Smendes and Shoshenq I

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 Egypt’s Twenty-First Dynasty, are c. 1069-1043 BC. Conventional dates for Shoshenq I, considered to have been the first ruler of Egypt’s Twenty-Second Dynasty, are c. 945-924 BC. In terms of biblical chronology, pharaoh Smendes would probably have been a younger contemporary of Samuel; whilst pharaoh 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 Monsieur Champollion’s view of Shoshenq I as “Shishak”: Shoshenq I. A (i): Who Shoshenq I was not https://www.academia.edu/35837401/Shoshenq_I._A_i_Who_Shoshenq_I_was_not With “Shishak” properly identified (as I believe) by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky with Thutmose III, the mighty pharaoh of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty: Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III’s march on Jerusalem (3) Yehem near Aruna - Thutmose III's march on Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu 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. https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/egypt02-05enl.html 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 Twenty-First 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 As I noted above: “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) https://www.academia.edu/37376989/King_Amons_descent_into_Aman_Haman_ Previously, I quoted Nicolas 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 (2007): A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf (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. Jimmy Dunn has written: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/smendes.htm 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 my suspicion in this article that Smendes of Egypt’s Twenty-First Dynasty was the same pharaoh as Shoshenq I of the Twenty-Second (Libyan) Dynasty, then this is going to assist in the necessary curtailing of the difficult Third Intermediate Period (TIP), so-called, of Egyptian history. It will the open the door for further shrinkage, enabling, e.g., 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 Twenty-First Dynasty is set out something like this: http://looklex.com/e.o/egypt.ancient.dynasty.21.htm About three decades separate Psusennes I from Psusennes II. Then follows the Twenty-Second Dynasty, commencing with Shoshenq I, a known younger contemporary of Psusennes (so-called II). According to the following site: https://www.genealogieonline.nl/en/stamboom-homs/I6000000006758798461.php 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.