Shoshenq I

In this article the author re-examines the linguistic arguments raised by a number of critics against the derivation of the biblical name Shishak from Ramesses (Sesu). While dealing with these criticisms at greater length, I will seek to reinforce the equation by presenting new evidence. The linguistic evidence from the Late Bronze Age not only appears to support the view that Egyptian /s/ was indeed represented by /š/ in the West Semitic dialects of that time (including Palaeo-Hebrew), the troubling final qoph within Shishak can also be reasonably explained as a scribal confusion between the letters waw and qoph, which indeed were written virtually the same when - according to the Centuries of Darkness model - Shishak invaded Judah.

The traditional date of 945 BCE to anchor the beginning of the 22nd dynasty, as set forth by K.A. Kitchen, was accepted by Egyptologists for many years without notable controversy. However, this pivotal date is based on the biblical chronology calculated by E. Thiele (1951), which is wrong of about 45 years near 900 BCE because of numerous fanciful co-regencies. The only right way to date the beginning of the 22nd dynasty is to date the end of the 21st dynasty by synchronisms with the Babylonian and Assyrian chronologies anchored on astronomical dating (see Dating the Fall of Babylon and Ur). Two important synchronisms allow an anchorage: the ‘Sea Peoples war’ dated year 8 of Ramses III and year 2 of Meli- Shipak (1185 BCE) and a total lunar eclipse (17 March 851 BCE) dated on 2[9] Shemu IV, 15th year of Takelot II, mentioned in the Osorkon Chronicle. The dating of Shoshenq I's Campaign in Palestine is confirmed by the fact that the city of Rehob was burned in 970-960, according to 14C dating, and by the biblical chronology based on the Masoretic text which dates the 5th year of Rehoboam in 972 BCE (2Chronicles 12:2-9) corresponding to year 9 of Shoshenq I (980-959).

As argued elsewhere (Centuries of Darkness) and now in many other papers, including some in this volume), Shoshenq I (founder of the 22nd Dynasty) was not the Shishak who invaded Judah c .925 BC. In our opinion, genuine dead- reckoning from the highest attested years from the monuments (see e.g. James & Morkot and Thijs in this volume), epigraphical dating (for example the Byblite finds of early 22nd-dynasty sculptures with Phoenician inscriptions – see van der Veen, ‘Early Iron Age Epigraphy... ’ in this volume) and the archaeology of Megiddo (see Chapman also in this volume), show that Shoshenq I must have been a pharaoh of the mid to late 9th century BC rather than the 10th. In this case, what reflection might there be of his campaign in biblical or extra-biblical records?

published in _The Libyan period in Egypt: Historical and cultural studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties; Proceedings of a conference at Leiden University, 25–27 October 2007_, edited by G. P. F. Broekman, Robert J. Demarée, and Olaf E. Kaper. Egyptologische Uitgaven 23. Leiden and Leuven: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten and Uitgeverij Peeters. (2009). 341–359. Available from http://www.nino-leiden.nl/publication.aspx?BK_id=02023

Since the late 1980s, as part of proposals to lower the conventional chronology of pharaonic Egypt from one to three hundred years, a number of scholars have identified biblical Šîšaq (1 Kings 11:40, 14:25; 2 Chronicles 12:2–9) with Ramesses II or III rather than the conventional Shoshenq I on the basis rare hypocoristica for ‘Ramesses,’ ssysw, ssw, and ss. Without addressing the chronological issues, this paper examines this proposed re-identification from a philological perspective, concluding that the proposal to identify biblical Šîšaq with any king named ‘Ramesses’ is unwarranted and implausible.

In this article the author presents an ultra short chronology for the Libyan Period. After having established tentative dates for the kings from Takelot II to Shoshenk V, solely on the basis of historical material (e.g. Apis burials and non Egyptian sources), the resulting model is tested using astronomical evidence, which ultimately leads to the discovery of the infamous "missing eclipse" of year 15 of Takelot II, an awkward problem that has haunted Egyptology for years. Both methods, historical and astronomical, independently point towards the lunar eclipse of 15 February 756 BC. The model is then expanded to include the first half of the 22nd Dynasty as well. This generates a new series of lunar dates and historical synchronisms. The reign of Shoshenk I is established at 843 - 823 BC.

In Göttinger Miszellen 198 (2004):55–62, R. L. Miller identifies a mummy formerly in the collection of the Niagara Falls Museum with that of Shoshenq I (though other candidates are not ruled out), primarily on the basis of a tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon date. A re-examination of the historical evidence cited by Miller in support for this contention makes such an identification implausible.

Shoshenq I is not a well-known king of Egypt (due to his living in the Third Intermediate Period, after the New Kingdom), but he managed to regain some of the land that was lost during the Bronze Age Collapse. This campaign, though, may also have been to secure his own position on the throne.
This talk will address the ‘Contendings of Horus and Seth’ (recounted in an amusing and light-hearted retelling) and the Bubastis Portal at Karnak (where I will recount certain interpretations of the city-list depicted before providing my own thoughts on the matter). Interlaced between them will be a summary of Shoshenq’s rise to power.

