Megiddo © 2025 Bud Chrysler
The site was excavated in 1903–05 by G. Schumacher, but the most important excavations were conducted by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago between the years 1925 and 1939, under the direction of C.S. Fisher, P.L.O. Guy, and G. Loud. To date Stratum IV more precisely, Guy drew significance from the description of Solomon’s building legacy in I Kings 9:15-19:
And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the Lord, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer. For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife. And Solomon built Gezer, and Bethhoron the nether, And Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land, And all the cities of store that Solomon had, and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen, and that which Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion.
“For the terminal date of the stratum, he turned to the campaign of Sheshonq I and the chance discovery of a stela fragment bearing Sheshonq’s cartouche made a few years before by one of Fisher’s foremen. The fragment had been recovered from a dump next to one of Schumacher’s minor trenches along the eastern edge of the summit, just east of the northern complex of stables (no. 409 in square 14; see Guy 1931, fig.17). Although the findspot was not precise, Guy noted that Schumacher’s trench had penetrated “barely below Stratum IV” and used the presence of the stela to date the destruction of the stratum to Sheshonq’s campaign” (1931: 44-48)” (Timothy P. Harrison, Megiddo 3 Final Report on the Stratum VI Excavations, 2004, pp. 7-8).
And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the Lord, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer. For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife. And Solomon built Gezer, and Bethhoron the nether, And Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land, And all the cities of store that Solomon had, and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen, and that which Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion.
“For the terminal date of the stratum, he turned to the campaign of Sheshonq I and the chance discovery of a stela fragment bearing Sheshonq’s cartouche made a few years before by one of Fisher’s foremen. The fragment had been recovered from a dump next to one of Schumacher’s minor trenches along the eastern edge of the summit, just east of the northern complex of stables (no. 409 in square 14; see Guy 1931, fig.17). Although the findspot was not precise, Guy noted that Schumacher’s trench had penetrated “barely below Stratum IV” and used the presence of the stela to date the destruction of the stratum to Sheshonq’s campaign” (1931: 44-48)” (Timothy P. Harrison, Megiddo 3 Final Report on the Stratum VI Excavations, 2004, pp. 7-8).
Sheshonq I fragment – Megiddo. (Lamon, R.S., and G.M. Shipton. 1939. Megiddo I. Seasons of 1925-34. Strata I-V. Oriental Institute Publications 42. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Fig. 70).
“In 1925 a large limestone fragment was found during the Oriental Institute’s excavations at Megiddo (Fisher 1929: 16; Fig. 1). The fragment was discovered ex-situ, in a dump of the earlier excavations of Gottlieb Schumacher…. …Not incidentally, before the hieroglyphs were noticed, it was intended to be used as a building block for the construction of the University of Chicago expedition house, as reported by James Henry Breasted during his visit to Megiddo (Fig 4). “On my first arrival at the mound after work had begun in the spring of 1926, Dr. Fisher informed me that a fragment inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphs had been brought down from the top of the mound as a building block during the construction of the house.” (Breasted 1929: xi)” (Shirly Ben-Dor Evian and Israel Finkelstein, The Sheshonq Fragment from Megiddo: A New Interpretation, Bulletin of ASOR, The University of Chicago Press, Volume 390|November 2023).
“In 1925 a large limestone fragment was found during the Oriental Institute’s excavations at Megiddo (Fisher 1929: 16; Fig. 1). The fragment was discovered ex-situ, in a dump of the earlier excavations of Gottlieb Schumacher…. …Not incidentally, before the hieroglyphs were noticed, it was intended to be used as a building block for the construction of the University of Chicago expedition house, as reported by James Henry Breasted during his visit to Megiddo (Fig 4). “On my first arrival at the mound after work had begun in the spring of 1926, Dr. Fisher informed me that a fragment inscribed with Egyptian hieroglyphs had been brought down from the top of the mound as a building block during the construction of the house.” (Breasted 1929: xi)” (Shirly Ben-Dor Evian and Israel Finkelstein, The Sheshonq Fragment from Megiddo: A New Interpretation, Bulletin of ASOR, The University of Chicago Press, Volume 390|November 2023).
