You are on page 1of 266


Joyce Ann TyIdesIey was bofn In BoIton, IancashIfe. She gaIned a fIfst-cIass honoufs
degfee In afchaeoIogy ffom IIvefpooI UnIvefsIty In 1981 and a doctofate ffom Oxfofd
UnIvefsIty In 1986. She Is now Honofafy Reseafch FeIIow at the SchooI of AfchaeoIogy,
CIassIcs and OfIentaI StudIes at IIvefpooI UnIvefsIty, and a ffeeIance wfItef and Iectufef
on EgyptIan afchaeoIogy. Hef books, whIch afe pubIIshed by PenguIn, IncIude Ðuug/ters
of Isis. Women of Ancient Lygpt, Hutc/epsut. T/e Iemule P/uruo/, Nefertiti unJ Rumesses.
Lgypt's Greutest P/uruo/.
By t/e sume uut/or
PubIIshed by the PenguIn Gfoup
PenguIn Books Itd, 80 Stfand, Iondon WC2R 0RI, EngIand
PenguIn Putnam Inc., 375 Hudson Stfeet, New Yofk, New Yofk 10014, USA
PenguIn Books AustfaIIa Itd, 250 CambefweII Road, CambefweII, VIctofIa 3124, AustfaIIa
PenguIn Books Canada Itd, 10 AIcofn Avenue, Tofonto, OntafIo, Canada M4V 3B2
PenguIn Books IndIa (P) Itd, 11 CommunIty Centfe, PanchsheeI Pafk, New DeIhI ÷ 110 017, IndIa
PenguIn Books (NZ) Itd, Cnf RosedaIe and AIfbofne Roads, AIbany, AuckIand, New ZeaIand
PenguIn Books (South AffIca) (Pty) Itd, 24 Stufdee Avenue, Rosebank 2196, South AffIca
PenguIn Books Itd, RegIstefed OffIces: 80 Stfand, Iondon WC2R 0RI, EngIand
FIfst pubIIshed by VIkIng 1996
PubIIshed In PenguIn Books 1998
CopyfIght © J. A. TyIdesIey, 1996
AII fIghts fesefved
The mofaI fIght of the authof has been assefted
Except In the UnIted States of AmefIca, thIs book Is soId subject to the condItIon that It shaII not, by way of tfade of
othefwIse, be Ient, fe-soId, hIfed out, of othefwIse cIfcuIated wIthout the pubIIshef's pfIof consent In any fofm of bIndIng
of covef othef than that In whIch It Is pubIIshed and wIthout a sImIIaf condItIon IncIudIng thIs condItIon beIng Imposed
on the subsequent pufchasef
ISBN: 978-0-14-192934-7
Fof WIIIIam Jack Snape
List of Plutes
List of Iigures
List of Mups unJ C/ronologies
1 Backdfop: Egypt In the EafIy EIghteenth Dynasty
2 A Stfong FamIIy: The TuthmosIdes
3 Queen of Egypt
4 KIng of Egypt
5 Waf and Peace
6 Pfopaganda In Stone
7 Senenmut: Gfeatest of the Gfeat
8 The End and the Aftefmath
Iurt/er ReuJing
1 The TempIe of Amen at Kafnak. (Wefnef Fofeman AfchIve)
2 The VaIIey of the KIngs.
3 Hatchepsut as kIng offefIng befofe the bafque of Amen. (BIock ffom the ChapeIIe
Rouge, Open-AIf Museum, Kafnak)
4 The God Amen. (CaIfo Museum gafden)
5 Seated statue of Hatchepsut ffom Ðjeser-Ðjeseru showIng the kIng wIth a femaIe body
and maIe accessofIes. (The MetfopoIItan Museum of Aft, New Yofk, Rogefs Fund and
Edwafd Hafkness GIft, 1929 ]29.3.2|)
6 The neaf-IdentIcaI fIgufes fof KIng Hatchepsut and KIng TuthmosIs III, Hatchepsut In
ffont. (BIock ffom the ChapeIIe Rouge, Open-AIf Museum, Kafnak)
7 Scene showIng the gods cfownIng KIng Hatchepsut, whIch had been attacked In
8 Head of Hatchepsut. (CaIfo Museum)
9 GfanIte statue of Hatchepsut. (Open-AIf Museum, Kafnak)
10 Red gfanIte sphInx of Hatchepsut. (The MetfopoIItan Museum of Aft, New Yofk,
Rogefs Fund, 1931 ]31.3.166|)
11 The standIng obeIIsk of Hatchepsut at the heaft of the TempIe of Amen, Kafnak.
(Wefnef Fofeman AfchIve)
12 a and b Ðjeser-Ðjeseru.
13 Senenmut and the PfIncess Nefefufe. (CaIfo Museum and BfItIsh Museum)
14 Senenmut and Nefefufe. (CaIfo Museum)
15 OsIfIde head of Hatchepsut. (CaIfo Museum)
16 The cafefuIIy efased Image of Hatchepsut. (TempIe of Amen, Kafnak)
17 TuthmosIs III. (Iuxof Museum)
Chaptef 1
1.1 The caftouche of KIng Sekenenfe Tao II
1.2 The caftouche of KIng Kamose
1.3 The caftouche of KIng Ahmose
1.4 OId and New KIngdom soIdIefs (aftef WIIkInson, J. G., 1853, T/e Ancient Lgyptiuns.
t/eir life unJ customs, Iondon, FIgs 297, 300)
1.5 The god Amen (aftef Shafpe, S., 1859, T/e History of Lgypt, Iondon, FIg. 94)
1.6 The goddess Mut (aftef Seton-WIIIIams, V. and Stocks, P., 1983, Blue GuiJe, Lgypt,
Iondon and New Yofk, p. 48)
Chaptef 2
2.1 KIng Ahmose and hIs gfandmothef, Queen TetIshefI (aftef Ayfton, E. R., CuffeIIy, C.
T. and WeIgaII, A. E. P., 1903, AbyJos III, Iondon, PIate III)
2.2 The god OsIfIs (aftef Shafpe, S., 1859, T/e History of Lgypt, Iondon, FIg. 106)
2.3 The god Hofus (aftef Shafpe, S., 1859, T/e History of Lgypt, Iondon, FIg. 108)
2.4 The caftouche of KIng Amenhotep I
2.5 The caftouche of KIng TuthmosIs I
Chaptef 3
3.1 The Infant Hatchepsut beIng suckIed by the goddess Hathof (aftef NavIIIe, E., 1896,
T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri, 2, Iondon, PIate IIII)
3.2 A hIppopotamus huntef (aftef WIIkInson, J. G., 1853, T/e Ancient Lgyptiuns. t/eir life
unJ customs, Iondon, FIg. 253)
3.3 The caftouche of KIng TuthmosIs II
3.4 TuthmosIs II (aftef NavIIIe, E., 1906, T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri, 5, Iondon, PIate
3.5 PIan of Hatchepsut's fIfst tomb (aftef Caftef, H., 1917, A Tomb pfepafed fof Queen
HatshepsuIt and othef fecent dIscovefIes at Thebes, Journul of Lgyptiun Arc/ueology 4,
PIate 20)
Chaptef 4
4.1 The caftouche of KIng Maatkafe Hatchepsut
4.2 The pfegnant Queen Ahmose Is Ied to the bIfthIng bowef (aftef NavIIIe, E., 1896,
T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri, 2, Iondon, PIate XIIX)
4.3 The Infant Hatchepsut In the afms of a dIvIne nufse (aftef NavIIIe, E., 1896, T/e
Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri, 2, Iondon, PIate IIII)
4.4 Hatchepsut and Amen on a bIock ffom the ChapeIIe Rouge
4.5 PIan of Hatchepsut's kIng's tomb (aftef DavIs, T. M., ed., 1906, T/e Tomb of
Huts/opsitu, Iondon, PIate 8)
4.6 The goddess IsIs ffom the safcophagus of Hatchepsut
Chaptef 5
5.1 Hatchepsut as a man (aftef NavIIIe, E., 1908, T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri, 6, Iondon,
5.2 Tfee beIng tfanspofted ffom Punt (aftef NavIIIe, E., 1S9S, T/e Temple of Ðeir el-
Bu/uri, S, Iondon, PIate IXXIV)
5.3 House on stIIts, Punt (aftef NavIIIe, E., 1898, T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri, 3, Iondon,
5.4 The obese queen of Punt (aftef NavIIIe, E., 1898, T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri, S,
Iondon, PIate IXIX)
5.5 Ape ffom Punt (aftef NavIIIe, E., 1898, T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri, S, Iondon, PIate
5.6 TuthmosIs III offefs befofe the bafque of Amen (aftef NavIIIe, E., 1898, T/e Temple
of Ðeir el-Bu/uri, S, Iondon, PIate IXXXII)
Chaptef 6
6.1 PIan of the Speos AftemIdos (aftef FaIfman, H. W. and GfdseIoff, B., 1947, Texts of
Hatshepsut and Sethos I InsIde Speos AftemIdos, Journul of Lgyptiun Arc/ueology 33,
FIg. 1)
6.2 ReconstfuctIon of the Amen tempIe at Kafnak dufIng the feIgn of Hatchepsut
6.3 PIan of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru
6.4 Hatchepsut beIng suckIed by the goddess Hathof In the fofm of a cow (aftef DavIs,
T.M., ed., 1906, T/e Tomb of Huts/opsitu, Iondon, PIate 58)
6.5 Hathof In hef anthfopoId fofm (aftef Shafpe, S., 1859, T/e History of Lgypt, Iondon,
FIg. 101)
Chaptef 7
7.1 The damaged fIgufe of Senenmut ffom Tomb 353 (aftef Dofman, P. F, 1991, T/e
Tombs of Senenmut, New Yofk, PIate 81)
7.2 Sketch-poftfaIt of Senenmut ffom the waII of Tomb 353
7.3 Hatchepsut and Senenmut? Cfude gfaffIto ffom a DeIf eI-BahfI tomb (aftef
MannIche, I., 1977, Some Aspects of AncIent EgyptIan SexuaI IIfe, Actu Orientuliu 38,
FIg. 4)
7.4 Senenmut wofshIppIng at Ðjeser-Ðjeseru
7.5 PIan and feconstfuctIon of the façade of Tomb 71 (based on Dofman, P. F., 1991,
T/e Tombs of Senenmut, New Yofk, PIates 4a and 4c)
7.6 PIan of Tomb 353 (aftef Dofman, P. F., 1991, T/e Tombs of Senenmut, New Yofk,
PIate 51c)
Chaptef 8
8.1 The caftouche of KIng TuthmosIs III
8.2 TuthmosIs III beIng suckIed by the tfee-goddess IsIs (aftef Stevenson SmIth, W,
fevIsed by W. K. SImpson, 1981, T/e Art unJ Arc/itecture of Ancient Lgypt, New Haven
and Iondon, PIate 257)
8.3 TuthmosIs III and hIs mothef IsIs, boatIng thfough the UndefwofId (aftef Stevenson
SmIth, W, fevIsed by W. K. SImpson, 1981, T/e Art unJ Arc/itecture of Ancient Lgypt,
New Haven and Iondon, PIate 257)
8.4 The HIgh PfIestess of Amen-Re, Hatchepsut (aftef Budge, E.A.W., 1902, Lgypt unJ /er
Asiutic Lmpire, Iondon, FIg. 3)
Maps and Chrono!ogies
The TuthmosIde FamIIy Tfee
HIstofIcaI Events
Many peopIe have heIped wIth the pfepafatIon of thIs book, and I wouId IIke to expfess
my gfatItude to aII concefned. FIfst and fofemost I must thank my husband, Steven
Snape, fof hIs unfIaggIng suppoft, encoufagement and cookIng. Thanks afe aIso due to
EIeo Gofdon and SheIIa Watson who gave pfactIcaI advIce whenevef needed, to BIII
TyIdesIey who pfovIded tfansIatIons ffom Gefman soufces, and to the membefs of the
IIvefpooI UnIvefsIty S.E.S. photogfaphy depaftment, Ian QuaItfough and Suzanne Yee,
who pfoduced photogfaphIc pfInts at IIghtnIng speed. PIates 5 and 10 afe pubIIshed by
kInd pefmIssIon of the MetfopoIItan Museum of Aft, New Yofk.
My communJ stunJs firm li/e t/e mountuins, unJ t/e sun's Jis/ s/ines unJ spreuJs ruys over t/e titulury of my uugust
person, unJ my fulcon rises /ig/ ubove t/e /ingly bunner unto ull eternity.
Queen of, as she wouId pfefef to be femembefed, KIng Hatchepsut fuIed 18th Dynasty
Egypt fof ovef twenty yeafs. Hef stofy Is that of a femafkabIe woman. Bofn the eIdest
daughtef of KIng TuthmosIs I, maffIed to hef haIf-bfothef TuthmosIs II, and guafdIan of
hef young stepson÷nephew TuthmosIs III, Hatchepsut somehow managed to defy
tfadItIon and estabIIsh hefseIf on the dIvIne thfone of the phafaohs. Ffom thIs tIme
onwafds Hatchepsut became the femaIe embodIment of a maIe foIe, unIqueIy depIcted
both as a conventIonaI woman and as a man, dfessed In maIe cIothIng, caffyIng maIe
accessofIes and even spoftIng the tfadItIonaI phafaoh's faIse beafd. Hef feIgn, a
cafefuIIy baIanced pefIod of IntefnaI peace, fofeIgn expIofatIon and monumentaI
buIIdIng, was In aII fespects ÷ except one obvIous one ÷ a conventIonaI New KIngdom
fegIme, Egypt pfospefed undef hef fuIe. Howevef, aftef Hatchepsut's death, a sefIous
attempt was made to deIete hef name and Image ffom the hIstofy of Egypt. Hatchepsut's
monuments wefe eIthef destfoyed of usufped, hef poftfaIts wefe vandaIIzed and hef fuIe
was omItted ffom the offIcIaI kIng IIsts untII onIy the hIstofIan Manetho pfesefved the
memofy of a femaIe monafch named Amense of AmensIs as the fIfth sovefeIgn of the
18th Dynasty.
Had Hatchepsut been bofn a man, hef Iengthy fuIe wouId aImost ceftaInIy be
femembefed fof Its achIevements: Its stabIe govefnment, successfuI tfade mIssIons and
the ImpfessIve afchItectufaI advances whIch IncIude the constfuctIon of the DeIf eI-BahfI
tempIe on the west bank of the NIIe at Iuxof, a buIIdIng whIch Is stIII wIdeIy fegafded as
one of the most beautIfuI In the wofId. Instead, Hatchepsut's gendef has become hef
most Impoftant chafactefIstIc and aImost aII fefefences to hef feIgn have concentfated
not on hef poIIcIes but on the pefsonaI feIatIonshIps and powef stfuggIes whIch many
hIstofIans have feIt abIe to detect wIthIn the cIaustfophobIc eafIy 18th Dynasty Theban
foyaI famIIy. Two IntefIInked questIons afIse agaIn and agaIn, domInatIng aII accounts
of Hatchepsut's IIfe: What made a hIthefto conventIonaI queen decIde to become a kIng?
And how, In a hIghIy consefvatIve and maIe-domInated socIety, was she abIe to achIeve
hef goaI wIth such appafent ease?
It has genefaIIy been aIIowed that the answef to these fIddIes must be sought In the
chafactef of the woman hefseIf. Howevef, thIs Is whefe aII agfeement ends as the
IdentIcaI and fathef IImIted set of facts has suggested fadIcaIIy dIvefse Images of the
same woman to dIffefent obsefvefs, to the extent that a casuaI feadef bfowsIng aIong a
sheIf of egyptoIogy books mIght be fofgIven fof assumIng that Hatchepsut suffefed ffom
a sefIousIy spIIt pefsonaIIty. EgyptoIogIsts, nofmaIIy the most dfy and cautIous of
obsefvefs, have been onIy too happy to aIIow theIf own feeIIngs to Intefvene In theIf
teIIIng of Hatchepsut's taIe and, mofe paftIcuIafIy, In theIf IntefpfetatIon of the motIves
undefIyIng hef deeds. These feeIIngs have tended to coIncIde wIth the beIIefs common to
a genefatIon, so we fInd egyptoIogIsts at the tufn of the centufy, unawafe of the
compIexItIes of the TuthmosIde successIon and accustomed to the Idea of successfuI
femaIe fuIe pefsonIfIed by Queen VIctofIa, happy to accept Hatchepsut's own
pfopaganda. To these champIons Hatchepsut was a vaIId monafch, an expefIenced and
weII-meanIng woman who fuIed amIcabIy aIongsIde hef young stepson, steefIng hef
countfy thfough twenty peacefuI, pfospefous yeafs.
Though unmentIoned In the EgyptIan kIng IIsts, ]she| as much desefves to be commemofated among the gfeat monafchs of
Egypt as any kIng of queen who evef sat on Its thfone dufIng the 18th Dynasty.
As a woman who 'dId not faII beIow the standafd of the fest of the 18th Dynasty.
]havIng gIven| eafIy evIdence of hef capacIty to feIgn',
Hatchepsut 'natufaIIy
undeftook the fuIe of Egypt, and we afe quIte justIfIed In sayIng that the Intefests of the
countfy suffefed In no way thfough beIng In hef hands'.
In summafy:
. though she has nevef been consIdefed as a IegItImate sovefeIgn, and though she has Ieft us no account of gfeat
conquests, hef govefnment must have been at once stfong and enIIghtened, fof when hef nephew TuthmosIs III succeeded
hef, the countfy was suffIcIentIy poweffuI and fIch to aIIow hIm to ventufe not onIy on the buIIdIng of gfeat edIfIces, but
on a successIon of wafs of conquests whIch gave hIm, among aII the kIngs of Egypt, a pfe-emInent cIaIm to the tItIe of 'the
By the 1960s, knowIedge of eafIy 18th Dynasty hIstofy had Incfeased, the cIImate of
opInIon had changed, and Hatchepsut had been tfansfofmed Into the afchetypaI wIcked
stepmothef famIIIaf ffom the popuIaf fIIms Snow W/ite and CinJerellu. She was now an
unnatufaI and schemIng woman 'of the most vIfIIe chafactef',
and one who wouId
deIIbefateIy abuse a posItIon of tfust to steaI the thfone ffom a defenceIess chIId,
thefeby cuttIng shoft the feIgn one of Egypt's most successfuI phafaohs, TuthmosIs III.
Hatchepsut was a bad-tempefed, 'shfewd, ambItIous and unscfupuIous woman ]who
soon| showed hefseIf In hef tfue coIoufs'.
Hef fofeIgn poIIcy ÷ the dIfect fesuIt of hef
weakef sex ÷ was quIte sImpIy a dIsastef and:
hef feIgn Is mafked by a haIt In the poIIcy of conquests stafted by Ahmose and so spIendIdIy foIIowed by hIs thfee
successofs. ]Hatchepsut| was too busy wIth the IntefnaI dIffIcuItIes whIch she hefseIf had cfeated by hef ambItIon to
Intefest hefseIf In the affaIfs of AsIa.
WIth the gfowIng feaIIzatIon that Hatchepsut, a fIesh-and-bIood woman fathef than a
one-dImensIonaI stofybook chafactef, cannot be sImpIy cIassIfIed as eIthef 'good' of
'bad', most of these mofe extfeme feactIons have been abandoned. Howevef, they have
Ieft theIf mafk on the pages of the mofe popuIaf hIstofIes and a sIgnIfIcant numbef of
chfonIcIes of 18th Dynasty couft IIfe contInue to uphoId the tfadItIon of the gfeat
TuthmosIde famIIy feud. WhIIe It Is vefy dIffIcuIt fof any bIogfaphef to femaIn entIfeIy
ImpaftIaI about hIs of hef subject, I am attemptIng to pfovIde the non-specIaIIst feadef
wIth an objectIve and unbIased account of the IIfe and tImes of KIng Hatchepsut,
gathefed ffom the feseafches of those egyptoIogIsts who have spent yeafs studyIng,
sometImes In mInute detaII, the IndIvIduaI thfeads of evIdence whIch, when woven
togethef, fofm the tapestfy of hef feIgn. It Is Ieft fof the feadef to decIde on the fIghts of
wfongs of hef actIons. Howevef, It wIII aImost ImmedIateIy become appafent that
Hatchepsut's stofy unfaveIs to become thfee IntefIInked stofIes: the hIstofy of the kIng
and hef ImmedIate famIIy, the hIstofy of Hatchepsut's memofy aftef hef death, and the
equaIIy fascInatIng taIe of those who have sInce studIed and Intefpfeted hef. It Is
ImpossIbIe to study one wIthout makIng fefefence to the othefs, and I have made no
attempt to sepafate the thfee.
WfItIng about the pubIIc KIng Hatchepsut has pfoved to be somethIng of an exefcIse In
detectIon, as aII too often the afchaeoIogIcaI fecofd thfows up enough cIues to IntfIgue
HefcuIe PoIfot whIIe modestIy wIthhoIdIng the fInaI pIece of evIdence needed to pfove
of dIspfove a paftIcuIaf theofy. NeveftheIess, despIte the fact that thefe afe huge gaps In
ouf knowIedge, the monuments whIch testIfy to hef achIevements and the pfopaganda
texts wfItten to expIaIn hef actIons do pfovIde us wIth the evIdence needed to
feconstfuct at Ieast a paftIaI hIstofy of Hatchepsut's feIgn. The pfIvate woman ÷
Hatchepsut as daughtef, wIfe and mothef ÷ has been faf mofe dIffIcuIt to feach as we
afe IackIng aImost aII the IntImate detaIIs whIch can heIp a hIstofIcaI chafactef come
aIIve to the modefn feadef. Hatchepsut IIved In a IItefate age, but beIonged to a socIety
whIch dId not beIIeve In keepIng pefsonaI wfItten fecofds. The contempofafy fecofds
whIch have been pfesefved afe aImost InvafIabIy offIcIaI documents whIch, by theIf vefy
natufe, fafeIy expfess pfIvate opInIons. We have no IntImate Iettefs wfItten to, by of
about Hatchepsut and no dIafIes of memoIfs to pfovIde us wIth a gIImpse of eafIy 18th
Dynasty couft IIfe, we cannot even be sufe of Hatchepsut's actuaI appeafance, as aII hef
poftfaIts afe fofmaI wofks of aft desIgned to depIct the IdeaI of the dIvIne EgyptIan
phafaoh. The feaI Hatchepsut, thefefofe, femaIns somethIng of an enIgma, aIthough If
we Iook hafd enough at hef feIatIonshIps wIth the daughtef whom she cIeafIy Ioved and
the fathef whom she adofed, of If we consIdef hef obvIous need to expIaIn hef actIons
and justIfy hef unusuaI fuIe whenevef possIbIe, we may feeI oufseIves abIe to detect a
mofe compIex and Iess secufe pefsonaIIty hIdden behInd the façade of the mIghty kIng.
ThIs Iack of mofe IntImate InfofmatIon pefhaps expIaIns In paft why CIeopatfa VII, a
tfansIent and faf Iess successfuI but InfInIteIy bettef documented queen of Egypt, has
attfacted the attentIon of bIogfaphefs ffom the tIme of hef death onwafds whIIe
Hatchepsut has been vIftuaIIy Ignofed by aII but the most devoted of specIaIIsts.
SImIIafIy Queen NefeftItI, shoft-IIved consoft to an unconventIonaI kIng, has, on the
basIs of one femafkabIe poftfaIt-head, become ImmoftaI, hef name synonymous wIth
EgyptIan beauty thfoughout the westefn wofId. Hatchepsut hefseIf wouId aImost
ceftaInIy appfove of ouf InabIIIty to pfy Into hef pfIvate affaIfs. AII EgyptIan kIngs
aspIfed to confofm to the accepted stefeotype, and she was no exceptIon. She had no
wIsh to be femembefed mefeIy fof hef sex, whIch she fegafded as an IffeIevance, she
had demanded ÷ and fof a bfIef tIme won - the fIght to be fanked as an equaI amongst
the phafaohs.
Hatchepsut was a membef of the cIose-knIt Theban foyaI famIIy, a famIIy whIch had
stfuggIed to unIte Egypt at the end of the Second IntefmedIate PefIod and whose feIgns
stfaddIed the aftIfIcIaI dIvIsIon between the 17th and 18th DynastIes. To undefstand the
motIvatIon of thIs famIIy ÷ Its fIefce mIIItafIsm, Its pfomotIon of the new state god
Amen and Its IIbefaI tfeatment of foyaI women ÷ It Is necessafy to deIve fufthef back, to
the pefIod when, fof a centufy, Egypt had been a ffagmented countfy paftIaIIy fuIed by
fofeIgnefs. Hatchepsut needs to be studIed wIthIn hef own context, and I make no
apoIogy fof the fact that EgyptIan hIstofy takes up most of Chaptefs 1 and 2.
Hatchepsut hefseIf was deepIy awafe of ÷ some mIght even say obsessed by ÷ hef
countfy's fecent past, and hef feIgn Is chafactefIzed by a bufnIng desIfe to fe-cfeate the
spIendoufs of the 12th Dynasty, a goIden age when Egypt had pfospefed undef a
successIon of stfong kIngs.
Hatchepsut was by no means the onIy kIng of Egypt to attempt to fepIIcate the gIofIes
of the past. To the EgyptIans, aIways a hIghIy consefvatIve peopIe, stabIIIty and
contInuIty wefe vItaIIy Impoftant sIgns that aII was weII wIthIn theIf wofId. HIstofy,
coffectIy Intefpfeted to show Egypt and hef fuIefs In the best possIbIe IIght, pfovIded an
IdeaIIzed bIuepfInt fof the pfesent, so that any phafaoh who couId be seen to be
emuIatIng the successes of hIs IIIustfIous pfedecessofs became by defInItIon a good
monafch. AIthough the eafIy 18th Dynasty was a tIme of afchItectufaI, aftIstIc,
theoIogIcaI and technoIogIcaI advances, New KIngdom Egypt femaIned tIed to MIddIe
and OId KIngdom Egypt by an unpafaIIeIed contInuIty of Ianguage, feIIgIon and
aftIstIc,afchItectufaI conventIon, and by the IdIosyncfatIc EgyptIan vIew of the wofId,
and the posItIon of Egypt, hef peopIe and hef gods wIthIn that wofId, whIch had
femaIned basIcaIIy unchanged fof ovef a thousand yeafs. The 18th Dynasty monafchs
thefefofe feIt the need not onIy to emuIate the physIcaI deeds of theIf pfedecessofs but
aIso to fepIIcate ÷ on as gfand a scaIe as possIbIe ÷ theIf fItuaIs, paIntIngs, scuIptufe and
afchItectufe, aII of whIch had become genefaIIy accepted as the tfue and, Indeed, the
onIy way of doIng thIngs. Thfoughout hef feIgn Hatchepsut, mofe than any othef New
KIngdom phafaoh, stfessed the vaIIdIty of hef fuIe by IInkIng It wIth both seIectIve
aspects of the past ÷ aIbeIt a past feInvented to fIt neatIy wIth contempofafy concefns ÷
and wIth the state feIIgIon. Thus she was abIe to justIfy hef unIque posItIon to the
peopIe, IncfeasIng theIf confIdence In hef unusuaI feIgn.
The DynastIc PefIod Iasted ffom the begInnIng of the 1st Dynasty In appfoxImateIy
3000 BC to the end of the 31st Dynasty In 332 BC. Thfoughout thIs pefIod of weII ovef
two thousand yeafs, It femaIned a fundamentaI pfIncIpIe of feIIgIous beIIef that thefe
shouId aIways be a phafaoh, of kIng, on the thfone of Egypt. The modefn wofd phafaoh
Is a metonymy whIch has evoIved ffom the EgyptIan wofds per-u'u, IItefaIIy 'gfeat
house', a tefm whIch was used by the EgyptIans when fefeffIng to theIf monafch In
much the same way that the modefn BfItIsh fefef to 'the Cfown' of 'a statement ffom the
PaIace', and contempofafy AmefIcans speak about 'the WhIte House'. (The wofds kIng
and phafaoh afe used IntefchangeabIy thfoughout thIs book to avoId styIIstIc
monotony.) UsuaIIy thefe was onIy one maIe, natIve-bofn kIng of Egypt at any gIven
tIme, aIthough occasIonaIIy some chose to shafe theIf powef wIth a co-fegent, and on at
Ieast fouf sepafate occasIons a woman fathef than a man offIcIaIIy heId the feIns of
powef. DufIng the thfee decentfaIIzed IntefmedIate PefIods thefe wefe often two of
mofe contempofafy kIngs fuIIng ovef the vafIous fegIons of the tempofafIIy ffagmented
countfy, some of these kIngs wefe fofeIgnefs who wefe pfepafed to abandon theIf own
cuItufaI IdentIty and adopt the tfadItIonaI phafaoh's fegaIIa In ofdef to confofm to the
accepted stefeotype of an EgyptIan kIng. The kIng was a necessIty. He may not aIways
have been popuIaf wIth hIs contempofafIes, and Indeed a few kIngs wefe even
assassInated, but these unfoftunate IndIvIduaIs wefe ImmedIateIy fepIaced by a new
kIng and thefe was nevef any move to estabIIsh any othef fofm of govefnment In Egypt.
