Neterkheperre or Netjerkheperre-Setepenamun Siamun was the sixth pharaoh of Egypt during the Twenty-first Dynasty. He built extensively in Lower Egypt as a king of the Third Intermediate Period and is regarded as one of the most powerful rulers of the Twenty-first Dynasty after Psusennes I. Siamun’s prenomen, Netjerkheperre-Setepenamun means “Divine is The Manifestation of Ra, Chosen of Amun”. In contrast, his name means ‘son of Amun.’
Family of Siamun
Very little is known of the family relationships of Siamun. In 1999, Chris Bennett made a case for a Queen Karimala known from an inscription in the temple of Semna as Osorkon the Elder’s daughter. She is called both ‘King’s Daughter” and “King’s Wife”. Her name suggests she may have been Libyan, which would fit with her being Osorkon the Elder’s daughter (Manetho’s Osochor). Given the inscription date (a year 14), she might have been the queen of either king Siamun or king Psusennes II. Bennett prefers marriage to Siamun because, in that case, she could have taken over the Viceroy of Kush Neskhons as a religious figurehead in Nubia after the latter’s death in year 5 of king Siamun. Moreover, a marriage to her might explain how Siamun, an Egyptian, judging by his nomen, came to succeed a Libyan Osochor.
Manetho
Siamun is often identified with the last king of Manetho’s 21st Dynasty, “Psinaches”. This king is credited with a reign of only nine years, which subsequently had to be amended to 9 years based on an inscription from the Karnak Priestly Annals mentioning a Year 17 of king Siamun. However, there is no factual basis for interpreting the name “Psinaches” as a corruption of Netjerkheperre-setepenamun Siamun. It has been suggested that Manetho’s “Psinaches” might reference King Tutkheperre Shoshenq as the direct successor of Manetho’s Osorkon, the Elder.
Reign length
The highest attested year for Siamun is Year 17, the first month of Shemu day [lost], mentioned in fragment 3B, lines 3-5 from the Karnak Priestly Annals. This date was a lunar Tepi Shemu feast day. Based on the calculation of this lunar Tepi Shemu feast, Year 17 of Siamun has been shown by the German Egyptologist Rolf Krauss to be equivalent to 970 BC. Hence, Siamun would have taken the throne about 16 years earlier, in 986 BC. A stela dated to Siamun’s Year 16 records a land sale between some minor priests of Ptah at Memphis. It records the induction of Hori, son of Nespaneferhor, into the Priesthood at Karnak.
The Year 17 inscription is an essential palaeographical development because it is the first time in Egyptian recorded history that the word pharaoh was employed as a title and linked directly to a king’s royal name: as in Pharaoh Siamun here. Before Siamun’s reign and throughout the Middle and the New Kingdom, the word pharaoh referred only to the office of the king. Hereafter, references to Pharaoh Psusennes II (Siamun’s successor), Pharaoh Shoshenq I, and Pharaoh Osorkon I become commonplace.
Before Siamun’s reign and throughout the Middle and the New Kingdom, the word pharaoh referred only to the office of the king.
Monuments
According to the French Egyptologist Nicolas Grimal, Siamun doubled the size of the Temple of Amun at Tanis and initiated various works at the Temple of Horus at Mesen. He also built Heliopolis and Piramesse, where a surviving stone block bears his name. Siamun constructed and dedicated a new temple to Amun at Memphis with six stone columns and doorways which hold his royal title. Finally, he bestowed numerous favours onto the Memphite Priests of Ptah. In Upper Egypt, he generally appears eponymously on a few Theban monuments. However, Siamun’s High Priest of Amun at Thebes, Pinedjem II, organised the removal and reburial of the New Kingdom royal mummies from the Valley of the Kings in several hidden mummies caches at Deir El-Bahari Tomb DB320 for protection from looting. These activities are dated from Year 1 to Year 10 of Siamun’s reign.