4. James Henry Breasted and the Sheshonq block, Megiddo. (Photo courtesy of The University of Chicago’s Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures, Photo Archives).
I Kings 14:25-26 – And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made.
II Chronicles 12:2-9 – And it came to pass, that in the fifth year of king Rehoboam Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed against the Lord, With twelve hundred chariots, and threescore thousand horsemen: and the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt; the Lubims, the Sukkiims, and the Ethiopians. And he took the fenced cities which pertained to Judah, and came to Jerusalem. Then came Shemaiah the prophet to Rehoboam, and to the princes of Judah, that were gathered together to Jerusalem because of Shishak, and said unto them, Thus saith the Lord, Ye have forsaken me, and therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak. Whereupon the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves; and they said, The Lord is righteous. And when the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah, saying, They have humbled themselves; therefore I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance; and my wrath shall not be poured out upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. Nevertheless they shall be his servants; that they may know my service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries. So Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he took all: he carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made.
Concerning Megiddo, YIGAL YADIN wrote:
“Who was responsible for the destruction of the Solomonic city? Fortunately, we have a water-tight clue corroborated by no less than three witnesses: the Bible, Egyptian sources and the spade. When Solomon died, his son Rehoboam succeeded him. We are told in I Kings 14:25-26 that ‘in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king’s house; he took away everything. He also took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made…’ These biblical verses state unequivocably that Shishak penetrated the heart of the kingdom to the capital. But they do not indicate what happened to the rest of the country, particularly the north. The Egyptian king’s invasion is also recorded in II Chronicles 12, where the Bible elaborates somewhat:
In the fifth year of Rehoboam, because they had been unfaithful to the Lord, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem with twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen. And the people were without number who came with him from Egypt – Libyans, Sukki-im, and Ethiopians. And he took the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem (2-5).
“The chronicler here is mainly concerned with the kingdom of Judah (one must remember that the kingdom of David and Solomon split after Solomon’s death). But from Shishak’s own records, which list the cities of Palestine occupied by him, we know that his troops penetrated far to the north; in fact, these records actually mention that he occupied Megiddo.” (YIGAL YADIN – to be continued…).
I Kings 14:25-26 – And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem: And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he even took away all: and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made.
II Chronicles 12:2-9 – And it came to pass, that in the fifth year of king Rehoboam Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed against the Lord, With twelve hundred chariots, and threescore thousand horsemen: and the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt; the Lubims, the Sukkiims, and the Ethiopians. And he took the fenced cities which pertained to Judah, and came to Jerusalem. Then came Shemaiah the prophet to Rehoboam, and to the princes of Judah, that were gathered together to Jerusalem because of Shishak, and said unto them, Thus saith the Lord, Ye have forsaken me, and therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak. Whereupon the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves; and they said, The Lord is righteous. And when the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah, saying, They have humbled themselves; therefore I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance; and my wrath shall not be poured out upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. Nevertheless they shall be his servants; that they may know my service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries. So Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, and took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house; he took all: he carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made.
Concerning Megiddo, YIGAL YADIN wrote:
“Who was responsible for the destruction of the Solomonic city? Fortunately, we have a water-tight clue corroborated by no less than three witnesses: the Bible, Egyptian sources and the spade. When Solomon died, his son Rehoboam succeeded him. We are told in I Kings 14:25-26 that ‘in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king’s house; he took away everything. He also took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made…’ These biblical verses state unequivocably that Shishak penetrated the heart of the kingdom to the capital. But they do not indicate what happened to the rest of the country, particularly the north. The Egyptian king’s invasion is also recorded in II Chronicles 12, where the Bible elaborates somewhat:
In the fifth year of Rehoboam, because they had been unfaithful to the Lord, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem with twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen. And the people were without number who came with him from Egypt – Libyans, Sukki-im, and Ethiopians. And he took the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem (2-5).