In the west we have gfown used to the Idea of the fIgufehead monafch as nomInaI head
of state, the pfesent Queen of EngIand, fof exampIe, femaIns the theofetIcaI head of
both secuIaf and feIIgIous IIfe In BfItaIn, aIthough hef actuaI powefs afe faIfIy mInImaI
and hef exIstence Is In no way vItaI to the functIonIng of hef countfy. The aboIItIon of
the monafchy and the estabIIshment of a fepubIIc wouId have vefy IIttIe feaI effect on
the day-to-day IIves of the majofIty of the BfItIsh peopIe. In ancIent Egypt, howevef,
thIngs wefe vefy dIffefent. The phafaoh was accepted wIthout questIon as an absoIute
fuIef who owned both the Iand and Its peopIe. He was entItIed to demand that hIs
subjects wofked fof hIm as and when he IIked, and the peopIe wefe bound to sefve theIf
mastef In whatevef way he fequIfed. At any tIme the phafaoh couId caII upon hIs
subjects to abandon theIf daIIy tasks and paftIcIpate In Iabouf-IntensIve foyaI pfojects
such as the buIIdIng of a pubIIc monument, fof whIch IgnomInIous and physIcaIIy
demandIng wofk they wefe paId onIy subsIstence fatIons. OnIy the educated uppef
cIasses, and those weaIthy enough to pay substantIaI bfIbes, couId hope to avoId thIs
hated conscfIpted Iabouf.
The phafaoh In tufn heId some fesponsIbIIItIes towafds hIs subjects. As head of the
cIvII sefvIce and the judIcIafy, It was hIs duty to ensufe that the countfy functIoned
effIcIentIy: that taxes wefe coIIected ffom the pfImafy pfoducefs, sufpIus food was
stofed agaInst possIbIe famIne, IffIgatIon canaIs wefe excavated, buIIdIng pfojects wefe
compIeted and Iaw and ofdef wefe maIntaIned thfoughout the Iand. The kIng fan the
countfy wIth the heIp of a feIatIveIy smaII band of bufeaucfats and advIsefs seIected
ffom the eIIte educated cIasses, many of whom wefe hIs cIose feIatIons, and hIs wofd
was Iaw. As head of the afmed fofces the phafaoh was aIso fesponsIbIe fof ensufIng that
Egypt femaIned at aII tImes safe ffom fofeIgn Invadefs. It was the kIng who pIanned
mIIItafy campaIgns and who pfotected Egypt's bofdefs, and It was the kIng who
pefsonaIIy Ied the EgyptIan tfoops Into battIe.
Howevef, the phafaoh was no mefe admInIstfatof of poIItIcIan ÷ any competent
bufeaucfat couId have peffofmed that functIon. Indeed, the kIng of Egypt was no sImpIe
human, he had a duaI pefsonaIIty. AIthough he was obvIousIy a moftaI, bofn to a moftaI
mothef, who couId suffef joys, mIsfoftunes and sIckness IIke any othef EgyptIan, when
In hIs offIcIaI pefsona the phafaoh was fecognIzed to be the hoIdef of a dIvIne offIce, an
ex-officio god on eafth. ThIs dIvInIty was InhefIted aIong wIth hIs tItIe on the death of hIs
pfedecessof, when the oId kIng became assocIated wIth the dead god of the AftefIIfe,
OsIfIs, and the new kIng became IInked wIth the IIvIng deItIes Re, the sun god, and
Hofus, the faIcon-headed son of OsIfIs. HIs newIy acquIfed dIvIne status sepafated the
kIng ffom hIs subjects and aIIowed hIm to speak dIfectIy to the EgyptIan pantheon,
fofmIng a vItaI IInk between the humbIe peopIe and the dIvIne gods and goddesses who
contfoIIed theIf destIny. As the onIy EgyptIan abIe to communIcate effectIveIy wIth the
gods, the kIng became chIef pfIest of aII feIIgIous cuIts, It was the kIng who took
fesponsIbIIIty fof ensufIng that the gods wefe sefved In the appfopfIate mannef. In
fetufn the gods agfeed to guafantee the pfospefIty of the Iand and Its peopIe. It was thIs
dIvIne aspect of hIs foIe whIch ensufed that the phafaoh became IndIspensabIe to hIs
peopIe. Egypt sImpIy couId not fIoufIsh wIthout a kIng on the thfone.
The Iack of a IegItImate phafaoh was a cIeaf sIgn that the gods wefe dIspIeased, and
that muut was absent ffom the Iand. Muut, a wofd whIch may be tfansIated IItefaIIy as
'justIce' of 'tfuth', was the tefm used by the EgyptIans to descfIbe an abstfact concept
fepfesentIng the IdeaI state of the unIvefse and evefyone In It, the stutus quo, of coffect
ofdef, whIch had been estabIIshed by the gods at the tIme of cfeatIon and whIch had to
be maIntaIned to pIacate the gods, but whIch was aIways undef thfeat ffom maIevoIent
outsIde InfIuences seekIng to bfIng chaos and dIsfuptIon (of isfet) to Egypt. Modefn
hIstofIans have stfuggIed to fInd the wofds whIch pfovIde an adequate expIanatIon of
thIs concept of 'fIghtness' of 'the pfopef way of doIng thIngs', pefhaps DavId O'Connof
has come cIosest to feachIng the ofIgInaI meanIng of the tefm when he defInes muut as:
The appfopfIate affangement of the unIvefse and human affaIfs ÷ an effoft to summafIze the EgyptIan wofId-vIew In
cohefent, mythIc fofm. CentufIes oId by the tIme of the New KIngdom, the concept of muut was a cfystaIIIzatIon of a
myfIad of feIIgIous and secuIaf Ideas, and Its contInuIty depended upon t/eir contInuIty, neveftheIess, Its vefy exIstence as
a fofmaIIzed statement of EgyptIan beIIefs heIped to pefpetuate the Ideas and attItudes on whIch It was based.
UncontfoIIed chaos was dfeaded mofe than anythIng eIse and a kIngIess pefIod, whIch
was by defInItIon a muut-Iess pefIod, was thefefofe somethIng to be avoIded at aII costs.
TImes when muut was undefstood to be absent ffom Egypt, such as the kIngIess
IntefmedIate PefIods, wefe cIted as awfuI compafatIves desIgned to stfess the vIftues of
mofe ofthodox tImes, In the pessImIstIc and much exaggefated Iate MIddIe KIngdom text
known as the AJmonitions of Ipuwer, fof exampIe, we afe toId how 'meffIment has
ceased and Is made no mofe, and gfoanIng Is thfoughout the Iand. the Iand Is Ieft to Its
weakness IIke a cuttIng of fIax',
a cIeaf and deIIbefate contfast to the peacefuI and
ofdefIy Iate 12th Dynasty when the text was composed. Mofe awfuI offences agaInst
muut, such as attempted fegIcIde, wefe sImpIy omItted ffom the hIstofIcaI fecofd. Such
was the powef of the wfItten wofd that by excIudIng aII mentIon of a specIfIc deed ffom
a text the deed ItseIf couId be undefstood not to have occuffed.
The offIce of the dIvIne kIng was ItseIf an IntegfaI paft of the concept of muut, wIth
the kIng takIng pefsonaI fesponsIbIIIty fof the maIntenance of muut thfoughout the Iand,
It was the duty of the phafaoh to pfesefve muut fof the somewhat tempefamentaI gods
of Egypt. Thfoughout the dynastIc age, the concept of muut and the dIvIne natufe of the
kIngshIp natufaIIy sefved to feInfofce the posItIon of the foyaI famIIy. By ensufIng that
the powefs and fIghts of the phafaoh couId not be openIy questIoned wIthout posIng a
thfeat to the secufIty of the countfy (that Is, wIthout thfeatenIng the pfesence of muut)
the fuIIng eIIte femaIned secufeIy at the top of the socIaI pyfamId, whIIe the Iowef
cIasses contInued to Iabouf unquestIonIngIy fof the good of the state, and the educated
mIddIe cIasses femaIned both too dependent on the cfown and too bound by the customs
that they fevefed to chaIIenge thIs tfadItIonaI aIIocatIon of fesoufces.
It Is, thefefofe, not too sufpfIsIng to fInd IndIvIduaI phafaohs expIoItIng the concept
of muut to theIf own paftIcuIaf advantage, usIng It to feInfofce theIf own fIght to fuIe
and to justIfy any actIon whIch mIght othefwIse have pfoved unacceptabIe of
questIonabIe to the hIghIy consefvatIve EgyptIans. Hatchepsut, whose unusuaI
successIon may ItseIf have been Intefpfeted by some as an offence agaInst muut,
InstIgated a vIgofous domestIc poIIcy desIgned to pfove beyond any feasonabIe doubt
that muut was fIfmIy estabIIshed thfoughout Egypt: hef Iafge-scaIe buIIdIng pfogfamme,
obvIous devotIon to the cuIt of Amen, successfuI tfadIng mIssIons and festofatIon of the
monuments whIch had been destfoyed by the Hyksos Invadefs dufIng the muut-Iess
IntefmedIate PefIod, wefe aII actIons caIcuIated to demonstfate the pfesence of
pfospefIty, Iaw and ofdef. Hef peopIe couId see that the gods, happy wIth the new
fegIme, wefe aIIowIng Egypt to fIoufIsh, and the tfadItIon of non-Inteffefence wIth the
stutus quo heIped to maIntaIn Hatchepsut on hef thfone.
AfchaeoIogIcaI evIdence of necessIty pIays a Iafge paft In ouf feconstfuctIon of ancIent
Egypt. The shoftfaIIs of the EgyptIan afchaeoIogIcaI fecofd afe by now weII known, but
they afe wofth fepeatIng at thIs poInt as they have a dIfect effect on ouf feconstfuctIon
of EgyptIan socIety. Thfoughout theIf hIstofy, the dynastIc EgyptIans took the vIew that,
whIIe theIf tempIes and tombs shouId be buIIt to Iast fof evef, theIf homes, paIaces and
wofkpIaces wefe mefeIy tempofafy stfuctufes and shouId be desIgned as such. The
tempIes and tombs wefe eIthef constfucted of stone of cut Into fock, whIIe Iess
Impoftant buIIdIngs wefe buIIt of mud-bfIck, whIch was cheap, feadIIy avaIIabIe, easy to
wofk and weII suIted to the dfy EgyptIan cIImate. UnfoftunateIy, whIIe the stone
stfuctufes have sufvIved feIatIveIy Intact, the mud-bfIck vIIIages, towns and cItIes have
cfumbIed away, coIIapsIng to fofm mounds of feftIIe soII that, untII the EgyptIan
govefnment Intfoduced pfotectIve IegIsIatIon, wefe expIoIted by IocaI peasant fafmefs
Ignofant of theIf afchaeoIogIcaI vaIue. The whoIe sItuatIon has been made even wofse
by the damp condItIons In the NIIe fIoodpIaIn and the NIIe DeIta, whIch have hastened
the destfuctIon of the mud-bfIck stfuctufes so that the few ancIent domestIc sItes whIch
have sufvIved Intact afe the atypIcaI pufpose-buIIt towns sItuated away ffom the damp
of the cuItIvatIon. The sufvIvIng afchaeoIogIcaI evIdence Is thefefofe stfongIy bIased
towafds feIIgIon and death, we have, fof exampIe, two tombs, thfee safcophagI and
sevefaI tempIes buIIt by Hatchepsut, but IIttIe tface of the paIaces whefe she IIved hef
IIfe. OvefaII, we afe Ieft wIth the mIsIeadIng ImpfessIon that the EgyptIans wefe a
depfessIngIy gIoomy and mofbId face.
The hIstofy of afchaeoIogIcaI excavatIon In Egypt has aIso had a dIfect effect upon
ouf undefstandIng of that countfy's past. The tendency of eafIy egyptoIogIsts to seek out
and excavate the mofe pfestIgIous bufIaI sItes, often actIng as IIttIe mofe than gIofIfIed
tfeasufe huntefs and gfave fobbefs, has ceftaInIy added to the funefafy and feIIgIous
bIas In ouf evIdence. Ovef the past fIfty yeafs, wIth the IntfoductIon of mofe scIentIfIc
methods of excavatIon and fecofdIng, modefn egyptoIogIsts have gfown to feaIIze just
how much vaIuabIe evIdence was ovefIooked and even destfoyed by theIf coIIeagues In
the undIgnIfIed fush to be fIfst to feach the pfecIous 'tfeasufe'. Even the new genefatIon
of schoIafIy excavatofs, wofkIng to the standafds of theIf day, was capabIe of
InadveftentIy dIstoftIng the afchaeoIogIcaI fecofd: when, In 1894, Edouafd NavIIIe
cfItIcIzed Auguste MafIette's habIt of dumpIng spoII cIose to the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe
whefe 'It sometImes fesuIted In hIs covefIng Impoftant sItes wIth eafth of sand, and thus
Ied to hIs ovefIookIng dIscovefIes to whIch he hImseIf wouId have attached hIgh vaIue',
he was not to know that some thIfty yeafs Iatef an AmefIcan team Ied by Hefbeft E.
WInIock wouId dIscovef a vast numbef of bfoken statues of KIng Hatchepsut dIfectIy
undefneath NavIIIe's own cafefuIIy pIanned spoII heap.
Many of the most pfoductIve afchaeoIogIcaI expedItIons at the tufn of the centufy
wefe funded by weaIthy westefnefs, both IndIvIduaIs and InstItutIons, who wefe
fewafded fof theIf genefosIty by a shafe In the fInds. ThIs has caused Its own pfobIems
as vaIuabIe coIIectIons wefe foutIneIy spIIt up and dIspefsed thfoughout the museums of
Egypt, Eufope and AmefIca. The statuafy of Hatchepsut, whose sItes have genefaIIy
been funded by AmefIcans, can now be faf bettef studIed In the MetfopoIItan Museum
of New Yofk than In the museums of Iuxof of CaIfo. WhIIe thIs has aImost ceftaInIy Ied
to the pfesefvatIon and dIspIay of objects whIch mIght othefwIse have been condemned
to IanguIsh In the stofefooms of Egypt's ovef-fuII museums, It does pose IogIstIcaI
pfobIems fof the ImpovefIshed student of Hatchepsut-abIIIa. Hatchepsut hefseIf suffefed
badIy ffom the fact that the tomb of Tutankhamen, a feIatIveIy InsIgnIfIcant kIng whose
bufIaI chambef was stuffed wIth goIden objects, was dIscovefed In 1922, dIveftIng
attentIon away ffom equaIIy vaIuabIe but Iess obvIousIy excItIng wofk whIch was just
staftIng at the DeIf eI-BahfI moftuafy tempIe. Ffom 1922 onwafds Tutankhamen entefed
the pubIIc ImagInatIon as the InstantIy fecognIzed symboI of ancIent Egypt, and any Iess
spectacuIaf dIscovefIes wefe genefaIIy cIassIfIed as wofthy but duII.
The wfItten evIdence used In the feconstfuctIon of EgyptIan hIstofy comes ffom two
maIn soufces: the fofmaI monumentaI InscfIptIons cafved of paInted on the tempIe and
tomb waIIs, and the mofe InfofmaI pfayefs, admInIstfatIve fecofds, stofIes and Iove
poems pfesefved on papyfus and on bfoken pIeces of pottefy of IImestone chIps now
known as ostfaca (sInguIaf ostfacon). AgaIn, thIs evIdence needs to be appfoached wIth
an appfopfIate degfee of cautIon, we shouId nevef Iose sIght of the fact that the wfItten
fecofd Is IncompIete, fandomIy seIected, and caffIes Its own bIases. The monumentaI
InscfIptIons, fof exampIe, afe basIcaIIy a mIxtufe of feIIgIous and pfopaganda texts
whIch teII the stofy that the kIng hIm- of hefseIf wIshed to convey, and whIch cannot be
taken as the IItefaI tfuth. The tfansIatofs of these InscfIptIons afe faced wIth pfobIems
not just of accufacy but of IntefpfetatIon, even the most scfupuIous of schoIafs Is awafe
that he of she Is IIkeIy to fead a text thfough the Iens of pefsonaI feeIIngs. NeveftheIess,
and In spIte of Its obvIous dfawbacks, thIs type of evIdence, taken In conjunctIon wIth
the afchaeoIogIcaI data and enIIvened by the wfItIngs of contempofafy and Iatef vIsItofs
to Egypt, can pfovIde modefn hIstofIans wIth an InvaIuabIe gIImpse Into the IIfe of
ancIent Egypt.
Those unfamIIIaf wIth EgyptIan hIstofy afe often puzzIed by the use of dynastIes and
IndIvIduaI fegnaI yeafs to date events. Rathef than pfovIdIng a specIfIc caIendaf date,
such as 1458 BC, egyptoIogIsts wIII fefef to Hatchepsut's fegnaI Yeaf 21, whIIe hef feIgn
Is ItseIf counted as paft of the eafIy 18th Dynasty of the New KIngdom of the dynastIc
age. ThIs Is done not to confuse but to ensufe the gfeatest possIbIe accufacy. We know,
fof exampIe, that Hatchepsut fuIed fof twenty-two yeafs, but hef pfecIse caIendaf dates
afe Iess ceftaIn, and vafIous expefts have suggested dIffefIng tIme-spans fof hef feIgn
(fof exampIe, 1504÷1482 BC 1490,88÷1468 BC, 1479÷1457 BC, 1473÷1458 BC). The
pfactIce of fefeffIng to fegnaI yeafs, foIIowed thfoughout thIs book, avoIds the
compIIcatIons engendefed by thIs muItIpIIcIty of suggested but unpfoven caIendaf dates.
The EgyptIans dIvIded theIf yeaf Into tweIve months of 30 days pIus 5 addItIonaI days
each yeaf, gIvIng an annuaI totaI of 365 days. The months In tufn wefe gfouped Into
thfee seasons based on the agfIcuItufaI cycIe: InundatIon, spfIng and summef. Howevef,
thefe was no ancIent equIvaIent of ouf modefn caIendaf, and yeaf numbefs stafted
affesh wIth evefy new feIgn. In ofdef to be sufe of theIf own hIstofy, the EgyptIan
scfIbes wefe fofced to maIntaIn Iong chfonoIogIcaI IIsts detaIIIng successIve monafchs
and theIf feIgns. FoftunateIy, enough of these so-caIIed kIng IIsts have sufvIved to aIIow
us to feconstfuct Egypt's past wIth a faIf degfee of accufacy. The wofk of the EgyptIan
pfIest and hIstofIan Manetho has pfovIded usefuI coffobofatIve evIdence. Manetho,
wofkIng In appfoxImateIy 300 BC, compIIed a detaIIed hIstofy of the kIngs of Egypt. ThIs
ofIgInaI wofk Is now Iost, but ffagments have been pfesefved In the wfItIngs of
Josephus (AD 70), AffIcanus (eafIy thIfd centufy AD), EusebIus (eafIy foufth centufy AD)
and SynceIIus (c. AD 800). These pfesefved extfacts do not aIways agfee, and the names
gIven afe often wIIdIy Incoffect, but students of EgyptIan hIstofy stIII acknowIedge a
huge debt to Manetho, the 'Fathef of EgyptIan HIstofy'. It was Manetho who fIfst
dIvIded the vafIous feIgns Into dynastIes, and It was Manetho who pfesefved the
memofy, If not the actuaI name, of KIng Hatchepsut.
Anothef potentIaI soufce of confusIon Is the pfofusIon of sIIghtIy dIffefent pefsonaI
names attfIbuted by vafIous authofs to the same pIace of pefson, paftIcuIafIy when
oIdef soufces afe beIng quoted. Hatchepsut, fof exampIe, Is aIso vafIousIy fefeffed to as
Hatasu, Hashepsowe, HatshopsItu, Hatshepsut and HatshepsuIt, hef fathef Dhutmose of
Thutmose Is now mofe commonIy known by the Gfeek vefsIon of hIs name, TuthmosIs,
and the state gods Amen and Re afe often fendefed as Amun and Ra. Some authofItIes
have devIsed theIf own excIusIve vafIants. SIf AIan GafdInef, fof exampIe, consIstentIy
uses Pwene In pIace of the mofe wIdeIy accepted Punt, whIIe NavIIIe, ButtIes and othef
tufn-of-the-centufy egyptoIogIsts fevefse Hatchepsut's thfone-name Maatkafe to fead as
Kamafa. UnfoftunateIy fof modefn feadefs, the ancIent EgyptIans wfote theIf
hIefogIyphIc texts wIth no weak voweIs and wIth an assoftment of consonants not found
In ouf modefn aIphabet, so the coffect pfonuncIatIon of any EgyptIan name must be a
mattef of educated guesswofk. Thfoughout thIs book, the most sImpIe and wIdeIy
accepted vefsIon of each pfopef name has been used, aII dIacfItIcaI mafks have been
omItted, and the names IncIuded In cItatIons wIthIn the text have been, as faf as
possIbIe, standafdIzed In an effoft to avoId an unnecessafy and confusIng muddIe fof
the non-specIaIIst feadef.
Backdrop: Egypt in the Ear!y Eighteenth Dynasty
I /uve ruiseJ up w/ut wus JismembereJ, even from t/e first time w/en t/e Asiutics were in Avuris of t/e Nort/ LunJ, wit/
roving /orJes in t/e miJst of t/em overt/rowing w/ut /uJ been muJe, t/ey ruleJ wit/out Re.
PfIncess Hatchepsut was bofn Into the eafIy 18th Dynasty, at a tIme when the newIy
unIted Egypt was stIII feeIIng ffom the IgnomIny of seeIng fofeIgn kIngs seated on the
dIvIne thfone of the phafaohs. AIthough the 18th Dynasty was to deveIop Into a pefIod
of unpfecedented EgyptIan pfospefIty, the deep humIIIatIon of a hundfed yeafs of
Hyksos fuIe and the wIdespfead cIvII unfest of the Second IntefmedIate PefIod wefe
nevef fuIIy fofgotten, and a concefn wIth fepIIcatIng the haIcyon days of the OId and
MIddIe KIngdoms ÷ and In paftIcuIaf the gIofIous 12th Dynasty ÷ became a constant
undefIyIng theme of eafIy 18th Dynasty poIItIcaI IIfe.
The 12th Dynasty had fepfesented a tfuIy goIden age. RecovefIng ffom a somewhat
shaky staft whIch IncIuded the assassInatIon of Its foundef, Amenemhat I, thefe had
foIIowed aImost two hundfed yeafs of IntefnaI peace and stabIIIty whIch afe now wIdeIy
fegafded as fofmIng one of the cIassIcaI pefIods of EgyptIan cIvIIIzatIon. Thfoughout the
dynasty a successIon of stfong phafaohs fuIed ovef a unIted Iand ffom the new capItaI
of Itj-Tawy (a nofthefn cIty IyIng somewhefe between the OId KIngdom capItaI of
MemphIs and the mouth of the FaIyum), theIf posItIon as absoIute fuIefs gfeatIy
stfengthened by a weII-pIanned sefIes of cIvII sefvIce fefofms aImed at festfIctIng the
powef of the weaIthy nobIes who, aftef the IocaI autonomy of the FIfst IntefmedIate
PefIod, mIght othefwIse have been tempted to estabIIsh theIf own Independent IocaI
dynastIes. TweIfth Dynasty fofeIgn poIIcy was as successfuI as It was adventufous, and
tfade and dIpIomatIc IInks wefe estabIIshed wIth both the Aegean and the Neaf East as
Egypt abandoned hef tfadItIonaI InsuIafIty and stafted to pIay a mofe pfomInent foIe In
the MedIteffanean wofId. Thefe wefe IntfepId expedItIons, IncIudIng a mIssIon to the
fabuIous Iand of Punt, and sIgnIfIcant mIIItafy conquests as a new aggfessIve attItude
towafds the south pushed Egypt's boundafy fufthef Into NubIa. WIthIn Egypt's newIy
stfengthened bofdefs the eastefn deseft was expIoIted fof Its natufaI fesoufces whIch
IncIuded goId, the SInaI was mIned fof tufquoIse and coppef and the FaIyum was
deveIoped fof agfIcuItufe thfough a sefIes of InnovatIve IffIgatIon technIques.
A combInatIon of IncfeasIng EgyptIan weaIth, fofeIgn stImuIatIon and poIItIcaI
stabIIIty thfoughout the MIddIe KIngdom aIIowed the afts to fIoufIsh. ThIs was to
become the pefIod of cIassIcaI EgyptIan Ianguage and IItefatufe when many of the best-
known texts, InscfIptIons and naffatIve stofIes wefe composed. The wfItIngs of the OId
KIngdom had been bfIef, fofmaI and vefy seIf-conscIous In styIe. MIddIe KIngdom
composItIons afe both Iongef and faf mofe fIuent, the autobIogfaphIes
fecofded on the
waIIs of the pfIvate tombs afe sImuItaneousIy mofe InfofmatIve and mofe ImagInatIve
than theIf OId KIngdom countefpafts whIIe the InstfuctIve texts, of Instructions in
WisJom, show a new feaIIsm In theIf desIfe to stfess the chaos poIsed to ovefwheIm
Egypt In the absence of a stfong kIng. Howevef, It Is fof the deveIopment of naffatIve
fIctIon that the MIddIe KIngdom IItefatufe Is most justIy ceIebfated. T/e Sutire of t/e
TruJes, T/e Story of t/e Lloquent Peusunt, T/e Tule of t/e S/ipwrec/eJ Suilor and T/e Story
of Sinu/e aII date to thIs pefIod, aIIowIng us to tface the evoIutIon of the genfe ffom
sImpIe actIon-packed adventufes taken stfaIght ffom the ofaI tfadItIon (fof exampIe,
T/e Tule of t/e S/ipwrec/eJ Suilor ÷ a Boys' Own-styIe taIe of shIpwfeck and adventufe
IncIudIng a fabuIous snake-IIke cfeatufe) to mofe thought-pfovokIng taIes toId In an
IncfeasIngIy mofe sophIstIcated bIend of styIes (fof exampIe, T/e Story of Sinu/e ÷ the
fIctIonaI autobIogfaphy of a nobIeman exIIed ffom Egypt and IongIng fof home).
AftIsts and scuIptofs wefe quIck to fefIect the new mood of combIned nostaIgIa and
feaIIsm and theIf wofk, whIIe stIII based on the tfadItIonaI and hIghIy fofmaIIzed styIe
of the OId KIngdom, demonstfates a wIIIIngness to poftfay subjects as IndIvIduaIs fathef
than stefeotypes. The foyaI scuIptofs now feIt themseIves ffee to depIct a mofe human
phafaoh, when we Iook at the poftfaIt heads of the 12th Dynasty kIngs Senwosfet III
and Amenemhat III we see stfong, sefIous and somewhat weafy men stfIvIng to conduct
theIf dIvIne foIe wIth fegaI sevefIty, a mafked contfast to the mofe sefene and femote
aII-poweffuI god-kIngs of the OId KIngdom. At the same tIme the fange of pfIvate
scuIptufe expanded as ofdInafy IndIvIduaIs stafted to be fepfesented In a vafIety of
InnovatIve fofms fathef than the IImIted fange of statues found In OId KIngdom tombs.
Few foyaI paIntIngs have sufvIved ffom the MIddIe KIngdom but the pfIvate tombs of
BenI Hassan vIbfate wIth coIouffuI IIfe as fepfesentatIons of wfestIIng, waffafe and
dancIng now joIn the mofe festfaIned scenes found In OId KIngdom tombs.
