Talk:Shoshenq IV

Was "This Pharaoh's existence was first argued by David Rohl in 1989"?

I've just reverted David Rohl's edits here, as COI and promotional. I'm going to remove the claim above as it is mentioned in The Cambridge Ancient History 14 Volume Set in 19 Hardback Parts: The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 3, Part 1: Egypt: Kings from the Twcnty-sccond to the Twenty-fourth Dynasty. Tutniy-third Dynasty (e. 818-711 » C.)

I xrm*rc-&ctepcMtruin Pedutmi 1' 1.818-79) ,c

usermare-meryamun Shoshenq IV t. 795-787 B.C. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Doug, what you are doing is denying the truth. And you have become very confused in this instance as you have not read the published material. The Shoshenk IV in CAH is, as you say, an 'Usermaatre-meryamun' Shoshenk, not a 'Hedjkheperre' Shoshenk. They are two different kings! Do you not understand that before my discovery scholars placed an Usermaatre Shoshenk IV between Shoshenk III and Shoshenk V. I then proposed a second Hedjkheperre Shoshenk between Shoshenk III and Shoshenk V. As a result the old Usermaatre Shoshenk IV was renamed Shoshenk VI. By removing my edit and the original direct quote from my 1989 paper, you are denying the proper and attested priimacy. You are in fact perpetuating a piece of misinformation published in Wikipedia. What kind of editing is that? What happened to fair play? It is not a COI or self-promotion to correct a well-attested and indisputable fact, acknowledged by Aidan Dodson himself. He was informed of the discovery by myself in several discussion at university and by subsequently reading the paper I published in 1989 (which is referenced in his own paper on the subject). Please reinstate the edits in the interest of truth and honesty.David Rohl (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Does Dodson say that in a publication? If he does, I'll get hold of it and read it. But someone other than you has to attest to this, that is the way we work. We need sources other than you explaining that the king mentioned in 1982 was renamed to Shoshenk VI. This should be possible to find and if we can find these sources I'll happily add them myself. And it was COI, the proper way to deal with this is this way, on the talk page, or even at the Ancient Egypt Wikiproject if no one replies on a talk page, as someone would certainly reply there. In fact, I'll post there about this now to see if anyone has more sources, although I assume you know them all. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Doug, the answers to your questions are in the Sheshonk IV Wikipedia article where it states (a) that I first came up with the discovery and (b) to quote: "NOTE: The original king Shoshenq IV in pre-1993 books and journal articles has been renamed Shoshenq VI by Egyptologists because he was a Theban king who is only attested by Upper Egyptian documents. He was never a king of the Tanite 22nd Dynasty of Egypt." So why didn't you question that and the editor who wrote it? Yes, Dodson does refer to my discovery in his paper and references my 1989 paper. I also question your position on COI. Wikipedia states that anyone has the right to edit an article or contribute to it. And to correct errors of fact or the absence of truth is surely desirable? Do you have a problem with published works held in the British Library and at various universities? How can a journal or publication which is in print and lodged with these bodies be an unreliable source? Is it less reliable than an internet article? Do you think your position would be accepted in a court of law? Why are you doing this?David Rohl (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You have, in fact, edited out the original reference in the article (before my edits) which gave my primacy in the discovery: "This Pharaoh's existence was first argued by David Rohl[citation needed] but the British Egyptologist Aidan Dodson settled the issue in a seminal GM 137(1993) article." The sentence which now sits there after your edit makes a nonsense.David Rohl (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Doug, I have looked at your re-edit and there are quite a few errors of fact and a number of confusions (not all your own but some from the original article as well). Now that you have the Dodson article from GM you can see exactly what the discovery process was. Rather than fill up the space here with lots of text, I am going to post a rewrite of the Shoshenq IV article (based on the original and your edits) to your e-mail address, so that you can study it carefully and compare against the Dodson article. If you accept that it is accurate, gives credit where credit is due, and complies with all the Wikipedia guidelines, then please replace the existing article with this version. If you have issues with it, then please explain what they are and we will go to arbitration to get this matter settled.David Rohl (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been away all day and will take a look at it tomorrow sometime. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite suggested by David Rohl

David's kindly sent this to me for my perusal, but I think it should be discussed here for transparency and so that others can have input:

Discovering Shoshenk IV

Hedjkheperre Setepenre Shoshenq IV is presumed to have ruled Egypt's 22nd Dynasty between the reigns of Shoshenq III and Pami.

