650\\u20131620 BCE [54], and to 1663\\u20131599 BCE [57]. Since IntCal98 [56], hundreds of additional dendrochronological 14C dates have been measured with high precision [58], which have become incorporated in the present IntCal20 calibration curve [59], available since 2020. The new calibration curve also affected the possible age of the Minoan Thera eruption [58]. Consequently, new Bayesian analyses concerning the time of the Thera eruption were conducted by Manning [60], using the latest IntCal20 calibration curve, which resulted in the following 1\\u03c3 and 2\\u03c3 age ranges: 1606\\u20131589 BCE (68.3% probability), 1609\\u20131560 BCE (95.4% probability). Indeed, compared with his Bayesian calibration results [54] based on IntCal98 [56], the age range for the Thera eruption has become younger by roughly 40 years [60], using Bayesian analyses with the updated calibration curve IntCal20 [59].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref060\", \"pone.0330702.ref061\", \"pone.0330702.ref062\", \"pone.0330702.ref061\"], \"section\": \"Radiocarbon dating of the Minoan Thera eruption: Changes in calibration curves and dates\", \"text\": \"Nevertheless, Manning maintained that the volcanic event occurred during the Second Intermediate Period [60]. However, Pearson et al. [61] suggested a younger date in the 16th century BCE for the Thera eruption and possible association with the reign of Ahmose, based on their annual dendrochronological datasets for the period 1700\\u20131500 BCE. Another basis for their proposition is related to the Tempest Stela erected by Ahmose, describing a severe catastrophic rainstorm, interpreted by Ritner and Moeller [62] as having been caused by the Thera eruption. Thus, Pearson et al. [61] suggested that the volcanic event was probably coeval with the reign of Ahmose.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref064\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref065\", \"pone.0330702.ref066\"], \"section\": \"Radiocarbon dating of the Minoan Thera eruption: Changes in calibration curves and dates\", \"text\": \"Concerning the identity of pharaoh Ahmose, a brief elucidation is required here in the context of our article. The 17th Dynasty king Senakhtenre was until recently only known with his throne name (prenomen), i.e., Senakhtenre. He was the grandfather of king Nebpehtire Ahmose [63], founder of the 18th Dynasty. Possible birthnames (nomen) were tentatively suggested, Tao [64] or Siamun [63]. However, in 2012, Biston-Moulin [65] discovered at Karnak (Thebes) that Ahmose is the real birthname (nomen) of king Senakhtenre. Therefore, he is in fact Ahmose I, a term usually given to his grandson, who can now be regarded as Ahmose II. But the 26th Dynasty king Amasis is often referred to as Ahmose II. To avoid confusion, Cahail [66] recommended using both the throne name and birthname for the respective Ahmose kings of the 17th to 18th Dynasty, and/or using the Roman numerals (I) and (II) in parenthesis. The Pharaoh Ahmose in our article is Nebpehtire Ahmose (II), even if only the name Ahmose is used for brevity.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref067\", \"pone.0330702.ref068\", \"pone.0330702.ref067\"], \"section\": \"Radiocarbon dating of the Minoan Thera eruption: Changes in calibration curves and dates\", \"text\": \"Manning [67] discussed and evaluated the vexing problems of dating spread on the radiocarbon calibration curve plateau 1620\\u20131540 BCE in relation to the Minoan Thera eruption. He also addressed the radiocarbon dates of the olive shrub at Therasia and came to different conclusions than Pearson et al [68]. His latest Bayesian analyses, published in 2024, concerning the date of the Minoan Thera eruption resulted in the following age ranges: (1\\u03c3) 1612\\u20131602 or 1613\\u20131602 BCE, (2\\u03c3) 1616\\u20131589 or 1618\\u20131584 BCE. The peak value with the highest probability of his modeled eruption date is situated around 1608 BCE [67].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref069\", \"pone.0330702.ref070\", \"pone.0330702.ref070\", \"pone.0330702.ref071\", \"pone.0330702.ref072\", \"pone.0330702.ref073\", \"pone.0330702.ref071\"], \"section\": \"Radiocarbon dating of Dynastic Egypt\", \"text\": \"Concerning ancient Egypt, a large radiocarbon study was conducted between 1984 and 1995, focusing on monumental buildings, including pyramids and tombs of the Early Dynastic Period, the Old and Middle Kingdom [69,70]. The authors sampled organic material from monuments linked to specific kings or sections of Dynastic history. They dated charcoal, wood, plant remains, and humates from mudbricks and mud mortar in between building stones. The precision of radiocarbon measurement was often limited in those days, leading to relatively large standard deviations. Moreover, results from the same monument were often inconsistent, whilst their combined average tended to produce older dates than historical age assessments for the Old Kingdom [70]. A reanalysis of the above radiocarbon dates regarding 4th Dynasty monuments was conducted by Dee et al. [71], using the OxCal calibration program [72] and its function to detect outliers [73]. Their Bayesian analysis and removal of outliers produced new radiocarbon calibration results, showing much closer agreement with historical Dynastic age assessments [71].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref074\", \"pone.0330702.ref069\", \"pone.0330702.ref070\", \"pone.0330702.ref074\", \"pone.0330702.ref074\", \"pone.0330702.ref075\", \"pone.0330702.ref076\"], \"section\": \"Radiocarbon dating of Dynastic Egypt\", \"text\": \"The most comprehensive and robust radiocarbon investigation so far of Egyptian Dynastic history was published by Bronk Ramsey et al. [74], including the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms. Their investigation was based on short-lived plant remains, usually from museum collections, associated with specific pharaohs or sections of the historical chronology. A number of samples from the monumental buildings project [69,70] were also used in their 14C measurements. Bayesian models were developed by the authors [74], combining their radiocarbon dates with historical data of the sequence and reign-lengths of the successive pharaohs in order to model the accession year of each pharaoh in the Old, Middle and New Kingdoms. The authors emphasized that \\u201cthe radiocarbon dates provide the only linkage in the model to the calendar time scale\\u201d [74]. Their Bayesian model tends to favor a higher (older) historical Egyptian chronology [75] rather than a lower (younger) chronology [76].