Iafge-scaIe buIIdIng pfojects fecommenced dufIng the 12th Dynasty, wIth the fofm of
the pyfamId beIng fe-adopted as a means of emuIatIng the OId KIngdom pfecedent and
emphasIzIng the status of the kIng and hIs connectIon wIth the sun god, Re. Howevef,
thefe was now to be no sIngIe pubIIc buIIdIng on the gfand scaIe of the GIza pyfamIds.
Instead of foIIowIng theIf foyaI pfedecessofs and concentfatIng theIf effofts on one
soIItafy moftuafy monument, the monafchs of the MIddIe KIngdom decIded to spfead
theIf fesoufces fathef mofe wIdeIy. The extent to whIch these kIngs wefe wIIIIng to
constfuct stone addItIons to exIstIng mud-bfIck tempIes In the pfovInces Is uncIeaf
because of the extensIve fe-modeIIIng whIch occuffed dufIng the 18th Dynasty, but the
evIdence, whefe It sufvIves, suggests a constfuctIon pfogfamme whIch extended the
foyaI monopoIy of stone buIIdIngs to the fufthest cofnefs of the most dIstant EgyptIan
pfovInces. UnfoftunateIy, many Impoftant tempIes ffom thIs pefIod wefe deIIbefateIy
destfoyed so that theIf pfecIous stone bIocks couId be fe-used In Iatef buIIdIngs, and ouf
knowIedge of 12th Dynasty afchItectufe Is consequentIy sadIy festfIcted. Ouf best-
known exampIe Is the WhIte ChapeI of Senwosfet I. ThIs beautIfuI buIIdIng, whIch
demonstfates a thofough mastefy of stone-wofkIng technIques IncIudIng some
ImpfessIve feIIef cafvIng, had been dIsmantIed and used as paft of the fIIIIng of a pyIon
buIIt by the New KIngdom Phafaoh Amenhotep III at Kafnak. Aftef paInstakIng
feconstfuctIon It Is now festofed to Its fofmef gIofIes and Is on pefmanent dIspIay In the
Open-AIf Museum at Kafnak.
AII good thIngs must come to an end. EventuaIIy the foyaI famIIy, whIch had untII now
pfovIded one of the Iongest contInuous IInes evef to fuIe Egypt, found ItseIf wIthout a
maIe heIf to the thfone. Amenemhat IV, the fInaI kIng of the 12th Dynasty, was
thefefofe of necessIty succeeded by hIs sIstef of haIf-sIstef Sobeknoffu, who fuIed as
Queen of Uppef and Iowef Egypt fof thfee yeafs, ten months and twenty-fouf days
befofe dyIng a natufaI death In offIce. WIth hef death came the end of hef dynasty.
AIthough thefe was, In theofy, nothIng to pfevent a woman ffom becomIng phafaoh
and, Indeed, thefe appeafs to have been no opposItIon to Sobeknoffu assumIng thIs foIe
÷ aIthough any unsuccessfuI opposItIon wouId, of coufse, be dIffIcuIt fof us to detect ÷
such an obvIous depaftufe ffom foyaI tfadItIon was a sufe sIgn that somethIng was vefy
wfong wIthIn the foyaI famIIy, and Sobeknoffu's feIgn Is now genefaIIy Intefpfeted as a
bfave but doomed attempt to pfoIong a dyIng foyaI IIne. An aItefnatIve vIew, that she
must have seIzed the cfown as the fesuIt of a vIcIous famIIy quaffeI, Is now IafgeIy
dIscfedIted on the gfounds of Iack of evIdence. The fact that Sobeknoffu's name was
IncIuded on the Sakkafa kIng IIst may be taken as a good IndIcatIon that hef feIgn was
acceptabIe both to hef peopIe and to the hIstofIans who pfesefved hef memofy.
Sobeknoffu was succeeded by an unfeIated kIng, and the 13th Dynasty stafted to
foIIow vefy much In the tfadItIon of the 12th. Howevef, no stfong foyaI famIIy was
estabIIshed and thefe was IIttIe appafent contInuIty between the monafchs tfadItIonaIIy
assIgned to thIs pefIod. Instead, a successIon of shoft-IIved kIngs and theIf IncfeasIngIy
poweffuI vIzIefs feIgned ovef a sIowIy ffagmentIng Egypt, and the countfy gfaduaIIy
dIsIntegfated Into a Ioose assocIatIon of semI-Independent cIty states. A sefIes of ffeak
NIIe fIoods at thIs tIme, and the fesuItIng stfaIn on the EgyptIan economy, must have
seemed a vefy bad omen, the feguIaf fIse and faII of the NIIe was taken as a genefaI
sIgn that aII was weII wIthIn Egypt and the 13th Dynasty fuIefs must have been
unpIeasantIy femInded of the vefy Iow fIoods whIch had hefaIded the coIIapse of the OId
KIngdom. They wouId have done weII to heed the omen. The end of the 13th Dynasty
saw the 'offIcIaI' end of the MIddIe KIngdom and the begInnIng of the Second
IntefmedIate PefIod (DynastIes 14 to 17), a badIy fecofded phase of natIonaI dIsunIty
and fofeIgn fuIe sandwIched between the weII-documented stabIIIty of the MIddIe and
New KIngdoms.
TutImaIos. In hIs feIgn, fof what cause I know not, a bIast of god smote us, and unexpectedIy ffom the fegIons of the east
Invadefs of obscufe face mafched In confIdence of vIctofy agaInst ouf Iand. TheIf face as a whoIe was caIIed Hyksos, that
Is 'kIng-shephefds', fof Hy/ In the sacfed Ianguage means 'kIng' and sos In common speech Is 'shephefd'.
Thfoughout the MIddIe KIngdom thefe had been a pefsIstent InfIux of 'AsIatIc' mIgfants
ffom the east, SemItIc peopIes who wefe attfacted by Egypt's gfowIng pfospefIty and
who wefe themseIves beIng pfessufed westwafds by ImmIgfants ffom fufthef east, thIs
was a tIme of popuIatIon shIfts thfoughout the entIfe Eastefn MedIteffanean fegIon. The
new affIvaIs wefe accepted by the IocaIs and mefged peacefuIIy Into the exIstIng towns
and vIIIages of nofthefn Egypt.
DufIng the 13th Dynasty, howevef, these gfoups stafted
to fofm sIgnIfIcant and paftIaIIy Independent communItIes In the NIIe DeIta. At the same
tIme the pfevIousIy emascuIated IocaI fuIefs wefe gfaduaIIy gaInIng In powef as
natIonaI unIty began to cfumbIe. SIowIy the countfy fesoIved ItseIf Into thfee mutuaIIy
dIstfustfuI fegIons, each fuIed concuffentIy by dIffefent dynastIes. The NubIan kIngdom
of Kefma deveIoped In the extfeme south, a smaII gfoup of Independent EgyptIans
contfoIIed southefn Egypt ffom Thebes (17th Dynasty), and the nofth was fuIed by a
gfoup of PaIestInIan Invadefs known as the Hyksos (15th Dynasty) and theIf PaIestInIan
vassaIs (16th Dynasty).
It was the Hyksos Invadefs who made the deepest ImpfessIon on the hIstofIcaI fecofd,
fuIIng ovef nofthefn Egypt fof ovef a hundfed yeafs and takIng the eastefn DeIta town
of AvafIs (a coffuptIon of the EgyptIan name Hwt W'rt, IItefaIIy 'The Gfeat MansIon' of
'MansIon of the AdmInIstfatIon', modefn TeII ed-Daba) as theIf capItaI. To the south the
natIve-bofn Theban fuIefs femaIned Independent and feIatIonshIps between nofth and
south wefe InItIaIIy peacefuI, If dIstfustfuI, the southefn kIngs wefe abIe to Iease gfazIng
Iand ffom theIf Hyksos neIghboufs and thefe Is even some evIdence to suggest that
HefIt, a daughtef of the fInaI Hyksos kIng, ApophIs, may have maffIed Into the Theban
foyaI famIIy. The Hyksos wefe ceftaInIy on good tefms wIth the NubIan fuIefs of Kefma,
to the extent that the same ApophIs, towafds the end of hIs 33-yeaf feIgn and no Iongef
on such ffIendIy tefms wIth hIs ImmedIate neIghboufs, feIt ffee to ufge the NubIans to
Invade the Theban kIngdom In ofdef to dIstfact the Theban afmy and so pfotect hIs own
posItIon In the nofth. A Iettef wfItten by ApophIs to the KIng of Kush and foftuItousIy
Intefcepted by tfoops IoyaI to the Theban KIng Kamose, detaIIs hIs pIottIng:
. Have you ]not| beheId what Egypt has done agaInst me. He ]Kamose| choosIng the two Iands to devastate them, my
Iand and youfs, and he has destfoyed them. Come, fafe nofth at once, do not be tImId. See, he Is hefe wIth me. I wIII not
Iet hIm go untII you have affIved.
EgyptIan Iegend as typIfIed by Manetho fegafds the Hyksos as an uncIvIIIzed, bfutaI
band of Invadefs and theIf feIgn as a dafk, nevef-to-be-fepeated pefIod of chaos and
. By maIn fofce they ]the Hyksos| easIIy seIzed ]Egypt| wIthout stfIkIng a bIow, and havIng ovefpowefed the fuIefs of
the Iand, they then bufned ouf cItIes futhIessIy, fazed to the gfound the tempIes of the gods, and tfeated aII the natIves
wIth a cfueI hostIIIty, massacfIng some and IeadIng Into sIavefy the wIves and chIIdfen of othefs.
ThIs Iament Is, to a Iafge extent, mefeIy the conventIonaI expfessIon of hoffof at the
feaIIzatIon that despIsed and cuItufaIIy InfefIof fofeIgnefs couId actuaIIy conquef the
mIghty Egypt. ExaggefatIon was an accepted and even expected component of hIstofIcaI
naffatIve and the EgyptIans saw no hafm In fe-IntefpfetIng theIf own past as and when
necessafy. The deepIy heId beIIef that theIf Iand couId onIy fIoufIsh undef a dIvIneIy
appoInted EgyptIan phafaoh was ceftaInIy stfong enough to dIstoft the hIstofIcaI fecofd
In thIs Instance. AfchaeoIogIcaI evIdence, Iess obvIousIy bIased, makes It cIeaf that the
hated Hyksos, faf ffom InfIIctIng bafbafIc fofeIgn pfactIces on theIf new subjects, made
a detefmIned effoft to adapt themseIves to the customs of theIf adopted countfy. The
new fuIefs fetaIned a few of theIf own tfadItIons: afchItectufaI styIes and pottefy fofms
now show a dIstInct Neaf Eastefn InfIuence, the waf goddess Anath of Astafte was
quIckIy absofbed Into the EgyptIan pantheon as 'Iady of Heaven' and hef consoft, the
EgyptIan god Seth, became the chIef deIty. Howevef, In most othef fespects the Hyksos
suffendefed theIf own IdentIty as, wIth the zeaI of new convefts, they Immefsed
themseIves In EgyptIan cuItufe, adoptIng hIefogIyphIc wfItIng, embeIIIshIng IocaI
tempIes, copyIng MIddIe KIngdom aft-fofms, manufactufIng scafabs and even
tfansfofmIng themseIves Into EgyptIan-styIe phafaohs by takIng names compounded
wIth 'Re', the name of the EgyptIan sun god. Faf ffom bfIngIng economIc dIsastef to
Egypt, theIf Iands wefe govefned effIcIentIy, makIng good use of the MIddIe KIngdom
admInIstfatIve ffamewofk whIch was aIfeady In pIace, and natIve-bofn EgyptIan
bufeaucfats wofked wIIIIngIy aIongsIde theIf new mastefs to ensufe that the DeIta
fegIon pfospefed undef theIf fuIe. The Iong-tefm matefIaI advantages of the bfIef
IntefIude of fofeIgn fuIe now seem vefy obvIous. Undef Hyksos fuIe, Egypt fapIdIy Iost
much of hef tfadItIonaI IsoIatIon as tfadIng and dIpIomatIc IInks wefe estabIIshed wIth a
wIde fange of Neaf Eastefn kIngdoms, and the fesuItIng fIood of exotIc and pfactIcaI
Impofts both stImuIated the economy and InspIfed the EgyptIan aftIsts and aftIsans.
Egypt benefIted ffom the IntfoductIon of new bfonze wofkIng and pottefy and weavIng
technIques, thefe wefe excItIng new food cfops to be tested, and even a pfevIousIy
unknown bfeed of humped-back cattIe. Most Impoftant of aII was the Hyksos
contfIbutIon to Egypt's tfadItIonaI mIIItafy equIpment, It was theIf Impfovements,
combIned wIth the eafIy 18th Dynasty feofganIzatIon of the afmy stfuctufe, whIch Ied
dIfectIy to the evoIutIon of the effIcIent and aImost InvIncIbIe fIghtIng tfoops of the 18th
and 19th Dynasty EmpIfe. The Hyksos Intfoduced new fofms of defensIve fofts, new
weapon-types (mofe effIcIent daggef and swofd fofms and the stfong compound bow
whIch had a faf gfeatef fange than the oId-fashIoned sImpIe bow) and the concept of
body afmouf to pfotect the tfoops. The soIdIefs ÷ who dufIng the OId and MIddIe
KIngdoms had mafched Into battIe dfessed onIy In the bfIefest of kIIts of IoIncIoths and
pfotected by a Iong and cumbefsome cow-hIde shIeId ÷ wefe now Issued wIth pfotectIve
jackets and a IIghtef, easIef-to-handIe tapefed shIeId. TheIf most Impoftant IntfoductIon
was, howevef, the hafnessed hofse and the two-wheeIed hofse-dfawn chafIot, a IIght
and hIghIy mobIIe vehIcIe whIch, manned by a dfIvef and a soIdIef equIpped wIth speaf,
shIeId and bow, quIckIy became one of the most vaIuabIe assets of the EgyptIan afmy.
In the south the Theban 17th Dynasty fuIed ovef Egypt ffom EIephantIne to Cusae (eI-
QusIya, MIddIe Egypt), successfuIIy contInuIng many of the MIddIe KIngdom foyaI
tfadItIons but on a feduced scaIe and adapted to fIt IocaI condItIons, the 17th Dynasty
foyaI pyfamIds wefe
Iig. 1.1 T/e curtouc/e of King Se/enenre Tuo II
feIatIveIy tIny mud-bfIck stfuctufes pefched on top of fock-cut tombs. As the southefn
dynasty sIowIy estabIIshed ItseIf feIatIonshIps between south and nofth gfaduaIIy
detefIofated, and open waffafe efupted when KIng Sekenenfe Tao II, 'The Bfave', came
to the Theban thfone. A fantastIc New KIngdom stofy whIch pufpofts to expIaIn the
outbfeak of hostIIItIes stafts by settIng the scene:
It once happened that the Iand of Egypt was In mIsefy, fof thefe was no Iofd as ]soIe| kIng. A day came to pass when KIng
Sekenenfe was ]stIII onIy| fuIef of the Southefn CIty. MIsefy was In the town of the AsIatIcs, fof PfInce ApophIs was In
AvafIs, and the entIfe Iand paId tfIbute to hIm, deIIvefIng theIf taxes ]and| even the nofth bfIngIng evefy ]soft of| good
pfoduce of the DeIta.
We afe toId how the Hyksos KIng ApophIs, now a fefvent wofshIppef of the pecuIIaf
and so faf unIdentIfIed anImaI-headed god Seth, decIdes to pfovoke a quaffeI by makIng
an IntentIonaIIy fIdIcuIous demand. A messengef Is sent southwafds, and he deIIvefs the
compIaInt to the bemused Sekenenfe Tao:
Iet thefe be a wIthdfawaI ffom the canaI of hIppopotamI whIch IIe at the east of the CIty, because they don't Iet sIeep
come to me eIthef In the daytIme of at nIght.
Sekenenfe Is undefstandabIy fendefed speechIess by thIs unfeasonabIe fequest: It Is
InconceIvabIe that the Theban hIppopotamI couId have been makIng so much noIse that
they wefe pfeventIng ApophIs ffom sIeepIng In AvafIs, some 500 mIIes downstfeam.
UnfoftunateIy, the end of the stofy Is Iost, and we do not know how the kIng eventuaIIy
fepIIed, of Indeed whethef ApophIs went on to make even mofe outfageous demands.
The mofe down-to-eafth afchaeoIogIcaI evIdence confIfms that Sekenenfe Tao II
fought agaInst the Hyksos In MIddIe Egypt befofe dyIng of wounds sustaIned In battIe:
hIs mummIfIed body was unwfapped by the Ffench egyptoIogIst Gaston Maspefo In
1886, and examIned by the dIstInguIshed anatomIst G. EIIIot SmIth In 1906. The mummy
was cIeafIy a dIstufbIng sIght, wIth hoffIfIc head and neck InjufIes caused by fepeated
bIows ffom a bfonze Hyksos battIe-axe:
AII that now femaIns of SaqnounfI TIouaqen ]Sekenenfe Tao II| Is a badIy damaged, dIsaftIcuIated skeIeton encIosed In an
Impeffect sheet of soft, moIst, fIexIbIe dafk bfown skIn, whIch has a stfongIy afomatIc, spIcy odouf. No attempt was
made to put the body Into the customafy mummy-posItIon, the head had not been stfaIghtened on the tfunk, the Iegs wefe
not fuIIy extended, and the afms and hands wefe Ieft In the agonIzed attItude Into whIch they had been thfown In the death
spasms foIIowIng the mufdefous attack, the evIdence of whIch Is so cIeafIy Impfessed on the battefed face and skuII.
The badIy pfesefved body suggests that the kIng had been hastIIy mummIfIed, not
necessafIIy by the offIcIaI foyaI undeftakefs. Sekenenfe Tao II was succeeded by hIs son,
Kamose, who fuIed fof IIttIe mofe than thfee yeafs yet managed to stfengthen the
Theban hoId on MIddIe Egypt. Aftef bfoodIng aIoud on the unfoftunate sItuatIon whIch
had dIvIded hIs Iand ÷ 'I shouId IIke to know what sefves thIs stfength of mIne when a
chIeftaIn Is In AvafIs and anothef In Kush, and I sIt unIted wIth an AsIatIc and a
÷ Kamose took decIsIve actIon. He advanced nofthwafds towafds AvafIs and
southwafds as faf as Buhen, obtaInIng contfoI of the vItaI fIvef tfade foutes and
exactIng vengeance on those beIIeved to have coIIabofated wIth the enemy, befofe
fetufnIng to Thebes whefe he fecofded hIs dafIng deeds on a IImestone steIa at the
Kafnak tempIe:
Iig 1.2 T/e curtouc/e of King Kumose
O wIcked of heaft, vIIe AsIatIc, I shaII dfInk the wIne of youf vIneyafd whIch the AsIatIc
whom I captufed pfess fof me. I Iay waste youf dweIIIng pIace and cut down youf
tfees. I dId not Ieave a scfap of AvafIs wIthout beIng empty. I IaId waste theIf towns
and bufned theIf pIaces, they beIng made Into fed fuIns fof etefnIty on account of the
damage whIch they dId wIthIn thIs Egypt, fof they had made themseIves sefve the
AsIatIc and had fofsaken Egypt theIf mIstfess.
Kamose dIed young, possIbIy kIIIed In actIon IIke hIs fathef, and was In tufn succeeded
on the Theban thfone by hIs youngef bfothef Ahmose. Ahmose, InItIaIIy too young to
fIght, waIted fof ovef ten yeafs befofe fesumIng the stfuggIe to unIte hIs countfy. HIs
vIctofIous campaIgn agaInst the Hyksos has been fecofded In fuII and somewhat
bIoodthIfsty detaII by a soIdIef aIso named Ahmose, the son of a woman named Ibana
and a soIdIef named Baba, who haIIed ffom the southefn EgyptIan town of eI-Kab. In hIs
autobIogfaphy, Ahmose the soIdIef aIms to Impfess us wIth hIs Iengthy mIIItafy fecofd
and hIs extfeme pefsonaI bfavefy, quotIng dIfectIy ffom a New KIngdom pfovefb: 'The
name of the bfave man Is In that whIch he has done, It wIII not pefIsh In the Iand
fofevef.' We Ieafn how, when he had 'founded a househoId' (that Is, maffIed and
pefhaps fathefed a chIId), he stafted hIs mIIItafy sefvIce on a shIp caIIed T/e Nort/ern.
Ahmose saIIed nofth to fIght aIongsIde hIs phafaoh In the DeIta, takIng paft In sevefaI
bIoody battIes and pIayIng an actIve paft In the sackIng of AvafIs. The Hyksos and theIf
kInsmen had been actIve thfoughout nofthefn SInaI and In the IevantIne afea and, as
they fetfeated ffom Egypt, KIng Ahmose foIIowed them eastwafds Into south-west
PaIestIne, eventuaIIy IayIng sIege to the foftIfIed town of Shafuhen, the Iast outpost of
the Hyksos kIngdom. Aftef each successfuI battIe Ahmose, son of Ibana, was fewafded
Iig. 1.S T/e curtouc/e of King A/mose
wIth booty, IncIudIng the pfIsonefs he had captufed, and he pfoudIy Infofms us that he
was eventuaIIy awafded the 'GoId of VaIouf', one of the hIghest mIIItafy honoufs, fof hIs
bfavefy In battIe. HIs wofds aIIow us a fafe InsIght Into the tufbuIent IIfe of an eafIy
18th Dynasty pfofessIonaI soIdIef:
. I was taken to the boat 'The Nofthefn' because of my bfavefy. I accompanIed the SovefeIgn, IIfe, pfospefIty and heaIth
be upon hIm, on my feet when he tfaveIIed afound In hIs chafIot. The town of AvafIs was besIeged. I was bfave In the
pfesence of hIs Majesty. Then I was pfomoted to ]the boat| 'RIsIng In MemphIs'. Thefe was fIghtIng on the watef of
Padjedku of AvafIs and I made a seIzufe and bfought away a hand. ThIs was fepofted to the RoyaI HefaId, thefeupon I was
gIven the goId of vaIouf. Then thefe was fIghtIng In Southefn Egypt, south of thIs town. I bfought away one man as a
IIvIng captIve. When It was fepofted to the RoyaI HefaId I was fewafded wIth goId a second tIme.
Then AvafIs was sacked. I bfought away ffom thefe as pIundef one man and thfee women, a totaI of fouf peopIe. HIs
Majesty gave them to me as sIaves. Then Shafuhen was besIeged fof thfee yeafs. HIs Majesty pIundefed It. I bfought away
ffom thefe as pIundef two women and a hand. The goId of vaIouf was pfesented to me and, Io, I was gIven sIaves as
FoIIowIng the successfuI expuIsIon of the Hyksos, Ahmose tufned hIs attentIon
southwafds to NubIa, whefe once agaIn he was foIIowed by hIs IoyaI soIdIef:
]HIs Majesty| saIIed south to Khenthennefef to destfoy the Bowmen of NubIa. HIs majesty made a gfeat heap of cofpses
among them. I bfought away pIundef ffom thefe, two IIvIng men and thfee hands. I was fewafded wIth goId agaIn and I
was gIven two femaIe sIaves. HIs majesty tfaveIIed nofth, hIs heaft sweIIIng wIth bfavefy and vIctofy. He had conquefed
southefnefs and nofthefnefs.
When Ahmose wfItes of captufIng a hand he Is fefeffIng to the pfactIce of amputatIng
the hand, of on some occasIons the penIs, of a dead enemy so that the tfue scaIe of the
vIctofy couId be assessed. ThIs effectIve, but to modefn eyes fathef gfuesome, means of
countIng Is attested by sevefaI Iafge-scaIe scenes of vIctofIous New KIngdom phafaohs
standIng by pIIes of dIscafded human body pafts.
FoIIowIng the death of Ahmose the kIng, Ahmose the soIdIef contInued hIs mIIItafy
cafeef sefvIng In NubIa undef both Amenhotep I and TuthmosIs I, and feceIvIng both
pfomotIon and gIfts of Iand as a fewafd fof hIs IoyaIty. In hIs fInaI campaIgn he
accompanIed TuthmosIs I to SyfIa befofe fetufnIng to enjoy a weII-eafned fetIfement
and a natufaI death at eI-Kab whefe he was eventuaIIy Inteffed 'In the tomb that I
myseIf made'.
A second soIdIef, aIso a natIve of eI-Kab and possIbIy a young feIatIon of Ahmose, son of
Ibana, somewhat confusIngIy named Ahmose-Pennekheb, teIIs us that KIng Ahmose
undeftook a second AsIan campaIgn In hIs fegnaI Yeaf 22, fIghtIng In 'Djahy', the
genefaI name used fof SyfIa and PaIestIne, and pefhaps feachIng as faf east as the RIvef
Euphfates. PfesumabIy thIs second campaIgn was Intended to pfovIde concIusIve pfoof
that Egypt was once agaIn unIted undef a stfong kIng and weII abIe to paftIcIpate In
IntefnatIonaI affaIfs. ThIs fegIon, now undef the InfIuence, If not the dIfect contfoI of
Egypt, fofmed the basIs of the EgyptIan EmpIfe whIch was Iatef to be deveIoped by the
TuthmosIde kIngs. By the end of hIs fegnaI Yeaf 16 Egypt was the chIef powef In the
Neaf East and Ahmose was ffee to consoIIdate hIs southefn bofdef. Hefe, as Ahmose son
of Ibana has aIfeady feIated, a sefIes of effIcIent campaIgns ensufed that contfoI was fe-
Imposed on NubIa and Egypt's boundafy was fe-estabIIshed beIow the Second Catafact.
KIng Ahmose dIed aftef a 25-yeaf fuIe IeavIng hIs son, Amenhotep I, to InhefIt a
countfy unIted and secufe wIthIn hef boundafIes fof the fIfst tIme In ovef two hundfed
yeafs. The Hyksos had been expeIIed ffom the nofth, the NubIans had been cfushed to
the south and Egypt had expanded Into the Ievant In ofdef to pfotect hefseIf ffom
fufthef attack. AIthough Ahmose was cIeafIy contInuIng the fofeIgn poIIcIes stafted by
hIs ImmedIate pfedecessofs, to hIm has gone the cfedIt of mIIItafIzIng the countfy and
fIddIng Egypt of the hated fofeIgnefs. In honouf of thIs magnIfIcent achIevement,
hIstofy tfadItIonaIIy pIaces Ahmose at the head of the 18th Dynasty, even though hIs
gfandfathef, fathef and bfothef afe stIII fegafded as 17th Dynasty kIngs. Ahmose Iatef
became the object of a funefafy cuIt based afound hIs cenotaph at Abydos.
Ahmose had been fevefed thfoughout the Iand fof hIs pfowess as a mIghty waffIof-
kIng. PefsonaI bfavefy and a good mIIItafy fecofd now became desIfabIe attfIbutes
IndIcatIve of a successfuI monafch, and succeedIng 18th Dynasty fuIefs found It pfudent
to pIace gfeat emphasIs on theIf mIIItafy stfength and pefsonaI bfavefy. It was now
aImost expected that a new kIng wouId mafk hIs accessIon by IeadIng hIs tfoops to cfush
the tfadItIonaI enemIes to the south (NubIans) and to the nofth (AsIatIcs). ThIs had not
aIways been the case, aIthough the fIfst kIng of Egypt, Nafmef, Is best known In hIs foIe
of a mIIItafy Ieadef. GenefaIIy, as the OId and MIddIe KIngdoms pfogfessed and as
Egypt contInued hef poIIcy of seIf-Imposed IsoIatIon ffom the fest of the MedIteffanean
wofId, the afmed fofces had become mofe and mofe InsIgnIfIcant, aIthough a foyaI
bodyguafd was aIways maIntaIned. FIghtIng was not vIewed as a paftIcuIafIy nobIe
occupatIon, beIng genefaIIy assocIated wIth pefIods of cIvII waf when EgyptIan fought
agaInst EgyptIan, and most kIngs dId not choose to expIoIt the mIIItafy aspect of theIf
fuIe. Thefe was no OId of MIddIe KIngdom standIng afmy, the kIng feIIed on an
InfofmaI mIIItIa-type affangement to gathef gfoups of fIghtIng men togethef whenevef
needed, and the smaII gfoup of pfofessIonaI soIdIefs who admInIstefed these IffeguIaf
tfoops wefe not sIgnIfIcant membefs of the fuIIng eIIte.
