The designation Shoshenq II is variously associated by scholars with several different Egyptian royal names, most commonly Heqakheperre Shoshenq IIa, discussed below, but also Tutkheperre Shoshenq IIb and Maatkheperre Shoshenq IIc, and is sometimes applied to the High Priest of Amun Shoshenq Q.
Heqakheperre-setepenre Shoshenq-meryamun (Egyptian ḥqȝ-ḫpr-rʿ stp-n-rʿ ššnq mrj-jmn), arbitrarily designated Shoshenq IIa,Kaper 2008: 38–39. was a pharaoh of the 22nd Dynasty. King Heqakheperre Shoshenq is known entirely from his funerary effects, discovered in his reburial at Tanis by Pierre Montet in 1939. Scholars disagree as to the identity and chronological placement of the king.
The royal throne name or prenomen, Heqakheperre Setepenre, has been interpreted as "The manifestation of Ra rules, the chosen one of Ra,"Clayton 1994: 185. or as "The ruler is the (very) manifestation of Ra, the chosen one of Ra."Leprohon 2013: 146.
The inscribed objects from the burial of Heqakheperre Shoshenq included:
Various factors point to the final resting place of Heqakheperre Shoshenq in NRT III, the tomb of King Psusennes I of the 21st Dynasty, being a reburial, and this is generally accepted in scholarship.E.g., Dodson 2012: 101; Kitchen 1995: 310 seems to be alone in allowing for the possibility that this was either an original burial or a reburial. Derry's investigation found evidence of plant growth on the base of Heqakheperre Shoshenq's coffin and within it, with plant remains (rootlets) on the bones of the lower limbs, indicating that his original tomb had become waterlogged.Derry 1939: 549; Niwiński 2013: 493; Broekman 2018: 27. Andrzej Niwiński noted additional water damage to the bottoms of the four silver coffinettes which would have been placed in the canopic chest.Niwiński 2013: 494. The damage to the original burial place of the king required the reburial of his body and part of his funerary equipment in another tomb. As Aidan Dodson writes:
David Aston identified a round based travertine jar (M311) from the burial as obviously not being part of the original burial goods.Aston 2009b: 53. Gerard Broekman noted that the condition of the coffins suggests that the silver falcon-headed coffin was likely not part of the original funerary equipment but was provided for Heqakheperre Shoshenq's reburial in NRT III. He also noted that because the coffinettes were human headed, they should be expected to match an original human-headed coffin, whereas Heqakheperre Shoshenq was found buried in a falcon-headed coffin, once again suggesting that it was a later substitution.Broekman 2018: 27-28.
Heqakheperre Shoshenq as the High Priest of Amun Shoshenq Q was an identification advocated already by his discoverer, Pierre Montet, and popularized by Kenneth Kitchen.Montet 1951: 62-63; Kitchen 1995: 118-120. He seems a suitable candidate, though not one that can be proved to have become king, and Heqakheperre Shoshenq's original throne name and heirlooms from Shoshenq I would suggest a placement early in the 22nd Dynasty.Kitchen 1995: 117-119. In a line of argument he subsequently abandoned, Gerard Broekman considered the reburial of Heqakheperre Shoshenq among kings from the 21st Dynasty in NRT III suggestive of a relationship, which is in fact attested for Shoshenq Q, who was the maternal grandson of the last 21st Dynasty king, Psusennes II.Broekman 2001: 34-35. The identification with Shoshenq Q has been criticized, with increasing momentum, on the basis that while a single inscription of Shoshenq Q showed some royal aspirations (most notably, his name in a cartouche and the appending of the epithet Meryamun, "Beloved of Amun"), he was nowhere actually named as king or given a throne name and none of his descendants referred to him as king, something most unlikely if he had ever assumed the kingship.Jacquet-Gordon 1975: 359; Jansen-Winkeln 2007: 56-58; Broekman 2009: 76; Dodson 2012: 96-97; Payraudeau 2014: 49; Payraudeau 2020: 107, 113.