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref077\"], \"section\": \"Radiocarbon dating of Dynastic Egypt\", \"text\": \"However, the historically problematic First and Second Intermediate Periods were not included in their investigation for obvious reasons. Bayesian sequence modelling, the principal methodology in their research, cannot be conducted for these Intermediate Periods. Knowledge about sequences of kings and their respective reign lengths in these periods are usually uncertain and full of lacunas, but such information is essential to enable sequence modelling [77]. Moreover, it is difficult to find organic samples in museums linked to specific historical figures of the First and Second Intermediate Periods.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.g001\", \"pone.0330702.ref078\", \"pone.0330702.g001\", \"pone.0330702.ref079\", \"pone.0330702.ref080\"], \"section\": \"Objectives of our investigation\", \"text\": \"The temporal position of Pharaoh Nebpehtire Ahmose forms a key anchor regarding these research objectives. The reign of Ahmose began as king of the 17th Dynasty in Upper Egypt, dominated by the ancient cities of Thebes and Abydos (Fig 1). His reign lasted 25 years and 4 months, according to Manetho [78]. Politically, the beginning of the New Kingdom may be placed at the conquest of Avaris (Fig 1) when king Ahmose defeated the Hyksos empire and reunified Upper and Lower Egypt. The conquest of Avaris occurred not later than ca year 18 in the reign of Ahmose [79]. However, in terms of traditional historical classification following Manetho, the beginning of the 18th Dynasty is placed with the accession year of Ahmose, for which, unfortunately, no historical dates have so far been found [80].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.g001\", \"pone.0330702.ref062\", \"pone.0330702.ref081\", \"pone.0330702.ref084\", \"pone.0330702.ref085\", \"pone.0330702.ref087\"], \"section\": \"Objectives of our investigation\", \"text\": \"Ahmose erected the so-called Tempest or Storm Stela early in his reign at Karnak, located in the northern part of Thebes (Fig 1). The text of this remarkable stela describes an extraordinary severe rainstorm, characterized by clouded skies and darkness, which caused widespread destructions, apparently witnessed by Ahmose himself. Some of the phenomena mentioned in the stela were interpreted by a number of scholars as possibly related to the volcanic eruption at Thera [62,81\\u201384]. Other scholars have argued against the above linkage [85\\u201387], suggesting alternative translations and interpretations of the hieroglyphic text. Therefore, the important question is whether the reign of Nebpehtire Ahmose is coeval with the Minoan Thera eruption?\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref088\", \"pone.0330702.ref089\", \"pone.0330702.ref043\", \"pone.0330702.ref072\", \"pone.0330702.ref090\", \"pone.0330702.ref091\", \"pone.0330702.ref092\", \"pone.0330702.ref093\", \"pone.0330702.ref072\", \"pone.0330702.ref090\", \"pone.0330702.ref092\"], \"section\": \"Objectives of our investigation\", \"text\": \"Historically, the time period of Ahmose\\u2019s reign is by no means fixed. Egyptological age assessments of his rule range from 1580\\u20131557 BCE [88] to 1524\\u20131499 BCE [89]. Using Bayesian sequence analysis of a series of 18th Dynasty radiocarbon dates, coupled with historical information, Bronk Ramsey et al. [43] modeled the accession year of Ahmose. The resulting age ranges are 1566\\u20131552 BCE (1\\u03c3) and 1570\\u20131544 BCE (2\\u03c3), using OxCal [72,90] with the IntCal04 calibration curve [91]. A different Bayesian model by Quiles et al [92], focusing on the 18th Dynasty, included astronomical Sothic and Lunar data, historical reign length options, and radiocarbon dates of Sennefer\\u2019s tomb and the eastern cemetery at Deir el-Medineh. Using the IntCal09 calibration curve [93] and OxCal [72,90], this model yielded younger age ranges for the accession year of Ahmose: 1557\\u20131537 BCE (1\\u03c3) and 1564\\u20131528 BCE (2\\u03c3) [92].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref043\"], \"section\": \"Objectives of our investigation\", \"text\": \"However, both Bayesian models did not include radiocarbon dates specifically related to Nebpehtire Ahmose or the other early kings of the 18th Dynasty prior to Thutmose III. This shortcoming was acknowledged by Bronk Ramsey et al. [43]:: \\u201cthere are no dates for specific reigns before that of Thutmose III, and so dates earlier than this are based primarily on the reign-length information included in the model\\u201d. The preceding Second Intermediate Period was not involved in these investigations. Therefore, the modeled age ranges for the accession year of Ahmose should be considered tentative.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"sec032\"], \"section\": \"Materials and methods\", \"text\": \"Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting information (SX Checklist).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.g001\", \"pone.0330702.ref094\", \"pone.0330702.ref095\"], \"section\": \"Materials and methods\", \"text\": \"The most important object in our investigation is a mudbrick stamped with the throne name Nebpehtire of pharaoh Ahmose, kept in the British Museum. Another relevant item, also from the British Museum, is a linen burial cloth associated with Queen Satdjehuty. She was the second wife of the 17th Dynasty Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao. The latter king was succeeded by Kamose, who was the predecessor of Nebpehtire Ahmose [63]. Another series of samples associated with the 17th Dynasty are wooden stick shabtis, originating from Thebes (Fig 1), which were collected by Sir Flinders Petrie and are kept in the Petrie Museum [94,95]. We received samples from six stick shabtis.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref096\", \"pone.0330702.ref070\", \"pone.0330702.ref097\", \"pone.0330702.ref098\"], \"section\": \"Materials and methods\", \"text\": \"Concerning the Ahmose mudbrick, the methodology to measure the time of mudbrick production is based on 14C dating of plant (straw) fragments, which were added to soil mud from Nile sediment in the process of mudbrick fabrication [96]. However, the alluvial Nile soil may also contain older inherited plant remains and organic compounds, transported by the Nile or from past human activities in the soil, which could result in radiocarbon dates older than the actual time of mudbrick production [70,97]. Studying mudbrick morphology at the microscopic scale may provide additional information regarding organic constituents. Therefore, an already detached but intact aggregate (lump) of the Ahmose mudbrick, having a size of a few centimeters in length, width and thickness, was sent to a specialized laboratory [98] for impregnation with polyester resin under vacuum to harden the soft mudbrick. A thin section was made for microscopic examination.