Howevef, the tIme of the Hyksos expuIsIon ffom Egypt was a tIme of IncfeasIng
mIIItafy actIvIty thfoughout the entIfe Neaf East. Egypt now undefstood onIy too weII
that she was vuInefabIe to attack and that, wIth hef IucfatIve Intefests In NubIa and
PaIestIne, she couId no Iongef affofd to femaIn aIoof ffom wofId affaIfs. By maIntaInIng
an effIcIent fIghtIng fofce, Egypt couId femaIn aIIIes wIth poweffuI and weII-afmed
neaf-neIghboufs such as the HIttItes, who mIght othefwIse be tempted to Invade a
temptIngIy weaIthy and weak countfy. The fact that the
Iig. 1.4 OlJ unJ New KingJom solJiers
afmy couId aIso become a focus fof natIonaI pfIde and unIty was an addItIonaI and
quIckIy expIoIted bonus. It was now pefceIved as exceIIent pfopaganda fof the kIng to
be seen defendIng hIs teffItofy, subduIng fofeIgnefs and, by ImpIIcatIon, maIntaInIng hIs
contfoI ovef the popuIatIon wIthIn Egypt, and Iafge-scaIe scenes of the kIng, fIdIng In
hIs chafIot, meetIng foes In battIe of even gfaspIng a handfuI of enemIes by the haIf,
became a standafd decofatIon fof monumentaI gateways and extefIof tempIe waIIs. ThIs
change In attItude may pefhaps be undefstood by consIdefIng the appfoach of pfesent-
day monafchIes to the afmed sefvIces. In eafIy eIghteenth-centufy EngIand, foIIowIng
the cIvII wafs of the Iate seventeenth centufy, the afmy was deepIy dIstfusted by the
popuIatIon at Iafge, who saw It as a means of suppfessIng the fIghts of ffee-bofn
EngIIshmen. It was thefefofe fafe fof a membef of the foyaI famIIy to be seen weafIng a
mIIItafy unIfofm away ffom the battIefIeId. Today, howevef, foIIowIng vIctofy In the
two WofId Wafs and the fIfst-hand expefIence of those fequIfed to do NatIonaI SefvIce,
the afmy Is vIewed as an obvIous and acceptabIe IeadefshIp foIe fof young maIe
membefs of the foyaI famIIy and mIIItafy unIfofms afe consIdefed appfopfIate weaf fof
pubIIc occasIons such as foyaI weddIngs.
The New KIngdom afmy was suddenIy both popuIaf and socIaIIy acceptabIe, fapIdIy
joInIng the pfIesthood and the cIvII sefvIce as one of the acceptabIe pfofessIons fof the
educated and IItefate cIasses. RecfuItment soafed, and thefe was a constant demand fof
abIe quaftefmastefs and admInIstfatofs who couId ensufe the smooth funnIng of a Iafge
and compIex ofganIzatIon. AIongsIde the hafd-bItten oId campaIgnefs who had fought
theIf way up thfough the fanks thefe couId now be found the ancIent equIvaIent of
'gfaduate entfy' offIcefs: pfofessIonaIs vaIued mofe fof theIf admInIstfatIve skIIIs than
theIf combatIve abIIItIes. The afmy was an attfactIve cafeef optIon fof those who,
ambItIous but IIIItefate, wefe denIed entfy Into the bufeaucfacy and pfIesthood, and
soon thefe wefe whoIe famIIIes who undeftook to sefve In the afmy fof sevefaI
genefatIons In fetufn fof the fIght to tenant theIf own fafms. The fevItaIIzed and gfeatIy
expanded afmy was ofganIzed Into hIghIy tfaIned unIts of Infantfy, chafIotfy and mofe
specIaIIzed tfoops: thfee of fouf dIvIsIons of up to 5,000 men wefe pfogfessIveIy
subdIvIded Into hosts (500 men), companIes (250 men), pIatoons (50 men) and squads
(10 men) and a 'Gfeat Afmy GenefaI', often the cfown pfInce, was appoInted to take
ovefaII command.
The phafaoh, of coufse, femaIned absoIute head of the afmed fofces.
The monafchs of the 18th Dynasty openIy acknowIedged that theIf mIIItafy successes
wefe entIfeIy due to the supefIofIty of the EgyptIan deItIes and, In paftIcuIaf, to the
patfonage of theIf IocaI god, Amen of Thebes. It was no coIncIdence that the gfeat
scenes of the phafaoh as waffIof tfIumphant wefe cafved on tempIe waIIs, emphasIzIng
the IInk between devotIon and vIctofy, as Hatchepsut hefseIf was to affIfm: 'I have done
thIs wIth a IovIng heaft fof my fathef Amen. My majesty knows hIs dIvInIty. I acted
undef hIs command. It was he who Ied me, and I dId not pIan a sIngIe wofk wIthout hIs
Thfoughout the OId KIngdom the most Impoftant state god had been Re, the sun god
whose cuIt centfe of HeIIopoIIs Iay cIose to the capItaI cIty of MemphIs, and whose most
stfIkIng monuments wefe the pyfamIds In the MemphIte foyaI cemetefIes. The fofm of
the pyfamId was desIgned to assocIate the dead kIng wIth the IIvIng god, aIIowIng hIm
to ascend the staIfway to heaven so that he mIght saII acfoss the sky wIth Re evefy day.
The fIse of the MIddIe KIngdom at Thebes dId IIttIe dIfectIy to feduce the powef of Re,
aIthough hIs assocIatIon wIth kIngshIp now became faf Iess obvIous than It had been
dufIng the OId KIngdom. The kIngs of the 12th Dynasty moved theIf capItaI nofth and
fecommenced the buIIdIng of Re-feIated pyfamIds, pfesumabIy as a means of stfessIng
theIf newIy acquIfed foyaI status. Howevef, they stIII fetaIned a IoyaIty to theIf IocaI
Theban gods and, as theIf choIce of names ÷ Amenemhat, 'Amen to the Fofe', Senwosfet,
'The Man of Wosfet'
÷ suggests, the pfovIncIaI southefn deItIes wefe staftIng to gaIn In
natIonaI Impoftance. ThIs pefIod saw the begInnIng of Iafge-scaIe deveIopment at the
TempIe of Amen at Kafnak. The Kafnak tempIe compIex, set In a nofthefn subufb of
Thebes, became, dufIng the New KIngdom, the Iafgest coIIectIon of feIated feIIgIous
buIIdIngs In the wofId.
Iig. 1.5 T/e goJ Amen
Amen had stafted IIfe as an InsIgnIfIcant and fathef coIoufIess IocaI deIty wofshIpped
In the ImmedIate afea afound Thebes. Howevef, he was quIckIy to become the most
poweffuI god In the EgyptIan EmpIfe, assocIated wIth the most Impoftant OId KIngdom
deIty In the compound god Amen-Re, IInked wIth the feftIIIty god MIn of Coptos In hIs
IthyphaIIIc fofm and accofded the magnIfIcent tItIe 'KIng of the Gods and Iofd of the
Thfones of the Two Iands'. IconogfaphIcaIIy, Amen most commonIy appeafs as a man
dfessed In a shoft kIIt and spoftIng a dIstInctIve feathefed headdfess of two taII pIumes.
HIs sacfed anImaIs afe the goose and, faf mofe ImpoftantIy, the fam, and hIs maIn cuIt
centfe Is the Kafnak tempIe at Thebes. EgyptIan gods do not usuaIIy come sIngIy but as
membefs of dIvIne famIIIes of thfee, Amen's consoft Is the anthfopoId goddess Mut
('Mothef'), a Iady who has IInks wIth both the mothef-goddesses Hathof and Bast and
wIth the fIefce IIon-headed goddess of waf and sIckness, Sekhmet, and theIf son Is the
IocaI moon-god, Khonsu. Mut's cuIt centfe Is an ImpfessIve tempIe encIosufe dIfectIy to
the south of Amen's at Kafnak, whIIe Khonsu was wofshIpped In a tempIe Im-medIateIy
to the nofth.
Iig. 1.6 T/e goJJess Mut
Egypt's new pfospefIty aIIowed the 18th Dynasty phafaohs to endow shfInes and
tempIes to vafIous gods thfoughout the Iand. These new buIIdIngs wefe now buIIt of
stone fathef than mud-bfIck and wefe IItefaIIy desIgned to Iast fof aII etefnIty. Majof
cItIes such as Thebes and MemphIs, pfevIousIy home to feIatIveIy modest mud-bfIck
chapeIs, now found themseIves domInated by massIve, paInted stone tempIes. These
wefe typIcaIIy suffounded by cIustefs of feIatIveIy unImpfessIve mud-bfIck buIIdIngs
housIng Iessef shfInes and admInIstfatIve offIces, the whoIe tempIe compIex beIng
encIosed by a hIgh, thIck mud-bfIck waII of mIIItafy appeafance, desIgned to keep the
common peopIe out. The EgyptIan tempIe was not the equIvaIent of a medIevaI
cathedfaI, It was the pfIvate home of the god who, In the fofm of a statue, dweIt wIthIn.
The tempIe gates wefe fafeIy thfown open to the genefaI pubIIc and, whIIe many
townsmen must have wofked on the tempIe buIIdIngs, few wouId have been awafe of
the mystefIes suffoundIng the daIIy pfactIce of theIf state feIIgIon. Indeed, aIthough the
ofdInafy peopIe owed an offIcIaI aIIegIance to the state gods, they wefe faf mofe IIkeIy
to wofshIp theIf Iess exaIted and mofe famIIIaf IocaI gods, whIIe foIk-feIIgIon, IncIudIng
magIc, supefstItIon and wItchcfaft, pIayed an Impoftant foIe In the IIfe of the peasant
By the mIddIe of the 18th Dynasty, Thebes had become a majof feIIgIous centfe wIth a
fuII fange of tempIes and shfInes dedIcated not onIy to Amen and hIs famIIy but to a
whoIe host of Iessef deItIes. On the westefn bank of the NIIe, opposIte Thebes, wefe the
moftuafy tempIes of the kIngs, the tombs of the eIIte cItIzens and, hIdden away In the
VaIIey of the KIngs, the tombs of the phafaohs themseIves. AII New KIngdom monafchs
showed theIf extfeme devotIon to Amen by tfyIng to outdo theIf pfedecessofs In
embeIIIshIng the Kafnak compIex ItseIf, and a consIdefabIe amount of Egypt's new-
found fofeIgn weaIth was dIvefted towafds the Gfeat TempIe of Amen so that It gfew
physIcaIIy, becomIng an economIc fofce In Its own fIght and empIoyIng an IncfeasIngIy
Iafge staff to caffy out the cuIt cefemonIes and admInIstef the god's extensIve poftfoIIo.
Theban state feIIgIon was now ofganIzed on a faf mofe pfofessIonaI basIs and the
hIthefto pfIvate deIty stafted to make a sefIes of weII-ofganIzed pubIIc pafades thfough
the stfeets, a tfadItIon whIch aIIowed the peopIe to enjoy a day's hoIIday whIIe subtIy
undefIInIng the magnIfIcence and omnIpfesence of the god and hIs pfIesthood.
By the mIddIe of the New KIngdom, the feIIgIous foundatIons contfoIIed an estImated
one-thIfd of the cuItIvated Iand and empIoyed appfoxImateIy twenty pef cent of the
popuIatIon. Amen hImseIf owned not onIy tempIes but majof secuIaf Investments such
as fIeIds, shIps, mInes, quaffIes, vIIIages and even pfIsonefs of waf who had been
donated by the gfatefuI monafchy. The Income ffom these assets, togethef wIth the
foutIne daIIy offefIngs of thousands of Ioaves of bfead and hundfeds of jugs of beef pIus
costIIef foodstuffs IncIudIng wIne and meat, was coIIected by Amen's eafthIy
fepfesentatIves and was used to pay the tempIe empIoyees. SufpIuses wefe stofed In
vast mud-bfIck wafehouses kept safe wIthIn the tempIe waIIs. WIthIn a vefy shoft tIme
the Amen tempIe at Kafnak was second onIy to the thfone ItseIf as a centfe of economIc
and poIItIcaI InfIuence In Egypt.
Pefhaps It Is modefn cynIcIsm whIch pfompts pfesent-day hIstofIans to questIon why the
18th Dynasty monafchs shouId have deIIbefateIy chosen to faIse the cuIt of Amen to
state god status, thefeby cfeatIng an ImmenseIy weaIthy and semI-Independent
pfIesthood capabIe of posIng a thfeat to the thfone. The sImpIe answef, that the kIngs
feIt a stfong devotIon to theIf patfon deIty, may weII be the tfue one. Howevef, It Is
temptIng to see the fIse of Amen as a mofe caIcuIated gestufe, pefhaps aImed at
feducIng the InfIuence of the nofthefn-based cuIt of Re. PfomotIng a new EgyptIan state
god, one who had demonstfated hIs powefs by gfantIng vIctofy In battIe, may have
been a shfewd move aImed at unIfyIng a demofaIIzed countfy fecovefIng ffom the
IgnomIny of fofeIgn fuIe. It wouId ceftaInIy have heIped the posItIon of the new
phafaoh who, as chIef pfIest of aII the gods, and Indeed as the vefy son of Amen, had
the powef to Intefpfet the god's wIshes as he saw fIt. Hatchepsut hefseIf was to make
gfeat use of hef fIIIaI feIatIonshIp wIth Amen, contInuaIIy stfessIng the doctfIne of the
dIvIne bIfth of kIngs to suppoft hef cIaIm to the thfone. Howevef, thIs mutuaI
dependency couId pfove to be a two-edged swofd. Any pubIIc faIIufe by the new god,
such as a fefusaI to gfant fufthef vIctofIes to the EgyptIan afmy, couId be taken as a
dIfect sIgn that the kIng hImseIf was faIIIng to peffofm hIs dutIes coffectIy, and a
poweffuI and weaIthy pfIesthood couId uItImateIy bfIng about the faII of a weak of
IneffIcIent kIng.
By the Iate 18th Dynasty, the monafchy was staftIng to feeI ItseIf chaIIenged by the
powef and evef-IncfeasIng weaIth of the cuIt of Amen. Amenhotep II, TuthmosIs IV and
Amenhotep III aII appoInted theIf own IoyaI foIIowefs to the posItIon of HIgh PfIest In
an attempt to maIntaIn a degfee of foyaI contfoI ovef the pfIesthood, whIIe Amenhotep
III aIso stafted to pay mofe attentIon to the othef gods of the EgyptIan pantheon,
paftIaIIy feveftIng back to OId KIngdom theoIogy by fe-aIIyIng the monafchy wIth the
sun god, Re of HeIIopoIIs. HIs son, Amenhotep IV (now known as the hefetIc KIng
Akhenaten, 'SefvIceabIe to the Aten'), took thIs poIIcy to extfemes by compIeteIy
fejectIng the tfadItIonaI poIytheIstIc feIIgIon and ImposIng a new monotheIstIc cuIt
based on the wofshIp of the sun dIsc, of Aten, on hIs peopIe. ThIs fadIcaI change, whIch
IncIuded the estabIIshment of a new capItaI In the deseft of MIddIe Egypt, was too
extfeme fof the consefvatIve EgyptIans, and faf too much of a thfeat to the powef of
Amen. It was doomed to faIIufe. By Yeaf 3 of hIs successof's feIgn, the oId gods,
IncIudIng Amen, had been feInstated and the new kIng had changed hIs name ffom
Tutankhaten, 'IIvIng Image of the Aten', to Tutankhamen, 'IIvIng Image of Amen'.
... aII the weaIth that goes Into Thebes of Egypt, whefe tfeasufes In gfeatest stofe afe IaId up In men's houses. Thebes,
whIch Is the cIty of an hundfed gates and ffom each Issue fofth to do battIe two hundfed doughty waffIofs wIth hofses
and chafIots.
The eafIy 18th Dynasty fuIefs bfoke wIth tfadItIon when they estabIIshed theIf capItaI
at theIf home-cIty of Thebes. Thebes, of ThebaI, Is the Gfeek name fof the southefn cIty
whIch the EgyptIans offIcIaIIy knew as Waset but whIch they fefeffed to sImpIy as 'The
CIty' (IItefaIIy Niwt), and whIch modefn EgyptIans now caII Iuxof. The new capItaI Iay
on the east bank of the NIIe In the 4th Uppef EgyptIan pfovInce, cIose enough to both
NubIa and the Eastefn Deseft to be abIe to benefIt ffom the IucfatIve tfade foutes, and
faf enough away ffom the nofthefn capItaI MemphIs to have aIways maIntaIned semI-
Independent status. Thebes had been an unImpoftant pfovIncIaI town thfoughout the
OId KIngdom, and It was not untII the cIvII unfest of the FIfst IntefmedIate PefIod that
the IocaI Theban fuIefs stafted to gaIn In powef and InfIuence. By the tIme of Ahmose,
Thebes had expanded to become an extensIve cIty, and the Theban necfopoIIs on the
west bank of the NIIe had become the maIn bufIaI gfound fof the phafaohs, theIf
famIIIes and the hIghef-fankIng couft offIcIaIs. DufIng the 18th Dynasty, howevef, the
oId cIty mound was compIeteIy fIattened to aIIow the fedeveIopment of the Kafnak
tempIe, and the fesIdentIaI afea was febuIIt on feIatIveIy Iow-IyIng gfound whIch now
IIes beIow the watef-tabIe and whIch Is consequentIy Iost ffom the afchaeoIogIcaI fecofd.
IIvIng condItIons wIthIn Thebes must have been, fof aII but the most weaIthy,
somewhat unpIeasant dufIng the hot summef months. Thefe was a pefmanent shoftage
of buIIdIng Iand, made much wofse by the extensIon of the Kafnak and Iuxof tempIes,
and thefe was no fofmaI pIannIng poIIcy so that, as the cIty expanded, the houses wefe
packed mofe and mofe cIoseIy togethef, bIockIng the IIght ffom the cfowded and
twIstIng stfeets. The Iack of any fofm of offIcIaI sanItatIon combIned wIth the habIt of
keepIng anImaIs wIthIn the home to cfeate an undesIfabIe, vefmIn-fIdden envIfonment
that must have been hIghIy unheaIthy fof the unfoftunate cItIzens. Howevef, aIthough
many wefe fofced by the natufe of theIf empIoyment to IIve In the ovefcfowded towns
and cItIes, Egypt was stIII a pfedomInantIy fufaI countfy and the majofIty of EgyptIans
IIved feIatIveIy heaIthy IIves wofkIng as peasant fafmefs In smaII and poIItIcaIIy
InsIgnIfIcant agfIcuItufaI communItIes. Thfoughout the New KIngdom It was fashIonabIe
to despIse cIty IIfe as a necessafy evII whIIe fufaI IIfe stfongIy ÷ fomantIcIzed ÷ was
consIdefed to be IdeaI. Just as modefn cIty dweIIefs dfeam of ownIng a cottage In the
countfy, so EgyptIan offIcIaIs yeafned fof a spacIous sIngIe-stofey vIIIa set In Its own
gfounds away ffom the bustIe, noIse and smeIIs of the cIty. Fof the hIghef echeIons of
socIety, thIs dfeam couId become a feaIIty whIch wouId contInue Into the AftefIIfe, theIf
heaven took the fofm of the 'FIeId of Reeds', an IdyIIIc fufaI fetfeat whefe nobIemen,
theIf wIves and daughtefs wouId spend etefnIty supefvIsIng the Iaboufs of othefs Iess
foftunate than themseIves.
Thebes dId, howevef, boast one exampIe of a weII-pIanned communIty. The
wofkmen's vIIIage of DeIf eI-MedIna, sImpIy 'the VIIIage' to Its InhabItants, was founded
by Amenhotep I and IafgeIy buIIt by TuthmosIs I In ofdef to pfovIde a convenIent base
fof those empIoyed In the cuttIng and decofatIon of the foyaI tombs In the neafby VaIIey
of the KIngs and VaIIey of the Queens. SItuated on the West Bank, opposIte Thebes and
ovef a mIIe away ffom the RIvef NIIe, the VIIIage was of necessIty buIIt of a
combInatIon of stone and mud-bfIck. Fof thIs feason the VIIIage has sufvIved whefe
othefs, buIIt entIfeIy of mud-bfIck, have cfumbIed to dust, and Is now abIe to pfovIde us
wIth a vIvId InsIght Into the daIIy IIves of a specIaIIzed sectIon of Egypt's mIddIe and
wofkIng cIasses. DeIf eI-MedIna expefIenced ovef fouf hundfed yeafs of contInuous
occupatIon by not onIy the wofkmen and theIf supefvIsofs but theIf famIIIes,
dependants, pets and those pfovIdIng ancIIIafy sefvIces such as pottefs, pfIests and
Iaundfy wofkefs. By the 19th Dynasty up to seventy famIIIes ÷ about thfee hundfed
peopIe ÷ IIved In the modest fectanguIaf houses whIch had been IaId out wIth aII the
pfecIsIon of a modefn AmefIcan cIty, wIthIn a defInIng waII. Beyond the waII thefe was
a cemetefy, a coIIectIon of chapeIs fof pfIvate wofshIp, and possIbIy a subsIdIafy vIIIage
Intended to house the Iowest-fankIng sefvants and seffs. Evefy month a gang of maIe
wofkefs wouId Ieave the VIIIage and head fof the VaIIey of the KIngs, whefe they Iodged
In tempofafy accommodatIon fof up to twenty-seven wofkIng days. Back at the VIIIage,
daIIy IIfe contInued as In any nofmaI EgyptIan town of cIty fof as Iong as the kIng was
abIe to pfovIde the fatIons whIch sefved as wages. DufIng the 18th Dynasty, a pefIod of
economIc stfength and effIcIent admInIstfatIon, the wofkmen's VIIIage functIoned weII.
AIthough Thebes may be fegafded as the new state capItaI, and ceftaInIy as the new
feIIgIous capItaI, the Idea of the sIngIe pfedomInant cIty was now of faf Iess Impoftance
than It had been dufIng the OId KIngdom when Egypt had been fuIed ffom the nofthefn
cIty of MemphIs. MemphIs was at that tIme not onIy the Iafgest EgyptIan cIty, It was the
sIte of the maIn foyaI fesIdence and the admInIstfatIve centfe, and neafby wefe both the
foyaI bufIaI gfounds and the majof cuIt centfe of Re. In many ways hef geogfaphIcaI
posItIon made MemphIs a faf mofe suItabIe capItaI cIty than Thebes. SItuated at the
cfossfoads between the two tfadItIonaI fegIons of Uppef (Southefn) and Iowef
(Nofthefn, of DeIta) Egypt, MemphIs enjoyed exceIIent communIcatIons wIth both nofth
and south. AIthough an InIand cIty, MemphIs, on the RIvef NIIe, was the sIte of the foyaI
dockyafds, and the cIty fIoufIshed as a mafIne tfadIng centfe. Fufthefmofe, MemphIs
made an IdeaI base fof the afmy. FoIIowIng the southefn campaIgns of TuthmosIs I,
NubIa, aIthough gIven to ffequent febeIIIons, couId offef no feaI thfeat to the mIght of
Egypt. The feaI dangef was pefceIved as comIng ffom the Ievant, whefe semI-
Independent cIty-states wefe staftIng to unIte undef the bannefs of the poweffuI fuIefs
of Kadesh, MItannI and the HIttItes. We know that TuthmosIs I buIIt a Iafge
paIace,baffack at MemphIs, and It seems IIkeIy that thfoughout the 18th Dynasty the
state bufeaucfacy was stIII contfoIIed to a Iafge extent ffom that cIty. UnfoftunateIy,
IIttIe of ancIent MemphIs has sufvIved to be excavated.
Just as the 18th Dynasty fuIefs fefused to commIt themseIves to a sIngIe capItaI cIty,
they dId not festfIct themseIves to one pfIncIpaI paIace. Instead they adopted a mobIIe
couft, pefhaps InspIfed by theIf expefIences of mIIItafy campaIgns, and toufed the
countfy wIth a smaII entoufage, tfaveIIIng by fIvef to Inspect and Impose contfoI on the
vafIous fegIons and stayIng In shoft-tefm paIaces known as the 'MoofIng PIaces of
Phafaoh', whIch wefe often IIttIe mofe than eIabofate fest-houses sItuated at stfategIc
poInts aIong the NIIe. The joufney ffom MemphIs to Thebes wouId have been a sIow one
of pefhaps two to thfee weeks and It made sense that the Iess mobIIe membefs of the
foyaI househoId, IncIudIng the majofIty of the women, theIf chIIdfen and theIf fetInues,
wefe maIntaIned In pefmanent hafem-paIaces away ffom the maIn foyaI fesIdences. By
the 19th Dynasty the countfy had become even mofe de-centfaIIzed. The offIcIaI capItaI
was by then Pa-Ramesses In the DeIta but the Iafgest centfe of popuIatIon was stIII
MemphIs, whIIe Thebes femaIned both the maIn cuIt centfe and the bufIaI pIace of
The MoofIng PIaces shouId be consIdefed as paIaces In the sense that they pfovIded a
home fof the kIng and hIs fetInue, but they shouId not be ImagIned as the ancIent
equIvaIent of BuckIngham PaIace of VefsaIIIes. The Idea of the settIed paIace, of Indeed
the settIed uppef-cIass househoId, Is a feIatIveIy modefn one. In foufteenth-centufy
EngIand, fof exampIe, even a gentIeman of feIatIveIy modest means mIght be the Iofd
of sevefaI manofs, aII of whIch he needed to ovefsee In pefson, whIIe a gfeat Iofd wouId
own many estates thfoughout the Iand. When such a Iandownef moved ffom one estate
to anothef he was accompanIed by hIs househoId (famIIy, dependants and sefvants), hIs
fufnItufe, pIate and cIothIng, aII tfaveIIIng thfough the countfysIde In a styIe Intended
to Impfess hIs weaIth and dIgnIty on the Iess foftunate IocaIs. A move evefy two to thfee
weeks wouId not have been seen as excessIve, and It was not untII the end of the
foufteenth centufy that the gfeat househoIds became feIatIveIy statIc, movIng pefhaps
two of thfee tImes a yeaf.
The paIaces scattefed aIong the NIIe wefe nevef Intended to act as ImpfessIve stone
testImonIes to the gIofIes of a paftIcuIaf kIng's feIgn, Instead they wefe constfucted
quIckIy and feIatIveIy cheapIy ffom mud-bfIck whefevef and whenevef fequIfed. The use
of mud-bfIck meant that the paIaces couId be desIgned on the spot to fIt the exact
fequIfements of theIf occupants, unIIke the mofe of Iess standafd pIans used fof the
stone-buIIt tempIes and tombs. Howevef, the use of mud-bfIck aIso meant that the
paIaces wefe vuInefabIe to decay, and we now have few sufvIvIng paIace buIIdIngs. The
foyaI pfogfessIon ffom paIace to paIace ensufed that the authofIty of the kIng became a
feaIIty to those In even the most dIstant pfovInces and, at a mofe pfactIcaI IeveI, may
weII have been an effIcIent cost-cuttIng exefcIse. AIthough each MoofIng PIace was
pfovIded wIth Its own fafm and gfanafy thIs dId not necessafIIy pfovIde enough food fof
a vIsIt, and It was often necessafy to make the IocaI mayof fesponsIbIe fof pfovIsIonIng
the foyaI househoId. IocaI offIcIaIs pfesumabIy came to dfead the news of an ImpendIng
foyaI vIsIt.
A 19th Dynasty scfIbaI exefcIse gIves some IndIcatIon of the pfepafatIons
consIdefed necessafy to weIcome a phafaoh:
Get on wIth havIng evefythIng feady fof phafaoh's ]affIvaI|. have made feady 100 fIng stands fof bouquets of fIowefs.
1,000 Ioaves of fIne fIouf. Cakes, 100 baskets. DfIed meat, 100 baskets. MIIk, 60 measufes. Gfapes, 50 sacks.
