Hedjkheperre Setepenre Shoshenq I (Egyptian šꜣšꜣnq; reigned )—also known as Shashank or Sheshonk or Sheshonq Ifor discussion of the spelling, see Shoshenq—was a pharaoh of ancient Egypt and the founder of the Twenty-second Dynasty of Egypt.
He is generally presumed to be the Shishak mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, and his exploits are carved on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak.
Family Shoshenq I was the son of Nimlot A (Great Chief of the Ma) and Tentsepeh A (daughter of a Great Chief of the Ma), of Meshwesh ancestry,"He came from a line of princes or sheikhs of Libyan tribal descent", The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002, v.7, p.733. An updated on-line version of the same article, containing the same quote and last updated as of 2014, can be found online at Encyclopædia Britannica.
His paternal grandparents were the Chief of the Ma Shoshenq A and his wife Mehytenweskhet A. Shoshenq was the nephew of Osorkon the Elder, also a Meshwesh who had served on the throne (as regent) in the preceding 21st Dynasty. Hence, Shoshenq I's rise to power was not wholly unexpected.
Early life Reign of Psusennes II
During the reign of Psusennes II, he served as chief advisor to the king and Commander-in-Chief of the Egyptian Army. He became the father-in-law of Maatkare B, king's daughter of Psusennes II, when she married his son Osorkon I.
He also held his father's title of Great Chief of the Ma or Meshwesh, which is an Egyptian word for Ancient Libyans. His ancestors had settled in Egypt during the late New Kingdom, probably at Herakleopolis Magna,Troy Leiland Sagrillo, 'The Geographic Origins of the "Bubastite" Dynasty and Possible Locations for the Royal Residence and Burial Place of Shoshenq I.' In The Libyan period in Egypt: Historical and cultural studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties, edited by G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demarée, and O. Kaper. Egyptologische Uitgaven 23, Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. 2009:341–359. though Manetho claims Shoshenq himself came from Bubastis, a claim for which no supporting physical evidence has yet been discovered.
Reign Foreign policy
He pursued an aggressive foreign policy in the adjacent territories of the Middle East, towards the end of his reign. This is attested, in part, by the discovery of a statue base bearing his name from the Lebanese city of Byblos, part of a monumental stela from Megiddo bearing his name, and a list of cities in the region comprising Syria, Philistia, Phoenicia, the Negev, and the Kingdom of Israel, among various topographical lists inscribed on the walls of temples of Amun at al-Hibah and Karnak. The fragment of a stela bearing his cartouche from Megiddo has been interpreted as a monument Shoshenq erected there to commemorate his victory.K.A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, William Erdsman & Co, 2003. pp.10, 32-34 & p.607 Page 607 of Kitchen's book depicts the surviving fragment of Shoshenq I's Megiddo stela Some of these conquered cities include ancient Israelite fortresses such as Megiddo, Taanach and Shechem.
There are other problems with Shoshenq being the same as the biblical Shishak: Shoshenq's Karnak list does not include Jerusalem—his biggest prize according to the Bible. His list focuses on places either north or south of Judah, as if he did not raid the center. The fundamental problem facing historians is establishing the aims of the two accounts and linking up the information in them.
There have been some possible suggestions and proposals from scholars regarding this issue. Some argue that the mention of Jerusalem was erased from the list over time. Others believe that Rehoboam's tribute to Shoshenq saved the city from destruction and therefore from the Bubastite Portal's lists. Some scholars even propose that Shoshenq claimed a conquest that he did not enact and copied the list of conquered territories from an old Pharaoh's conquest list.
As an addendum to his foreign policy, Shoshenq I carved a report of campaigns in Nubia and Israel, with a detailed list of conquests in Israel. This is the first military action outside Egypt formally commemorated for several centuries. This report of conquests is the only surviving late Iron Age text concerning Canaan.
Megiddo In the transitional Iron IB/Iron IIA, Shoshenq I apparently destroyed Megiddo Stratum VIa (Iron IB). At Megiddo, a large limestone fragment was found in a fill in 1925,Fisher 1929Jerusalem, Rockefeller Museum and interpreted as part of a victory stela with two inscriptions where one reads: "The Good God, Hedjkheperre-setepenre Lord of [ritual] performance, Sheshonq I, beloved of Amun." A reexamination indicate the fragment may be an architectural element rather than a stela.Ben Dor Evian, Shirly & Finkelstein, Israel. (2023). The Sheshonq Fragment from Megiddo: A New Interpretation. Bulletin of the American Society of Overseas Research. 390. 000-000. 10.1086/727430. The Bubastite Portal at Karnak listed Megiddo as town No. 27 in Shoshenq's topographical list of conquests, the discovery of the physical stone at Megiddo confirms that the Karnak list is a historical itinerary and not just a "template" of traditional enemies.
Domestic policy Libyan concepts of rule allowed for the parallel existence of leaders who were related by marriage and blood. Shoshenq and his immediate successors used that practice to consolidate their grasp on all of Egypt. Shoshenq terminated the hereditary succession of the high priesthood of Amun. Instead he and his successors appointed men to the position, most often their own sons, a practice that lasted for a century.