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref099\", \"pone.0330702.ref100\", \"pone.0330702.ref101\", \"pone.0330702.ref102\", \"pone.0330702.ref103\", \"pone.0330702.ref104\", \"pone.0330702.ref059\"], \"section\": \"Materials and methods\", \"text\": \"Radiocarbon dating of all samples was carried out at the Centre for Isotope Research of Groningen University, the Netherlands. The samples with GrA number were measured with the 2.5MV Tandetron AMS [99], which was replaced in 2017 by a Micadas AMS system [100]. The dates measured by the latter system have a GrM number. Regarding quality control, the Groningen radiocarbon laboratory always participates in international 14C intercomparisons, including the recent Glasgow International Radiocarbon Intercomparison (GIRI), see Scott et al. [101]. In addition, extensive 14C intercomparison dating was conducted between selected laboratories, including Groningen, using large series of dendrochronologically dated samples [102,103]. The results underline the reliability and excellent quality of the Groningen radiocarbon laboratory. Concerning the time period of the Minoan Santorini eruption, tree rings of a new series of dendrochronologically dated oak wood from the Netherlands were 14C dated in Groningen [104] and incorporated into the IntCal20 calibration curve [59].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref105\"], \"section\": \"Materials and methods\", \"text\": \"Pretreatment of our samples usually involved the standard acid-base-acid (ABA) procedure, also termed acid-alkali-acid (AAA). But samples with low amounts of carbon were only pretreated with acid. Following pretreatment, the carbon in each sample was combusted to CO2 gas, subsequently reduced to graphite [105]. Next, the graphite was pressed into targets mounted in a sample wheel, which was loaded into the ion source of the AMS machine for measurement of 12C, 13C, and 14C amounts. For extremely small samples the graphite procedure is not used, but the CO2 gas source of the combusted sample is used to measure 14C.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref106\", \"pone.0330702.ref072\", \"pone.0330702.ref090\", \"pone.0330702.ref059\"], \"section\": \"Materials and methods\", \"text\": \"The radiocarbon dates are reported by convention in 14C years BP [106], using the oxalic standard and Libby half-life, and including normalization for isotope fractionation. The 14C dates are calibrated from radiocarbon years into calendar years, using the the OxCal software program v4.4.4 [72,90] and the IntCal20 calibration curve [59], which is based on dendrochronological tree ring dates covering the past 14,000 years. The cal prefix \\u2013 cal BCE in our study \\u2013 specifies that the dates result from radiocarbon dating and subsequent calibration.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref072\", \"pone.0330702.ref090\"], \"section\": \"Materials and methods\", \"text\": \"Calibration of the Gaussian BP date into calendar years results in a probability distribution with an irregular shape, which is no longer Gaussian. This is caused by the non-linear, irregular shape of the calibration curve, resulting from variations in the 14C content of the atmosphere through time. Hence the relationship between 14C time (BP) and calendar time (cal CE or BCE) is not linear. The 1\\u03c3 and 2\\u03c3 probabilities of a calibrated non-Gaussian probability distribution are calculated by calibration software. The resulting calibrated 14C dates are reported as age ranges. When viewed on the calendric time-scale, the corresponding multiple summing of the 14C-probabilities does not represent a dating probability in the traditional sense. This issue has been treated statistically in detail by Bronk Ramsey in the development of the OxCal program [72,90]. Using this program, we present for each investigated museum object a graphic figure of the calibrated radiocarbon age. The peaks have a higher probability, while the low parts of the graph have a lower probability. The median calibrated value is also reported as an additional characterization, signifying the central part of the total calibrated age range, i.e., 50% is older and 50% is younger. However, it has to be kept in mind that the median value of an irregular non-Gaussian calibrated age range does not necessarily represent a high probability. For bimodal distributions the median may even correspond to a time segment with low probability.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref106\", \"pone.0330702.ref054\", \"pone.0330702.ref056\", \"pone.0330702.ref058\", \"pone.0330702.ref061\", \"pone.0330702.ref067\", \"pone.0330702.ref068\", \"pone.0330702.ref091\", \"pone.0330702.ref107\"], \"section\": \"Materials and methods\", \"text\": \"It has to be kept in mind that  radiocarbon dates in conventional 14C years BP constitute the primary measurement result of radiocarbon dating [106].  radiocarbon dates are subject to , caused by  [54,56,58\\u201361,67,68,91,107]. However, \\n remain . Relative dating within 14C time space can give meaningful results. Taking a significant group of individual radiocarbon dates of a certain event such as the Minoan Thera eruption, or of a historical segment of Egyptian history, such as the transition period from the 17th to 18th Dynasty, then each group of dates may show a distinct time signature in conventional 14C years BP. Such an approach facilitates judgement which group is older and which group is younger, even when the exact time in calendar years is not specifically addressed.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref043\", \"pone.0330702.ref108\", \"pone.0330702.g001\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"Radiocarbon dating by itself cannot determine the accession year and reign length of a king. Calibration into calendar years does not produce a precise point date, but a probability range. Therefore, historical chronologies form the basis of dynastic Egypt and its kings. Nevertheless, different interpretations of historical sources led to different chronologies. Here radiocarbon dating can make an important contribution, indicating which historical chronology over a certain period is to be preferred: \\u201chigh, middle or low\\u201d [43,108]. Therefore, first an analysis is given of historical Egyptian chronologies relevant to the subject of our investigation, before presenting and discussing our radiocarbon dating results of museum objects derived from Abydos and Thebes (Fig 1), related to the 17th Dynasty, Ahmose (II), and the early 18th Dynasty.