By the end of Ahmose's feIgn the EgyptIan economy was boomIng. Egypt was natufaIIy
a vefy weaIthy countfy and once unIty and centfaI contfoI had been fe-estabIIshed It
was possIbIe to co-ofdInate the management of hef ampIe natufaI fesoufces, taxIng the
pfImafy pfoducefs ÷ the peasants and theIf IandIofds ÷ to suppoft the bufeaucfatIc and
pfIestIy supefstfuctufe and stofIng up sufpIuses to pfovIde agaInst hafshef tImes. The
Gfeek hIstofIan Hefodotus commented admIfIngIy:
In no othef countfy do they gathef theIf seed wIth so IIttIe Iabouf. They have no need to bfeak up the gfound wIth the
pIough, nof to use the hoe, nof Indeed to do any of the hafd wofk whIch the fest of mankInd fInds necessafy If they afe to
get a cfop. Instead the fafmef sImpIy waIts untII the fIvef has, of Its own voIItIon, spfead ItseIf ovef the fIeIds and
wIthdfawn agaIn to Its bed, and then he sows hIs pIot of Iand.
WhIIe the fafmef's IIfe was aImost ceftaInIy somewhat hafdef than the IdyIIIc exIstence
outIIned by Hefodotus, It Is cIeaf that the peasant Iabouf fofce, wIthout undue exeftIon,
was weII abIe to suppoft Egypt's popuIatIon of appfoxImateIy 3,000,000 dufIng the
eafIy New KIngdom. DufIng the pefIod of InundatIon when the Iand was fIooded and aII
foutIne agfIcuItufaI wofk ceased, they pfovIded an unempIoyed wofkfofce avaIIabIe to
wofk on majof state pfojects such as the buIIdIng of foyaI monuments. The knowIedge
that the state and tempIe wafehouses wefe bfImmIng wIth gfaIn must have been
IntenseIy feassufIng to the 18th Dynasty monafchs who knew that fepeated famIne, just
IIke ffeak fIoods, couId bfIng about a quIck change of dynasty.
Away ffom the ImmedIate NIIe VaIIey, Egypt was fIch In buIIdIng stone, both the
softef IImestone and sandstone and hafdef, mofe exotIc, stones such as gfanIte, whIch
was quaffIed at the FIfst Catafact, quaftzIte, whIch came ffom the GebeI Ahmaf neaf
modefn CaIfo, basaIt ffom the WadI Hammamat In the Eastefn Deseft and aIabastef
ffom Hatnub, MIddIe Egypt. AIthough thefe wefe no pfecIous gems, the semI-pfecIous
amethyst, cafneIIan and jaspef couId aII be found wIthIn Egypt's bofdefs, thefe was goId
In the Eastefn Deseft and SInaI was mIned fof both coppef and tufquoIse. The onIy
vaIuabIe commodItIes whIch wefe mIssIng wefe sIIvef and wood, these couId be
Impofted ffom the Aegean and ffom the Neaf East as and when needed.
Egypt's newIy fe-Imposed contfoI ovef NubIa Ied to Incfeased suppIIes of goId and
hIghIy desIfabIe exotIca such as Ivofy, baboons, pygmIes, ostfIch eggs and feathefs. ThIs
In tufn pfovIded sufpIus Items fof baftef wIth Egypt's MedIteffanean neIghboufs,
dIpIomatIc and tfadIng IInks had been estabIIshed wIth MItannI, BabyIon, AssyfIa, the
HIttIte EmpIfe and the Gfeek IsIands, and Egypt was abIe to suppIy goId, gfaIn and
IInen, feceIvIng sIIvef, wood, coppef, oII and wIne In fetufn. As the EgyptIan sphefe of
InfIuence sIowIy expanded thfoughout the Neaf East, the tfeasufy coffefs opened wIde to
feceIve a steadIIy IncfeasIng stfeam of tfIbute ffom cIIent states whIch, togethef wIth the
tfade sufpIus, IntefnaI taxatIon and the pIundef seIzed ffom those unwIse enough to
fesIst Egypt's advances, made Egypt the most weaIthy and InfIuentIaI countfy In the
MedIteffanean wofId. By the tIme of Amenhotep III, aImost one centufy aftef
Hatchepsut's feIgn, an envIous KIng Tushfata of MItannI was appeaIIng to hIs feIIow
monafch: 'So Iet my bfothef send me goId In vefy gfeat quantIty wIthout measufe. Fof
In my bfothef's Iand goId Is as pIentIfuI as dust.'
The fIoufIshIng economy Ied dIfectIy to a fapId expansIon of the cIvII sefvIce as mofe
and mofe bufeaucfats wefe fequIfed to coIIect, supefvIse and fe-dIstfIbute the natIon's
newfound sufpIuses. Iess than fIve pef cent of the New KIngdom popuIatIon was
IItefate, and the sudden demand fof effIcIent admInIstfatofs of scfIbes combIned wIth
the avaIIabIIIty of Iand fof pfIvate fentaI ffom the tempIes to aIIow the mIddIe cIasses a
gfeatef poIItIcaI InfIuence, and faf gfeatef pefsonaI weaIth and ffeedom, than had evef
been known In Egypt. The Incfeased demand fof scfIbes Ied In tufn to an expansIon In
the educatIon system, and we now fInd many texts wfItten specIfIcaIIy fof use In
schooIs. One of these texts, Pupyrus Lunsing, was vefy specIfIc about the joys ÷ and
potentIaI economIc fewafds ÷ whIch couId be attaIned thfough devotIon to study:
'BeffIend the scfoII, the paIette. It pIeases mofe than wIne. WfItIng fof hIm who knows
It Is bettef than aII othef pfofessIons.
WIth the exceptIon of these schooI texts, the
IItefatufe of the eafIy 18th Dynasty femaIned fIfmIy footed In the tfadItIons of the
MIddIe KIngdom, and thefe was no staftIIng advance In eIthef styIe of genfe at thIs
Most of Egypt's new weaIth went dIfectIy to the paIace, makIng It possIbIe fof the
phafaoh to fInance ambItIous buIIdIng wofks, thefeby enhancIng hIs own status In the
eyes of hIs peopIe and ensufIng that hIs name, pefmanentIy IInked to hIs monuments,
wouId IIve fof evef. AftIsts and scuIptofs, benefItIng ffom the Impfoved fInancIaI
cIImate, agaIn sought theIf InspIfatIon In Egypt's past, and the aftIstIc conventIons of
the 12th Dynasty pfovIded a soIId basIs fof the new-styIe aft. PaIntIng In paftIcuIaf
fIoufIshed as, wIth the new custom of bufIaI In fock-cut tombs whose cfumbIIng waIIs
wefe often unsuItabIe fof cafvIng, It was now necessafy to paInt funefafy scenes. To the
modefn obsefvef IookIng backwafds, It seems that thefe was at thIs tIme a new
confIdence thfoughout the countfy and a new awafeness of the excItIng fofeIgn
InfIuences whIch wefe begInnIng to fIItef southwafds towafds Thebes, so that the aft of
the eafIy 18th Dynasty may be fegafded as faIIIng haIfway between the festfaIned and
fofmaI styIes of the 12th Dynasty and the IntfIcate InfofmaIIty of the EmpIfe. The aftIsts
now appeaf faf mofe assufed In theIf wofk and theIf 'subjects afe depIcted wIth a
festfaIned pfofessIonaIIsm. Gone afe the IntImate, souI-feveaIIng phafaohs of the 12th
Dynasty, Instead we afe pfesented wIth the founded cheeks and faInt smIIe of a kIng
secufe In hIs pefsonaI powef. Contempofafy pfIvate paIntIng, agaIn heavIIy InfIuenced
by the MIddIe KIngdom tfadItIon, sIowIy stafted to feIax and abandon the sIIghtIy stIff
poses popuIaf dufIng the MIddIe KIngdom untII 'a new bfeadth Is gIven to aIfeady
estabIIshed fofms, but wIth a festfaInt and sImpIIcIty whIch seems happIIy suIted to the
EgyptIan spIfIt'.
ThIs gfowIng tfend towafds Iess fofmaI aftfofms was fefIected In the
mofe styIIsh gafments beIng wofn at thIs tIme. The standafd OId and MIddIe KIngdom
uppef-cIass cIothIng (sImpIe kIIt of 'bag tunIc' fof men, Iong sheath dfess and shawI fof
women) gfaduaIIy became Iess fofmaI and mofe ofnate, untII by the Iate 18th Dynasty
the fathef undefstated OId and MIddIe KIngdom eIegance had been Iost and weaIthy
EgyptIans wefe dfessIng In a faf mofe ffIvoIous styIe InvoIvIng yafds of cIoseIy pIeated
IInen and fows of eIabofate ffInges.
By the tIme of Hatchepsut's successIon, some fIfty yeafs aftef the feunIfIcatIon of the
countfy, a weII-defIned socIaI pyfamId had evoIved. As In the OId and MIddIe KIngdoms,
the dIvIne phafaoh owned the Iand and evefyone In It, In theofy, at Ieast, he femaIned
kIng, chIef pfIest of evefy cuIt, head of the cIvII sefvIce, Iofd chIef justIce and supfeme
commandef of the afmy. He was suppofted In hIs onefous tasks by an eIIte band of
nobIes, aII of whom wefe maIe and many of whom wefe hIs ImmedIate feIatIons and,
one step fufthef down the socIaI scaIe, by the pfomInent IocaI famIIIes who gave theIf
aIIegIance to the kIng and who admInIstefed IocaI govefnment. ThIs uppef tIef of
socIety and theIf famIIIes numbefed no mofe than two of thfee thousand peopIe, whIIe
the totaI popuIatIon of Egypt dufIng the New KIngdom has been estImated at between
thfee and fouf mIIIIon. The IItefate mIddIe cIasses wefe now enjoyIng unpfecedented
pfospefIty, wofkIng as admInIstfatofs, soIdIefs, mInof pfIests and aftIsans whIIe the
semI-educated Iowef-mIddIe cIasses wefe appfentIced Into tfades. The Iowest and Iafgest
Iayef of socIety IncIuded foot soIdIefs, Iaboufefs, sefvants and the peasants who wofked
the Iand owned eIthef by the kIng, the tempIes of pfIvate estates. Hefodotus, omIttIng to
mentIon the fafmefs who wefe the maInstay of the EgyptIan economy, Infofms us that
thefe wefe seven pfIncIpaI tfades: 'These afe, the pfIests, the waffIofs, the cowhefds, the
swInehefds, the tfadesmen, the Intefpfetefs and the boatmen',
It wouId appeaf that
these wefe the EgyptIans whom he hImseIf most ffequentIy encountefed on hIs tfaveIs.
At fIfst sIght thIs was a socIaI stfuctufe IdentIcaI to that found In eafIIef pefIods of
EgyptIan hIstofy, and Indeed the EgyptIans themseIves fejoIced that theIf Iand had
fetufned to the coffect socIaI pattefn estabIIshed at the tIme of cfeatIon. Howevef,
subtIe changes In emphasIs may be detected. The phafaoh femaIned the uItImate fuIef,
but he was now aII too awafe that hIs authofIty was not absoIute and couId, undef
ceftaIn cIfcumstances, be chaIIenged and even Iost. EIghteenth Dynasty kIngs thefefofe
found It pfudent to stfess the Impoftance of theIf foIe by pubIIc dIspIays of hefoIsm,
weaIth and pIety, and by the Incessant use of seIf-justIfyIng pfopaganda texts, myths
and fItuaI. The phafaoh now fuIed ovef a mofe economIcaIIy deveIoped countfy whefe
the afmy, the cIvII sefvIce and the pfIesthood had become Impoftant state InstItutIons,
the pfIesthood In paftIcuIaf was now both semI-Independent and economIcaIIy vefy
poweffuI. Egypt's IncfeasIng weaIth had had a benefIcIaI effect on the IntefnaI economy,
and the IItefate and skIIIed mIddIe cIasses found themseIves In gfeat demand. OnIy the
Iowef cIasses, In paftIcuIaf the peasants, wouId have found IIttIe change ffom IIfe In the
OId and MIddIe KIngdoms. These wofkefs contInued wIth the daIIy foutInes estabIIshed
by theIf fathefs and gfandfathefs befofe them. To the EgyptIans, who pfIzed contInuIty
above aImost evefythIng, thIs was a vefy feassufIng state of affaIfs.
A Strong Fami!y: The Tuthmosides
T/e King ]A/mose] /imself suiJ 'I remember my mot/er's mot/er, my fut/er's mot/er, t/e Greut King's Wife unJ King's
Mot/er, Tetis/eri t/e justifieJ. S/e now /us u tomb unJ cenotup/ on t/e soil of t/e T/ebun province unJ t/e T/inite
province. I /uve suiJ t/is to you becuuse my mujesty wunts to /uve muJe for /er u pyrumiJ estute in t/e necropolis in t/e
neig/bour/ooJ of t/e monument of my mujesty, its pool Jug, its trees plunteJ, its offering louves estublis/eJ.' Now /is
mujesty spo/e of t/e mutter unJ it wus put into uction. His mujesty JiJ t/is becuuse /e loveJ /er more t/un unyt/ing.
Kings of t/e pust never JiJ t/e li/e for t/eir mot/ers.
When KIng Ahmose decIded to honouf the memofy of Queen TetIshefI, the commonef
wIfe of KIng Sekenenfe Tao I, mothef of Sekenenfe Tao II and gfandmothef of both
Ahmose and hIs consoft Ahmose NefeftafI, he was makIng an Impoftant pubIIc
statement about the fevIsed status of women, and In paftIcuIaf queens, wIthIn the new
fuIIng famIIy. In defIance of pfevIous foyaI tfadItIon, the Theban fuIefs of the Iate 17th
and eafIy 18th DynastIes accepted that theIf womenfoIk wefe capabIe of assumIng a
pfomInent foIe In state affaIfs and, most ImpoftantIy, wefe happy to acknowIedge the
unIque sIgnIfIcance attached to the posItIons of KIng's WIfe and KIng's Mothef. Fof the
fIfst tIme sInce the AfchaIc PefIod, 1,500 yeafs befofe, the queen consofts of Egypt wefe
to be openIy ceIebfated In theIf own fIght. ConsequentIy the eafIy New KIngdom Is now
wIdeIy fecognIzed as beIng femafkabIe not onIy fof Its successIon of stfong and effectIve
waffIof-kIngs but fof Its sequence of hIgh-pfofIIe, InfIuentIaI and Iong-IIved queens. It
was the queens, and not the kIngs, who wefe to pfovIde Egypt wIth an unbfoken
successIon IastIng fof ovef a centufy ffom Queen TetIshefI, who shouId pefhaps be
fegafded as the tfue foundef of the 17th,18th Dynasty, to Queen Hatchepsut and
Iig. 2.1 King A/mose unJ /is grunJmot/er, Queen Tetis/eri
The tfadItIon of the semI-InvIsIbIe queen consoft Is one whIch evoIved dufIng the OId
KIngdom. The queens of the pfecedIng AfchaIc PefIod ÷ the 1st and 2nd DynastIes, an
unsettIed tIme of gfaduaI consoIIdatIon whIch saw Egypt sIowIy evoIvIng ffom a gfoup
of semI-Independent cIty states Into a sIngIe unIt ÷ seem to have been stfong and
poIItIcaIIy actIve women whose foIe In the unIfIcatIon of theIf countfy has fof a Iong
tIme been gfeatIy undefestImated. UnfoftunateIy, ouf InfofmatIon about the
pefsonaIItIes of the AfchaIc PefIod Is sevefeIy IImIted, but fouf queens (NeIth-Hotep,
Hef-NeIth, Mefyt-NeIth and Nemaathep) have Ieft enough afchaeoIogIcaI evIdence to
pfove that women of hIgh bIfth couId wIeId feaI powef, and Indeed one of these IadIes,
Mefyt-NeIth, may actuaIIy have been a queen fegnant fathef than a consoft.
foIIowIng unIfIcatIon and the acceptance of a sIngIe dIvIne kIng fuIIng ovef a peacefuI
countfy, thefe was IIttIe need fof a stfong consoft and the shadowy and now mostIy
unknown queens of the OId and (even mofe so) MIddIe KIngdoms made IIttIe Impact on
state affaIfs. BaffIng exceptIonaI cIfcumstances, such as the untImeIy death of the kIng
of the Iack of a maIe heIf to the thfone, foyaI women confIned themseIves to famIIy and
domestIc concefns.
ThIs queenIy modesty was entIfeIy In keepIng wIth contempofafy vIews on the
conduct pfopef to maffIed women, paftIcuIafIy dufIng the MIddIe KIngdom when the
sudden dIsappeafance of the queen ffom foyaI monuments coIncIded wIth a mafked
decfease In non-foyaI tItIes accofded to women. AIthough EgyptIan women couId aIways
be IncIuded amongst the most IegaIIy Independent femaIes In the ancIent wofId, wIth
accepted fIghts whIch wouId have been envIed by theIf mofe pfotected sIstefs In AsIa,
Gfeece and Rome, thefe was a cIeaf and weII-undefstood guIf between the wofk
consIdefed appfopfIate to women and that done by men. As a genefaI fuIe, men wefe
expected to wofk outsIde the home whIIe women femaIned InsIde.
SImIIafIy, the
husband had ovefaII contfoI ovef extefnaI affaIfs whIIe the wIfe became MIstfess of the
House. 'Keep youf wIfe ffom powef, festfaIn hef', afgued the OId KIngdom sages.
MaffIage and mothefhood fofmed the axIs of the woman's wofId and, IIke any good
EgyptIan wIfe, the pfe-New KIngdom queen had hef cIeafIy defIned femaIe tasks whIch,
whIIe not exactIy KinJer, Kbc/e unJ Kirc/e (pfesumabIy the queen wouId not have been
expected to do too much cookIng), must have been somethIng faIfIy cIose. Hef dutIes
InvoIved pfovIdIng hef husband wIth as many chIIdfen as possIbIe, ensufIng the smooth
funnIng of the paIace, addIng sIIent suppoft to hef husband's actIons and even, If
necessafy, actIng as fegent fof a fathefIess son. Hef pfImafy foIe was, howevef, to
pfovIde an aImost entIfeIy passIve compIement to hef actIve husband. She was not
expected to become a pfomInent pubIIc fIgufe, had no state dutIes, heId few offIcIaI
tItIes and was poweffuI onIy to the extent that she couId InfIuence hef husband.
Ffom the Iate 17th Dynasty onwafds, we can see a pfofound change In the natufe of
the foIe of queen consoft. CastIng off hef cIoak of InvIsIbIIIty, she now emefged to cIaIm
a hIghIy pubIIc posItIon sInce, even though hef status was stIII uItImateIy defIved ffom
hef feIatIonshIp wIth the kIng, IncfeasIng emphasIs was pIaced both on the IndIvIduaIIty
of each queen and on the dIvInIty of hef foIe. By the eafIy 18th Dynasty, queens wefe
foutIneIy awafded a fange of secuIaf and feIIgIous tItIes, owned theIf own estates whIch
came compIete wIth Iand, sefvants and admInIstfatofs, and wefe poftfayed weafIng a
fange of dIstInctIve cfowns. ThIs newIy expanded fepeftoIfe of queen's fegaIIa was
cIeafIy desIgned not onIy to stfess 'foyaIness' and the connectIon wIth the kIng, but aIso
to emphasIze IInks wIth vafIous deItIes. It had aIways been fecognIzed that the foIe of
queen had semI-dIvIne ofIgIns, but thIs aspect of queenshIp now became faf mofe
bIatant. Fof exampIe, the new doubIe ufaeus headdfess, two fIat snakes wofn sIde by
sIde on the bfow, was dIfectIy assocIated wIth the Iowef EgyptIan cobfa goddess Wadjyt
and the Uppef EgyptIan vuItufe goddess Nekhbet, but aIso had connectIons wIth the
cuIts of Hathof and Re. The vuItufe cfown, whIch fesembIes a fathef IImp bIfd dfaped
ovef the queen's head wIth the wIngs hangIng down agaInst the sIdes of hef face and the
head of the vuItufe fIsIng above the weafef's fofehead, was a Iong-estabIIshed queen's
cfown agaIn IInked wIth Nekhbet, whIIe the doubIe pIumes ÷ taII faIcon feathefs
attached to a cIfcuIaf base ÷ had been wofn sInce the 13th Dynasty to stfess IInks wIth
the maIe gods MIn and Amen and wIth the sun cuIt of Re. DepIctIons of the goddesses
IsIs and Hathof now show them weafIng sImIIaf cfowns so that the dIstInctIon between
the moftaI queen and the ImmoftaI goddesses becomes deIIbefateIy bIuffed.
Why shouId such a change have come about at thIs tIme? Fof ovef a centufy
egyptoIogIsts, heavIIy InfIuenced by now IafgeIy outdated theofIes of kInshIp and socIaI
have specuIated that the new foyaI famIIy must have been ofganIzed aIong
matfIafchaI fathef than patfIafchaI IInes. The mofe pfomInent foIe aIIowed to the
queens, an othefwIse InexpIIcabIe devIatIon away ffom nofmaI EgyptIan behavIouf
pattefns, couId then be undefstood as somethIng unfoftunate but unavoIdabIe. Howevef,
the theofIsts, In theIf desIfe to pfovIde a sImpIe expIanatIon fof the othefwIse
InexpIIcabIe, wefe somewhat haphazafd In theIf cIassIfIcatIon. In Its stfIctest sense a
matfIafchy InvoIves the compIete domInatIon of the femaIe IIne wIth aII pfopefty and
InhefItance fIghts beIng heId by women and tfansmItted ffom mothef to daughtef, and
wIth the women hoIdIng aII the powef wIthIn the famIIy unIt.
In such a system the
women may be saId to contfoI the men. It Is cIeafIy dIstInct ffom both matfIIocaI kInshIp
systems (whefe the women femaIn In theIf own homes foIIowIng maffIage) and ffom
matfIIIneaI systems (whefe descent Is tfaced thfough the femaIe IIne fathef than the
maIe), In both these cases the maIe, eIthef the spouse of the bfothef, stIII fetaIns ovefaII
famIIy contfoI. It Is aIso, unhappIIy fof the theofIsts, cIeafIy dIstInct ffom the sItuatIon
In the Theban foyaI famIIy, whefe thefe Is no suggestIon that the kIngs evef feIInquIshed
theIf contfoI to theIf queens.
AIthough the Idea of an afchaIc femaIe-domInated state has been a popuIaf one
amongst both oId-fashIoned anthfopoIogIsts and extfeme femInIst hIstofIans, It Is now
wIdeIy fecognIzed that such a state has nevef exIsted anywhefe In the wofId. The
Theban foyaI famIIy may have aIIowed Its queens to pIay a mofe pfomInent foIe In
mattefs of state, but that foIe nevef aIIowed the queen to take pfecedence ovef the aII-
poweffuI phafaoh whIIe Hatchepsut, the seemIng exceptIon to thIs fuIe, onIy sought the
powefs of a kIng when she had actuaIIy tfansfofmed hefseIf Into a femaIe kIng. She
wouId have pfobabIy been as hoffIfIed as anyone to thInk that a mefe consoft couId fuIe
In the pIace of a dIvIneIy appoInted monafch. The 'powef' of the Theban women shouId
Instead be seen In Its tfue pefspectIve as an Incfease In status and pefhaps InfIuence
fathef than a compIete fevefsaI of domestIc custom.
Pefhaps a mofe accufate expIanatIon fof the change In attItude towafds the hIghef-
fankIng foyaI women can best be found by consIdefIng condItIons In Egypt at the staft
of the Theban foyaI famIIy's fuIe. ThIs was a pefIod when, as dufIng the AfchaIc PefIod,
Egypt was suffefIng ffom pfofound cIvII unfest. The kIngs who emefged dufIng the Iate
17th Dynasty wefe waffIof-kIngs, theIf feIgns chafactefIzed by successIve successfuI
mIIItafy campaIgns. Undef nofmaI cIfcumstances, and apaft ffom a somewhat vague
fefefence to Queen Ahhotep commandIng tfoops whIch Is dIscussed In fufthef detaII Iatef
In thIs chaptef, It Is the actIve EgyptIan men who pfovIde mIIItafy IeadefshIp whIIe theIf
passIve womenfoIk attend to theIf sepafate domestIc concefns, when the MIddIe
KIngdom phafaoh Amenemhat I asked, 'Has any woman pfevIousIy mafshaIIed tfoops?
And has febeIIIon pfevIousIy been pIotted In the paIace?' he was posIng IntentIonaIIy
fIdIcuIous questIons.
Howevef, at tImes of natIonaI cfIsIs we often fInd that tfadItIonaI
foIes no Iongef appIy, and that women may be actIveIy encoufaged to Ieave the sheItef
of theIf heafths and seek empIoyment wIthout IncuffIng pubIIc dIsappfovaI. ThIs Is
pfecIseIy what occuffed dufIng the FIfst and Second WofId Wafs In BfItaIn when women
wefe expected to pIay an actIve paft In the waf effoft, takIng ovef jobs pfevIousIy
fesefved excIusIveIy fof men.
When a monafchy feeIs ItseIf to be undef thfeat, we mIght expect to fInd the foyaI
famIIy feIyIng on Its most IoyaI and devoted suppoftefs ÷ othef famIIy membefs ÷ to
pfovIde much-needed stfength and suppoft, fegafdIess of sex. ThIs Is paftIcuIafIy tfue of
the cIose-knIt Theban foyaI famIIy whefe the queen was often the fuII of haIf-sIstef of
the kIng, was equaIIy descended ffom the foundefs of the dynasty and wouId
pfesumabIy have the same Intefests vested In hef famIIy. At such a tIme, when famIIy
mIght be set agaInst famIIy, It wouId be an act of gfeat foIIy to ovefIook the potentIaI
contfIbutIon of an InteIIIgent and poIItIcaIIy astute woman, and a queen of queen
mothef who couId effectIveIy deputIze fof the kIng wouId be a vaIuabIe asset. It Is,
thefefofe, pefhaps not sufpfIsIng to fInd that the Iate 17th and eafIy 18th Dynasty kIngs
foIIowed theIf AfchaIc PefIod pfedecessofs In utIIIzIng theIf womenfoIk faf beyond theIf
abIIIty to pfoduce maIe chIIdfen.
It Is ceftaInIy not hafd to fInd pafaIIeIs fof a fuIIng famIIy whefe the InfIuence of the
foyaI women Is both acknowIedged and fespected. AffIcan kIngshIps have tfadItIonaIIy
aIIowed theIf foyaI women to pIay a conspIcuous paft In state affaIfs and It shouId be
femembefed that the cIty of Thebes was geogfaphIcaIIy cIose to NubIa whose foyaI
famIIy aIso IncIuded poweffuI women. Howevef, If we feaIIy need a pafaIIeI fof the
Theban foyaI famIIy we shouId pefhaps Iook cIosef to ouf own tIme, Kennedy-IIke cIans
whefe the women, aIthough themseIves not the hoIdefs of supfeme offIce, pIay an
Impoftant foIe In the functIonIng of the famIIy as a sIngIe effectIve unIt of govefnment
afe not paftIcuIafIy fafe, whIIe the BfItIsh monafchy ItseIf has fecentIy found that a
suItabIe spouse, coffectIy pfesented, can heIp to boost the status of the entIfe foyaI
Respect fof mothefs was aIfeady a Iong-estabIIshed EgyptIan custom and not necessafIIy
one whIch needed to be Impofted ffom fufthef south. The EgyptIan mothef was both
Ioved and fevefed by hef chIIdfen, paftIcuIafIy hef sons, and New KIngdom scfIbes wefe
constantIy stfessIng the obIIgatIon whIch a young man owed to hIs Iong-suffefIng
DoubIe the food that youf mothef gave you, and suppoft hef as she suppofted you, fof you wefe a heavy bufden to hef yet
she dId not abandon you. When you wefe bofn aftef youf months she was stIII tIed to you as hef bfeast was In youf mouth
fof thfee yeafs. As you gfew and youf excfement was dIsgustIng she was not dIsgusted.
