Editing Shebitku (section)

==Reign before Shabaka==
Until recent times, Shebitku was placed within the 25th Dynasty between [[Shabaka]] and [[Taharqa]]. Although the possibility of a switch between the reigns of Shabaka and Shebitku had already been suggested before by Brunet<ref>Brunet, Jean-Frédéric, "The 21st and 25th Dynasties Apis Burial Conundrum", ''Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum'' 10 (2005), p. 29.</ref> and Baker had outlined nine reasons for the reversal,<ref name=bak>[http://www.egyptologyforum.org/bbs/Sabataka&Sabaka.txt Joe Baker (2005), on egyptologyforum.org]</ref> it was Michael Bányai in 2013<ref>Michael Bányai, "Ein Vorschlag zur Chronologie der 25. Dynastie in Ägypten", JEgH 6 (2013) 46-129 and "Die Reihenfolge der kuschitischen Könige", JEgH 8 (2015) pp. 81–147.</ref> who first published in a mainstream journal many arguments in favor of such a relocation. After him, Frédéric Payraudeau<ref name=pay/> and Gerard P. F. Broekman<ref>Broekman, Gerard P. F., "The order of succession between Shabaka and Shabataka; A different view on the chronology of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty", GM 245 (2015) 17–31.</ref> independently expanded the hypothesis. The archaeological evidence discovered in 2016/2017 by Claus Jurman confirms a Shebitku-Shabaka succession. Gerard Broekman's [[Göttinger Miszellen|GM]] 251 (2017) paper shows that Shebitku reigned before Shabaka since the upper edge of Shabaka's NLR #30 Year 2 Karnak quay inscription was carved over the left-hand side of the lower edge of Shebitku's NLR#33 Year 3 inscription.<ref>Broekman, G.P.F., Genealogical considerations regarding the kings of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty in Egypt, GM 251 (2017), p. 13.</ref> The Egyptologist Claus Jurman's personal re-examination of the Karnak quay inscriptions of Shebitku (or Shabataka) and Shabaka in 2016 and 2017 conclusively demonstrate that Shebitku ruled before Shabaka and confirmed Broekman's arguments that Shebitku's Nile Text inscription was carved before Shabaka's inscription; hence, Shebitku ruled before Shabaka.<ref>Jurman, Claus; The Order of the Kushite Kings According to Sources from the Eastern Desert and Thebes. Or: Shabataka was here first!, Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017), pp. 124–151. See [https://www.academia.edu/44208909/The_Order_of_the_Kushite_Kings_According_to_Sources_from_the_Eastern_Desert_and_Thebes_Or_Shabataka_was_here_first PDF]</ref>

Critically, it was first pointed out by Baker<ref name=bak/> and then later by Frédéric Payraudeau who wrote in French that "the [[Divine Adoratrice of Amun|Divine Adoratrix]] ie. [[God's Wife of Amun]] [[Shepenupet I]]," the last Libyan Adoratrix, was still alive during the reign of Shebitku/Shabataqo because she is represented performing rites and is described as "living" in those parts of the Osiris-Héqadjet chapel built during his reign (wall and exterior of the gate).<ref>[45 – G. Legrain, "Le temple et les chapelles d'Osiris à Karnak. Le temple d’Osiris-Hiq-Djeto, partie éthiopienne", RecTrav 22 (1900) 128; JWIS III, 45.]</ref><ref name=pay/> In the rest of the room it is [[Amenirdis I]], (Shabaka's sister), who is represented with the Adoratrix title and provided with a coronation name. The succession Shepenupet I – Amenirdis I as God's Wife of Amun or Divine Adoratrice of Amun thus took place during the reign of Shebitku. This detail in itself is sufficient to show that the reign of Shabaka cannot precede that of Shebitku.<ref name=pay/>