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref078\", \"pone.0330702.ref109\", \"pone.0330702.ref078\", \"pone.0330702.ref109\", \"pone.0330702.ref110\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref065\", \"pone.0330702.ref111\", \"pone.0330702.ref116\", \"pone.0330702.g001\", \"pone.0330702.ref111\", \"pone.0330702.ref112\", \"pone.0330702.ref116\", \"pone.0330702.ref115\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"Major literary sources about the history of ancient Egypt are Manetho\\u2019s Aegyptiaca [78] and the Papyrus Turin [109], but both have their limitations. The writings of Manetho are only known \\u201cfrom fragmentary and often distorted quotations\\u201d [78, p. viii]. The Papyrus Turin, written during the Ramesside Period, listing kings of Egypt with their length of reign, was discovered around 1823, but has since disintegrated into more than 300 fragments [109]. These fragments were rearranged as good as possible into columns and lines by Gardiner [110] and more recently by Ryholt [63], complicated by the problem of missing pieces and floating fragments. Other important sources comprise \\u201chard\\u201d attestations of kings and high officials of the Second Intermediate Period found on monuments, stela, sculptures, tombs, seals, scarabs, and other archaeological objects [63,65,111\\u2013116]. Recent excavations in southern Egypt (Fig 1) at Abydos [111,112,116] and Tell Edfu [115] have uncovered particularly novel findings in this respect.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref078\", \"pone.0330702.ref078\", \"pone.0330702.ref078\", \"pone.0330702.ref078\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"The 16th and 17th Dynasty were defined by Manetho, but transmitted confusingly by secondary sources. \\u201cThe Sixteenth Dynasty were kings of Thebes, 5 in number; they reigned for 190 years\\u201d according to Syncellus, quoting Eusebius [78, p. 93]. However, quoting Africanus, a contradictory account is conveyed by Syncellus: \\u201cThe Sixteenth Dynasty were Shepherd Kings again, 32 in number; they reigned for 518 years\\u201d [78, p. 93]. The term \\u201cShepherd Kings\\u201d was already used by Africanus for the northern 15th Dynasty [78, p. 91] and subsequently also for the 17th Dynasty together with Theban kings: \\u201cThe Seventeenth Dynasty were Shepherd Kings again, 43 in number, and kings of Thebes or Diospolis, 43 in number. Total of the reigns of the Shepherd Kings and the Theban kings, 151 years\\u201d, according to Syncellus [78, p. 95].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref117\", \"pone.0330702.ref117\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"Winlock [117] suggested in 1947 to relate 6 kings known from epigraphic attestations to the 16th Dynasty (Antef V, Rahotep, Antef VI, Antef VII, Sebekemsaf II, Djehuty) and 3 kings to the 17th Dynasty (Senakhtenre, Seqenenre, Kamose). The latter 3 kings preceded the reign of Nebpehtire Ahmose, the first king of the 18th Dynasty. However, Winlock [117] did not attempt to relate these 9 kings to the Turin King-list. This was done more recently.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.t001\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref118\", \"pone.0330702.ref120\", \"pone.0330702.t001\", \"pone.0330702.ref119\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"Table 1 shows four scholarly associations of attested kings with the Turin King-list (TK) from column 10, line 30, until column 11, line 31 [63,118\\u2013120]. The structure of these TK columns in Table 1 is based on Allen [119], being virtually identical to the reconstruction by Ryholt [63], except for the last line, i.e., 11/35 in the latter and 11.31 in the former. Below this line the Papyrus Turin was cut away in ancient times and we can only speculate about its original continuation.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref118\", \"pone.0330702.ref121\", \"pone.0330702.ref118\", \"pone.0330702.t001\", \"pone.0330702.ref122\", \"pone.0330702.ref123\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref118\", \"pone.0330702.t001\", \"pone.0330702.ref118\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"Several scholars, including Franke [118], used the term \\u201c17th Dynasty\\u201d to include all the known Theban kings between the late 13th and 18th Dynasty, as reviewed in detail by Schneider [121]. Franke [118] associated 15 Theban kings with Turin King-list 10/31\\u201311/14. The next line TK 11/15 contains the phrase , being a summation line of the number of kings listed above (Table 1). The number 5 does not fit, but Von Beckerath [122,123] suggested that the original number must have been 15, which would indeed accommodate the number of lines for kings above the summation line, an interpretation supported by Ryholt [63]. The original TK text has not survived in TK 10/31 and 11/10\\u201314, but Franke [118] also suggested kings for these 6 lines (Table 1). He estimated a cumulative reign length of about 86 years for the 15 Theban kings, from ca 1625 BCE until 1539 BCE, his preferred date for the accession year of Nebpehtire Ahmose and the beginning of the 18th Dynasty. In addition, Franke [118] was the first to argue for a separate local Abydos Dynasty, but he did not attempt to relate such a dynasty to the Turin King-list.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.t001\", \"pone.0330702.t001\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref109\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"Ryholt [63, p. 151\\u2013162] associated TK 10/31\\u201311/14 with the Theban 16th Dynasty (Table 1), also suggesting kings for lines without surviving names (TK 11/10\\u201314). The 15 kings of the 16th Dynasty reigned in his assessment for about 67 years from ca 1649\\u20131582 BCE (Table 1). He assigned the remainder of the Turin King-list from TK 11/16\\u201335 to the Abydos Dynasty [Ryholt [63], p. 163\\u2013166}, which he considered \\u201ceither contemporary with or later than the Sixteenth Dynasty\\u201d [63, p.164]. Therefore, neither the 17th nor the 18th Dynasty can be found in the surviving part of the Turin King-list, according to Ryholt [63,109].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref119\", \"pone.0330702.t001\", \"pone.0330702.ref119\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"However, Allen [119] related TK 11.16 to 11.31 to the 17th Dynasty (Table 1). These differences of opinion regarding dynastic association are also influenced by the lack of dynastic heading lines in this section of the Turin King-list. Therefore, it is not easy to make firm relations with Manetho\\u2019s 16th and/or 17th Dynasties. The above suggestion by Allen [119] seems less likely, because the 5 partially surviving names in this section of the Turin King-list cannot be associated with attested names of known 17th Dynasty kings.