As king, Shoshenq chose his eldest son, Osorkon I, as his successor and consolidated his authority over Egypt through marriage alliances and appointments. He assigned his second son, Iuput A, the prominent position of High Priest of Amun at Thebes as well as the title of Governor of Upper Egypt and Commander of the Army to consolidate his authority over the Thebaid.K.A. Kitchen, "The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (c.1100-650 BC)," Aris & Phillips Ltd. third edition. 1996. p.289 Finally, Shoshenq I designated his third son, Nimlot B, as the "Leader of the Army" at Herakleopolis in Middle Egypt.Kitchen, "The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt" p.290
Upper Egypt At Thebes, Nile Level Record 3 (Year 5, -0,21 m) and Nile Level Record 1 (Year 6, +0,07 m) at Karnak Quay.Cole, E. M. (2023). A quantitative analysis of the Third Intermediate Period Nile Level Records from the Karnak ‘Quay’and their implications. Claroscuro. Revista del Centro de Estudios sobre Diversidad Cultural, (22), 1-22.
The Gebel el-Silsila Inscription (Silsila No. 100) is dated to Year 21, II Shemu (Summer), a quarry between Edfu and Kom Ombo for temples in Upper Egypt. It records the opening of a new quarry to extract stone for a massive building project at the Temple of Amun in Karnak. The text mentions the king's architect and high official, Horemakhet, who was tasked with overseeing the work. The text contains a specific phrase that ties it to the Levantine campaign. It states that the stone was being quarried to build: "...a great pylon for the temple of Amun-Re... and a festival hall... to celebrate the first campaign of victory which His Majesty carried out." (cf. Bubastite Pylon).
The burial of one of his prominent state officials at Thebes, the Third Prophet of Amun Djedptahiufankh, was discovered intact in tomb DB320 in the 19th century. Inscriptions on Djedptahiufankh's Mummy bandages show that he died in or after Year 11 of this king. His mummy was discovered to contain various gold bracelets, amulets and precious carnelian objects, and give a small hint of the vast treasures that would have adorned Shoshenq I's tomb.
Succession Shoshenq I was succeeded by his son Osorkon I after a reign of 21 years.
Death Tomb The Tomb of Shoshenq I has not been located.
Canopic Chest
Of unknown provenance, a canopic chest of Shoshenq I was donated to the Egyptian Museum of Berlin (ÄMB 11000) by Julius Isaac in 1891.Aidan Dodson, The Canopic Equipment of the Kings of Egypt, Kegan Paul Intl, (1994), pp.83-84 This may indicate his tomb was looted in antiquity, but this hypothesis is unproven.
Quest for the Tomb Egyptologists differ over the location of Shoshenq I's burial and speculate that he may have been buried somewhere in Tanis—perhaps in one of the anonymous royal tombs here—or in Bubastis. However, Troy Sagrillo in a GM 205 (2005) paper observes that "there are only a bare handful of inscribed blocks from Tanis that might name the king (i.e. Shoshenq I) and none of these come from an in situ building complex contemporary with his reign."Troy Leiland Sagrillo, "The Mummy of Shoshenq I Re-discovered?," Göttinger Miszellen 205 (2005), p.99 Hence, it is more probable that Shoshenq was buried in another city in the Egyptian Delta. Sagrillo offers a specific location for Shoshenq's burial—the Ptah temple enclosure of Memphis—and notes that this king built:
Sagrillo concludes by observing that if Shoshenq I's burial place was located at Memphis, "it would go far in explaining why this king's funerary cult lasted for some time at the site after his death."
Chronology
The conventional dates for his reign, as established by Kenneth Kitchen, are 945–924 BC but this timeline has recently been revised downwards by a few years to 943–922 BC, since he may well have lived for up to two to three years after his successful campaign in the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and the Kingdom of Judah, conventionally dated to 925 BC. As Edward Wente of the University of Chicago noted (1976) on page 276 of his JNES 35 Book Review of Kitchen's study of the Third Intermediate Period, there is "no certainty" that Shoshenq's 925 BC campaign terminated just prior to this king's death a year later in 924 BC. Egyptologist Morris Bierbrier also dated Shoshenq I's accession "between 945–940 BC" in his 1975 book concerning the genealogies of Egyptian officials, who served during the late New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period.M. Bierbrier, The Late New Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300–664 BC), Aris & Philips Ltd (1975), p. 111
Bierbrier based his opinion on Biblical evidence collated by William F. Albright in a BASOR 130 paper. This development would also account for the mostly unfinished state of decorations of Shoshenq's building projects at the Great Temple of Karnak where only scenes of the king's Palestinian military campaign are fully carved. Building materials would first have had to be extracted and architectural planning performed for his great monumental projects here. Such activities usually took up to a year to complete before work was even begun. This would imply that Shoshenq I likely lived for a period in excess of one year after his 925 BC campaign. On the other hand, if the Karnak inscription was concurrent with Shoshenq's campaign into Canaan, the fact that it was left unfinished would suggest this campaign occurred in the last year of Shoshenq's reign. This possibility would also permit his 945 BC accession date to be slightly lowered to 943 BC.
A 2005 study by Rolf Krauss of ancient Egyptian chronology suggests that Shoshenq I came to power in 943 BC rather than 945 BC as is conventionally assumed based on epigraphic evidence from the Great Dakhla stela, which dates to Year 5 of his reign.Rolf Krauss, Das wrŝ-Datum aus Jahr 5 von Shoshenq [I], Discussions in Egyptology 62 (2005), pp.43-48 Krauss and David Warburton write in the 2006 book Ancient Egyptian Chronology: