Shishak, King of Egypt: The challenges of Egyptian calendrical chronology

Abstract

The reconstruction of ancient chronologies is always a difficult issue, and often a contentious one. This is especially so when, as is usually the case, the chronology is constructed from many different types of evidence: textural, archaeological, astronomical, scientific, and so on, each bringing with it its attendant specialist who may have little or no appreciation of the complexities, strengths and weaknesses of the contributions to the subject of the other disciplines. Add to this the interconnectedness of ancient nations and therefore the necessity to take into account the histories of several neighbouring states when considering one, and the situation is ripe for confusion and dispute. The aim of this chapter is to look again at one incident where two of these ancient nations are apparently interconnected. The textural reference is shown below: Here there is apparently a clear reference to an Egyptian king appearing in the history of Israel. This is important since Egypt has one of the best calendrical chronologies of all the ancient states and if the attack on Jerusalem left a destruction layer that could be identified, then it would provide a valuable chronological ‘pin’ for the reconstruction of the history of Jerusalem and beyond. The event can be dated to 925 BCE using internal evidence from the Bible (Kitchen 1986, 1991; Redford 1992; Rohl 1995). This has been used as a calendrical pin to reconstruct Egyptian chronology in the past, Egyptian chronology being manipulated, consciously or unconsciously, to fit this date. Obviously, using Egyptian chronology to then support the biblical date for the attack of Shishak forms a very tight circular argument to the benefit of neither Egyptian or Israelite chronologies. Therefore the question this chapter addresses is: What can and cannot be said about the date of this attack? In the first instance, it is absolutely vital to define which lines of evidence will be used and which will not. It will be assumed that the biblical text describing the attack of Shishak on Jerusalem represents a real, historical event and that the facts given in the text are broadly accurate. Taking this real historical event, it is beyond the author’s expertise to criticize the 925 BCE biblical date, so this date will be ignored completely. This removes the problem of circularity that could potentially be an issue as described above. Instead, the date of the attack will be reconstructed entirely from the use of Egyptian records. Such is the complexity of the Egyptian chronology that to disassemble it all and reconstruct it would be a research project lasting years and requiring many specialists. This has not been possible before the preparation of this study. The scope is therefore limited to the most obvious lines of evidence and has drawn extensively on the masterly work of Professor Kenneth Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (Kitchen 1986), for the majority of its primary evidence. This is a highly technical account and not immediately accessible to the nonspecialist. The salient facts are therefore drawn out of it and presented in a more general way. The study is also limited to the assessment of just one date-the date of the attack-not the reconstruction of the whole Third Intermediate Period (TIP), let alone the whole dynastic chronology. The date will not have the certainty that a larger study would have the potential to give it, but, within the error bars given, it should provide reasonable accuracy. It will especially address the question as to whether it is possible to shorten the chronology, in other words, move the attack of Shishak into the 9th century BCE, which might fit better with a proposed ‘low chronology’ of the Levant. Who was ‘Shishak’?