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref116\", \"pone.0330702.ref120\", \"pone.0330702.ref120\", \"pone.0330702.t001\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"Archaeological excavations at South Abydos in 2014 uncovered the decorated tomb of king Woseribre Seneb-Kay, a hitherto unknown ruler of the Second Intermediate Period [116,120]. The name of this Abydos king fits the partial preserved text in the Turin King-list at 11/16  and 11/17 , as explained by Wegner [120, p. 298], see Table 1. The above discovery confirms the previously suggested association by Ryholt [63, p. 164\\u2013165] of these TK lines with the Abydos Dynasty, as well as the absence of the 17th Dynasty in the Turin King-list.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref064\", \"pone.0330702.ref124\", \"pone.0330702.ref128\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.t002\", \"pone.0330702.ref126\", \"pone.0330702.t002\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"Based on the Abbott Papyrus, dating to the reign of Ramesses IX, Winlock [64] made in the 1920s pioneering field investigations at Dra Abu el-Naga (Thebes) aiming to reconstruct the chronological order of 17th Dynasty kings. Modern archaeological research here is continuing [124\\u2013128]. Concerning chronology, Ryholt [63] suggested tentative reign lengths for his sequence of 9 kings of the 17th Dynasty (Table 2), but Polz [126, p. 218] stated: \\u201cIn the current state of knowledge, it seems impossible to assign even a vague number of regnal years to specific kings and hence to the entire dynasty \\u2013 none of these rulers\\u2019 names can be identified on the last preserved page of the Turin King List\\u201d (Table 2).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref117\", \"pone.0330702.ref118\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref114\", \"pone.0330702.ref114\", \"pone.0330702.ref114\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref120\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"The number of attested Theban kings between the late 13th and the end of the 17th Dynasty increased from 9 in 1947 [117] to 15 in 1988 [118] and to 24 in 1997 [63]. More changes are likely in future research, as expressed succinctly by Mar\\u00e9e [114, p. 241]: \\u201c\\u2026 many kings remain unplaced and without dynastic attribution, their names being attested in the epigraphic record but not preserved in the Turin King-list\\u201d. A detailed investigation by Mar\\u00e9e [114] of some 40 stela and statuettes led him to identify works made by the same artists at a sculpture workshop at Abydos. Thus, he concluded that the kings Rahotep Sekhemre-wahkhau, Wepwawetemsaf Sekhemre-neferkhau, and Pantjeny Sekhemre-khutawy probably ruled in that order shortly before the reign of Sobekemsaf II Sekhemre-wadjkhau. Concerning their dynastic attribution, Mar\\u00e9e [114] considered these kings to belong either to the late 16th or early 17th Dynasty. However, Ryholt [63] and Wegner [120] suggested that Wepwawetemsaf and Pantjeny belong to the Abydos Dynasty.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.ref125\", \"pone.0330702.ref126\", \"pone.0330702.t002\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"The above uncertainties underline that historical chronological assessments of the 16th, 17th and Abydos Dynasties in southern Egypt are rather tentative in the current state of knowledge. Different opinions exist, which will not be reviewed here, whether the 16th Dynasty and the Abydos Dynasty were coeval from their beginnings or whether one preceded the other, and to what extent they developed during the late 13th Dynasty or after the collapse of the 13th Dynasty. Another question is the \\u201cboundary\\u201d between the 16th and 17th Dynasty, both in terms of timing and political cause? The bottom line is that the actual beginning of the 17th Dynasty and its duration remain ambivalent, while the chronology of its attested kings, though tentatively suggested by Ryholt [63] cannot be determined according to Polz [125,126], due to lack of data (Table 2).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.t001\", \"pone.0330702.t002\", \"pone.0330702.ref079\", \"pone.0330702.ref118\", \"pone.0330702.t002\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"Concerning the sequence of the last three kings of the Theban 17th Dynasty, there is general agreement: Senakhtenre Ahmose (I), Seqenenre Tao, and Wadjkheperre Kamose (Tables 1 and 2). The last king arising from this 17th Dynasty family is Nebpehtire Ahmose (II). He reunited Upper and Lower Egypt following his victory over the northern 15th Dynasty and the conquest of Avaris, approximately in year 18 [79,118] of his reign (Table 2). However, Manetho placed the beginning of the 18th Dynasty at his accession year.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref088\", \"pone.0330702.ref089\", \"pone.0330702.t002\", \"pone.0330702.ref075\", \"pone.0330702.ref076\", \"pone.0330702.ref088\", \"pone.0330702.ref089\", \"pone.0330702.ref129\", \"pone.0330702.ref130\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"Estimations for year 1 of Ahmose (II) are usually based on historical data of successive reigns of kings (dead-reckoning) backward in time from the 26th Dynasty, while considering possible overlapping coregencies, Sothic and Lunar data, as well as foreign synchronisms. Such assessments produced a variety of accession years for Ahmose (II), ranging from 1580 BCE [88] to 1524 BCE [89]. Six historical chronologies for kings of the early 18th Dynasty are shown in Table 2 [75,76,88,89,129,130].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref113\", \"pone.0330702.g001\", \"pone.0330702.ref113\", \"pone.0330702.ref113\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"A unique chronology for the Second Intermediate Period was developed by Bennett [113], based on genealogical investigations of the governors of El-Kab, located ca 80 km south of Thebes (Fig 1). Successive generations of these governors can be synchronized with certain kings of the 13th, 16th and 18th dynasties [113]. Employing a minimal time-length reconstruction, Bennett [113] showed that at least 8 generations of El-Kab governors bridge the chronologically problematic part of the Second Intermediate Period.