“The chronicler here is mainly concerned with the kingdom of Judah (one must remember that the kingdom of David and Solomon split after Solomon’s death). But from Shishak’s own records, which list the cities of Palestine occupied by him, we know that his troops penetrated far to the north; in fact, these records actually mention that he occupied Megiddo.” (YIGAL YADIN – to be continued…).
Image of a part of a list of place-names (each in a cartouche) in Ancient Judah and Israel. This list was created by Shoshenq I (who is identified with Biblical Pharaoh Shishak), and forms part of the wall of the Temple of Amun-Ra at Karnak.
27 = 𓅖𓎡𓂧𓇋𓅱𓈉 = Mak(e)do (MEGGIDO),
28 = 𓇋𓀁𓂧𓏭𓃭𓏺𓈉 = Adir(u),
29 = 𓇌𓅱𓂧𓉔𓐛𓂝𓃭𓎡𓈉 = Yud-h(a)maruk (Yad-ham-melek?)
(George R. Hughes, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak Volume III The Bubastite Portal The Epigraphic Survey, 1954 – The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications volume LXXIV).
27 = 𓅖𓎡𓂧𓇋𓅱𓈉 = Mak(e)do (MEGGIDO),
28 = 𓇋𓀁𓂧𓏭𓃭𓏺𓈉 = Adir(u),
29 = 𓇌𓅱𓂧𓉔𓐛𓂝𓃭𓎡𓈉 = Yud-h(a)maruk (Yad-ham-melek?)
(George R. Hughes, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak Volume III The Bubastite Portal The Epigraphic Survey, 1954 – The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications volume LXXIV).
Champollion's table of hieroglyphic phonetic characters with their demotic and Greek equivalents, Lettre à M. Dacier, (1822). Lettre à M. Dacier (full title: Lettre à M. Dacier relative à l'alphabet des hiéroglyphes phonétiques: "Letter to M. Dacier concerning the alphabet of the phonetic hieroglyphs") is a letter sent in 1822 by the Egyptologist Jean-François Champollion to Bon-Joseph Dacier, secretary of the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. It is the founding text upon which Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs were first systematically deciphered by Champollion, largely on the basis of the multilingual Rosetta Stone.
The name ring listed as no. 29 on Shoshenq’s wall has caused much contention. The great pioneering French Egyptologist Champollion (1790–1832), who co-translated the Rosetta Stone, was the first to decipher Shoshenq’s reliefs at Karnak. He transliterated the hieroglyph y-w-d-h-m-r(w)-k as Ioudahamalek or yehudmalek, meaning ‘the kingdom of the Jews’ or of ‘Judah’. Thus, Champollion concluded that Shoshenq of Egypt was Shishak of the Bible, who had plundered cities in the Divided Kingdom.
The letters, readily identified from Gardiner’s sign list, are: M17 ‘double reed’ ‘y’ (𓇌); G43 ‘quail chick’ ‘w’ (𓅱); D46 ‘hand’ ‘d’ (𓂧); O4 ‘reed shelter in field’ ‘h’ (𓉔); Aa15 ‘side/half’ ‘m’ (𓐝); D35 ‘fore arm’ ‘a’ (𓂢); E23 ‘recumbent lion’ ‘r(w)’ (𓃭); V31 ‘wickerwork basket with handle’ ‘k’ (𓎡); N25 ‘hill-country, foreign land’ (𓈊) (silent determinative). Altogether, the letters form the sound ‘y-w-d-h-m-a-r(w)-k’.
During the years of the publication of the Description, local people quarried the monuments of greater Thebes for their stone for use in buildings projects. By this point, British and French scholars had deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphic script using the tri-lingual inscription on the Rosetta Stone, a stela discovered by Napoleanʼs mission in 1799. These scholars quickly realized that the result of this quarrying would eventually mean the total destruction of the temple sites, just at the time the secret to the ancient language had been unlocked, and they appealed to the Egyptian government to preserve these areas for future study. Jean-Francois Champollion (who made the final leap in decoding hieroglyphs) and the German scholar Karl Lepsius busily began recording the Karnak temple inscriptions and published their results in important works in the mid-1800s.