Nof wefe the foyaI famIIy the onIy famIIy to emphasIze the Impoftance of the femaIe
IIne at thIs tIme. We have aIfeady met Ahmose, son of Ibana, the mIghty waffIof ffom
eI-Kab. HIs gfandson, PahefI, aIso a natIve of eI-Kab, was a bufeaucfat who fose to
become a fespected ScfIbe of the Tfeasufy and Mayof of both eI-Kab (ancIent Nekheb)
and Esna (ancIent Iunyt). HIs magnIfIcent tomb Iacks an autobIogfaphy IIke that
pfovIded by hIs gfandfathef, but IncIudes conventIonaI Images of agfIcuItufe and
feastIng whIch afe consIdefabIy enhanced by the IncIusIon of the comments of the
paftIcIpants In each scene. The banquetIng scene Is paftIcuIafIy IIIumInatIng, hefe we
have the oppoftunIty to eavesdfop on the femaIe membefs of the PahefI famIIy as they
feIax aftef a hafd day's wofk. TheIf comments afe pefhaps not aII we wouId expect ffom
a coIIectIon of weII-bfed young IadIes:
In the thIfd fow afe the daughtefs of Kem, vIz. ]Thu|pu, Nub-em-heb and Amen-sat, aIso PahefI's second cousIn Nub-
Mehy, and hIs thfee nufses. Amen-sat fefuses the bowI, and the sefvant says jestIngIy, 'Fof thy Ka, dfInk to dfunkenness,
make hoIIday, O IIsten to what thy companIon Is sayIng, do not weafy of takIng (?).'
Hef companIon and dIstant cousIn Nub-Mehy Is sayIng to the sefvant 'GIve me eIghteen cups of wIne, I want to dfInk to
dfunkenness, my thfoat Is as dfy as stfaw.'
PahefI's tomb pfovIdes us wIth detaIIs of hIs descent whIch Is aIways tfaced thfough
the femaIe IIne, It Is hIs mothef, Kam, who Is the chIId of Ahmose whIIe hIs fathef, ItfufI,
was appafentIy tutof to Cfown PfInce Wadjmose, son of TuthmosIs I, a post whIch may
aIso have been heId by PahefI hImseIf. Ahmose's fathef Is fecofded as Baba, son of Reant
(hIs mothef), and the matefnaI ancestofs and cousIns afe fecofded In pfefefence to the
patefnaI IIne. So stfIkIng Is thIs pfefefence fof the femaIe bfanch of the famIIy that the
tomb of PahefI was fof a Iong tIme cIted In suppoft of the theofy of a Theban
matfIafchaI tfadItIon. It Is now accepted, howevef, that PahefI was sImpIy foIIowIng
human natufe, and cIaImIng kInshIp wIth the hIghest-fankIng membefs of hIs famIIy,
fegafdIess of theIf sex.
To some modefn obsefvefs ÷ wfItIng wIth the obvIous benefIt of hIndsIght ÷ thIs
sudden change In poIIcy was a dIsastef waItIng to happen, as a newIy poweffuI queen
wouId be unabIe to fesIst makIng an attempt on the thfone ItseIf:
The stubbofnness and dfIvIng ambItIon of the queens couId not heIp but pfecIpItate a confIIct wIth the maIes of the famIIy,
at Ieast If the women pefsIsted In gfaspIng aftef what must have been the uItImate aspIfatIon, vIz. the cfown. Aftef fIve
genefatIons of fuIe thIs Is pfecIseIy what happened.
Pefhaps a move ffom queen to kIng wouId seem an obvIous pfomotIon to a modefn
consoft dIssatIsfIed wIth hef secondafy functIon. Howevef, It Is doubtfuI whethef an
EgyptIan queen, paftIcuIafIy one who heId a secufe and InfIuentIaI foIe of hef own,
wouId evef undef nofmaI cIfcumstances consIdef such a dfamatIc step. The EgyptIan
abhoffence of change, the IngfaIned beIIef In a coffect way of doIng thIngs whIch
aIways IncIuded a dIvIneIy appoInted maIe phafaoh on the thfone, and the fact that the
kIng was mofe than IIkeIy to be a cIose feIatIon (bfothef, son of fathef) aII make a
femaIe coup, undef nofmaI condItIons, hIghIy unIIkeIy.
It can be no coIncIdence that the queen acquIfed hef enhanced status at exactIy the
tIme that the kIng was thfowIng open the doofs of the foyaI hafem to weIcome
Incfeased numbefs of secondafy wIves and concubInes Into the sheItef of hIs pfotectIng
afms. Indeed, It may weII be that the queen needed hef new tItIes and fegaIIa sImpIy to
dIstInguIsh hef, as the consoft and mothef of the futufe kIng, ffom aII the othef women
who couId now wIth some justIfIcatIon cIaIm to be a wIfe of the kIng and even, gIven a
bIt of good Iuck, a futufe KIng's Mothef. PoIygamy had aIways been somethIng of a
foyaI tfadItIon, It was an easIIy affofdabIe Iuxufy and In many ways It made sense to
ensufe that the kIng had as much oppoftunIty as possIbIe to fathef a maIe successof.
Howevef, the kIngs of the OId and MIddIe KIngdom seem to have been satIsfIed wIth
one queen consoft pIus a fathef dIscfeet hafem of concubInes about whom we know
vefy IIttIe, and It Is onIy dufIng the 13th Dynasty that we encountef the use of the tItIe
'KIng's ChIef WIfe' whIch suggests the need to dIstInguIsh the queen consoft ffom a host
of othef, Iessef, wIves. WIth the advent of the New KIngdom thefe came a dfamatIc
Incfease In foyaI bfIdes and, we must assume, a coffespondIng Incfease In the numbefs
of foyaI chIIdfen, untII the 19th Dynasty KIng Ramesses II was abIe to boast of fathefIng
seventy-nIne sons and fIfty-nIne daughtefs by hIs vafIous wIves who IncIuded hIs sIstef,
thfee of hIs daughtefs and at Ieast fIve fofeIgn pfIncesses.
These secondafy wIves shouId by no means be fegafded as mefe concubInes, a tefm
whIch has aImost come to be synonymous wIth pfostItute of hafIot In ouf (theofetIcaIIy)
monogamous socIety. Thefe was no dIsgface In beIng IncIuded amongst the kIng's wIves
and, Indeed, the occupants of the hafem IncIuded hIgh-bfed EgyptIan IadIes and the
daughtefs and sIstefs of EgyptIan kIngs. These IadIes couId not aII become queen
consoft, but they wefe aII IegaIIy the wIves of dependants of the kIng, and aII wefe
entItIed to a fecognIzed and fespected posItIon In EgyptIan socIety. It wouId be
fascInatIng to Ieafn how the EgyptIan hafem women wefe seIected ÷ dId they voIunteef,
wefe they donated by theIf pafents, of wefe they pfess-ganged? It Is pfobabIy faIfIy safe
to assume that to Intfoduce a daughtef Into the foyaI paIace couId bfIng a famIIy
nothIng but good, paftIcuIafIy If she managed to attfact and hoId the attentIon of the
kIng of cfown pfInce. PafaIIeIs have often been dfawn wIth the ChInese Han Dynasty
hafem, whefe kIngs and theIf hIgh offIcIaIs occasIonaIIy maffIed theIf concubInes and
whefe It was not unknown fof a concubIne of non-foyaI bIfth to become both the wIfe
and the mothef of a kIng. A favoufIte concubIne couId use hef InfIuence fof the good of
hef famIIy, and fof thIs feason ChInese nobIes wofked to get at Ieast one daughtef
accepted Into the foyaI hafem.
Howevef, non-foyaI EgyptIan maIes seem cufIousIy
feIuctant to acknowIedge assocIatIon wIth the paIace thfough a woman, to the extent
that Anen, bfothef of the commonef Queen TIy, faIIs to mentIon thIs Impoftant IInk on
any of hIs monuments. We have no fecofd of any EgyptIan donatIng hIs wIfe of
daughtef to the kIng, and no means of asceftaInIng how usefuI a daughtef of sIstef In
the foyaI hafem couId be.
A mIfacIe bfought to hIs Majesty GIIukhepa, daughtef of the pfInce of NahafIn, and the membefs of hef entoufage, some
317 women.
By the tIme of TuthmosIs IV, the hafem was aIso home to a numbef of Impoftant
fofeIgn pfIncesses and theIf not-InsubstantIaI fetInues. These pfIncesses, the daughtefs
of stfong poIItIcaI aIIIes, tfaveIIed to Egypt wIth a fIch dowfy whIch was exchanged fof
a fecIpfocaI bfIde pfIce of tfIbute paId by the gfoom. They maffIed the kIng, and sank
Into obscufIty. Othef, Iessef, pfIncesses wefe the daughtefs of vassaI states sent as
tfIbute to the EgyptIan kIng, they femaIned In the foyaI hafem pfovIdIng an effectIve
guafantee of theIf fathef's IoyaIty to the phafaoh:
Send youf daughtef to the kIng, youf Iofd, and as pfesents send twenty heaIthy sIaves, sIIvef chafIots and heaIthy hofses.
Yet othef fofeIgn women wefe sent In gfoups as gIfts fof the kIng. We must assume that
these women fafeIy, If evef, saw theIf new husband, mastef. They appeaf to have IIved
theIf whoIe IIves wIthIn the hafem wIthout the chance of eIthef maffIage of fetufnIng to
theIf own Iands, when they dIed they wefe bufIed In the neafby deseft cemetefy.
The women of Egypt have the chafactef of beIng the most IIcentIous In theIf feeIIngs of aII femaIes who Iay any cIaIm to be
consIdefed as membefs of a cIvIIIsed natIon. Most of them afe not consIdefed safe unIess undef Iock and key.
WhIIe the queen consoft seems to have enjoyed the Iuxufy of hef own paIace and
estates, the femaInIng foyaI wIves and concubInes, theIf young chIIdfen, wet-nufses,
nufsemaIds and attendants, IIved togethef In the pefmanent women's paIace of the
hafem. The wofd hafem Is today an unfoftunate one, a wofd whIch InstantIy conjufes
up Images of spoIIed and scantIIy dfessed eastefn beautIes fecIInIng on sIIken cushIons
as they awaIt the bIddIng of theIf Iofd and mastef. AII too often ouf Ideas of the
EgyptIan hafem afe based on what we ImagIne we know of the hafem In othef ofIentaI
monafchIes, In paftIcuIaf the hafem of the Gfand SefagIIo, the couft of the Ottoman
suItans at IstanbuI, a hafem whIch functIoned ffom the MIddIe Ages untII the FIfst WofId
Waf, when the SuItanate ItseIf was deposed on the cfeatIon of the modefn fepubIIc of
Tufkey. The secfet wofId of the TufkIsh hafem femaIned an ImpenetfabIe mystefy fof
centufIes, and fumoufs fathef than facts about IIfe In the Gfand SefagIIo have fed
Eufopean notIons about aII hafems. ThIs, combIned wIth a deep-seated beIIef In the
Innate decadence of ancIent Egypt and Its envIabIy abandoned women, has found
expfessIon In many fofms of westefn cuItufe. Ffom Mozaft to MaIIef, the combInatIon of
exotIc IocatIons, hot sun and captIve women kept fof sexuaI deIectatIon have been used
to enteftaIn and tItIIIate supposedIy sophIstIcated audIences.
ThIs vIsIon Is faf ffom the tfuth. It wouId be faf mofe coffect to fegafd the EgyptIan
women's paIace as a pefmanent dofmItofy used to house aII the femaIe dependants of
the kIng, not just those tIed to hIm fof sexuaI pufposes. These women, fof feason of
sheef numbefs, couId not be expected to tfaveI wIth the kIng and hIs entoufage. The
hafem was thefefofe home to a vafIed assoftment of wIves, daughtefs, sIstefs, Infant
sons, attendants, sIaves and anyone eIse who couId be IegItImateIy found In the
women's quaftefs of a pfIvate dweIIIng house. IncIuded amongst the hafem staff wefe a
numbef of maIe admInIstfatofs who found themseIves fesponsIbIe fof the smooth
funnIng of a vefy Iafge communIty. These offIcIaIs bofe tItIes fangIng ffom 'Ovefseef of
the RoyaI Hafem' and 'Inspectof of the Hafem-AdmInIstfatIon' to 'Gate-Keepef', thIs Iast
appeafs to have been empIoyed to pfotect the hafem and keep undesIfabIe membefs of
the communIty out fathef than to keep the women In ÷ as yet we have no evIdence to
suggest that ffee-bofn EgyptIan women wefe evef fofced to femaIn In the hafem agaInst
theIf wIII. AII the admInIstfatofs appeaf to have been maffIed men, and we fInd no
dIfect evIdence fof that cIassIc hafem sefvant, and butt of many a tasteIess joke, the
eunuch. WhIIe thefe mIght have been obvIous advantages In empIoyIng castfated men to
wofk wIth a coIIectIon of attfactIve, IsoIated, bofed and possIbIy ffustfated women, thIs
does not appeaf to have been standafd pfactIce In dynastIc Egypt. Thefe Is no ancIent
EgyptIan wofd whIch has been convIncIngIy demonstfated to mean eunuch, and
fepfesentatIons of hafem scenes In the Amafna tombs of Ay and Tutu do not show any
IndIvIduaIs wIth cIassIc eunuchoIdaI appeafance. We do have exampIes of mummIfIed
maIe bodIes wIthout testIcIes, but these seem to be the fesuIt of post-moftem damage
dufIng mummIfIcatIon ItseIf, fathef than a deIIbefate amputatIon. The mummIfIed body
of TuthmosIs III, known to be a fathef, was IackIng both penIs and testIcIes, whIIe the
hafd-man mIIItafy expIoIts of the Phafaoh Mefenptah ceftaInIy suggest that he
metaphofIcaIIy possessed what hIs mummy now Iacks.
The food was neIthef pIaIn nof whoIesome. As to the houfs spent IoIIIng In TufkIsh baths, naked and sIeek, IadIIng
peffumed watef ovef each othef, twIstIng peafIs and peacock feathefs In theIf Iong haIf, nIbbIIng sugafy comfIts,
gossIpIng, IdIIng away the houfs, becaImed In the dfeamy, steamy IImbo-Iand.
So IesIey BIanch descfIbes daIIy IIfe In the eIghteenth-centufy hafem of the SefagIIo, a
descfIptIon whIch must owe a ceftaIn amount to ImagInatIon, as the hafem was stfIctIy
out of bounds to aII non-Inmates, but whIch Is pfobabIy coffect In Its assumptIon that
the TufkIsh oJulisques Ied a IIfe of pampefed Iuxufy. ThIngs wefe vefy dIffefent In
Egypt, whefe the hafem-paIace ItseIf was a seIf-contaIned and seIf-suppoftIng unIt, fuIIy
Independent of the kIng's paIace and defIvIng Its Income ffom Its own endowments of
Iand and the fents paId by tenant fafmefs. Many of the Iessef hafem women, faf ffom
IdIIng away the houfs, wefe expected to wofk fof theIf keep, the hafem ItseIf must have
fequIfed numefous cooks, washefwomen, nufsemaIds and genefaI sefvants whIIe Mer-
Wer, a Iafge hafem-paIace estabIIshed by TuthmosIs III on the edge of the FaIyum, seems
to have been home to a fIoufIshIng textIIe busIness. Hefe the fInest EgyptIan IInen was
pfoduced undef the supefvIsIon of the IadIes of the hafem.
The pIans of sufvIvIng New KIngdom hafem-paIaces show gfoups of Independent
mud-bfIck buIIdIngs IncIudIng IIvIng quaftefs, stofefooms and a chapeI of shfIne, aII
suffounded by a hIgh mud-bfIck waII. The IIvIng quaftefs took the fofm of encIosed
stfuctufes focused Inwafds towafds a centfaI open afea of couftyafd whIch sometImes
contaIned pooIs of watef. ThIs may be compafed wIth the tfadItIonaI modefn IsIamIc
hafem of the eafIy twentIeth centufy, a Iafge house buIIt afound a couftyafd whIch
mIght IncIude a pooI of fountaIn, and suffounded by hIgh waIIs.
The physIcaI settIng of
the mofe modefn hafem was vefy fIfmIy focused Inwafds towafds the centfaI open
space whIch became the scene of the daIIy actIvItIes of the hafem-women. Hefe food was
pfepafed, cosmetIcs wefe appIIed, and the days and evenIngs wefe spent sIngIng,
dancIng and teIIIng stofIes.
The dynastIc EgyptIan hafem-paIace sefved both as a nufsefy fof the foyaI Infants and
as the 'HousehoId of the RoyaI ChIIdfen', the most pfestIgIous schooI In the Iand. Hefe
the young maIe foyaIs, undef the supefvIsIon of the 'Ovefseef of the RoyaI Hafem' and
the 'Teachef of the RoyaI ChIIdfen', feceIved the InstfuctIon whIch wouId pfepafe them
fof theIf futufe IIves as some of the hIghest-fankIng nobIes In the Iand. The tItIe 'ChIId of
the PaIace' (that Is, a foyaI chIId, of one Impoftant enough to be bfought up as one) Is
one often used by hIgh offIcIaIs ffom the MIddIe KIngdom onwafds, the fuII feadIng In
the New KIngdom beIng 'ChIId of the PaIace of the RoyaI Hafem'. Impoftant 18th
Dynasty offIcIaIs who chose to emphasIze theIf chIIdhood connectIon wIth the foyaI
couft IncIude the VIzIefs RekhmIfe, Ramose and Amenemope, the HIgh PfIest of Amen,
Hapuseneb, and the Mayof of Thebes, Sennefef. ChIIdhood netwofkIng In the foyaI
hafem must have been of cfucIaI Impoftance to those IIvIng In a state whefe evefyone's
cafeef and status was dependent upon theIf feIatIonshIp wIth the kIng.
At any tIme of cIvII unfest, gIven the hIgh moftaIIty fates amongst the maIe eIIte
engaged In physIcaI combat, we mIght expect to fInd the embattIed monafchy pIacIng a
gfeat feIIance on the pfoductIon of maIe chIIdfen both to ensufe the foyaI successIon, be
It fathef to son (fof exampIe, Sekenenfe Tao to Kamose) of bfothef to bfothef (fof
exampIe, Kamose to Ahmose) and to pfovIde IoyaI subofdInate mIIItafy Ieadefs.
Howevef, thIs does not appeaf to be the case at the staft of the New KIngdom when the
mofe mInof maIe foyaI pefsonages ÷ the second sons and youngef bfothefs of kIngs ÷
take theIf tufn at becomIng InvIsIbIe. WIth the youngef maIes thIs Is not so femafkabIe
as both maIe and femaIe foyaI chIIdfen tended to be feIatIveIy obscufe In Infancy and
chIIdhood, theIf eafIy InvIsIbIIIty dId not necessafIIy pfevent them ffom achIevIng fame
Iatef In theIf cafeefs. Howevef, the Iack of aduIt pfInces Is somethIng of a puzzIe,
paftIcuIafIy at a tIme when the vast Incfease In numbefs of foyaI wIves mIght have Ied
us to expect a dfamatIc Incfease In foyaI chIIdfen.
In paft, the InvIsIbIIIty of the foyaI sons must be a fesuIt of the seIectIve pfesefvatIon
of the hIstofIcaI fecofds, and In paftIcuIaf the foyaI monuments. The tempIes and
funefafy monuments of Thebes and the West Bank afe covefed wIth texts and scenes
depIctIng vafIous kIngs who afe occasIonaIIy shown togethef wIth theIf queens and the
foyaI pfIncesses. Howevef, the foyaI famIIy onIy appeaf In these scenes as symboIIc
appendages of the kIng, they afe not Intended to be seen as Independent IndIvIduaIs In
theIf own fIght and Indeed New KIngdom foyaI aft Is fuII of Images of dependant foyaI
woman who often appeaf as mInuscuIe fIgufes bafeIy feachIng to the knees of the
coIossaI kIng who Is theIf husband, fathef of both. The fact that sons afe unIIkeIy to
appeaf as foyaI dependents In these scenes shouId thefefofe not be taken as an
IndIcatIon that they Iacked Impoftance, but fathef as confIfmatIon that they wefe
expected to IIve a mofe Independent exIstence. The pfIncess was gIven fespect as the
daughtef (of pfopefty?) of the kIng, the pfInce had to eafn hIs own fespect. ThIs In tufn
ImpIIes that whIIe the posItIon of KIng's Daughtef was vefy much seen as a foIe In Its
own fIght, the foIe of KIng's Son was mefeIy an accIdent of bIfth, not a fuIItIme cafeef.
The cfown pfInce was obvIousIy an exceptIon to thIs fuIe, as heIf to the thfone he was
bofn wIth a cIeafIy defIned foIe and was often gIven the post of Gfeat Afmy GenefaI to
feInfofce hIs status, just as the BfItIsh heIf to the thfone Is tfadItIonaIIy cfeated PfInce of
If foyaI sons afe Iess IIkeIy to appeaf on foyaI monuments than theIf sIstefs then
whefe, apaft ffom theIf tombs, afe we IIkeIy to fInd them? Even the IocatIon of theIf
tombs poses a pfobIem, as pfInceIy bufIaIs datIng to the eafIy 18th Dynasty afe vIftuaIIy
unknown, aIthough fecent dIscovefIes In the VaIIey of the KIngs suggest that gfoups of
pfInces may have been bufIed In batches In mass bufIaI chambefs. We do have exampIes
of 18th Dynasty IndIvIduaIs cIassIfyIng themseIves as 'KIng's Son' but, fof some feason,
we have no one cIaImIng to be a 'KIng's Bfothef'. ThIs had Ied to the IntfIguIng
suggestIon that foyaI pfInces may have In some way Iost theIf foyaIty once the cfown
pfInce had pfoduced an heIf, thefeby castIng them outsIde the dIfect IIne of successIon.
ThIs wouId have the effect of festfIctIng the foyaI famIIy to the kIng, hIs unmaffIed
sIstefs, hIs spInstef aunts, hIs mothef and gfandmothef and hIs chIIdfen, hIs bfothefs and
uncIes wouId no Iongef be fegafded as fuIIy foyaI, aIthough they wouId stIII be entItIed
to a fespected pIace In the communIty.
ThIs automatIc pfunIng of the foyaI famIIy
wouId have the advantage of feducIng the numbef of IndIvIduaIs wIth a potentIaI cIaIm
to the thfone and wouId pfesumabIy keep the foyaI famIIy secufeIy excIusIve. Whatevef
theIf offIcIaI status, we can see that those pfInces who gfew to aduIthood befofe the
death of theIf fathef feceIved hIgh-fankIng appoIntments In the pfIesthood, the afmy
and the cIvII sefvIce. The fate of theIf youngef, ofphaned bfothefs Is Iess ceftaIn.
The best pIace to Iook fof the mIssIng 18th Dynasty pfInces Is the wofkmen's vIIIage of
DeIf eI-MedIna. Hefe, thfoughout the 19th Dynasty and paftIcuIafIy dufIng the feIgn of
Ramesses II, the eafIy 18th Dynasty foyaI famIIy was fegafded wIth gfeat fevefence. On
a genefaI IeveI they wefe honoufed as both the (theofetIcaI) ancestofs of the cuffent
kIngs and as exceIIent foIe modeIs fof mIIItafy kIngshIp, whIIe on a mofe pefsonaI IeveI
the InhabItants of DeIf eI-MedIna wofshIpped the Theban foyaI famIIy as both the
foundefs of theIf vIIIage and the InItIatofs of the uItImate In job-cfeatIon schemes In the
VaIIey of the KIngs. The vIIIagefs had good feason to wofshIp theIf paftIaIIy deIfIed
patfons Amenhotep I and Ahmose NefeftafI, and It Is not sufpfIsIng that these two demI-
gods appeaf on many smaII monuments, sometImes standIng aIongsIde othef Theban
deItIes such as Hathof, Iady of the West. OccasIonaIIy, howevef, the InhabItants of DeIf
eI-MedIna chose to commemofate the Iessef membefs of the Theban foyaI famIIy,
IncIudIng some of the mIssIng pfInces. The best-known exampIe of thIs Is found In the
tomb of a man named Khabekhnet, whefe the noftheastefn waII shows two fows of
seated, named IndIvIduaIs who afe IdentIfIed as 'Iofds of the West'. IncIuded amongst
these afe some who afe cIeafIy the sons of kIngs who dId not succeed theIf fathef to the
thfone. UnfoftunateIy, beyond theIf names, we have IIttIe fufthef InfofmatIon about
these Iost pfInces.
Ffom the scanty fecofds sufvIvIng ffom the begInnIng of the EIghteenth Dynasty, It emefges that a femafkabIe paft was
pIayed In the hIstofy of the newIy unIfIed state by thfee IadIes, TetIshefI and Ahhotpe. and Ahmose NefeftIfy. Thefe
can be IIttIe doubt that theIf behavIouf sefved as an InspIfatIon to the IeadIng women of the countfy (of whom Hatchepsut
Is the IeadIng exampIe) thfoughout the EIghteenth Dynasty.
KIng Ahmose was bIessed wIth not onIy a stfong gfandmothef but wIth a fofcefuI and
poIItIcaIIy actIve mothef. Ahhotep I (of Ahhotpe, as above), consoft and possIbIy sIstef
of Sekenenfe Tao II, exefted a pfofound and Iong-IastIng InfIuence on hef son, on a
steIa fecovefed ffom Kafnak, Ahmose encoufages hIs peopIe to pay homage to hIs
mothef as the 'one who has accompIIshed the fItes and taken cafe of Egypt':
She has Iooked aftef hef ]that Is, Egypt's| soIdIefs, she has guafded hef, she has bfought back hef fugItIves and coIIected
togethef hef deseftefs, she has pacIfIed Uppef Egypt and expeIIed hef febeIs.
The pfecIse meanIng of thIs cufIous steIa Is now Iost to us. Howevef If, as It seems to
maIntaIn, Ahhotep hefseIf had tfuIy been abIe to thwaft a febeIIIon by mustefIng the
EgyptIan tfoops, she must have been a woman capabIe of wIeIdIng feaI fathef than
cefemonIaI powef. We may even deduce that Ahhotep had been caIIed upon to act as
fegent foIIowIng the untImeIy death of Kamose because we know that when Ahmose
dIed at the end of hIs 25-yeaf feIgn he was feIatIveIy young, possIbIy onIy In hIs eafIy
thIftIes. We know of no fofmaI decIafatIon of a fegency, but thefe was ceftaInIy a weII-
estabIIshed pfecedent fof the dowagef queen to act as fegent fof hef young son, the 2nd
Dynasty Queen Nemaathep had acted as fegent fof KIng Djosef and the 6th Dynasty
Queen Ankhes-MefIfe had fuIed on behaIf of hef sIx-yeaf-oId son PepI II. Why the queen
shouId be chosen to act as fegent In pfefefence to a maIe feIatIon (pefhaps fathef's
bfothef) Is now uncIeaf, aIthough we can specuIate that It wouId be the mothef above
aII who wouId safeguafd hef son's InhefItance. If the theofy of the foyaI pfInces IosIng
theIf foyaIness on the assumptIon of theIf bfothef hoIds tfue, thefe wouId In any case be
no cIose maIe membef of the foyaI famIIy avaIIabIe to take on the foIe.
Thefe was ceftaInIy a cIeaf dIvIne pfecedent fof a mothef takIng cafe of hef son's
InhefItance. The stofy of IsIs and OsIfIs teIIs how OsIfIs, fIghtfuI kIng of Egypt In the
tIme of the gods, was mufdefed by hIs jeaIous bfothef Seth. Seth cut OsIfIs' body Into
many pIeces whIch he scattefed aII ovef Egypt. IsIs, hIs devoted wIfe and sIstef, toIIed to
coIIect the bIts togethef and, wIth hef magIc powefs, gfanted OsIfIs tempofafy IIfe. So
successfuI was hef magIc that nIne months Iatef theIf son Hofus was bofn. The dead
OsIfIs then became kIng of the AftefIIfe. MeanwhIIe the fesoufcefuI IsIs hId Hofus ffom
hIs uncIe In the mafshes untII he became a man, abIe to avenge hIs fathef's death. The
women of Egypt wefe not foutIneIy expected to dIspIay such InItIatIve, they genefaIIy
took a mofe passIve foIe In socIety. Howevef, decIsIve behavIouf was acceptabIe and
even to be encoufaged In a femaIe If that behavIouf was Intended to safeguafd the
fIghts of eIthef a husband of chIId.
Aftef hef death Ahhotep was accofded a spIendId bufIaI on the West Bank at Thebes.
Hef mummy In Its eIabofate coffIn was fecovefed In the mId nIneteenth centufy, and Is
now housed In the CaIfo Museum.