In 1986 David Rohl proposed that there were two king Shoshenqs bearing the prenomen Hedjkheperre - (i) the well-known founder of the dynasty, Hedjkheperre Shoshenk I, and (ii) a later pharaoh from the second half of the dynasty, whom Rohl called Hedjkheperre Shoshenq (b) due to his exact position in the dynasty being unknown.[1] Following Rohl's proposal, British Egyptologist Aidan Dodson supported the new king's existence by demonstrating that the earlier Hedjkheperre Shoshenq bore simple epithets in his titulary, whereas the later Hedjkheperre Shoshenq's epithets were more complex.[2] Dodson suggested that the ruler Kenneth Kitchen (in his standard work on Third Intermediate Period chronology[3]) had numbered Shoshenk IV - bearing the prenomen Usermaatre - should be removed from the 22nd Dynasty and replaced by Rohl's Hedjkheperre Shoshenq (b), renumbering the latter as Shoshenq IV. At the same time the old Usermaatre Shoshenq IV was renumbered as Shoshenq VI. Dodson's historical summary of the new King Shoshenq IV's discovery and his supportive evidence for that king's independent existence from Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I appeared in a seminal article entitled 'A New King Shoshenq Confirmed?' which appeared in 1993.[4]

Rohl and Dodson's combined arguments for the existence of a new 22nd Dynasty Tanite king called Hedjkheperre Shoshenq IV are accepted by Egyptologists today, including J. Von Beckerath and Kenneth Kitchen - the latter in the preface to the third edition of his book on the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt.[5]

As Dodson pointed out, while Shoshenq IV shared the same prenomen as his illustrious ancestor Shoshenq I, he is distinguished from Shoshenq I by his use of an especially long nomen - Shoshenq Meryamun Si-Bast Netjerheqaon which featured both the Si-Bast and Netjerheqaon epithets.[6] These two epithets were only gradually employed by the 22nd Dynasty pharaohs, starting from the reign of Osorkon II. By contrast, Shoshenq I's nomen simply reads 'Shoshenq Meryamun'. Shoshenq I's immediate successors, Osorkon I and Takelot I also never used epithets beyond the standard 'Meryamun' (Beloved of Amun). In his 1994 book on the Canopic Equipment of the Kings of Egypt, Dodson perceptively observes that when the Si-Bast epithet 'appears during the dynasty of Osorkon II', it is rather infrequent, while the Netjerheqawaset/Netjerheqaon epithet is only exclusively attested 'in the reigns of that monarch's successors' - that is Shoshenq III, Pami and Shoshenq V.[7] This suggests that the newly identified Hedjkhperre Shoshenq IV was a late Tanite-era king who ruled in Egypt either during or after the reign of Shoshenq III.

Rohl had already pointed out in 1989 that the cartouches of a Hedjkheperre Shoshenq appear on a stela (St. Petersburg Hermitage 5630) dated to Year 10 of the king.[8] This stela mentions a Chief of the Libu, Niumateped, who is also attested in a Year 8, usually attributed to Shoshenq V. Since the title 'Chief of the Libu' is only documented from Year 31 of Shoshenq III onwards, it seems this new king must have ruled contemporary with or after Shoshenq III. Dodson noted that the Hedjkheperre Shoshenq on the stela bore the long form titulary, now attributed to Hedjkhperre Shoshenq IV, thus confirming that the stela cannot be dated to Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I.[9] In his 1993 paper, Dodson proposed to place Shoshenq IV's reign after the last attested regnal date for Shoshenk III in Year 39, arguing that the discovery of Shoshenq IV's burial in the tomb of Shoshenq III at Tanis makes it likely that he was part of the 22nd Dynasty Tanite line. Dodson would therefore place Hedjkheperre Shoshenq IV between Shoshenk III and Pimay (Pami).