Work continued at Karnak throughout the second half of the 19th century, with excavators such as Mariette, Maspero, de Morgan, Grebaut and Daressy all overseeing clearance in various parts of the temple” (Sullivan, Elaine, 2008, Introduction. On Digital Karnak, LosAngeles.http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak).
YIGAL YADIN – continued:
“But now comes the third and decisive piece of evidence. In previous excavations of Megiddo, a fragment of a monumental stele erected by Shishak was discovered. Unfortunately, the fragment was found in debris and not in a well-stratified locus, but it suffices to indicate that Shishak did indeed occupy Megiddo. All this data, and the fact that the crushed pottery on the floors of the Solomonic buildings are from the latter part of the tenth century, serve to prove that the destruction of Solomonic Megiddo was perpetrated by Shishak. Thus, we also had an absolute date for the destruction of stratum ‘IVB -VA’, circa 923 B.C.” (Yigael Yadin, Hazor – The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible, 1975, pp. 215-216).
“The limestone fragment inscribed with the royal names of king Sheshonq I was found at Tel Megiddo by the Oriental Institute team in 1925. Since its discovery, the piece has been interpreted as part of a large royal stela, erected by the monarch at the site as a sign of Egyptian hegemony. A recent reexamination of the original fragment reveals several anomalies in comparison to the known corpus of Egyptian stelae. Among these is the fragment’s unusual thickness, more than 50 cm thick, and the absence of smoothed edges on either of its sides. A comparison with contemporaneous (early 22nd Dynasty) material from both Egypt and the Levant suggests that the fragment was part of an inscription embedded as an architectural element rather than a stela. The results of recent excavations at Megiddo allow for placing the Sheshonq block stratigraphically and perhaps to identify its original location at the site.” (Shirly Ben-Dor Evian and Israel Finkelstein, The Sheshonq Fragment from Megiddo: A New Interpretation, Bulletin of the American Society of Overseas Research Volume 390, November 2023).
Chronologists have sought to find the Shishak of the sacred annals, among the kings of Egypt enumerated in profane history; but most of their labors have terminated in vain systems, which a sound critic would disapprove. Marsham, Jameson, and many others have believed him to be the famous Sesostris or Sethosis; but this, as we shall see in the sequel, was going too many centuries back. Usher, with more discretion, but without the power of establishing his opinion by substantial proofs, conjectured that Shishak was no other than the Sesonchis or Sesonchosis of the Greeks. Desvignoles and the editors of the Vence Bible have admitted this opinion as extremely probable.
In many of his works, especially in his Precis, Champollion has definitely settled this question, because his opinion is established by hieroglyphic legends which contain the memories of the Pharaohs. In fact, upon one of the colonnades which adorn the first court of the palace of Karnac at Thebes, two royal legends are inscribed in cartouches; the first expresses the surname approved by the sun [Amon-mai Sheshonk]; the second, entirely phonetic, reads thus ********* *****, dear to Ammon, Sheshonk. We see that this name, which is found also upon many other monuments, is strictly the same with that of ******** preserved by Manetho, and differs from it only in the addition of a Greek termination. But if one has the slightest notion of the particular genius of the Shemitish languages, which adhering only to the skeletons of words, that is to say to the consonants, neglect the vowels as least important, he will then be struck with the analogy of the Egyptian name ***** (Sheshonk), to that of the Hebrew written **** (Shishak or Sheshok). Indeed, one cannot but perceive their identity.
A recent discovery made by Champollion in the land of Egypt itself, removes all doubt upon this subject. We transcribe his own description. ‘In the wonderful palace (that of Karnac) I saw, says he, …. Sesonchis dragging at the feet of the Theban Trinity, Ammon and Mouth and Kons, the chiefs of more than thirty vanquished nations, among which I have found, written in letters at full length, ‘IOUDAHAMALEK, the kingdom of the Jews or of Judah. This forms a commentary upon the fourteenth chapter of the first book of kings, which in fact relates the arrival of Sesonchis at Jerusalem, and his success. Thus the identity we have established between the Egyptian Sheshonk, the Sesonchis of Manetho, and the Shishak or Sheshok of the Bible, is confirmed in the most satisfactory manner.’