One fragmentary but well-known surviving triumphal relief scene from the Temple of Amun at Tanis depicts an Egyptian pharaoh smiting his enemies with a mace. The king’s name is explicitly given as [(Neterkheperre Setepenamun) Siamun, beloved of Am(un)] in the relief, and there can be no doubt that this person was Siamun, as the eminent British Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen stresses in his book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Siamun appears here “in a typical pose brandishing a mace to strike down prisoners(?) now lost at the right except for two arms and hands, one of which grasps a remarkable double-bladed axe by its socket.” The writer observes that this double-bladed axe or ‘halberd’ has a flared crescent-shaped blade which is close in form to the Aegean-influenced double axe but is quite distinct from the Palestinian/Canaanite double-headed axe, which has a different shape that resembles an X. Thus, Kitchen concludes Siamun’s foes were the Philistines who were descendants of the Aegean-based Sea Peoples and that Siamun was commemorating his recent victory over them at Gezer by depicting himself in a formal battle scene relief at the Temple in Tanis.
Paul S. Ash has challenged this theory, stating that Siamun’s relief portrays a fictitious battle. He points out that in Egyptian reliefs, Philistines are never shown holding an axe and that there is no archaeological evidence of Philistines using axes. He also argues that there is nothing in the relief to connect it with Philistia or the Levant.
Burial
Although Siamun’s original royal tomb has never been located, it has been proposed that he is one of “two completely decayed mummies in the antechamber of NRT-III (Psusennes I’s tomb)” based on ushabtis found on them which bore this king’s name. Siamun’s original tomb may have been inundated by the Nile, which compelled a reburial of this king in Psusennes I’s tomb.
Siamun and Solomon
It has been suggested that Siamun was the unnamed pharaoh of the Bible who gave in marriage his daughter to king Solomon to seal an alliance between the two (1Kings 3:1), and later conquered Gezer and gave it to Solomon as well (1Kings 9:16). Kenneth Kitchen and William G. Dever support this identification. Still, it has been challenged by other scholars such as Paul S. Ash and Mark W. Chavalas, with the latter stating that “it is impossible to conclude which Egyptian monarch ruled concurrently with David and Solomon”.
Edward Lipiński suggested, “The attempt at relating the destruction of Gezer to the hypothetical relationship between Siamun and Solomon cannot be justified factually, since Siamun’s death precedes Solomon’s accession.” Lipiński also argued that the then-unfortified Gezer was destroyed late in the 10th century and that its taker was likely pharaoh Shoshenq I of the 22nd Dynasty.
Dever, however, challenges these positions, arguing that Siamun reigned from 978 to 959 BCE, coinciding with Solomon’s early years of reign and that such diplomatic marriages are well attested in the ancient Near East; he also states that archaeological excavations in Gezer show that the site had been fortified in 950 BCE, during Solomon’s reign, only to be later destroyed by king Shoshenq I, during his raid against Israel.
Moreover, according to Kenneth Kitchen, the occupation of Gezer by Pharaoh Siamun is attested by a triumphal relief scene from the Temple of Amun at Tanis that depicts an Egyptian pharaoh smiting his enemies with a mace. The king’s name is explicitly given as [(Neterkheperre Setepenamun) Siamun, beloved of Am(un)] in the relief, and there can be no doubt that this person was Siamun. Siamun appears here “in a typical pose brandishing a mace to strike down prisoners(?) now lost at the right except for two arms and hands, one of which grasps a remarkable double-bladed axe by its socket.” The writer observes that this double-bladed axe or ‘halberd’ has a flared crescent-shaped blade which is close in form to the Aegean-influenced double axe but is quite distinct from the Palestinian/Canaanite double-headed axe, which has a different shape that resembles an X. Thus, Kitchen concludes Siamun’s foes were the Philistines who were descendants of the Aegean-based Sea Peoples and that Siamun was commemorating his recent victory over them at Gezer by depicting himself in a formal battle scene relief at the Temple in Tanis.
However, Paul S. Ash has challenged this theory, stating that Siamun’s relief portrays a fictitious battle. He points out that in Egyptian reliefs, Philistines are never shown holding an axe and that there is no archaeological evidence of Philistines using axes. He also argues that there is nothing in the relief to connect it with Philistia or the Levant.