AIthough both TetIshefI and Ahhotep had been honoufed by Ahmose It was hIs wIfe,
Ahmose NefeftafI, who fIfst feceIved the fofmaI accoIades whIch wefe to become the
fIght of futufe queens of Egypt. Ahmose NefeftafI, 'KIng's Daughtef and KIng's SIstef',
'FemaIe ChIeftaIn of Uppef and Iowef Egypt', wIfe and pfobabIy sIstef of Ahmose,
mothef of Amenhotep I, gfanddaughtef of TetIshefI and possIbIy daughtef of Kamose,
was even mofe InfIuentIaI than hef fedoubtabIe mothef-In-Iaw. UnfoftunateIy we have
no text detaIIIng hef specIfIc achIevements, but we do know that Ahmose NefeftafI was
eIthef gIven, of soId, the pfestIgIous tItIe of 'Second Pfophet of Amen', a post whIch was
Intended to beIong to the queen and hef descendants fof evef.
Iig. 2.2 T/e goJ Osiris
The queen Iatef fenounced thIs tItIe fof an even mofe pfestIgIous posItIon, the pfIestIy
offIce of 'God's WIfe of Amen', an honouf whIch came wIth Its own endowment of goods
and Iand pIus a staff of maIe admInIstfatofs and whIch, gIven the fIsIng Impoftance of
the cuIt of Amen at thIs tIme, was a cIeaf IndIcatIon of the enhanced status of the queen.
It Is pefhaps cynIcaI to suggest that the posItIon may have been deIIbefateIy contfIved
to aIIow the foyaI famIIy some measufe of contfoI ovef the IncfeasIngIy poweffuI and
weaIthy cuIt. Ahmose NefeftafI obvIousIy saw thIs as hef most Impoftant foIe, and used
the tItIe of 'God's WIfe of Amen In pfefefence to any othef. Contempofafy IIIustfatIons
show the queen dfessed In a dIstInctIve shoft wIg and stfangeIy afchaIc-IookIng cIothes
as she peffofms the feIIgIous dutIes assocIated wIth hef new offIce. UnfoftunateIy, we
have IIttIe undefstandIng of the pfecIse functIon of the God's WIfe, the tItIe suggests that
It shouId have been bofne eIthef by those queens who had coupIed wIth Amen to
pfoduce a kIng (that Is, by queen mothefs), of by unmaffIed women who had dedIcated
themseIves to the sefvIce of Amen, but a quIck sufvey of the women who heId the post
shows that neIthef expIanatIon can be coffect. Hatchepsut, fof exampIe, was neIthef a
vIfgIn nof the mothef of a kIng. It Is possIbIe, howevef, that the foIe feIated In some
(theofetIcaI) way to the sexuaI stImuIatIon of the god whIch wouId ensufe the fenewaI of
the Iand: a second and Iess deII-cate tItIe, 'God's Hand', whIch Is occasIonaIIy used In
conjunctIon wIth 'God's WIfe', Is an unmIstakabIe fefefence to the mastufbatIon whIch
pfoduced the fIfst gods, Shu and Tefnut.
Iig. 2.S T/e goJ Horus
The foIe of 'God's WIfe of Amen' was passed down ffom Ahmose NefeftafI to hef
daughtef MefItamen, and then to Hatchepsut who used It untII she became kIng, when It
was tfansfeffed to hef daughtef Nefefufe. The tItIe feII Into decIIne dufIng the soIo feIgn
of TuthmosIs III ÷ pefhaps the new kIng had expefIenced enough poweffuI women ÷ and
dIed out compIeteIy aftef the feIgn of TuthmosIs IV, onIy to be fevIved dufIng the ThIfd
IntefmedIate PefIod when, havIng mefged wIth the posItIon of 'DIvIne AdofatfIce', It
deveIoped Into a poIItIcaIIy and economIcaIIy hIghIy sIgnIfIcant post. The God's WIfe of
Amen now had theofetIcaI contfoI ovef the vast weaIth of the estates of Amen.
Ahmose NefeftafI fuIfIIIed hef wIfeIy dutIes by pfesentIng hef husband-bfothef wIth at
Ieast fouf sons and fIve daughtefs, fIve of whom dIed In Infancy of chIIdhood. Howevef,
she was not content to festfIct hefseIf to bfeedIng and abandoned the tfadItIonaI sheItef
of the queen's paIace:
To judge ffom the numbef of InscfIptIons, contempofafy and Iatef, In whIch that young queen's name appeafs, she
obtaIned as ceIebfIty aImost wIthout pafaIIeI In the hIstofy of Egypt.
SettIng a pfecedent now foIIowed by modefn foyaI coupIes, the queen accompanIed hef
husband as he peffofmed hIs many cIvIc dutIes, we know that when Ahmose opened a
new gaIIefy at the Tufa IImestone quaffy In hIs fegnaI Yeaf 22, he was accompanIed by
hIs queen who stood modestIy behInd hef husband In a typIcaI wIfeIy pose. The queen
aIso seems to have assIsted hef husband In deveIopIng hIs buIIdIng pfojects and, as we
have aIfeady noted, Ahmose consuIted hIs wIfe ovef hIs pIans to honouf theIf dead
gfandmothef, TetIshefI. She was ceftaInIy actIve In the feIIgIous sphefe, hef pIety, of
pefhaps hef Independent weaIth, Ied hef to dedIcate faf mofe feIIgIous offefIngs than
any pfevIous queen and offefIngs pfesented by Ahmose NefeftafI have been found In
tempIes as faf apaft as Kafnak In the south and SefabIt eI-KhadIm In the SInaI
FoIIowIng the death of Ahmose, Ahmose NefeftafI took on the foIe of fegent fof hef
young son, Amenhotep I, handIng ovef the feIns of state when hef son became oId
enough to fuIe. Thfoughout hIs 21-yeaf feIgn, Amenhotep I consoIIdated the successfuI
fofeIgn poIIcIes stafted by hIs fathef, uncIe and gfandfathef. Thefe was no fufthef
mIIItafy actIon In PaIestIne, but the afmy ex- fufthef south Into NubIa whefe a vIcefoy
was appoInted to take cafe of Egypt's Intefests In the Uppef NubIan KIngdom of Kush.
The ubIquItous Ahmose, son of Ibana, was pfesent to wItness the new kIng's tfIumph:
Iig. 2.4 T/e curtouc/e of King Amen/otep I
I tfanspofted the KIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt Djesefkafe ]Amenhotep I|, the justIfIed, when he saIIed south to Kush to
make wIdef the bofdefs of Egypt. HIs Majesty smote those Bowmen of NubIa In the mIdst of hIs afmy. They wefe bfought
away In a stfangIehoId, none escapIng. The fIeeIng wefe IaId Iow, as If they had nevef exIsted. I was at the head of the afmy
and tfuIy I fought. HIs Majesty saw my bfavefy. I bfought away two hands to bfIng to hIs Majesty. Then I was fewafded
wIth goId. I bfought away two femaIe captIves as pIundef, apaft ffom those whIch I bfought to hIs Majesty, and I was
made 'WaffIof of the RuIef'.
IntefnaIIy, thefe was an ambItIous buIIdIng pfogfamme encompassIng sevefaI Uppef
EgyptIan sItes, and the afts and scIences fIoufIshed. DyIng befofe hIs mothef,
Amenhotep I became the focus of a funefafy cuIt at DeIf eI-MedIna, whefe he was
wofshIpped as 'Amenhotep of the Town', 'Amenhotep BeIoved of Amen', of 'Amenhotep
of the Fofecouft'. When she, too, fIew to heaven, Ahmose NefeftafI was aIso deIfIed and
wofshIpped at DeIf eI-MedIna as patfon goddess of the Theban necfopoIIs. She
eventuaIIy became 'MIstfess of the Sky' and 'Iady of the West' and hef cuIt Iasted
thfoughout the New KIngdom.
Ahmose NefeftafI's fofcefuI pefsonaIIty compIeteIy ecIIpsed that of hef son's consoft
and sIstef, Queen MefItamen. AIthough we afe toId that MefItamen aIso bofe the tItIe of
'God's WIfe of Amen' we know IIttIe eIse about thIs Iady, beyond the fact that she dId not
pfovIde hef husband wIth a IIvIng maIe successof. Amenhotep I was thefefofe foIIowed
as kIng by a man whom he hImseIf had chosen, a mIddIe-aged genefaI who was to
become KIng TuthmosIs I. As the eafIy 18th Dynasty was a tIme when the fuIIng eIIte
fofmed a cIose-knIt and weII-defIned gfoup aImost InvafIabIy IInked by maffIage, the
new heIf to the thfone may weII have been a descendant of a coIIatefaI bfanch of the
foyaI famIIy.
TuthmosIs hImseIf, howevef, makes no cIaIm to foyaI bIood. HIs fathef Is
nevef named and femaIns a man of mystefy, aIthough It seems safe to assume that had
he been of nobIe of foyaI bIfth TuthmosIs wouId have been the fIfst to acknowIedge hIm,
whIIe hIs mothef was a non-foyaI woman named SenIsenb who was nevef a queen and
who was aIways gIven the sImpIe tItIe of 'KIng's Mothef'. TuthmosIs hImseIf confIfmed
hIs mothef's feIatIveIy humbIe ofIgIns when he fequIfed hIs IoyaI tfoops to sweaf an
oath of IoyaIty on hIs accessIon 'by the name of HIs Majesty, IIfe, heaIth and stfength,
bofn of the RoyaI Mothef SenIsenb'. ThIs choIce of successof seems to have met wIth
genefaI appfovaI and In the fuIIness of tIme TuthmosIs I became phafaoh of Egypt. The
TuthmosIde efa had begun.
Thefe Is some fathef weak afchaeoIogIcaI evIdence to suggest that Amenhotep I may
have assocIated hImseIf In a co-fegency wIth hIs Intended successof. On the waII of the
chapeI of Amenhotep at Kafnak, TuthmosIs I Is shown dfessed as a kIng, peffofmIng
foyaI tasks and wIth hIs name wfItten In the foyaI caftouche. If, as has been suggested,
thIs scene was commIssIoned dufIng the IIfetIme of Amenhotep I, thefe must have been
two kIngs on the thfone at the same tIme. UnfoftunateIy, we have no means of knowIng
when the cafvIng was made and, whIIe It wouId ceftaInIy have made good sense fof
Amenhotep to assocIate hImseIf fofmaIIy wIth TuthmosIs, the case fof a joInt feIgn must
fest unpfoven. It Is, aftef aII, equaIIy possIbIe that the buIIdIng, stafted by Amenhotep,
was fInIshed aftef hIs death by TuthmosIs. The fact that TuthmosIs I stafted to count hIs
fegnaI yeafs ffom the death of hIs pfedecessof Is of IIttIe heIp In detefmInIng whethef of
not the two shafed a feIgn.
The tfadItIon of the co-fegency, a feguIaf featufe of 12th Dynasty feIgns and one
whIch feappeafs dufIng the eafIy 18th Dynasty, appeafs a stfange one to those of us
accustomed to seeIng a sIngIe dIvIneIy appoInted monafch on the thfone. JoInt fuIe
must have posed many pfactIcaI dIffIcuItIes ÷ how couId the countfy be fuIed by two
kIngs at the same tIme? Wefe the foyaI dutIes peffofmed In stefeo of wefe they dIvIded
on some mutuaIIy agfeed basIs? Was thefe to be a 'junIof' and a 'senIof' kIng? And how
was the joInt feIgn to be dated? EgyptIan
Iig. 2.5 T/e curtouc/e of King Tut/mosis I
theoIogy decfeed that the attfIbutes of dIvIne kIngshIp wefe passed ffom fathef to son,
the son becomIng the IIvIng Hofus at the pfecIse moment that hIs dyIng fathef became
the dead OsIfIs yet, as GafdInef has poInted out, '. thefe Is no hInt that the EgyptIans
evef feIt scfupIes on thIs scofe. In mattefs of feIIgIon IogIc pIayed no gfeat paft, and the
assImIIatIon of dupIIcatIon of deItIes doubtIess added a mystIc chafm to theIf theoIogy.'
The questIon of how such a joInt feIgn was to be dated was no tfIvIaI mattef ÷ the
EgyptIans aIways descfIbed theIf yeafs wIth fefefence to the cuffent phafaoh. We now
know that thefe wefe In fact two types of co-fegencIes, each empIoyIng a dIffefent
datIng system. Whefe thefe was cIeafIy a 'senIof' and a mofe 'junIof' kIng, the joInt
feIgn was dated by fefefence to the fegnaI yeafs of the senIof paftnef wIth the junIof
kIng countIng hIs own yeafs onIy ffom the death of hIs senIof. Such unequaI co-fegencIes
Ieave vefy IIttIe evIdence and afe consequentIy vefy hafd fof the hIstofIan to detect.
Othef co-fegencIes, whefe the newest kIng stafted to count hIs fegnaI yeafs ffom the
begInnIng of the co-fegency whIIe hIs co-fuIef contInued wIth hIs own fegnaI yeafs, may
be vIewed as a mofe equaI paftnefshIp. Howevef, thIs equaIIty Ied to a ceftaIn amount
of chfonoIogIcaI confusIon as each yeaf of such a co-fegency had two equaIIy vaIId
fegnaI dates, and Indeed we occasIonaIIy fInd 'doubIe-dated' texts and monuments
gIvIng the fegnaI yeafs of two contempofafy kIngs, whIIe the annIvefsafIes of the
successIon of each kIng cfeated two New Yeaf's days whIch wefe not necessafIIy
synchfonIzed wIth the thIfd New Yeaf's day, that of the cIvII caIendaf.
GIven these not
InconsIdefabIe dfawbacks, It Is pefhaps not sufpfIsIng to fInd that doubIe-dated co-
fegencIes wefe fafe dufIng the New KIngdom.
In spIte of the theoIogIcaI, poIItIcaI and datIng pfobIems posed by joInt feIgns, they
femaIned a featufe of EgyptIan kIngshIp. Thefe must, thefefofe, have been enough
compensatIng advantages to make a co-fegency appeaf wofthwhIIe. Pefhaps the maIn
advantage was that the co-fegency made the Intended successIon absoIuteIy cIeaf, no
one couId dIspute the IntentIons of a kIng who had aIfeady announced hIs successof. At
tImes when the new kIng was not an obvIous choIce (fof exampIe, when thefe was no
IegItImate maIe heIf), the co-fegency must have seemed a sensIbIe pfecautIon whIch
wouId detef any othef cIaImant to the thfone and ensufe contInuIty of fuIe In a Iand
whefe so much depended on the pfesence of a phafaoh on the thfone. The addItIonaI
benefIt of aIIowIng the new kIng to Ieafn the aft of govefnment whIIe the oId kIng eased
Into a semI-fetIfement must have been appfecIated by both monafchs.
KIng TuthmosIs I was maffIed to a Iady named Ahmose, a popuIaf femaIe name In New
KIngdom Egypt. Thefe Is some dIsagfeement ovef the ofIgIns of thIs Iady, wIth some
authofItIes cIassIng hef as a daughtef of Amenhotep I and othefs pIacIng hef as the
daughtef of Ahmose and Ahmose NefeftafI and thefefofe a fuII sIstef of Amenhotep I.
Whatevef hef pafentage, untII fecentIy aII expefts wefe In agfeement that Ahmose must
have been a pfIncess of the foyaI bIood, and that TuthmosIs must have maffIed hef In
ofdef to make hIs posItIon as kIng even mofe secufe. It Is feIatIveIy common fof a
IegaIIy dubIous cIaImant to a thfone to seek to enhance hIs posItIon by maffyIng a cIose
femaIe feIatIve of hIs pfedecessof, a match whIch consoIIdates hIs cIaIm whIIe femovIng
any potentIaI chaIIenge ffom the chIIdfen of gfandchIIdfen of the pfevIous kIng. In
Egypt, such poIItIcaI matches appeaf to have been standafd pfocedufe, Indeed, the fIfst
phafaoh of the AfchaIc PefIod, the vIctofIous southefn KIng Nafmef, contfacted a sImIIaf
maffIage when he maffIed NeIth-Hotep, a nofthefn PfIncess. We shouId thefefofe not be
too sufpfIsed to fInd that TuthmosIs appeafed to foIIow thIs pfudent pIan.
Howevef, Queen Ahmose, who beafs the tItIe of 'KIng's SIstef' (senet nesu) Is nevef
accofded the mofe Impoftant tItIe of 'KIng's Daughtef' (sut nesu). The EgyptIans wefe
not genefaIIy shy of fecofdIng theIf fanks and achIevements, and thIs unusuaI fetIcence
may thefefofe be an IndIcatIon that Ahmose was not the daughtef of a kIng, and by
extensIon that she couId not be eIthef the daughtef of the sIstef of Amenhotep I. Instead,
she may actuaIIy have been the sIstef of haIf-sIstef of TuthmosIs I. If thIs Is the case, we
may specuIate that theIf bfothef÷sIstef maffIage must have occuffed aftef TuthmosIs's
pfomotIon to heIf appafent, as such Incestuous maffIages afe extfemeIy fafe outsIde the
ImmedIate foyaI famIIy. ThIs wouId suggest that Hatchepsut, and Indeed hef fuII
bfothefs and sIstef, may have been bofn aftef TuthmosIs had become co-fegent, and that
Hatchepsut may thefefofe have been IIttIe mofe than tweIve yeafs oId when she maffIed
hef haIf-bfothef to become queen consoft.
The 18th Dynasty was to become femafkabIe fof the numbef of tImes that the kIng
was maffIed to a cIose femaIe feIatIon, often hIs haIf- of fuII sIstef and occasIonaIIy
even hIs daughtef. Hatchepsut hefseIf was maffIed to hef haIf-bfothef TuthmosIs II,
beafIng hIm at Ieast one daughtef who was hefseIf aImost ceftaInIy Intended to maffy
hef haIf-bfothef TuthmosIs III. Nof was thIs phenomenon confIned to the eafIy 18th
Dynasty. A centufy aftef Hatchepsut's feIgn, KIng Amenhotep III maffIed hIs daughtef
SItamen and eIevated hef to the fank of KIng's ChIef WIfe aIongsIde hef mothef, Queen
TIy. Amenhotep III was foIIowed on the thfone by hIs son Akhenaten who maffIed at
Ieast one and possIbIy thfee of hIs sIx daughtefs, and he was foIIowed In tufn by the
boy-kIng Tutankhamen who maffIed hIs sIstef(?) Ankhesenamen who bofe hIm at Ieast
two stIII-bofn chIIdfen. It Is cIeaf that the tfadItIon of fuIIy consummated Incestuous
maffIages was weII estabIIshed wIthIn the foyaI famIIy, and we must not assume that
these unIons wouId have been consIdefed In any way dIstastefuI of even unusuaI by the
paftIes concefned. Indeed, a Iate PefIod papyfus now housed In the CaIfo Museum teIIs
the stofy of PfInce Nenefefkaptah and PfIncess Ahwefe who had faIIen head ovef heeIs
In Iove wIth each othef and who wIshed to maffy despIte the opposItIon of theIf fathef,
who woffIed aIoud about the sItuatIon:
If It so happens that I have onIy two chIIdfen, Is It fIght to maffy one to the othef? ShouId I not fathef maffy
Nenefefkaptah to the daughtef of a genefaI and Ahwefe to the son of anothef genefaI, so that ouf famIIy may Incfease?
The kIng was concefned about the match not because the bfIde and gfoom wefe bfothef
and sIstef, but because It was an InsuIaf maffIage whIch wouId not Intfoduce new
membefs Into the foyaI famIIy. EventuaIIy he feIented, gave hIs chIIdfen hIs bIessIng
and hIs daughtef a dowfy, and, as Ahwefe ffankIy teIIs us:
I was taken as a wIfe to the house of Nenefefkaptah. He sIept wIth me that nIght and found me pIeasIng. He sIept wIth
me agaIn and agaIn and we Ioved each othef.
To egyptoIogIsts wofkIng In the nIneteenth and eafIy twentIeth centufIes, many of
whom had deveIoped theIf Intefest In egyptoIogy as a by-pfoduct of theIf pfImafy
Intefest In BIbIIcaI studIes, these shameIessIy Incestuous unIons appeafed both unnatufaI
and fepugnant, 'a vefy objectIonaI custom' accofdIng to SIf J. Gafdnef WIIkInson,
speakIng fof many of hIs contempofafIes. Such maffIages couId onIy be expIaIned as a
necessIty whIch couId not be avoIded. AIfeady heavIIy InfIuenced by the effoneous
theofy of a matfIafchaI Theban foyaI famIIy, egyptoIogIsts now deveIoped the so-caIIed
'heIfess theofy', a theofy whIch neatIy expIaIned the Intfa-famIIy maffIages by deducIng
that the fIght to fuIe must be tfansmItted downwafds thfough the genefatIons vIa the
foyaI women. It was not enough to be bofn a foyaI pfInce of to be cfowned kIng as It
wouId be In a westefn-styIe monafchy ÷ the tfue fuIef of Egypt had to maffy the foyaI
heIfess who was aIways the daughtef of a kIng and hIs consoft and who caffIed the
essence of 'foyaIness' In hef veIns. The heIfess then In tufn became queen, and mothef
of both the next kIng and the next foyaI heIfess.
Mofe fecent feseafch, and pefhaps a gfeatef wIIIIngness to accept the feaIItIes of
Incestuous unIons, shows that thIs heIfess theofy must be Incoffect. Many of the most
successfuI kIngs of the 18th Dynasty, IncIudIng TuthmosIs I, II and III, wefe cIeafIy not
the sons of foyaI women and yet wefe fuIIy accepted by theIf peopIe. ConvefseIy
TuthmosIs III, Amenhotep I and Amenhotep III, and possIbIy TuthmosIs I, had non-foyaI
consofts who wefe tfeated wIth at Ieast as much fespect as theIf bettef-bofn sIstefs. We
must, thefefofe, seek some othef expIanatIon fof the pfevaIence of Incestuous foyaI
maffIages at thIs tIme.
The dynastIc EgyptIans, In contfast to most othef peopIes, ancIent and modefn, wefe
femafkabIy feIaxed In theIf attItudes to maffIage. They do not seem to have feIt the
need to Impose any state of feIIgIous contfoI ovef the choIce of paftnefs and, aIthough
the Idea of the famIIy was aIways an Impoftant one, the ImpfessIon gIven Is that
maffIage ÷ of, mofe accufateIy, a sexuaI unIon ÷ was of IIttIe Intefest to any but the
ImmedIate famIIIes of the coupIe concefned. Co-habItatIon wIth sIaves, wIth fofeIgnefs,
wIth bfothefs of sIstefs and even wIth feIatIveIy young chIIdfen wefe aII IegaIIy
pefmIssIbIe, as was poIygamy and, It wouId appeaf aIthough we have no known
exampIes, poIyandfy. Thefefofe, It was possIbIe fof any EgyptIan man to openIy maffy
of sIeep wIth hIs sIstef of one of aII of hIs unmaffIed daughtefs wIthout IncuffIng IegaI
penaItIes. Whethef he wouId have been aIIowed to sIeep wIth hIs mothef ÷ Indeed
whethef he wouId have wIshed to ÷ Is anothef questIon.
DespIte theIf IegaI vaIIdIty, bfothef÷sIstef unIons afe vefy fafe untII the Roman pefIod
when a compIex system of InhefItance Iaws fofced famIIIes to favouf bfothef÷sIstef
maffIages In an attempt to keep theIf pfopefty Intact. UnfoftunateIy, the EgyptIan
habIt of fefeffIng to wIves and Iovefs as 'sIstefs' has caused a gfeat deaI of confusIon In
thIs afea, the New KIngdom poet who sIghed, 'My sIstef Is come, my heaft fIIIs wIth joy
as I open my afms to enfoId hef', was IongIng fof hIs gIfIffIend, who was pfesumabIy
not a cIose bIood feIatIon, and It wouId appeaf that most EgyptIan maIes sImpIy dId not
fancy theIf sIstefs and chose to Iook outsIde the nucIeaf famIIy fof a mate. We may
suggest a vafIety of feasons fof thIs: IocaI custom, the wIsh to extend the basIc famIIy
gfoup, the wIsh to extend bonds wIth othef famIIIes and pefhaps a Iack of sexuaI
attfactIon between chIIdfen faIsed togethef, may weII have combIned to make non-
sIbIIng maffIage the pfefeffed choIce.
The foyaI famIIy wefe, howevef, In an entIfeIy dIffefent posItIon. They wefe unIque,
excIusIve, and had no desIfe to eIthef Incfease In numbefs of unIte wIth othef famIIIes.
Indeed, they wefe even pfepafed to excIude bfothefs and sons ffom the ImmedIate
famIIy In ofdef to pfesefve theIf seIect status. Incestuous maffIage was thefefofe a
convenIent means of ensufIng the pufIty of the foyaI IIne and festfIctIng the sIze of the
foyaI famIIy by concentfatIng 'foyaIness' wIthIn a smaII gfoup of cIoseIy feIated
IndIvIduaIs. As an added advantage, bfothef-sIstef maffIage ensufed that a suItabIe
husband couId aIways be found fof the hIghest-fankIng pfIncesses who mIght othefwIse
have been unabIe to maffy. Whethef they wefe concefned that the husband of a pfIncess
mIght attempt to seIze the thfone fof hIs own descendants, of whethef they sImpIy feIt
themseIves to be supefIof to aII othefs, the 18th Dynasty foyaI famIIy was aIways vefy
cafefuI when It came to maffyIng off Its daughtefs. EgyptIan pfIncesses nevef made
dIpIomatIc fofeIgn maffIages and when the KIng of BabyIon, whose own daughtef was
maffIed to Amenhotep III, InquIfed about an EgyptIan bfIde fof hIs own hafem he was
gIven shoft shfIft: 'SInce the days of oId, no EgyptIan kIng's daughtef has been gIven to
anyone.' Ankhesenamen, the young wIdow of Tutankhamen, bfoke wIth 18th Dynasty
tfadItIon when she wfote to SuppIIuIIuma, KIng of the HIttItes, askIng hIm to send a
suItabIe pfInce: 'If you couId send me one of youf sons I wouId make hIm my husband.'
UnfoftunateIy, the bfIdegfoom was mufdefed on the way to meet hIs bfIde, and It was
not untII the 21st Dynasty that an EgyptIan pfIncess was sent as a bfIde to the JewIsh
KIng SoIomon.
Bfothef÷sIstef maffIages wefe a usefuI means of feInfofcIng the IInks between the
phafaoh and the gods whIIe emphasIzIng the guIf between the ImmedIate foyaI famIIy
and the fest of mankInd. IsIs and OsIfIs, Geb and Nut and Seth and Nephthys had aII
enjoyed bfothef÷sIstef unIons, aIthough as these sIx exIsted at a tIme when thefe wefe
no othef eIIgIbIe maffIage paftnefs thIs was pefhaps Iess thfough choIce than thfough
necessIty. Whatevef the feasons, what had been good enough fof the gods was good
enough fof phafaoh. Fof those who beIIeved that theIf foyaI bIood made them
pfofoundIy dIffefent ffom othef moftaIs, a sIstef made the IogIcaI choIce of spouse,
whIIe an EgyptIan pfIncess was sufeIy the best possIbIe mothef fof a futufe kIng of
Queen of Egypt
T/e /ing ]Tut/mosis I] resteJ from life, going fort/ to /euven, /uving completeJ /is yeurs in gluJness of /eurt. T/e /uw/
in t/e nest ]uppeureJ us] t/e King of Upper unJ Lower Lgypt, Au//eperenre ]Tut/mosis II], /e becume /ing of t/e Bluc/
LunJ unJ ruler of t/e ReJ LunJ, /uving tu/en possession of t/e Two Regions in triump/.
The fofmef genefaI TuthmosIs I soon pfoved hImseIf a wofthy successof to the newIy
estabIIshed tfadItIon of the mIghty EgyptIan waffIof-kIng, embafkIng on a sefIes of
fIamboyant and hIghIy successfuI fofeIgn campaIgns Intended to Impfess EgyptIan
supefIofIty on the tfadItIonaI enemIes of the south and nofth. In hIs second fegnaI yeaf
EgyptIan tfoops mafched southwafds Into NubIa whefe, as Ahmose, son of Ibana, teIIs
us, they successfuIIy 'destfoyed InsuffectIon thfoughout the Iands and fepeIIed the
Intfudefs ffom the deseft fegIon', advancIng past the ThIfd Catafact of the NIIe, whefe
TuthmosIs set up a steIa to commemofate hIs gfeat achIevement, and feachIng the IsIand
of Afgo. The new kIng saIIed home In tfIumph wIth the body of a NubIan bowman, a
dfeadfuI wafnIng to othefs who mIght be tempted to febeI, dfaped 'head down ovef the
bow of hIs majesty's shIp, the Iulcon'. He Ieft behInd hIm a subdued Iand contfoIIed by a
chaIn of EgyptIan foftfesses stfetchIng acfoss NubIa and the Sudan.