...Among the monuments that belong to this Pharaoh, Champollion refers to a statue with the head of a lion in the Royal Museum of France, another statue in the British Museum, and a scarabee in the Turin Museum. The two last monuments are remarkable on account of the name of the prince being engraved upon them according to the abbreviative process of which we have before spoken. But the re-union of the name with the surname constantly designating Sheshonk, leaves no doubt about the propriety of attributing this royal cartouche to him” (J. G. H. Greppo, ESSAY ON THE HIEROGLYPHIC SYSTEM OF M. CHAMPOLLION, 1830, pp. 117 – 120).
George Lloyd,
(1815-1843) MSS 079 - Karnak, Great Temple of Amun, Portico of the Bubastides, three Palestinian name-rings. (University of Oxford https://archive.griffith.ox.ac.uk › index.php › lloyd-079).
- What is striking is that ‘y-w-d-h’ is the exact phonetic spelling of Judah. However, scholars have not accepted this. They have preferred yd, a Semitic word meaning ‘hand’ with the ‘hand’ ‘d’ (𓂧) representing a silent ‘determinative’ (a symbol determining the word’s meaning). If it means ‘hand’, the spelling is unique. The problem, phonetically, for this solution is that the quail chick ‘w’ causes the word to be pronounced ‘ywd’, not ‘yd’. Furthermore, why would the Egyptian scribe transliterate a Semitic name, then put an Egyptian determinative after it, if it was to be read as ‘hand’ by Egyptian readers? Why not use a common Egyptian word for hand? A straightforward phonetic reading of the first five hieroglyphs clearly spells ‘Judah’ and requires no special pleading to prove it.
- Champollion wrote: “In this marvellous palace, I contemplated the portraits of most of the of the old Pharaohs known for their great deeds, and they are true portraits; represented a hundred times in the bas-reliefs of the interior and exterior walls, each retains a clean physiognomy and that bears no relation to that of its predecessors, or Successors; there, in colossal paintings, of a sculpture truly large and heroic, more perfect than we can believe in In Europe, we see Manduei fighting the enemy peoples of Egypt, and returning to triumphant in his homeland; Further afield, the Rhamses-Sesostris; elsewhere, Sesonchis dragging at the feet of the Theban Trinity (Ammon, Mouth, and Khons) the chiefs of more than thirty vanquished nations, among which I found, like this, Had to be, in full letters, Yudahamalek, the kingdom of the Jews or of the Judah (Pl. 2.) This is a comment to be attached to the Chapter XIV of the third book of Kings, which tells of the arrival of the from Sesonchis to Jerusalem and his successes: thus the identity of that we have established between the Egyptian Sheschonck, the Sesonchi of Manetho and the Sesac or Sheschok of the Bible, is confirmed from the In the most Satisfactory. I found a crowd around the palaces of Karnac buildings of all periods, and when, on the return of of the second cataract to which I sail to-morrow, I will come Settling down for five or six months in Thebes, I expect a Huge collection of facts since, running to Thebes as I have done, during four days, without seeing even one of the thousands hypogea that riddled the Libyan mountain, I have already collected Strong documents Important.” (The Project Gutenberg eBook of Letters written from Egypt and Nubia in 1828 and 1829. LETTERS WRITTEN FROM EGYPT AND NUBIA IN 1828 AND 1829 BY CHAMPOLLION THE YOUNGER NEW EDITION 1868, Seventh letter, Thebes, written November 24, 1828).
- European rediscovery of Thebes and initial recording of Karnak temple
During the years of the publication of the Description, local people quarried the monuments of greater Thebes for their stone for use in buildings projects. By this point, British and French scholars had deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphic script using the tri-lingual inscription on the Rosetta Stone, a stela discovered by Napoleanʼs mission in 1799. These scholars quickly realized that the result of this quarrying would eventually mean the total destruction of the temple sites, just at the time the secret to the ancient language had been unlocked, and they appealed to the Egyptian government to preserve these areas for future study. Jean-Francois Champollion (who made the final leap in decoding hieroglyphs) and the German scholar Karl Lepsius busily began recording the Karnak temple inscriptions and published their results in important works in the mid-1800s.
