Specialists on every side agree that dates in archaeology get revised: the redating of Göbekli Tepe and ‘Ubeidiya proves it. The disagreement is about how fragile the overall timeline is: whether revisions are minor corrections to a sound framework, or signs that major parts of the accepted chronology could be wrong.
Below are the strongest arguments on each side, stated as their best advocates would make them.
The Heterodox Case
1. Big dates have been overturned before. Before Göbekli Tepe was dated, textbooks taught that monumental building came after farming. Before direct dating, ‘Ubeidiya was thought to be hundreds of thousands of years younger. Advocates argue that if such fundamental dates could be wrong, others could be too.
2. Many dates rest on indirect evidence. A surprising number of ancient dates come from comparisons: pottery styles, animal species, or assumed links to other sites. Advocates argue that each comparison carries assumptions, and errors can spread through the whole system.
3. The Sphinx does not fit. Geologist Robert Schoch argues that the weathering of the Sphinx enclosure shows long exposure to heavy rain, which would require a date thousands of years before Khafre. See Rain on the Sphinx?.
4. Even experts disagree. The date of the Thera eruption has divided specialists for decades: radiocarbon points to the late 1600s BC, while archaeological links to Egypt long suggested about a century later. Advocates argue that if the best methods disagree here, confidence elsewhere may be overstated.
5. Egyptian dates depend on chains of reasoning. The Egyptian timeline is built from king lists, astronomical records, and links to other cultures. David Rohl’s New Chronology argues that misidentified kings and overlapping dynasties have inflated parts of it by up to about 350 years.
The Orthodox View
1. Independent methods agree. Radiocarbon, tree rings, ice cores, luminescence, and written records were developed separately, yet they produce a broadly consistent timeline. Scholars argue that a major error would show up as widespread contradictions, which do not exist.
2. Science has tested Egypt’s dates. In 2010, a team led by Christopher Bronk Ramsey of Oxford radiocarbon dated more than 200 short lived plant samples linked to specific Egyptian reigns. The results broadly confirmed the conventional chronology, leaving little room for shifts of centuries such as Rohl’s.
3. Revisions come from mainstream science. Göbekli Tepe, ‘Ubeidiya, and the Thera debate were all advanced by mainstream researchers using standard methods. Critics argue that these cases show the system correcting itself, not breaking down.
4. The Sphinx sits in a dated complex. The Sphinx is surrounded by temples and a causeway firmly linked to Khafre, and other explanations for its weathering exist, such as salt weathering.
5. Disputes are narrow. The Thera dispute concerns a difference of about a century, three and a half thousand years ago. Critics argue that such disagreements show the precision of the field, not its weakness.
Where the Evidence Stands
| Question | Heterodox view | Orthodox view | Our assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are archaeological dates sometimes badly wrong? | Yes | Sometimes, then corrected | Agreed. Göbekli Tepe and ‘Ubeidiya are examples. |
| Is the overall timeline reliable? | Doubtful | Yes | Broadly reliable, confirmed by independent methods. |
| Should Egyptian dates shift by centuries? | Possibly | No | Unlikely, after the 2010 radiocarbon tests. |
| Is the Sphinx thousands of years older than Khafre? | Likely | No | Contested, with the weight of evidence favoring Khafre. |
| When did Thera erupt? | Uncertain | Debated | A genuine open question, with a gap that has narrowed. |
What Would Settle It
- Direct dating of organic material from contested monuments, such as mortar, foundations, or tool marks.
- Continued refinement of radiocarbon calibration using tree rings and other annual records.
- New precise dates for the Thera eruption, for example from ice cores or tree rings showing its climate effects.
- Geological study of the Sphinx enclosure by independent teams, testing the rain, salt, and runoff explanations side by side.
Our Verdict
The heterodox side is right that some important dates have been overturned, and right that dates built on indirect comparisons deserve scrutiny. The orthodox side is right that independent methods broadly agree, and that tests such as the 2010 Egyptian radiocarbon study support the accepted framework. Our view: the accepted timeline is broadly sound, but individual dates, especially those never directly measured, should always be open to revision, and the best revisions so far have come from better measurement.
Return to the Alternative Chronologies topic page, or read the articles below.