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.t003\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.t003\", \"pone.0330702.ref131\", \"pone.0330702.ref132\", \"pone.0330702.ref133\", \"pone.0330702.t003\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"The vizier Ay of El-Kab can be associated with the reign of the 13th Dynasty king Merhetepre Ini (Table 3). This king is named in column 8, line 4 of the Turin King-list, being the 34th king of the 13th Dynasty [63, p. 73]. The continuous genealogy ends after 8 generations in the early 18th Dynasty (Table 3): governor Renni of El-Kab died during the reign of Amenhotep I, the son of Nebpehtire Ahmose (II). Using a time frame of 25 years of government service by high officials per generation, based on Bierbrier [131], although this number may also be higher [132,133], the time length suggested by Bennett for the 8 generations of El-Kab governors is 8 x 25\\u2009=\\u2009200 years. Adopting again a minimal time-length approach, Bennett placed the death of governor Renni near the end of Amenhotep\\u2019s reign, which is ca 45 years after the accession of Nebpehtire Ahmose (II). This number has to be subtracted from the above 200 years, resulting in a  time distance of 155 years between year 1 of Merhetepre Ini to year 1 of Ahmose (Table 3).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.t003\", \"pone.0330702.ref063\", \"pone.0330702.t003\", \"pone.0330702.ref113\", \"pone.0330702.t003\", \"pone.0330702.ref134\", \"pone.0330702.ref135\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"The Turin King-list has preserved the regnal time length of many 13th Dynasty kings, for whom Bennett calculated a total of 74 years (Table 3). But 14 TK king lines of the 13th Dynasty lack reign length data, particular after TK 8/8 [63], p. 73, 408], 4 lines after king Merhetepre Ini. Suggesting only one regnal year for each of these 14 kings (Table 3), Bennett [113] took again a minimalistic chronological approach. Going further backward in time to the Middle Kingdom, he calculated 72 years from the 7th year of king Senusert III until the end of the 12th Dynasty (Table 3), thereby adopting the now prevailing interpretation that Senusert III had a reign of 19 years [134]. The 7th year of Senusert III is usually related to a heliacal rising of Sirius, as written on a papyrus from EI-Lahun (Berlin Museum Papyrus 10012) dated to the 19th century BCE. Therefore, Senusert 7th year is considered an astronomical chronological anchor in the Middle Kingdom. Various attempts have been made to calculate this Sothic date in relation to lunar observations recorded in other papyri of the 12th Dynasty, as reviewed and reassessed by Rose [135].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref018\", \"pone.0330702.ref136\", \"pone.0330702.ref137\", \"pone.0330702.ref113\", \"pone.0330702.t003\"], \"section\": \"Historical chronologies before and after Pharaoh Ahmose (II)\", \"text\": \"In conclusion, Bennett\\u2019s historical genealogical chronometric studies provide a direct time link between the 12th and the 18th dynasty, independent of unresolved matters concerning the respective chronological relationships between the 13th, 15th, 16th and 17th Dynasties. Moreover, the genealogical time distance between year 1 of Merhetepre Ini to year 1 of Nebpehtire Ahmose is  of the fall of Avaris and the archaeology of Tell el-Dab\\u2019a [18,136,137]. Bennett [113, p. 241] concluded that his  chronometric studies (Table 3) support a  for the Middle Kingdom and a  for the beginning of the New Kingdom.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref138\", \"pone.0330702.g001\", \"pone.0330702.g002\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Archaeological and historical context\", \"text\": \"The collection of the British Museum in London includes an unbaked clay brick bearing the stamped prenomen of Pharaoh Ahmose (II), i.e., Nebpehtire in hieroglyphic script. Since the name Ahmose was quite common during the late 17th Dynasty, the prenomen, also termed cartouche name or throne name, makes the connection of the mudbrick with Pharao Ahmose (II) unmistakable. The mudbrick is derived from the excavations by Randall-MacIver and Mace [138] of the Ahmose Temple at Abydos (Figs 1 and 2) during their 1899\\u20131901 campaign. The mudbrick was donated in 1900 to the British Museum by the Egypt Exploration Fund. Its registration number is 1900,1015.56 and the BM number is EA 32689.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref138\", \"pone.0330702.ref111\", \"pone.0330702.ref112\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Archaeological and historical context\", \"text\": \"Randall-MacIver and Mace reported that the mudbricks used in the construction of the Ahmose Temple \\u201c\\u201d [138, p. 76, pl xxxii]. The dimensions of mudbrick EA 32689 in the British Museum, also derived from their excavations at the Ahmose Temple, are quite similar: 15\\u00bd inches long, 7\\u00bd wide, and 4\\u00bd thick. More recent excavations at the site were conducted by Harvey [111,112].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref096\", \"pone.0330702.ref139\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Archaeological and historical context\", \"text\": \"Mudbricks in ancient Egypt were produced in rectangular wooden frames (molds) without top or bottom. These empty frames were placed on a suitable flat landscape surface sprinkled with sand and straw to enable easy removal of the mudbricks after initial drying. The wet mud mixture was poured into the rectangular frames, which guaranteed the production of mudbricks more or less identical in size [96]. A number of possible causes may lead to variations in the size of mudbricks made in rectangular molds of equal size: a slightly uneven underground, non-uniform shrinkage upon drying, and some erosion during handling [139].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref139\", \"pone.0330702.ref139\", \"pone.0330702.ref138\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Archaeological and historical context\", \"text\": \"Yamamoto and Creasman [139] conducted an investigation about the size of mudbricks in relation to Dynastic history. The Middle Kingdom mortuary temple of the 12th Dynasty king Senusert III at South Abydos was built with large mudbricks about 42\\u2009\\u00d7\\u200921\\u2009\\u00d7\\u200914\\u2009cm in size, while the associated town, also a royal initiative, used large bricks measuring about 39\\u2009\\u00d7\\u200919\\u2009\\u00d7\\u200912\\u2009cm [139]. The mudbricks from the Temple of Ahmose at Abydos have the following size ranges in centimeters, based on the above data by the excavators [138] and brick EA 32689 in the British Museum: 41.9\\u201339.4\\u2009cm long, 19.1\\u201319.0\\u2009cm wide, and 14.0\\u201311.5\\u2009cm thick. These sizes are strikingly similar to the mudbricks used about 300 years earlier by Senusert III, also at Abydos. After defeating the Hyksos, Pharaoh Ahmose (II) may have been inspired by the architecture of the powerful Middle Kingdom at Abydos to build his own Temple, using mudbricks of similar size.