[[File:King Shebitqo making offerings to Egyptian Gods.jpg|thumb|left|King Shebitku making offerings to Egyptian gods]]
The construction of the tomb of Shebitku (Ku. 18) resembles that of Piye (Ku. 17) while that of Shabaka (Ku. 15) is similar to that of Taharqa (Nu. 1) and Tantamani (Ku. 16).<ref>[39 – D. Dunham, El-Kurru, The Royal Cemeteries of Kush, I, (1950) 55, 60, 64, 67; also D. Dunham, Nuri, The Royal Cemeteries of Kush, II, (1955) 6-7; J. Lull, Las tumbas reales egipcias del Tercer Periodo Intermedio (dinastías XXI-XXV). Tradición y cambios, BAR-IS 1045 (2002) 208.]</ref><ref name=pay/> One of the strongest evidence that Shabaka ruled after Shebitku was demonstrated by the architectural features of the Kushite royal pyramids in El Kurru. Only in the pyramids of Piye (Ku 17) and Shebitku (Ku 18) are the burial-chambers open-cut structures with a [[corbel]]led roof, whereas fully tunneled burial chamber substructures are found in the pyramids of Shabaka (Ku 15), [[Taharqa]] (Nu 1) and [[Tantamani]] (Ku 16), as well as with all subsequent royal pyramids in [[El Kurru]] and [[Nuri]].<ref>[[Dows Dunham|Dunham, Dows D.]]; El Kurru; The Royal Cemeteries of Kush (Cambridge, Massachusetts 1950).</ref> The fully tunneled and once-decorated burial chamber of Shabaka's pyramid was clearly an architectural improvement since it was followed by Taharqa and all his successors.<ref>Broekman, G.P.F., The order of succession between Shabaka and Shabataka. A different view on the chronology of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, GM 245, (2015), pp. 21-22.</ref>

The pyramid design evidence also shows that Shabaka must have ruled after—and not before—Shebitku. This also favours a Shebitku-Shabaka succession in the 25th dynasty. In the Cairo CG 42204 of the High Priest of Amun, [[Haremakhet]]—son of Shabaka—calls himself as "king's son of Shabaka, justified, who loves him, Sole Confidant of king Taharqa, justified, Director of the palace of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Tanutamun/[[Tantamani]], may he live for ever."<ref>Broekman, G.P.F., The order of succession between Shabaka and Shabataka. A different view on the chronology of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, GM 245, (2015), p. 23.</ref> However, as first noted by Baker,<ref name=bak/> no mention of Haremakhet's service under Shebitku is made; even if Haremakhet was only a youth under Shebitku, this king's absence is strange since the intent of the statue's text was to render a chronological sequence of kings who reigned during Haremakhet's life, each of their names being accompanied by a reference to the relationship that existed between the king mentioned and Haremakhet.<ref>Broekman, G.P.F., GM 245 (2015), p. 24.</ref> A possible explanation for Shebitku's omission from the statue of Haremakhet was that Shebitku was already dead when Haremaket was born under Shabaka.

Payraudeau notes that Shebitku's [[Ushabti|shabtis]] are small (about 10&nbsp;cm) and have a very brief inscription with only the king's birth name in a cartouche preceded by "the Osiris, king of Upper and Lower Egypt" and followed by ''mȝʿ-ḫrw''.<ref>[41 – JWIS III, 51, number 9; D. Dunham, (see footnote 39), 69, plate 45A-B.].</ref><ref name=pay/> They are thus very close to those of Piye/Piankhy [42 – D. Dunham, (see footnote 39), plate 44.]. However, Shabaka's shabtis are larger (about 15–20&nbsp;cm) with more developed inscriptions, including the quotation from the Book of the Dead, which is also present on those Taharqo, Tanouetamani and Senkamanisken."<ref name=pay/> All this evidence also suggests that Shebitku ruled before Shabaka. Finally, as first pointed out by Baker,<ref name=bak/> and then later by Payraudeau who observed that in the traditional Shebitku-Shabaka chronology, the time span between the reign of Taharqa and Shabaka seems to be excessively long. They both noted that Papyrus Louvre E 3328c from Year 2 or Year 6 of Taharqa mentions the sale of a slave by his owner who had bought him in Year 7 of Shabaka, that is 27 years earlier in the traditional chronology but if the reign of Shabaka is placed just before that of Taharqa (with no intervening reign of Shebitku), there is a gap of about 10 years which is much more credible.<ref>Payraudeau, Nehet I, (2014), p. 119.</ref>

The German scholar Karl Jansen Winkeln also endorsed a Shebitku-Shabaka succession in a JEH 10 (2017) N.1 paper titled 'Beiträge zur Geschichte der Dritten Zwischenzeit', Journal of Egyptian History 10 (2017), pp.&nbsp;23–42 when he wrote a postscript stating "Im Gegensatz zu meinen Ausführungen auf dem [2014] Kolloquium in Münster bin ich jetzt der Meinung, dass die (neue) Reihenfolge Schebitku—Schabako in der Tat richtig ist..." or 'In contrast to my exposition at the [2014] Munster colloquium, I am now of the opinion that the (new) succession Shebitku-Shabako is in fact correct...'<ref>[[:de:Karl Jansen-Winkeln|Jansen-Winkeln, Karl]], ''Journal of Egyptian History'' 10 (2017), N1, p. 40.</ref>