Some 11 fragments found in 1984 under the late Ptolemaic pavement of the court in the great Horus Temple at Edfu were initially attributed to a ‘heb-sed’ portal and dated to the Kushite Period. Re-examination of the cartouches, which had been reworked during the reign of Psametik II, has now revealed traces of the name Shoshenq. From a review of the data relating to heb-sed portals of similar design the authors conclude that the basic layout of the scenes can be traced back to the Middle Kingdom with major changes having been made during the Ramesside Period. The latest example of a heb-sed portal documented to date is found in the temple at Philae.

At least four of the five cities of the "Philistine pentapolis" are absent from the Bubastite Portal toponym lists. There is evidence of trade with Egypt, and both Gath and Ashdod prospered during Iron Age IIA, making it doubtful that the Philistines were enemies of Shoshenq I. This paper therefore looks briefly at alternatives to Gaza as the starting point of the campaign, and then turns to the Yarkon Basin as the northern frontier of the Philistines, finding that the toponyms of the destroyed Row IV of the monument may have been located somewhere to the east of Philistia.

In 1906, Max Müller reported seeing an owl in Bubastite Portal toponym 11. The 1954 photographs of the Epigraphic Survey reveal that the lower edge of the stone has crumbled or broken away in that location, leaving no trace of an additional bird or indeed of anything. This paper does not provide new insights, but examines early reports on the remains of toponym 11 and 12, as submitted by Champollion, Brugsch, Maspero, Gauthier and Simons. Damage to the monument between 1904 and 1954 seems likely, but reports of an owl in toponym no. 11 are not corroborated by early researchers.

The text of a lecture held on March 26 2011 at Sidney Sussex College, CAMBRIDGE, during a BICANE colloquium, on the subject of the period between the eclipse of year 15 of Takelot II and the reign of Shoshenk I.
The lecture also deals with the number and order of Apis bulls during this timeframe.

Morkot, R. & James, P., 2015. “Dead-reckoning the Start of the 22nd Dynasty: from Shoshenq V back to Shoshenq I”, in P. James & P. van der Veen (eds), Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology. Proceedings of the Third BICANE Colloquium held at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge 26-27 March, 2011 (BAR International Series 2732). Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 20-41. Readable online at https://www.centuries.co.uk/replies.htm
Kenneth Kitchen and other Egyptologists have claimed that a 10th-century BC date for Shoshenq I (founder of the 22nd Dynasty) can be arrived at not only from a philological identification with the biblical Shishak, but from chronological ‘dead-reckoning’ backwards through the Third Intermediate Period. One problem here is: where is the fixed point from which one begins retrocalculation? Kitchen himself counts backwards from his ‘Osorkon IV’, whom he identifies with the like-named king from the Piye Stela and the Shilkanni mentioned in Assyrian records in 716 BC. Yet there is no firm evidence that such an Osorkon ‘IV’ ever existed, while there is a mounting case for a return to the position of earlier Egyptologists that the king in question was the well-attested Osorkon III, presently dated to the first quarter of the 8th century BC. Equating him with the Osorkon of Piye would require lowering the dates of Osorkon III (and the last incumbents of the 22nd Dynasty) by some 40-50 years – a position strongly supported by archaeological, art-historical and genealogical evidence. Using these later dates, dead-reckoning backwards through the Dynasty (using the Pasenhor genealogy, Apis bull records and attested reign lengths) brings us to a date for Shoshenq I in the second half of the 9th century. This would place him a century later than the biblical Shishak, making the equation of the two untenable. Another candidate needs to be sought for the biblical ‘king Shishak’.

Combined archaeological data from the Central Jordan Valley indicates that small agricultural villages and a few public buildings occupied the area during the first half of the 10th century BC, all grouped along well-organised irrigation systems. A regional conflagration ended the occupation around 950 BC, after which most of the Central Jordan Valley was deserted for approximately one century. This occupational gap coincided with a period of decreased precipitation. During this arid phase the area was visited by mobile groups who used the summits of the settlement mounds for animal holding and sparse industrial activities. According to the topographical list of Shoshenq I, there were at least four settlements in the Central Jordan Valley: Adamah, Succoth, Penuel and Mahanaim. These places were apparently important enough in c. 925 BC for the Egyptians to neutralise them. But where are the remains of these settlements? This study deals with the intriguing disjunction between archaeological and textual evidence.

The toponyms in Row V of the Bubastite Portal appear to be located in the same region as those of Row II, causing authors to even speculate about Row V containing locations that had been accidentally omitted from Row II. This paper suggests that Shoshenq’s activities in the south may have been interrupted by a developing situation in the region of Megiddo that required the presence of the king with his main force. Having pacified the north, Shoshenq would have returned to the south to complete his conquest of that region. If events did develop in this manner, some toponyms sought for but not found in the legible parts of the portal, including Jerusalem, may originally have been present in the almost completely obliterated Row IV.