Work continued at Karnak throughout the second half of the 19th century, with excavators such as Mariette, Maspero, de Morgan, Grebaut and Daressy all overseeing clearance in various parts of the temple” (Sullivan, Elaine, 2008, Introduction. On Digital Karnak, LosAngeles.http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak).
YIGAL YADIN – continued:
“But now comes the third and decisive piece of evidence. In previous excavations of Megiddo, a fragment of a monumental stele erected by Shishak was discovered. Unfortunately, the fragment was found in debris and not in a well-stratified locus, but it suffices to indicate that Shishak did indeed occupy Megiddo. All this data, and the fact that the crushed pottery on the floors of the Solomonic buildings are from the latter part of the tenth century, serve to prove that the destruction of Solomonic Megiddo was perpetrated by Shishak. Thus, we also had an absolute date for the destruction of stratum ‘IVB -VA’, circa 923 B.C.” (Yigael Yadin, Hazor – The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible, 1975, pp. 215-216).
“The limestone fragment inscribed with the royal names of king Sheshonq I was found at Tel Megiddo by the Oriental Institute team in 1925. Since its discovery, the piece has been interpreted as part of a large royal stela, erected by the monarch at the site as a sign of Egyptian hegemony. A recent reexamination of the original fragment reveals several anomalies in comparison to the known corpus of Egyptian stelae. Among these is the fragment’s unusual thickness, more than 50 cm thick, and the absence of smoothed edges on either of its sides. A comparison with contemporaneous (early 22nd Dynasty) material from both Egypt and the Levant suggests that the fragment was part of an inscription embedded as an architectural element rather than a stela. The results of recent excavations at Megiddo allow for placing the Sheshonq block stratigraphically and perhaps to identify its original location at the site.” (Shirly Ben-Dor Evian and Israel Finkelstein, The Sheshonq Fragment from Megiddo: A New Interpretation, Bulletin of the American Society of Overseas Research Volume 390, November 2023).
- ESSAY ON THE HIEROGLYPHIC SYSTEM OF M. CHAMPOLLION, JUN. By J. G. H. Greppo. Translated from the French by Isaac Stuart. Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 114 Washington Street. 1830.
Chronologists have sought to find the Shishak of the sacred annals, among the kings of Egypt enumerated in profane history; but most of their labors have terminated in vain systems, which a sound critic would disapprove. Marsham, Jameson, and many others have believed him to be the famous Sesostris or Sethosis; but this, as we shall see in the sequel, was going too many centuries back. Usher, with more discretion, but without the power of establishing his opinion by substantial proofs, conjectured that Shishak was no other than the Sesonchis or Sesonchosis of the Greeks. Desvignoles and the editors of the Vence Bible have admitted this opinion as extremely probable.
In many of his works, especially in his Precis, Champollion has definitely settled this question, because his opinion is established by hieroglyphic legends which contain the memories of the Pharaohs. In fact, upon one of the colonnades which adorn the first court of the palace of Karnac at Thebes, two royal legends are inscribed in cartouches; the first expresses the surname approved by the sun [Amon-mai Sheshonk]; the second, entirely phonetic, reads thus ********* *****, dear to Ammon, Sheshonk. We see that this name, which is found also upon many other monuments, is strictly the same with that of ******** preserved by Manetho, and differs from it only in the addition of a Greek termination. But if one has the slightest notion of the particular genius of the Shemitish languages, which adhering only to the skeletons of words, that is to say to the consonants, neglect the vowels as least important, he will then be struck with the analogy of the Egyptian name ***** (Sheshonk), to that of the Hebrew written **** (Shishak or Sheshok). Indeed, one cannot but perceive their identity.
