by
Damien F. Mackey
With “Shishak”
properly identified by Dr. I. Velikovsky … with Thutmose III,
the mighty pharaoh
of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty … then pharaoh Shoshenq I
must needs be
lifted right out of the C10th BC and located some centuries later.
Conventional dates for
Smendes, considered to have been the first ruler of the 21st Dynasty, are c.
1069-1043 BC.
Conventional dates for Shoshenq
I, considered to have been the first ruler of the 22nd Dynasty, are
c. 945-924 BC.
In terms of biblical chronology,
Smendes would probably have been a younger contemporary of Samuel; whilst
Shoshenq I has famously been identified (e.g. by Jean François Champollion) as
the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt” at the time of King Rehoboam (I Kings
4:25-26).
However, I have – along with
other revisionists – rejected Champollion’s view of Shoshenq I as “Shishak”:
Shoshenq I.
A (i): Who Shoshenq I was not
With “Shishak” properly
identified by Dr. I. Velikovsky (as I believe) with Thutmose III, the mighty
pharaoh of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty:
Thutmose III
best candidate for “Shishak”
then pharaoh Shoshenq I must
needs be lifted right out of the C10th BC and located some centuries later.
So significant a chronological
shift must also impact upon Smendes who would also need to be lowered down the
time scale.
But then we start to get that awful
crush of Third Intermediate Period (TIP) dynasties, 21-25, with which revisionists
have to contend.
The Third
Intermediate Period usually refers to the time in Ancient Egypt from
the death of Pharaoh Ramesses XI (reign 1107–1078/77 BC) during the Twentieth
Dynasty to the foundation of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty by Psamtik I in 664 BC,
following the expulsion of the Nubian rulers of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty.
Smendes, apart from being considered
as the founder of the 21st dynasty, is also thought to have been the
first ruler of TIP.
A possible solution to early
TIP would be to identify Smendes with Shoshenq I of supposedly a century later.
That there was a degree of similarity
between Smendes and Shoshenq I is apparent from this quote from N. Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell
1994, p. 332): “Shoshenq I immediately sought to prove that his claim to the
throne went back to the preceding dynasty, and did so by adopting a set of
titles based on those of Smendes I”.
Names shared: Meryre; Sekhempehti; Hedjkheperre-setpenre
Similarity can – but does not
always – mean identity.
However, it is at least worth
considering that Smendes and Shoshenq I were one and the same, with the possibility
of aligning dynasty 21 with 22 to overcome at least some of the dynastic
crushing of TIP.
Shoshenq I considered
a ‘new Smendes’
“… Shoshenq was,
so to speak, ‘another Smendes’ … a ‘new Smendes’.
Kenneth Kitchen
“Similarity can – but does not always – mean identity”.
And, just because someone is described as ‘a new’ someone else, or ‘a second’
someone else (e.g. ‘a new king David’; ‘another Solomon’, ‘a second Judith’)
does not necessarily mean that the ‘second’ version is the same person as the
original.
Hitler, for instance, is considered to have been a new Haman (of the
Book of Esther).
But Hitler was not Haman, who was, though - like Hitler - an historical
character.
See e.g. my article:
King
Amon's descent into Aman (Haman)
Previously (Part One (i)), I quoted N. Grimal who had likened Shoshenq I to his supposed
predecessor, Smendes.
K. A. Kitchen is more
expansive on the similarities. As I noted in my university thesis:
A Revised History
of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
(Volume One, p. 335), with reference to Kitchen’s text, The Third
Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650BC, pp. 287-288):
[Shsohenq I’s] very titulary exemplifies his qualities
and policies. By taking the prenomen Hedjkheperre Setepenre, that of Smendes I,
founder of the previous dynasty, Shoshenq proclaimed at one stroke both his
continuity with the past – i.e. that he was, so to speak, ‘another
Smendes’ - and a new beginning. Like
Smendes, he now opened a new era. Nor is the concept of a ‘new Smendes’ limited
to Shoshenq’s prenomen. He also adopted Horus, Nebty, and Golden Horus names
reminiscent of those of Smendes I. Just as the latter had been Horus ‘Strong Bull,
beloved of Re’ plus epithets (whose arm Amun strengthened to exalt Truth), so
now Shoshenq I was Horus ‘Strong Bull, beloved of Re’ plus epithets (whom he (=
Re) caused to appear as King to unite the Two Lands).
[End of quote]
Whilst similarity does not necessarily mean identity, there are reasons to
think that, in this case, it might.
For one, the obviously significant pharaoh Smendes is, yet, so poorly
attested, is crying out for an alter ego.
And, in the context of the revision at least, a crunching of Smendes with
Shoshenq I would provide far more room for chronological manoeuvring.
More room is needed.
Smendes so poorly attested
“… most of what we know of Smendes predates his rise to the throne”.
“… we can only guess at Smendes' origins”.
“… there is a great deal of confusion concerning the origin of Smendes”.
Jimmy Dunn
Statements like the above from Jimmy Dunn (Tour Egypt) would suggest that pharaoh Smendes, said to have reigned for as many as 26 years, may be sorely in need of an alter ego – with Shoshenq I being my suggestion for another face of Smendes.
Smendes, the First King of the 21st Dynasty
and the Third Intermediate Period
….
Smendes (Smedes), who we believe founded the 21st Dynasty, ending the New Kingdom at the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period, is a very difficult individual with almost intractable origins and affiliations. His reign, which Manetho assigns 26 years, produced only a tiny handful of monuments and we have never discovered either his tomb or his mummy (though many believe his tomb to be NRT-I at Tanis, this structure offers up no clues concerning Smendes).
