In the mid-1960's Egyptologists and radiocarbon chronologists were in an awkward predicament while attempting to reconcile differences between historical and astronomical data by means of C14 determinations. Evidence derived from radiocarbon dating did not match with what experts in the history of the ancient Near East had reasoned was the astronomical basis for Egyptian dynastic history. Specimens sealed to certain years B.C.E. by means of the chronology based on astronomical anchor points, related dates through the radiocarbon method which did not match the accepted dating system. Differences were often in the magnitude of centuries. Archaeological, methodological, and geophysical explanations for the discrepancies were sought. No answers were forthcoming. What was overlooked and should still be employed is an historical and Biblical explanation. Nevertheless, dendrochronologists and geophysicists did arrive at, what was believed to be, some physical reasons for the discrepancies. Beginning with de Vries, and continuing under Suess, Ferguson, et. al., the claim was made that a recalibration of C14 dates is possible which verifies accepted and "astronomically" founded Pharaonic chronology. On the other hand, it was also asserted that this supported the accuracy of the dating technique. Radiocarbon dates without calibration do not verify and support the ancient history of Egypt as it is taught today. In Egypt a general calendrical date could be assigned to an object assuming the historians were correct in their reconstruction of history. With the tree-rings of the bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata), however, near absolute calendrical dates corresponding to ancient Egyptian times could be checked by radiocarbon dating. That is, near absolute calendrical dates were utilized with the assumption that the dendrochronologists counted the "annual" rings precisely. Calendrical or true age of the tree rings did not result in the same age as that gained from C14 analysis. Dendrochronologically dated tree rings revealed problems, therefore, which when combined with other investigations demonstrated the fact that some of the foundational assumptions of C14 dating were invalid and needed restating. From recent research, the following facts have become known: production of C14 by cosmic rays has varied due to a (modulation of the galactic cosmic ray flux, b) changes in exchange rate between the atmosphere and the oceans, c) changes in the earth,s magnetic dipole moment, and d) world-wide fluctuations in atmospheric concentration of radiocarbon. In addition, dendrochronologically dated tree-rings from trees of the southern hemisphere do not generate the same true or calendrical age and radiocarbon age relationships as that related by radiocarbon dated tree-rings of bristlecone pine. It is now an admitted possibility that the amount of radioactive C14 available to living organisms may vary with altitude, and that "dead' tree-rings may absorb C14. We are left with pre-calibration C14 dates for Egypt which, in fact, closely match the correctly correlated Egyptian-Biblical chronology.