A recent discovery made by Champollion in the land of Egypt itself, removes all doubt upon this subject. We transcribe his own description. ‘In the wonderful palace (that of Karnac) I saw, says he, …. Sesonchis dragging at the feet of the Theban Trinity, Ammon and Mouth and Kons, the chiefs of more than thirty vanquished nations, among which I have found, written in letters at full length, ‘IOUDAHAMALEK, the kingdom of the Jews or of Judah. This forms a commentary upon the fourteenth chapter of the first book of kings, which in fact relates the arrival of Sesonchis at Jerusalem, and his success. Thus the identity we have established between the Egyptian Sheshonk, the Sesonchis of Manetho, and the Shishak or Sheshok of the Bible, is confirmed in the most satisfactory manner.’
...Among the monuments that belong to this Pharaoh, Champollion refers to a statue with the head of a lion in the Royal Museum of France, another statue in the British Museum, and a scarabee in the Turin Museum. The two last monuments are remarkable on account of the name of the prince being engraved upon them according to the abbreviative process of which we have before spoken. But the re-union of the name with the surname constantly designating Sheshonk, leaves no doubt about the propriety of attributing this royal cartouche to him” (J. G. H. Greppo, ESSAY ON THE HIEROGLYPHIC SYSTEM OF M. CHAMPOLLION, 1830, pp. 117 – 120).
George Lloyd,
(1815-1843) MSS 079 - Karnak, Great Temple of Amun, Portico of the Bubastides, three Palestinian name-rings. (University of Oxford https://archive.griffith.ox.ac.uk › index.php › lloyd-079).
Item Lloyd MSS 079 - Karnak, Great Temple of Amun, Portico of the Bubastides, three Palestinian name-rings – Copyright Griffith Institute, University of Oxford.
Three Palestinian name-rings for Yad Hemmelek, Adar and Megiddo, detail from a scene depicting Sesonchis I (unfinished), with ka, smiting Asiatics before Amun and Waset, both holding Palestinian name-rings, on the exterior (South) face of the Portico of the Bubastides in the precinct of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak:
pencil drawing, mounted, 35.5 x 26 cm
[on recto of drawing] 'Judahmalek - Ashtaroth - Megiddo' (pencil note)
[on mount] '23' (pencil note)
[on verso of drawing] 'From the Bas-relief of the prisoners which Ammon-Ra / delivers to Senischah, on the S part of the Great / Hypostyle Hall, near the gate of the Bubastites. / Karnac. 22nd June 1843. / G. Ll. / These Cartouches were first mentioned by Champollion le Jeune.' (pencil note).
Three Palestinian name-rings for Yad Hemmelek, Adar and Megiddo, detail from a scene depicting Sesonchis I (unfinished), with ka, smiting Asiatics before Amun and Waset, both holding Palestinian name-rings, on the exterior (South) face of the Portico of the Bubastides in the precinct of the Great Temple of Amun at Karnak:
pencil drawing, mounted, 35.5 x 26 cm
[on recto of drawing] 'Judahmalek - Ashtaroth - Megiddo' (pencil note)
[on mount] '23' (pencil note)
[on verso of drawing] 'From the Bas-relief of the prisoners which Ammon-Ra / delivers to Senischah, on the S part of the Great / Hypostyle Hall, near the gate of the Bubastites. / Karnac. 22nd June 1843. / G. Ll. / These Cartouches were first mentioned by Champollion le Jeune.' (pencil note).
Pharaoh Shishshak (Shoshenq I) left an account of his campaign on a wall in the temple of Amun at Karnak, in Upper Egypt. The Bubastite portal includes a large weathered relief in which the pharaoh lists more than 150 towns (including Megiddo) he conquered during his military campaign into Israel and Judah.
“Today the vast majority of scholars believe that the Bubastite Portal records a real Egyptian campaign by Pharaoh Shoshenq in the mid-to-late tenth century B.C.E. As concluded by Israel’s leading Biblical geographer Anson Rainey: “This inscription can only be based on intelligence information gathered during a real campaign by Pharaoh Shoshenq.” Kenneth Kitchen has called the reality of Shoshenq’s campaign during the reign of Rehoboam “beyond reasonable doubt.” If this campaign occurred in 925 B.C.E. and, as the Bible says, this was the fifth year of Rehoboam’s rule in Judah, Rehoboam would have become king, and Solomon’s reign would have ended in 930 B.C.E. (925 + 5)” (Yigal Levin, Did Pharaoh Sheshonq Attack Jerusalem?, Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 2012, pp. 48-49).