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref111\", \"pone.0330702.ref139\", \"pone.0330702.ref140\", \"pone.0330702.g003\", \"pone.0330702.ref138\", \"pone.0330702.g004\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Archaeological and historical context\", \"text\": \"Furthermore, within Egyptian Dynastic history the addition of a stamp on mudbricks began during the reign of Nebpehtire Ahmose [111,139,140]. Comparing the image (Fig 3) of a brick from the Temple of Ahmose published in 1902 [138] with the photograph of brick EA 32689 in the British Museum, taken by the first author (Fig 4), it can clearly be seen, notwithstanding the crack running through the latter mudbrick, that the stamped throne name Nebpehtire of Ahmose (II) is the same in both images.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref138\"], \"section\": \"Brick with stamped prenomen Nebpehtire of Pharaoh Ahmose from the Temple of Ahmose at Abydos.\", \"text\": \"Photograph from Randall-MacIver and Mace, 1902, Plate xxxii [138], reproduced under a CC BY license with permission and courtesy of \\u00a9 The Egypt Exploration Society, London.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref138\", \"pone.0330702.g002\", \"pone.0330702.ref111\", \"pone.0330702.ref112\", \"pone.0330702.g002\", \"pone.0330702.g002\", \"pone.0330702.ref111\", \"pone.0330702.ref112\", \"pone.0330702.g001\", \"pone.0330702.ref111\", \"pone.0330702.ref112\", \"pone.0330702.ref080\", \"pone.0330702.ref111\", \"pone.0330702.t002\", \"pone.0330702.ref088\", \"pone.0330702.ref129\", \"pone.0330702.ref075\", \"pone.0330702.ref130\", \"pone.0330702.ref076\", \"pone.0330702.ref089\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Archaeological and historical context\", \"text\": \"The time link with Ahmose in our radiocarbon investigation is via mudbrick EA 32689, bearing his prenomen Nebpehtire. When was this brick made during his reign? Almost a century after the excavations at Abydos [138], a new archaeological survey of the Ahmose Pyramid complex (Fig 2) was initiated in 1993 by Stephen Harvey, who conducted various excavations that yielded important results [111,112]. The Ahmose Pyramid was as far as we know the last Royal Pyramid in Egypt, but the building disintegrated and only a mound of rubble survived (Fig 2). The Ahmose Temple was built adjacent to the Pyramid, on its north-eastern side (Fig 2). The excavations by Harvey [111,112] of the Ahmose Temple uncovered on its eastern side fragments of a battle narrative with horses and chariots, soldiers and ships. Hieroglyphic texts indicate these scenes to represent the battles of Ahmose against the Hyksos, as their capital Avaris (Fig 1) is mentioned in these texts. The new findings by Harvey clearly indicate that the construction of the Ahmose Temple and Pyramid occurred after his victory over the Hyksos, possibly during or after year 22 in his reign [111,112]. The year 22 of Ahmose is specifically recorded in the important Turah limestone quarries, which the king reopened [80,111]. Table 2 shows the following historical dating options for year 22 of Ahmose, when the mudbricks for his Temple were probably made: 1558 BCE [88], 1548 BCE [129], 1528 BCE [75], 1526 BCE [130], 1517 BCE [76]. 1502 BCE [89].\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.g005\", \"pone.0330702.ref096\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Straw, color, and microscopy\", \"text\": \"Fragments of plant remains (straw) are clearly visible within the investigated Ahmose mudbrick (Fig 5). We also determined the color of the mudbrick, which is a significant characteristic. Its color can be categorized as greyish brown to dark greyish brown, 10YR 5/2\\u201310YR 4/2, according to the Munsell soil color chart. Such a color fits type A mudbricks [96], usually made from fine-grained sediments deposited under low energy conditions and seasonal water logging, resulting in poor oxygenation.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref141\", \"pone.0330702.ref141\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Straw, color, and microscopy\", \"text\": \"Investigations to determine the species of plant remains (straw) in mudbricks are rare. We are not aware of any study on this subject concerning ancient Egyptian bricks. The only research in this field known to us is a study by Hendry and Kelly [141] about plant content of adobe bricks from buildings made by monks in Spanish California (1697\\u20131821). The examined mudbricks were found to contain organic matter chopped to about 5\\u2009cm in length. \\u201cWheat and barley straw constituted the favorite organic material, but many other substances were employed, the choice apparently being determined by whatever was available at different seasons. Weeds of all kinds were extensively used, particularly those with fibrous stems, such as wild rye, sedges, tules, filaree, tarweeds, and various grasses, but the finding of other miscellaneous materials suggests that much of the general refuse from the mission was also utilized\\u201d [141, p. 372]. These significant findings suggest that the term \\u201cstraw\\u201d should not be limited to cereal grasses, but may refer also to other plants having fibrous stalks and stems.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.g001\", \"pone.0330702.g006\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Straw, color, and microscopy\", \"text\": \"Which plants were possibly used in the area of Abydos (Fig 1) for adding straw in the production of mudbricks during the reign of Ahmose (II)? A thin section of the Ahmose mudbrick EA 32689 exhibited a number of plant remnants, often poorly preserved, due to desiccation and deterioration over time. Comparatively large voids within the mudbrick matrix may be the only memory of plant fragments that once occupied these spaces. However, one plant fragment in the mudbrick thin section displayed excellent preservation, facilitating botanical evaluation, though its length is only 1.4\\u2009mm (Fig 6).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.g006\", \"pone.0330702.g006\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Straw, color, and microscopy\", \"text\": \"Prof. Arlene M. Rosen (University of Texas at Austin, Department of Anthropology) kindly gave her expertise assessment regarding Fig 6. A large section of mesophyll tissue is visible, characterized by sizeable cells up to ca 100 micron, whereas the thin epidermis layer is situated at its upper part. The problem with identifying plant parts from thin sections is that the orientation is usually not ideal for an accurate identification. A top view of the epidermal tissue would have been better instead of the current side view. Nevertheless, small silicified cell bodies (phytoliths) are visible in the upper epidermis layer (Fig 6), which appear to be of a type often defined as \\u201ccones\\u201d, having a size of about 10 micron. If they are cones, the plant would be a sedge, i.e., belonging to the Cyperaceae family, with genera such as Cyperus and Scirpus.