Kitchen inferred from the regnal dates of Year 3 and Year 33 found on linen bandages from the Ramesseum mummy of the Prophet of Amun Nakhtefmut, which was buried with a leather menat-tab naming King Osorkon I, that this indicated a co-regency between Osorkon I and his son, Shoshenq Q, who would then be best identified with King Heqakheperre Shoshenq, with Year 33 of Osorkon I corresponding to Year 3 of Heqakheperre Shoshenq.Kitchen 1995: 110-111, 308; for the mummy of Nakhtefmut, see Quibell 1898: 10-11. Kitchen thought, moreover, that Shoshenq Q/Heqakheperre Shoshenq then died before his father Osorkon I, which is why the latter was succeeded by another son, Takelot I.Kitchen 1995: 110, 119, 310. Kitchen's reconstruction was tentatively accepted by several scholars.E.g., Broekman 2001: 36; Jansen-Winkeln 2006: 238 might be envisioning a similar scenario, writing that Shoshenq Q (for him Maatkheperre Shoshenq) "most certainly did not have an independent reign, but rather was responsible for UE during the reign of his father." However, the case for a co-regency on the basis of this evidence proved elusive. The dates from Nakhtefmut's mummy were not inscribed on the same bandage, and Hartwig Altenmüller's study of the funerary equipment of Egyptian mummies revealed that bandages produced in quantity over a long span of time and dated many years apart could find their way to the same mummy. For example, another mummy from the reign of Osorkon I, that of Khonsu-maakheru in Hamburg, had bandages dated to Years 11, 12, and 23 of (apparently) Osorkon I;Altenmüller 2000: 113. similarly, the mummy of Djedptahiufankh A had bandages dated to Years 5, 10, and 11 of Shoshenq I.Altenmüller 2000: 121, n. 25. Altenmüller consequently did not posit any co-regency and assigned Year 33 to Osorkon I and Year 3 to his successor Takelot I.Altenmüller 2000: 114. Accordingly, most scholars have abandoned the hypothetical co-regency between Osorkon I and his son,E.g., Dodson 2012: 99, 101; Payraudeau 2014: 46-47. although Kitchen continued to maintain his stance.Kitchen 2009: 165.
An independent reign of Heqakheperre Shoshenq between those of Osorkon I and Takelot I might help vindicate the assertion found in Sextus Julius Africanus' epithome of Manetho, that three kings reigning for a total of 25 (or 29) years intervened between Osorthōn and Takelōthis.Waddell 1940: 158-159. This has encouraged some scholars to consider Heqakheperre Shoshenq IIa, Tutkheperre Shoshenq IIb, and Maatkheperre Shoshenq IIc attractive candidates for these kings.Aston 2009a: 21-22, 26-27; Aston 2009b: 25; Schneider 2010: 376-377, 403. However, although Africanus' epithome of Manetho is apparently more faithful to the original work than others, this is not verifiable and there is no guarantee that Manetho's order of kings was correct.Jacquet-Gordon 1975: 358-359; Broekman 2012/2013 also advises caution in this approach. Therefore, this set of three unnamed kings could be potentially accounted for with other monarchs, as done by Jürgen von Beckerath, with only one of the three Shoshenqs IIa-IIc.Beckerath 1997: 95, 191, 194, choosing Heqakheperre Shoshenq, whom he placed between Takelot I and Osorkon II.
Heqakheperre Shoshenq as an unattested son of Shoshenq I was a possibility raised by Karl Jansen-Winkeln, on the basis of the exclusive use of "heirlooms" from Shoshenq I in his burial, making it unlikely that Heqakheperre Shoshenq would have reigned after Osorkon I or Takelot I: "As the individuals interred in the royal tombs often bore objects belonging to their parents, this king is probably a son of Shoshenq I."Jansen-Winkeln 2006: 237. Jansen-Winkeln also rejected Kitchen's identification of Heqakheperre Shoshenq with Shoshenq Q on other grounds, and argued that the latter must have been Maatkheperre Shoshenq IIc instead.Jansen-Winkeln 1995: 147-148; Jansen-Winkeln 2006: 237. David Aston agreed in principle, that Heqakheperre Shoshenq must have been "a close successor of Sheshonq I," although he placed his reign (alongside those of Tutkheperre Shoshenq and Maatkheperre Shoshenq) between those of Osorkon I and Takelot I.Aston 2009b: 25.
Heqakheperre Shoshenq as an unattested son of Takelot I was a possibility raised by Jürgen von Beckerath and Norbert Dautzenberg, who had identified Shoshenq Q as Maatkheperre Shoshenq IIc instead, and sought a suitable place for Heqakheperre Shoshenq within the first half of the 22nd Dynasty, where his early "heirlooms" (from Shoshenq I) and his falcon-headed sarcophagus would seem to belong. With King Osorkon I's son Shoshenq Q and King Osorkon II's son Shoshenq D (who died as High Priest of Ptah at Memphis) not available, a hypothetical son of Takelot I was considered a possibility.Beckerath 1995: 8-9; Dautzenberg 1995: 22-23. Later, Frédéric Payraudeau reached the same tentative conclusion, although he denied the existence of Maatkheperre Shoshenq IIc (considering him a mere miswriting of Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I's name) and considered Shoshenq Q a non-reigning prince and high priest.Payraudeau 2014: 47-51.