According to I Kings 11:42, Solomon reigned for 40 years, which means he became king in 970 (930 + 40). The fourth year of Solomon’s reign would have been 966 (970 - 4). This is a significant date because it is from this point in time that the Bible reveals to us when the Exodus occurred (I Kings 6:1).
- And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord (I Kings 6:1).
Appendix A - Necho and Josiah at Megiddo (circa 609 B.C.).
Archaeological evidence confirms background to biblical event,
Nathan Steinmeyer, March 10, 2025 – Bible History Daily, Biblical Archaeology Review
"Although remembered in the Bible as one of Judah’s most pious rulers, King Josiah met a rather untimely death, slain at Megiddo by Pharaoh Necho II. While Josiah’s death is recorded in both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, no archaeological evidence has ever been found to corroborate the story, until now. Publishing in the Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, archaeologists excavating at the site of Megiddo in northern Israel propose that new ceramic finds provide the first evidence for Egyptian forces stationed in the city at the time of Josiah’s end.
When Egypt Reigned at Megiddo
The death of pious King Josiah at the hands of Pharaoh Necho II at Megiddo (c. 609 BCE) was the beginning of the end for the biblical kingdom of Judah, which just a few decades later would finally fall at the hands of the Babylonians. Now, the discovery of massive amounts of Egyptian and Greek pottery has confirmed at least one major element of the story: that Egyptian forces and their Greek mercenaries had a significant presence at Megiddo at the end of the seventh century BCE.
In searching for traces of the biblical event, the archaeologists had little to go on, with much of the upper layers of the archaeological mound at Megiddo having been removed by prior excavations. Finally identifying a promising spot, known as Area X, the team hit pay dirt: a small area containing the remains of a mudbrick wall and two successive buildings with well-preserved layers dating from the eighth to sixth centuries BCE.
The earliest layers excavated in the area contained evidence of the Israelite occupation of the site and the fiery destruction that brought that occupation to its end at the hands of the Assyrian army under Tiglath-Pileser III (c. 732 BCE). Later layers showed evidence for the site’s Assyrian occupation, a period when it was the capital of the province of Magiddu and home to a mixed population of Israelites and deportees from around the Assyrian Empire. None of that was unexpected based on previous excavations. However, it was the latest layers of Area X that provided striking new evidence of the biblical story.
Although no destruction layer was identified at the end of Assyrian control over the site (mid- to late seventh century), there was a sudden change in ceramic remains, with the inclusion of a large amount of imported Egyptian and eastern Greek pottery. Dating to the late seventh century BCE, these ceramic finds perfectly matched the period of Josiah’s death. According to the excavators, no other site in the region has such a large amount of Egyptian pottery, and no non-coastal site has as much Greek pottery.
Considering the data, the archaeologists suggest that the most logical explanation for such a large and sudden presence of Egyptian and Greek pottery is the presence of a large garrison of Egyptian and Greek troops, the latter well known as mercenaries who served under the employ of Necho II. Besides fitting the biblical story, the evidence also fits with Assyrian history. Conquering the southern Levant in the latter half of the eighth century, the Assyrian Empire would slowly start to decline, and upon losing control of the Levant about a century later, it was Assyria’s Egyptian allies that filled the power vacuum. In the last two decades of the seventh century, Assyria was on the ropes, under attack by the Babylonians, the Medes, and the Persians. It was then that Pharaoh Necho rode out from Egypt to aid the Assyrians.
As recorded in 2 Kings 23:29, “In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him, and Pharaoh Necho killed him at Megiddo, as soon as he saw him.” Although 2 Chronicles 35:22–24 specifies that Josiah fought against Necho (an element of the story that is debated by scholars), it can no longer be doubted that the Egyptian army was stationed at Megiddo, exactly where and when the biblical narrative places them.
