There's a big problem with ancient Egyptian chronology and we don't know how to fix it

Manetho's King List, which was penned by an Egyptian priest in the 3rd century BCE, remains one of the most referenced sources.

This compilation aims to provide a complete and sequential list of pharaohs and their reigns.

It famously structures Egyptian history into broad dynastic periods. This has been incredibly helpful for compartmentalizing huge chunks of time in empire's 3000 year existence. 

However, its reliability is sometimes questioned due to potential transcription errors and later interpolations.

In addition to this list, the monumental architecture, such as temples, tombs, and stelae, are helpful pieces of corroborating evidence.

Often inscribed with dates or references to specific pharaohs, they allow historians to cross-reference and validate events mentioned in the written sources like Manetho.

Yet, these inscriptions can also be difficult to trust, as they were frequently crafted with political or religious motivations in mind.

But there is a third data set that has become increasingly useful in this project: astronomical records.

The observations of celestial events, especially the heliacal rising of the star Sirius, known to the Egyptians as Sothis, provide important time markers that can be cross-referenced with modern astronomical calculations.

This Sothic cycle, which spans roughly 1,460 years, offers a means to anchor historical events to specific dates.

This data has been used to anchor the reign of Ramses II to the dates 1279–1213 BC.

But we will talk more about this later in the article.

Finally, in more recent times, the advent of radiocarbon dating in the late 1940s has introduced a scientific method to the chronology discussion. 

While it has become an important tool, it sometimes provides date ranges that can be too broad for narrowing down specific events in Egyptian history.

Also, it often comes with a margin of error of 50-100 years, particularly when applied to older organic materials, making it more challenging to pinpoint exact reigns and events in Egypt's long history.

But by analyzing organic materials associated with archaeological contexts, this technique provides a range of probable dates, adding another layer of validation or contention to established timelines.

One of the most debated areas of Egypt's timeline revolves around the establishment of the traditional, low and high chronologies.

Each of these models proposes slightly different dates for key events and reigns, leading to discrepancies that can span decades or even centuries.

The traditional chronology is often considered the mainstream view and is based on a combination of historical records, astronomical data, and archaeological evidence.

This model has been widely accepted for many years and serves as the foundation for many historical texts and educational materials.

It provides a balanced approach, taking into account various sources without leaning too heavily on any single piece of evidence.

In contrast, the low chronology proposes dates that are generally shorter than those of the traditional model.

Advocates of this model argue that certain periods, especially the durations of specific reigns or dynasties, have been overestimated in the traditional chronology.

By compressing these timelines, the low chronology often results in later dates for certain events or reigns compared to the traditional model.

Finally, the high chronology suggests that certain events or reigns occurred earlier than proposed in the traditional model.

Proponents of this view believe that some periods have been underestimated in the traditional timeline.

By extending these periods, the high chronology results in earlier dates for specific events or reigns.

A good example that shows how the different chronologies offer varied answers, is the reign of Pharaoh Akhenaten. 

This Egyptian king is known for his religious reforms and the establishment of the worship of the sun disk, Aten.

However, Akhenaten's reign has implications for understanding the broader historical and cultural context of the period.

According to traditional chronology, Akhenaten's reign is typically dated to c. 1353-1336 BCE.

In low chronology, Akhenaten's reign is slightly later, perhaps around c. 1349-1332 BCE.

High chronology, in contrast, the high chronology would date Akhenaten's reign a bit earlier, possibly around c. 1356-1339 BCE.

While the differences here amount to just a few years, the further back we go in time, the margin of difference gets larger. 

In some of the worst cases, by the time historians look at the Old Kingdom period, there can be up to 50 to 100 years in difference between these systems.

Perhaps the most notable point of contention is the dating of the Exodus, the biblical account of the Israelites' departure from Egypt.

The exact pharaoh in power during this event and its corresponding date remain subjects of debate, with implications for both Egyptian and biblical chronologies.

Similarly, the reigns of certain pharaohs, especially during the intermediate periods when Egypt was fragmented, are challenging to pin down with precision.

Discrepancies in the reign lengths of individual pharaohs, as recorded in sources like Manetho's King List versus those found in archaeological inscriptions, further complicate the picture.

The Pyramids of Giza, iconic symbols of ancient Egypt's grandeur, have also been subjects of chronological debate.

These monumental structures, built as tombs for Pharaohs Khufu (Cheops), Khafre (Chephren), and Menkaure, represent the pinnacle of pyramid construction and are marvels of engineering and architecture.

The most significant and oldest of the three, the Great Pyramid built for Khufu, serves as a primary reference point for dating the entire Giza complex.

In the traditional chronology, the construction of the Great Pyramid is generally dated to around c. 2580-2560 BCE, during the Fourth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom.

However, as with other events in Egyptian history, there are variations based on different interpretations of evidence.

Some scholars, considering alternative readings of historical records or astronomical alignments, might suggest slightly earlier or later dates.

For instance, certain low chronology interpretations might propose dates closer to c. 2570-2550 BCE, while high chronology models might lean towards c. 2590-2570 BCE.

Finally, the First (c. 2181–2055 BCE), Second (c. 1782–1570 BCE), and Third Intermediate Periods (c. 1069–664 BCE) are often the most difficult to date precisely, as Egypt was politically fragmented and centralized records were sparse or nonexistent.

The chronology of ancient Egypt doesn't exist in isolation; its timeline intertwines with those of neighboring civilizations.

When we adjust or debate the dates of significant events in Egypt, it can ripple through the timelines of other ancient cultures.

For instance, the Hittites, a powerful civilization in ancient Anatolia, had diplomatic and military interactions with Egypt.

The famous Battle of Kadesh between the Hittites and the Egyptians under Ramses II is a key event in both cultures' histories. It is currently dated to around 1274 BCE and is one of the earliest documented military clashes.

Any shift in the dating of Ramses II's reign would, in turn, affect the Hittite timeline and our understanding of the broader geopolitical landscape of the time.

Egyptian chronology also impacts our understanding of cultures in the broader Mediterranean and even in sub-Saharan Africa.

Trade, diplomacy, and migration linked Egypt with regions as distant as Mycenae in Greece and the Nubian Kingdoms to its south.

An adjustment in Egyptian dates might necessitate a reevaluation of trade patterns, cultural exchanges, and political events in these regions.

Piecing together the timeline of one of history's most influential civilizations is no simple task, given the myriad sources, interpretations, and modern techniques at play.

As scholars continue to debate, refine, and sometimes even redefine the chronology, it becomes evident that history is not a static field but one that evolves with each new discovery and interpretation.

The controversies and debates surrounding Egyptian chronology highlight the importance of critical thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a willingness to adapt in the face of new evidence.