The falcon-headed coffin and cartonnage of Heqakheperre Shoshenq have been compared to the coffin of Osorkon I's vizier Iken, the remains of the coffin of Osorkon II at Tanis, and the sarcophagus of Osorkon II's early contemporary, King Harsiese A from Medinet Habu in western Thebes, suggesting a basic date between the reigns of Osorkon I and Osorkon II for Heqakheperre Shoshenq's burial.Dodson 1994: 90, 92; Broekman 2009; Payraudeau 2014: 49. If this basic artistic correspondence can be taken as a guide, Heqakheperre Shoshenq could have been a contemporary of King Harsiese and King Osorkon II, both of them grandsons of Osorkon I, which is compatible with his placement as a son or successor of Takelot I, as in the above scenario.
Heqakheperre Shoshenq as another name for Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I was a possibility first mooted in passing by Sir Alan Gardiner in 1961.Gardiner 1961: 448. Just as succinctly dismissed by Kitchen,Kitchen 1995: 119. it was then restated with arguments by Helen Jacquet-Gordon, who stressed in particular that none of the descendants of the High Priest Shoshenq Q (whom Kitchen had equated with King Heqakheperre Shoshenq) referred to him as king.Jacquet-Gordon 1975: 359. The case for identifying Heqakheperre Shoshenq with Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I was advanced again by Gerard Broekman, who had previously followed Kitchen's hypothesis.Broekman 2007; Broekman 2009: 76. This suggestion was opposed on the grounds that there was no plausible explanation for Shoshenq I changing his throne name and especially that a calcite canopic chest inscribed with his familiar throne name Hedjkheperre is documented, at Berlin, having never been part of the burial in NRT III.Kitchen 2009: 165; Sagrillo 2009: 356; Dodson 2012: 101; also opposed, but without argumentation, are Aston 2009b: 51 and Payraudeau 2014: 113.
The argument was taken up by Andrzej Niwiński, who stressed the secondary character of Heqakheperre Shoshenq's burial (i.e., reburial) in NRT III at Tanis and the fact that the supposed "heirlooms" referring to Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I were located more immediately and intimately on the body of the deceased than the objects referring to Heqakheperre Shoshenq, which were located on the outside of the mummy: on an added pectoral atop the bandages, on the headrest, cartonnage, and coffin, suggesting they were provided secondarily during the reburial.Niwiński 2013: 494-496. Niwiński also proposed that Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I varied his royal names over time and in different places, citing the epithet Setepenre, which was altered to Setepenamun and Setepenptah in several instances, depending on geographical or cultic context, and concluded that the throne names Heqakheperre, Tutkheperre, and Maatkheperre must have all applied to him.Niwiński 2013: 498-499. Advancing his position with more evidence, Gerard Broekman found that the king's original coffin had been human shaped,Broekman 2009: 76; Broekman 2018: 28-29. like the four accompanying silver coffinettes, which were found placed secondarily in vases rather than arranged in a canopic chest, but which fit perfectly within the calcite canopic chest of Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I now in Berlin, suggesting they had been made for it.Broekman 2007: 17-19; Niwiński 2013: 494; Broekman 2018: 26-27, 31. He also stressed the more intimate connection between the objects inscribed for Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I and the deceased, than the objects inscribed for Heqakheperre Shoshenq.Broekman 2018: 29-30. Broekman drew attention to the still unpublished royal names attested on ostraca from Umm el-Qaʿāb at Abydos, which include Shoshenq I, Osorkon I, Tutkheperre Shoshenq IIb, Maatkheperre Shoshenq IIc, Takelot I, Osorkon II, Shoshenq III, and Harsiese, but not Heqakheperre Shoshenq IIa, suggesting that the latter did not exist as an individual king.Broekman 2018: 31-32; for a preliminary report on the finds from Abydos, see Effland & Effland 2018: 48-49. With attestations of Heqakheperre Shoshenq thus confined to a portion of his burial goods, Broekman concludes that Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I's remains and part of his funerary items were transferred from an original tomb, probably at Memphis, where he had a mortuary temple,Sagrillo 2009: 357-358. to be reburied in Tomb NRT III at Tanis. Others, like the calcite canopic chest, were left behind. In the process of reburial and while repairing damage caused by water, the king was given some new funerary goods including the falcon-headed cartonnage and silver coffin, which were posthumously inscribed with a new throne name, Heqakheperre, in the reign of his great-grandson Osorkon II, perhaps in part to avoid reference to his father, Hedjkheperre Takelot I, or cousin and contemporary, Hedjkheperre Harsiese.Broekman 2018: 32-36; Broekman 2019: 20-24 adduces further evidence to support his position from the royal shabtis of the period.
|
|