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref142\", \"pone.0330702.ref144\", \"pone.0330702.ref145\", \"pone.0330702.ref146\", \"pone.0330702.g006\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Straw, color, and microscopy\", \"text\": \"Sedges have solid stems and narrow grasslike leaves, growing in marshy or irrigated grounds. They are used for matting, basketry, and straw [142\\u2013144]. The morphologically distinct conical shapes of phytoliths in sedge plants are present in the epidermal cells of leaves and stems [145]. Indeed, these parts of the plant, particularly the stems, could have been chopped up to provide straw for mudbrick fabrication. Conical phytoliths of leaves and stems may have a rounded, rectangular or square base [146]. The latter two shapes are actually visible with respect to the phytoliths in the epidermis of the microscopic plant fragment (Fig 6B) in the Ahmose mudbrick. A thin section gives of course a two-dimensional cut through the phytoliths, not showing their three-dimensional shape.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref147\", \"pone.0330702.ref148\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: Straw, color, and microscopy\", \"text\": \"How did the 1.4\\u2009mm small sedge plant fragment end up in Ahmose brick EA 32689? There are two main possibilities. (1) It may have been derived from \\u201cfresh\\u201d living sedge plants chopped for straw at the time of mudbrick fabrication. The term \\u201cpapyrus straw\\u201d [147] is not uncommon. (2) An \\u201cold\\u201d plant fragment already present in the seasonally wet soil, before its usage during the reign of Ahmose for making the mudbrick. In the latter case, the sedge plant fragment could be significantly older than the time of mudbrick fabrication, perhaps originating from sedimentary Nile debris or from human activities since Predynastic times. For example, all 1st Dynasty kings and the last two kings of the 2nd Dynasty were buried at Abydos, around 3000 BCE, in an area called Umm el-Qaab [148]. Mudbricks, obviously made from alluvial soils in the adjacent Nile Valley, were extensively used at this site in tombs, funerary enclosure walls, and temples.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.ref097\", \"pone.0330702.ref070\", \"pone.0330702.ref070\", \"pone.0330702.ref071\", \"pone.0330702.ref097\", \"pone.0330702.ref097\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: 14C and \\u03b413C measurements\", \"text\": \"Radiocarbon dating of mudbricks, based on embedded straw fragments, added during the time of mudbrick fabrication, has given reliable results [97]. For example, straw in mudbricks and in mud mortar between limestone building stones of the Middle Kingdom 12th Dynasty Pyramid of Senusert II at lllahun yielded radiocarbon dating results agreeable with the historical chronology [70]. However, more often the 14C dating results of organic material in mudbricks and mud seals were found to be older by many decades and even centuries than historical age assessments [70,71,97]. An explanation was suggested by Dee et al [97, p. 877]: \\u201cIt appears that the plant material already present in the mud itself was sometimes sampled for dating. Such fragments may be significantly older than their historical context, depending on their residence time in the original sediment.\\u201d Based on the above findings and experience, the youngest 14C result within a series of radiocarbon dates from a specific mudbrick is more likely to represent the \\u201cfresh\\u201d vegetation added to the mud at the time of brick fabrication.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.g004\", \"pone.0330702.g005\", \"pone.0330702.t004\", \"pone.0330702.t004\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: 14C and \\u03b413C measurements\", \"text\": \"Concerning the Ahmose mudbrick, the sampling of clean straw without attached mudbrick material proved to be surprisingly difficult. The plant fragments are very brittle and strongly attached to the clayey mudbrick matrix. The surface of the mudbrick with the stamped prenomen Nebpehtire (Fig 4) shows plant fragments that resemble straw in terms of their yellowish color, shape and size: fibrous stems up to 0.5\\u2009cm wide and up to about 5\\u2009cm long (Fig 5). However, only one piece of pure straw, already partly loose, could be extricated successfully from the surface of the mudbrick, as destructive sampling is not allowed. This single pure straw fragment, sample GrA-64347, without attached mudbrick material, belongs to the largest plant size remains in the Ahmose mudbrick. The sample, although very thin, contained sufficient carbon to undergo full AAA pretreatment (Table 4). Its radiocarbon date of 3230\\u2009\\u00b1\\u200960 BP (Table 4) is the youngest and most important result in the series of 14C measurements we obtained for the Ahmose mudbrick.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC12422448\", \"pmid\": \"40929054\", \"reference_ids\": [\"pone.0330702.t004\", \"pone.0330702.g006\", \"pone.0330702.ref149\", \"pone.0330702.ref150\", \"pone.0330702.ref151\", \"pone.0330702.ref152\", \"pone.0330702.ref153\"], \"section\": \"The Ahmose mudbrick: 14C and \\u03b413C measurements\", \"text\": \"The single piece of straw (GrA-64347) has a \\u03b413C value of \\u221212.4 \\u2030 (Table 4). Hence the straw is not derived from C3 cereal plants such as wheat or barley, but from a plant with C4 photosynthesis, which include the sedge family (Cyperaceae) and many (sub)tropical grasses. Moreover, a thin section of the Ahmose mudbrick (Fig 6) revealed the presence of a small plant fragment, 1.4\\u2009mm long, belonging to the Cyperaceae family. The sedges are the second most important C4 family, with approximately 1500 C4 plant species [149]. The Cyperaceae or sedges also constitute a major family in the Egyptian flora, composed of 47 species with many C4 plants [150], including papyrus (Cyperus papyrus). The hieroglyph symbol for sedge \\ud80c\\uddd3 is also the symbol representing Upper Egypt. The sedge symbol occurs in one of the five titles of Pharaoh: \\u201cHe of th

Metadata

"{\"Data Availability\": \"All relevant data are within the manuscript.\"}"

PMC Articles

The Minoan Thera eruption predates Pharaoh Ahmose: Radiocarbon dating of Egyptian 17 th to early 18 th Dynasty museum objects

Abstract

Full Text

Sections

Metadata