Smendes is a Greek rendering of this king's name. His birth name and epithet were Nes-ba-neb-djed (mery-amun), meaning "He of the Ram, Lord of Mendes, Beloved of Amun". His throne name was Hedj-kheper-re Setep-en-re, meaning "Bright is the Manifestation of Re, Chosen of Re".
In fact, most of what we know of Smendes predates his rise to the throne. From the Report of Wenamun, dating to Year 5 of the "Renaissance Era" during the last decade of the reign of Ramesses XI, we learn much of what we know of this future king. While on the way to Lebanon to obtain wood for the renewal of the divine barque of Amun-Re, Wenamun stopped at Tanis, which he describes as "the place where Smendes and Tentamun are". Smendes is specifically described as being the one to whom Wenamun gave his letters of credence from Herihor, the High-Priest of Amun and a powerful general in the south. Wenamun was then sent in a ship by Smendes to Syria. Smendes, along with Herihor and others, was cited as having contributed money to this expedition.
Smendes, together with Tentamun, are therefore shown to be of great importance in Egypt's Delta, equals at least of the High-Priest of Amun in the south. Consider the fact that Ramesses XI at this time presumably lived at Piramesses, only about 20 kilometers to the southwest of Tanis, and yet Wenamun came to Smendes for assistance rather than to the king. In fact, Herihor assumed some royal titles even while Ramesses XI was still alive, and the implication would seem to be that Smendes had a similar standing in the north.
Nevertheless, we can only guess at Smendes' origins. It has been suggested that he was a brother of Nodjmet, the wife of Herihor, but it has also been suggested that Nodjmet could have been a sister of Ramesses XI. However, Tentamun, who was presumably Smendes' wife, may have been a member of the royal family. She could have been a daughter of another woman named Tentamun, who may have been the wife of Ramesses XI (or possibly another Ramesside king). The older Tentamun was certainly the mother of Henttawy, who later became the wife of the High-Priest of Amun, Pinedjem I, who also acquired kingly status in the south. As a royal son-in-law, Smendes' status is more easily understood, though perhaps not his total eclipse of the king.
Obviously there is a great deal of confusion concerning the origin of Smendes. Nevertheless, it is very probable that the families of Smendes and Herihor, or at least their descendants, were linked.
Whatever his original status, after the death of Ramesses XI, Smendes became a king of Egypt, and is recorded as such in most reference material. However, only two sources specifically name him as pharaoh, consisting of a stela in a quarry at Dibabia near Gebelein (Jebelein), and a small depiction in the temple of Montu at Karnak. Interestingly, while there are no known unambiguously dated documents from his reign, the contemporary High-Priests of Amun used year numbers without a king's name, and it is generally believed that, at least through year 25, these refer to Smendes' reign.
In fact, Smendes probably never ruled over a united Egypt as such, a condition which probably also existed at the end of the reign of Ramesses XI. During much of what we refer to as the 21st Dynasty, there was also a dynasty of High-Priests of Amun at Thebes who effectively ruled Upper Egypt, while the kings at Tanis ruled the north. However, there appears to have been a rather delicate balance of powers, and perhaps even a formal arrangement for this division of Egypt. The Priests at Thebes seem to have held sway over a region which stretched from the north of el-Hiba (south of the entrance to the Fayoum) to the southern frontier of Egypt, and their aspirations became apparent around year 16 of Smendes' reign, when Pinedjem I apparently began to take on full pharaonic titles, yet at all times he continued to defer to Smendes as at least a senior king.
….
May Psusennes I
and II be the actual same person?
“On
the Dakhleh Stela of the Twenty-second Dynasty reference is made to
the
19th year of ‘Pharaoh Psusennes’. …. As Gardiner observes, one
cannot determine
from
this statement whether Psusennes I or II is intended”.
Beatrice
L. Goff
If our suspicion in this
series that Smendes of the 21st Egyptian dynasty was the same
pharaoh as Shoshenq I of the 22nd (Libyan) dynasty, then this is
going to assist in the necessary curtailing of the troublesome Third
Intermediate Period (TIP), so-called, of Egyptian history.
It will the open the door for
further shrinkage, enabling, for instance, for the Psusennes I at the time of
Smendes to have been the same as the Psusennses II at the time of Shoshenq I –
as some have already suspected. Conventionally, the 21st dynasty is
set out something like this:
Smendes
|
1069-1043
|
Amenemnisu
|
1043-1039
|
Psusennes 1
|
1039-991
|
Amenemope
|
993-984
|
Osorkon the Elder
|
984-978
|
Siamun
|
978-959
|
Psusennes 2
|
959-945
|
About three decades separate
Psusennes I from Psusennes II.
Then follows the 22nd
dynasty, commencing with Shoshenq I, a known younger contemporary of Psusennes
(so-called II).
According to the following site:
some have been suggesting an identification
of Psusennes I and II:
While some authors, including New Chronology
followers claim that Psusennes I may actually be identical with Psusennes II,
this is impossible because Psusennes II is clearly distinguished from Psusennes
I by Manetho and is given an independent reign of 15 years in the author's
Epitome. Moreover, Psusenness II's royal name has been found associated with
his successor, Shoshenq I in a graffito from tomb TT18, and in an ostracon from
Umm el-Qa'ab. This shows that Shoshenq I was Psusennes II's successor. In
contrast, Psusennes I died almost 40-45 years before Shoshenq I's appearance as
Chief of the Ma, let alone King of Egypt.
[End of quote]
“Psusennes I died almost 40-45 years before Shoshenq I …”
according to the conventional calculations.
But that would no longer apply if
Smendes were Shoshenq I, and Psusennes I and II were also the same person.
No comments:
Post a Comment