Burial

Excavation work in the looted NRT V Tanite tomb of Shoshenq III revealed the presence of two sarcophagi: one inscribed for Usermaatre Setepenre Shoshenq III and the other being an anonymous sarcophagus. The unmarked sarcophagus, however, 'was clearly a secondary introduction' according to its position in the tomb.[10] In the Tanite tomb's debris, several fragments were found from one or two canopic jars bearing the cartouches of a Hedjkheperre Shoshenq. Rohl had pointed out that the Staatliche Museum in Berlin possessed a canopic chest for Hedjkheperre Shoshenq I and that these jars from the tomb of Shoshenq III were too large to fit inside the Berlin canopic chest. Rohl 'used the evidence of the jars as the key element of his theory that there were indeed two Hedjkheperre Shoshenqs'.[11] Dodson noted that the Tanite canopic vessels bear the name 'Hedjkheperre-Setepenre-meryamun-sibast-Netjerheqaon' and, since the epithet Netjerheqaon was never employed by the 22nd Dynasty kings until the reign of Shoshenq III, this is clear evidence that the new Shoshenq IV was buried in Shoshenq III's Tanite tomb and must have succeeded this king.[12] It also establishes that the king buried in the second sarcophagus in Shoshenq III's tomb was certainly not Shoshenq I. Dodson was initially reluctant to accept Rohl's proposal for a second Hedjkheperre Shoshenk but his own research into the archaeological evidence forced him to revise his opinion: "Having implicitly rejected such a conclusion in 1986, further study of the canopic fragments as part of my general treatment of royal canopics has now led me rather to support the existence of two Shoshenqs with the prenomen Hedjkheperre."[13]

This is now the consensus view within Egyptology.

References 1. D. Rohl: 'Questions and Answers on the Chronology of Rohl and James', Chronology & Catastrophism Workshop 1986:1, p. 22.

2. A. Dodson: 'A new King Shoshenq confirmed?', Göttinger Miszellen 137 (1993), pp.53-58.

3. K. A. Kitchen: The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC), 1st edition (1973), p. 87.

4. A. Dodson, op. cit.

5. K. A. Kitchen: The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC), 3rd edition (1996), § Y p.xxvi.

6. A. Dodson, op. cit. (1993), p. 55.

7. A. Dodson: The Canopic Equipment of the Kings of Egypt (1994), p. 93.

8. D. Rohl: 'The Early Third Intermediate Period: Some Chronological Considerations', Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 3 (1989), pp. 66-67.

9. A. Dodson, op.cit. (1993), pp. 55-56.

10. A. Dodson, op.cit. (1994), p. 93.

11. A. Dodson, op.cit. (1993), p. 55.

12. A. Dodson, op.cit. (1993), p. 56.

13. A. Dodson, op. cit. (1993), p. 55. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's great! I vote to replace the existing article with this version which combines the best of the previous edits and at the same time gets all the facts right.David Rohl (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Doug, nobody is paying any attention and responding to your request for feedback here. Yet people are adding material to the old article which, as I have said, is innacurate and not well written. Time for you to make up your mind if you are going to replace the old article with this new version and then add in the new edits from other contributors if you feel they merit inclusion.David Rohl (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to get some outside input. I'll have another go and if I fail I'll see what I can do - let me have a couple of days. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller asked me to comment here, but I know nothing about this issue. Since the two of you have the sources, I can only assume that the version you're proposing accurately reflects them. Right now the only input I have is organizational. I fixed the paragraph breaks so they'll show up on screen, and I assume the lone word "Burial" is supposed to be a heading. So which part is supposed to be the lead section, and is "Discovering Shoshenk IV" supposed to be a heading? A. Parrot (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The sections and headings should be consistent with the original article which had two sections. 'Discovering Shoshenk' was just the title of the Word file I sent to Doug and is not supposed to be the article heading which should remain simply 'Shoshenk IV'. The heading for the second section should remain 'Burial' if that is what Doug feels it should be. I personally have no preference ... I just want to see an accurate and well written article which clearly gives a history of the discovery and information about this ephemeral king. The other point that ought to be considered is the actual spelling of the king's name. Most Egyptologists refer to him as 'Shoshenq' but some (especially biblicists) prefer 'Sheshonk' (very American and Israeli). I suggest maintaining the consensus and using 'Shoshenq'. However, this will require a wholesale re-spelling of all the articles on the different King Shoshenqs in Wikipedia articles. I nice job for Doug I think. :-) By the way are you Egyptologist André Parrot? David Rohl (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hah, no, I'm no expert. Can't read German or French, let alone Egyptian. I'm familiar with a lot of English-language sources, but they're mainly in the area of religion, so I know very little about these chronological issues. A. Parrot (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok David, if you want to replace the current text with yours (doing the citations appropriately), go ahead. Please change "force him" to "led him" though. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)