ThIs was foIIowed by an even mofe spectacuIaf vIctofy. Aftef estabIIshIng new
mIIItafy headquaftefs at the oId nofthefn capItaI of MemphIs, TuthmosIs pfessed
eastwafds Into NahafIn, cfossIng the RIvef Euphfates and entefIng the teffItofy fuIed by
Egypt's new enemy, the KIng of MItannI. Hefe, as the evef-pfesent Ahmose fecofds:
]HIs Majesty| went to Retenu to vent hIs wfath thfoughout fofeIgn Iands. HIs Majesty affIved at NahafIn. HIs Majesty ÷
IIfe, pfospefIty and heaIth be upon hIm ÷ found that the enemy was gathefIng tfoops. Then hIs Majesty made a gfeat heap
of cofpses among them. CountIess wefe the IIvIng captIves of hIs Majesty ffom hIs vIctofIes. Io, I was at the head of the
afmy and hIs Majesty saw my bfavefy. I bfought away a chafIot, Its hofse, and the one who was upon It as a IIvIng captIve
to pfesent to hIs Majesty. I was fewafded wIth goId yet agaIn.
Aftef a gfeat battIe and wIth many of the enemy kIIIed of taken pfIsonef, TuthmosIs IaId
down the foundatIons of what was Iatef to deveIop Into Egypt's AsIan empIfe. Once
agaIn a commemofatIve steIa was needed, thIs tIme to be set on the bank of the RIvef
Euphfates. On hIs joufney home the vIctofIous kIng paused fof a ceIebfatofy eIephant
hunt In the swamps of SyfIa, thus estabIIshIng a famIIy tfadItIon whIch was to be
foIIowed some fIfty yeafs Iatef by hIs gfandson, TuthmosIs III, a pfoIIfIc bIg-game huntef
who was to boast of kIIIIng of maImIng ovef a hundfed eIephants at the same huntIng
TuthmosIs I InstIgated an equaIIy successfuI domestIc poIIcy and hIs feIgn saw extensIve
and InnovatIve buIIdIng pfogfammes at aII the majof Theban sItes. To InenI, a hIgh-
fankIng Theban offIcIaI, HefedItafy PfInce, Ovefseef of DoubIe Gfanafy of Amen and
possIbIy Mayof of Thebes, feII the fesponsIbIIIty fof supefvIsIng what was to become the
fIfst phase of the 18th Dynasty embeIIIshment of the Kafnak tempIe compIex. The
ofIgInaI MIddIe KIngdom tempIe was now encIosed wIthIn a sandstone waII, the
pfocessIonaI ways wefe extended, and two magnIfIcent pyIons of monumentaI
gateways, compIete wIth towefs and fIagpoIes, wefe InstaIIed, the afea between them
beIng foofed ovef to fofm a pIIIafed haII. Most ImpfessIve of aII, two InscfIbed fed-
gfanIte obeIIsks, each standIng 19.5 m (64 ft) hIgh and wIth a goId-Ieaf coated tIp
desIgned to mIffof the sun's fays, wefe efected wIthIn the encIosufe waII befofe the maIn
entfance to the tempIe.
InenI was evIdentIy an expefIenced afchItect and ovefseef of buIIdIng pfojects. He
had pfevIousIy wofked on the constfuctIon of the gate of Amenhotep I at Kafnak, and
he was now to be entfusted wIth the quaffyIng of the kIng's secfet tomb whIch was to be
the fIfst excavated In the femote BIban eI-MuIuk, the VaIIey of the Gates of the KIngs,
now bettef known sImpIy as the VaIIey of the KIngs, on the West Bank of the NIIe,
opposIte Thebes. The autobIogfaphy pfesefved In hIs tomb teIIs how he:
. supefvIsed the excavatIon of the cIIff-tomb of HIs Majesty aIone, no one seeIng, no one heafIng. I was vIgIIant In
seekIng that whIch Is exceIIent. I made fIeIds of cIay In ofdef to pIastef theIf tombs of the necfopoIIs. It Is wofk such as the
ancestofs had not whIch I was obIIged to do thefe.
The tomb was to foIIow the new custom, estabIIshed by Amenhotep I, of physIcaIIy
sepafatIng the actuaI bufIaI chambef ffom the moftuafy tempIe. The theoIogIcaI move
away ffom the cuIt of Re and the assocIated pyfamId fofm, and the deveIopment of
moftuafy tempIes whIch wefe effectIveIy tempIes of Amen, caused the afchItects some
pfobIems. It was neIthef pfactIcaI nof desIfabIe to sIte the Iafge and conspIcuous
moftuafy tempIes In the steep VaIIey of the KIngs whIIe, aIthough the moftuafy tempIe
couId be constfucted on the fIattef and mofe accessIbIe deseft ffInges, the bufIaI
chambef couId not be dug undefneath the tempIe wIthout IncuffIng the fIsk of fIoodIng.
SepafatIon was InevItabIe, and bfought a weIcome sIde effect, It was now possIbIe to
make a feaIIstIc attempt to hIde the entfance to the bufIaI chambef ffom the thIeves who
wefe IffesIstIbIy attfacted by the sumptuous pafaphefnaIIa tfadItIonaIIy pfovIded wIth
the bufIaI of a kIng. The pfesefvatIon of an Intact tomb was vItaI, not mefeIy to pfovIde
stofage fof the gfave goods whIch the deceased mIght need In the AftefIIfe, but to
consefve the mummIfIed body ItseIf. EgyptIan theoIogy decfeed that the souI, of Ka,
couId not sufvIve If the body was destfoyed and, as the pfospect of 'dyIng the second
death' (that Is, the destfuctIon of the body and subsequent death of the souI) seemed
aImost too hoffIfIc to contempIate, the tfadItIon of mummIfIcatIon was deveIoped In a
despefate attempt to defeat natufe and pfesefve the deceased fof etefnIty.
UnfoftunateIy, the custom of wfappIng vaIuabIe Items undef the mummy bandages
meant that the bodIes of dead kIngs, once dIscovefed, wefe tfeated wIth scant fespect.
By the begInnIng of the New KIngdom tomb-fobbefy was a majof pfobIem, and It had
become aII too obvIous that a Iafge monument pIaced In cIose pfoxImIty to a weaIthy
gfave sImpIy sefved as a sIgnpost to bufIed tfeasufes.
TuthmosIs' hIdden tomb, usuaIIy IdentIfIed usIng the modefn tomb-numbefIng
conventIon as KV 38, was a feIatIveIy sImpIe affaIf consIstIng of a fectanguIaf
antechambef, a pIIIafed bufIaI chambef and smaII stofefoom IInked togethef by a sefIes
of naffow passages and steep staIfways. HIs assocIated moftuafy chapeI, K/enmetun//
(IItefaIIy 'UnIted wIth IIfe'), whIch was fof a Iong tIme mIs-IdentIfIed as the shfIne of
PfInce Wadjmose, was sItuated a good houf's waIk away ffom the VaIIey of the KIngs, at
a sIte Iatef chosen fof the moftuafy tempIe of the 19th Dynasty KIng Ramesses II, now
popuIafIy known as the Ramesseum.
TuthmosIs had been a mIddIe-aged man wIth a successfuI cafeef behInd hIm when he
acceded to the thfone and he had feIgned fof no mofe than ten to fIfteen yeafs befofe,
aged about fIfty, he 'fested ffom IIfe'. FIfty yeafs may seem a shoft IIfe-span to modefn
feadefs accustomed to seeIng feIatIons IIvIng weII Into theIf seventIes and eIghtIes, but It
wouId have been an emInentIy feasonabIe age fof an actIve EgyptIan soIdIef to achIeve,
thfoughout the New KIngdom, IIfe expectancy at bIfth was consIdefabIy Iowef than
twenty yeafs, whIIe those who sufvIved the pefIIs of bIfth and Infancy to feach foufteen
yeafs of age mIght then expect to IIve fof anothef fIfteen yeafs. ThIs compafes weII wIth
the avefage IIfe expectancIes nofmaIIy found In pfe-IndustfIaI socIetIes, whIch tend to
vafy between twenty and fofty yeafs, and wIth the suggested avefage IIfe expectancy of
a Roman senatof at bIfth of thIfty yeafs.
Those eIIte EgyptIan maIes, who abIe to
maIntaIn hIghef standafds of hygIene and nutfItIon than the Iess foftunate aftIsans and
peasants, who peffofmed IIttIe of no dangefous manuaI wofk, who wefe not faced wIth
the dangefs of chIIdbIfth and couId affofd the best medIcaI attentIon, benefIted ffom a
sIIghtIy Incfeased IIfe expectancy, but no one couId Iook fofwafd wIth any confIdence to
a Iong oId age. AIthough the EgyptIans wefe famed thfoughout the ancIent wofId fof
theIf medIcaI expeftIse, thefe was feIatIveIy IIttIe that any doctof couId do to heIp when
faced wIth a sefIousIy III of wounded patIent, and the avefage age fof tomb ownefs
(that Is, the maIe eIIte) of the DynastIc PefIod has been caIcuIated at between thIfty and
fofty-fIve yeafs.
The hIgh IeveIs of Infant and chIId moftaIIty, combIned wIth the Iow IIfe expectancy,
made It vefy dIffIcuIt fof the EgyptIan foyaI famIIy to maIntaIn Its excIusIvIty. In an
IdeaI wofId, as we have aIfeady seen, the heIf to the thfone wouId be the son of the kIng
and hIs consoft who was usuaIIy hefseIf a cIose bIood feIatIon, and often a haIf- of fuII
sIstef of the kIng. The cfown pfInce wouId, thefefofe, be of unbIemIshed foyaI descent
thfough both hIs fathef and hIs mothef, and by maffyIng hIs sIstef he couId maIntaIn the
tfadItIon of famIIy pufIty. Howevef, no mattef how many chIIdfen wefe conceIved by
the foyaI coupIe, thefe couId be no guafantee that any wouId IIve to become aduIts.
GIven the
Iack of effectIve contfaceptIves and often-expfessed desIfe fof Iafge numbefs of
offspfIng, we mIght expect to fInd the nucIeaf foyaI famIIy expandIng fapIdIy
thfoughout the New KIngdom. ThIs was not the case. Instead, the TuthmosIde foyaI
famIIy was pIagued by a deafth of chIIdfen, wIth sons beIng In paftIcuIafIy shoft suppIy
and sIngIe daughtefs becomIng the nofm. Nof wefe they the onIy New KIngdom foyaI
famIIy to suffef ffom thIs pfobIem, KIng Ramesses II, pefhaps exceptIonaIIy unfoftunate
even by EgyptIan standafds, was eventuaIIy succeeded by PfInce Mefenptah, hIs
thIfteenth son bofn to one of hIs many secondafy wIves. AIthough the EgyptIan kIng
aIways had the back-up of hIs muItIpIe wIves and concubInes, any of whom couId In
theofy pfoduce a IegItImate kIng's son and heIf, the successIon of a Iessef pfInce to the
thfone was not fegafded as IdeaI.
Thefe Is some confusIon ovef the numbef of chIIdfen actuaIIy bofn to TuthmosIs I and
hIs consoft, Queen Ahmose. We know of two daughtefs, PfIncess Hatchepsut and hef
sIstef PfIncess Akhbetnefefu (occasIonaIIy fefeffed to as NefefubIty) who dIed In
Infancy. We aIso have fIfm hIstofIcaI evIdence that TuthmosIs I fathefed two sons, the
PfInces Wadjmose and Amenmose, and possIbIy a thIfd son, PfInce Ramose.
Amenmose and Wadjmose sufvIved Into theIf Iate teens but nevef acceded to the thfone.
As both boys had been faIsed In the tfadItIon of foyaI pfInces, and as Amenmose In
paftIcuIaf seems to have undeftaken some of the dutIes of the heIf to the thfone, It
appeafs that both wefe fegafded as potentIaI kIngs who faIIed to InhefIt onIy because
they pfedeceased theIf fathef, both pfInces dIsappeaf befofe the death of TuthmosIs I.
Wadjmose, the eIdef bfothef, Is the mofe obscufe. We know that he was taught by ItfufI
and possIbIy by PahefI, gfandson of Ahmose, son of Ibana, he Is depIcted In the tomb of
PahefI as a young boy sIttIng on hIs tutof's knee. He aIso appeafs In a pfomInent foIe In
hIs fathef's badIy damaged funefafy chapeI whefe a sIde-foom sefved as a famIIy shfIne
fof the moftuafy cuIts of vafIous famIIy membefs IncIudIng the secondafy Queen
Mutnoffet, the mystefIous PfInce Ramose and PfInce Wadjmose hImseIf.
Amenmose, the youngef but possIbIy Iongef-IIved son, was accofded the tItIe of 'Gfeat
Afmy Commandef', the foIe now tfadItIonaIIy aIIocated to the cfown pfInce. PhysIcaI
bfavefy had become an Impoftant New KIngdom foyaI attfIbute and Amenmose was
cIeafIy expected to enjoy the heafty IIfestyIe of the maIe eIIte. A bfoken steIa teIIs us
that, dufIng hIs fathef's fegnaI Yeaf 4, Amenmose was aIfeady huntIng wIId anImaIs In
the GIza deseft neaf the Gfeat SphInx, a favoufIte pIaygfound of the foyaI pfInces. BIg-
game huntIng was by now a majof pfestIge spoft fecentIy made InfInIteIy mofe excItIng
by the use of the composIte bow and the swIft and hIghIy mobIIe hofse-dfawn chafIot
whIch aIIowed the pufsuIt of fast-movIng cfeatufes such as IIons and ostfIches. MIddIe
KIngdom huntIng had been a faf mofe staId affaIf, wIth the bfave huntsman standIng
stIII to fIfe affows at a pfe-hefded and occasIonaIIy penned gfoup of 'wIId' anImaIs.
Iig. S.1 T/e infunt Hutc/epsut being suc/leJ by t/e goJJess Hut/or
Just how oId couId Amenmose have been when he was to be found chasIng ostfIches
acfoss the GIza deseft? If Amenmose was the A son of Ahmose and TuthmosIs, If Ahmose
was the sIstef of haIf-sIstef of TuthmosIs, and If we thefefofe assume that the foyaI
sIbIIngs embafked upon theIf Incestuous maffIage onIy aftef TuthmosIs became kIng,
Amenmose must have been bafeIy fouf yeafs oId dufIng hIs fathef's Yeaf 4, sufeIy a IIttIe
too young fof even the most pfecocIous of pfInces to be found tfaInIng wIth the afmy of
huntIng wIId anImaIs. ThIs feasonIng Is, of coufse, fuII of 'Ifs', and It Is entIfeIy possIbIe
that a feIatIveIy young pfInce couId have pIayed a pufeIy honofafy foIe In the IIfe of the
afmy, Ramesses II, fof exampIe, aIIowed aII hIs sons to tfaveI wIth the afmy, and the
fIve-yeaf-oId PfInce Khaemwaset Is known to have accompanIed a mIIItafy campaIgn In
Iowef NubIa. Howevef, the appafent dIscfepancy In ages stfongIy suggests that
Amenmose and Wadjmose, and pefhaps the ephemefaI Ramose, may not In fact have
been the chIIdfen of Ahmose but of an eafIIef wIfe, possIbIy the mystefIous Iady
Mutnoffet who featufes aIongsIde Wadjmose In hIs fathef's funefafy chapeI.
We know vefy IIttIe about Iady Mutnoffet, but It Is obvIous that she was a pefson of
fank, pefhaps even of foyaI bIood, who was heId In the hIghest honouf. ThIs Is
confIfmed by an InscfIptIon at Kafnak whefe a Iady named Mutnoffet Is descfIbed as
'KIng's Daughtef'.
We have aIfeady seen that It Is Mutnoffet fathef than Queen Ahmose
who appeafs aIongsIde Wadjmose and Ramose In the kIng's moftuafy chapeI, hefe hef
statue weafs the foyaI ufaeus and hef name Is wfItten In a caftouche. Mutnoffet Is aIso
known to have been the mothef of TuthmosIs' eventuaI successof, TuthmosIs II. The
PfInces Amenmose, Wadjmose, Ramose, and TuthmosIs II may thefefofe have been fuII
bfothefs, possIbIy bofn befofe theIf fathef maffIed Ahmose. ThIs tangIe of feIatIonshIps
wouId make mofe sense If we had confIfmatIon that TuthmosIs was a wIdowef at hIs
accessIon ÷ hIghIy IIkeIy, gIven that he Is IIkeIy to have been at Ieast thIfty-fIve yeafs oId
÷ hIs fIfst wIfe Mutnoffet havIng bofne hIm sevefaI sons befofe dyIng.
Iig. S.2 A /ippopotumus /unter
The TuthmosIde successIon foIIowIng the death of TuthmosIs I ÷ the so-caIIed
'Hatchepsut PfobIem' ÷ Is a subject whIch gfeatIy pefpIexed Iate nIneteenth- and eafIy
twentIeth-centufy egyptoIogIsts, and the effects of theIf confusIon stIII IIngef In some
mofe fecent pubIIcatIons. The names of the IndIvIduaI monafchs InvoIved had been
known fof some tIme (TuthmosIs I, II and III, Hatchepsut), but the pfecIse sequence of
theIf feIgns and theIf feIatIonshIps wIth each othef wefe not, aIthough It was genefaIIy
assumed that the thfee Tuthmoses foIIowed each othef In sequence wIth Hatchepsut
appeafIng In some unknown capacIty some tIme aftef TuthmosIs II. UnfoftunateIy, the
monumentaI evIdence whIch mIght have been expected to heIp soIve the mystefy had
been tampefed wIth at some poInt In antIquIty, the ofIgInaI caftouches
beIng fe-cut to
gIve the names of othef phafaohs
Iig. S.S T/e curtouc/e of King Tut/mosis II
InvoIved In the successIon muddIe. ThIs deIIbefate defacement of the foyaI monuments
was genefaIIy accepted as evIdence of Intense pefsonaI hatfeds stemmIng ffom a
despefate stfuggIe fof powef wIthIn the foyaI famIIy.
In 1896, the Gefman egyptoIogIst Kuft Sethe, basIng hIs concIusIons on a metIcuIous
study of the efased caftouches, and on the effoneous assumptIon that the defaced
caftouches must have been fe-cafved by the monafch whose name fepIaced the ofIgInaI,
suggested that the successIon of monafchs must have been as foIIows:
1 TuthmosIs I. Deposed by ÷
2 TuthmosIs III
3 Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs III co-fegents, Hatchepsut the senIof kIng. Hatchepsut
deposed by ÷
4 TuthmosIs III
5 TuthmosIs II and TuthmosIs I co-fegents, untII the death of TuthmosIs I
6 TuthmosIs II. ReIgnIng untII hIs death
7 TuthmosIs III and Hatchepsut co-fegents untII Hatchepsut's death
8 TuthmosIs III
It Is pefhaps aII too easy fof modefn hIstofIans, bIessed wIth the benefIt of hIndsIght, to
dIsmIss thIs ovef-eIabofate sequence as a tfIumph of schoIafIy methodoIogy ovef
common sense. To those accustomed to studyIng the compIex PtoIemaIc successIon,
howevef, whefe pafent succeeded chIId and bfothef succeeded sIstef In fapId and
confusIng sequence, It was not quIte so faf-fetched. The theofy, accompanIed by
appfopfIate expIanatIons of Intfa-famIIy feudIng to justIfy the fapId changes of fuIef,
became aImost unIvefsaIIy adopted despIte a compIete absence of coffobofatIve
evIdence, and InItIaIIy onIy the SwIss egyptoIogIst Edouafd NavIIIe made a dIfect
chaIIenge to Sethe's suggested sequence of fuIefs, maIntaInIng that the caftouches whIch
fepIaced those of Hatchepsut shouId, equaIIy effoneousIy, aII be dated to the Rames-sIde
pefIod. Sethe and NavIIIe, two IIIustfIous contempofafIes, wefe nevef to feach
agfeement ovef the fundamentaI aspects of Hatchepsut's feIgn and wefe, Indeed, fof a
tIme feduced to open waffafe ovef the subject, theIf famous schoIafIy afguments beIng
conducted wIth dIgnIty vIa the pages of Ieafned joufnaIs. A weII-known afchaeoIogIcaI
stofy teIIs of the tIme when the two found themseIves to be neaf neIghboufs, Sethe
occupyIng the 'Gefman house' at DeIf eI-BahfI and M. and Mme NavIIIe IIvIng cIose by
In the newIy buIIt BfItIsh expedItIon house. When the NavIIIes' kItchen coIIapsed Into a
tomb-pIt, thfeatenIng the contInuatIon of the BfItIsh mIssIon, Sethe genefousIy InvIted
hIs coIIeague to stay In the Gefman house, on condItIon that the name of Hatchepsut
wouId not be mentIoned between them. The NavIIIes spent sevefaI peacefuI weeks
stayIng wIth Sethe befofe they fetufned to theIf house, theIf kItchen now festofed, and
the feud at once fecommenced.
WhIIe NavIIIe was content wIth a fIat denIaI of Sethe's concIusIons, othefs stfuggIed to
Incofpofate the new scheme Into theIf own wofk. Even those such as FIIndefs PetfIe,
who found themseIves unabIe to accept the fuII compIexItIes of the pfoposed successIon,
wefe heavIIy InfIuenced by the undefIyIng feasonIng and unquestIonIngIy accepted the
pfIncIpaI of the TuthmosIde feud. EventuaIIy, dIssatIsfactIon wIth Sethe's scheme dId
staft to gathef momentum. In 1928 It was pubIIcIy fepudIated by both Hefbeft WInIock
and Eduafd Meyef, wofkIng IndependentIy, and In 1933 WIIIIam Edgefton
was abIe to
hIghIIght the fataI fIaw In Sethe's afgument: It was sImpIy not safe to assume that those
who defaced the caftouches of theIf pfedecessofs InvafIabIy fepIaced the efased name
wIth theIf own. Indeed, we now know that the name of Hatchepsut was often fepIaced
by that of hef pfedecessofs, eIthef TuthmosIs I of TuthmosIs II. Edgefton's wofk was
confIfmed by W C. Hayes's study of the foyaI safcophagI of the eafIy 18th Dynasty
whIch, by tfacIng the styIIstIc evoIutIon of the safcophagI, was abIe to suggest a mofe
feasonabIe sequence of fuIefs.
Sethe's compIex scheme was swept away, to be fepIaced
by the faf sImpIef successIon of TuthmosIs I, TuthmosIs II, TuthmosIs III, wIth
Hatchepsut takIng powef dufIng the eafIIef paft of the feIgn of TuthmosIs III.
AIthough Sethe's compIex sequence of fuIefs was abandoned wIth some feIIef, the
Iegacy of hIs wofk IIngefed, wIth many hIstofIans unabIe to shake off the Idea of the
TuthmosIdes as a famIIy at waf wIth ItseIf and the TuthmosIde couft as a hot-bed of
IntfIgue and pIottIng. The sImpIIfIed ofdef of successIon now made It dIffIcuIt to justIfy
any hatfed between eIthef TuthmosIs I of TuthmosIs II and the othef membefs of the
famIIy, but the Iegendafy enmIty between TuthmosIs III and Hatchepsut ÷ boIstefed by
the undenIabIe fact that many of Hatchepsut's caftouches had Indeed been attacked aftef
hef death ÷ femaIned as an IntegfaI paft of accepted eafIy 18th Dynasty hIstofy,
coIoufIng many IntefpfetatIons of theIf joInt feIgn. Hatchepsut the hated stepmothef,
and TuthmosIs III the wfonged and bfoodIng kIng, had entefed the hIstofIcaI
ImagInatIon and couId not easIIy be dIsIodged.
On the death of hef fathef the young Hatchepsut, possIbIy onIy tweIve yeafs oId,
emefged ffom the obscufIty of the women's paIace to maffy hef haIf-bfothef and become
queen consoft of Egypt. AIthough we have vefy IIttIe InfofmatIon about Hatchepsut's IIfe
In the hafem, we afe foftunate enough to have a badIy damaged sandstone statue whIch
shows hef as a mInIatufe aduIt phafaoh sIttIng on the knee of hef nufse SItfe, known as
Inet, wIth hef feet festIng on the symboIIc fepfesentatIon of the 'nIne bows', the
tfadItIonaI means of depIctIng the mIIItafy supfemacy of the EgyptIan kIng. Thfoughout
the DynastIc age the posItIon of foyaI wet-nufse was an honoufabIe post of some
InfIuence and Impoftance, often gIven as a fewafd to the mothefs and wIves of the eIIte
couftIefs. Hatchepsut cIeafIy bofe enough affectIon fof the woman who had cafed fof
hef In Infancy to commIssIon a statue of SItfe to be pIaced In hef DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe.
UnfoftunateIy, the statue InscfIptIon was so badIy damaged as to be aImost unfeadabIe,
but as WInIock hImseIf fecofds:
It seems that thefe has Iong been a fIake of IImestone In the Ambfas CoIIectIon In VIenna. on whIch an ancIent scfIbe had
jotted down an InscfIptIon In veftIcaI coIumns. CompafIng thIs InscfIptIon wIth the one on the statue, I have IIttIe doubt
that the ostfacon gIves the pfeIImInafy dfaft fof the statue InscfIptIon, dfawn up by the scfIbe who was dIfectIng the
scuIptof. On the statue the InscfIptIon Is IncompIete, and It gIves us a cufIous feeIIng to fInd oufseIves fIIIIng In the gaps
ffom the ofIgInaI fough dfaft aftef a Iapse of thIfty-fIve hundfed yeafs.
The text, so foftuItousIy pfesefved and IdentIfIed, was tfansIated by WInIock as foIIows:
May the kIng Maatkafe ]Hatchepsut| and OsIfIs, fIfst of the Westefnefs, ]the gfeat god| Iofd of Abydos, be gfacIous and
gIve a moftuafy offefIng ]of cakes and beef, beef and fowI, and thousands of evefythIng| good and pufe, and the sweet
bfeath of the nofth wInd to the spIfIt of the chIef nufse who suckIed the MIstfess of the Two Iands, SIt-Re, caIIed Yen
]Inet|, justIfIed.
DufIng hIs 1903 season of excavatIons In the VaIIey of the KIngs, Howafd Caftef
opened a smaII tomb, now known by Its numbef KV60, whIch housed two non-foyaI
femaIe bufIaIs, one of whIch was stIII IyIng In haIf a wooden coffIn, togethef wIth a
numbef of mummIfIed geese and a mummIfIed Ieg of beef. Caftef was not Intefested In
the tomb, whIch had suffefed badIy at the hands of tomb fobbefs, and he quIckIy seaIed
It up. Howevef, the tomb was fe-opened thfee yeafs Iatef and the body In the coffIn was
tfanspofted to the CaIfo Museum. The second body was Ieft whefe the fobbefs had
abandoned It, IyIng on the fIoof of the tomb. The wooden coffIn was InscfIbed wIth the
name of In of Inet, and It wouId appeaf that Caftef had stumbIed acfoss the bufIaI of
Hatchepsut's wet-nufse, who had been accofded the unpfecedented pfIvIIege of
Intefment In the VaIIey of the KIngs.
The othef body, that of an unusuaIIy fat woman
wIth fed-goId haIf and wofn teeth IndIcatIve of mIddIe age, Is so faf unIdentIfIed.
TuthmosIs II and Hatchepsut bufIed theIf fathef and stafted to fuIe Egypt as a
conventIonaI New KIngdom kIng and queen consoft, foIIowIng the successfuI IntefnaI
and fofeIgn poIIcIes deveIoped by Amenhotep I and TuthmosIs I. At home the now
tfadItIonaI buIIdIng wofks at the Kafnak tempIe of Amen contInued, and the countfy
pfospefed undef the new fegIme. UnfoftunateIy, the mIIItafy achIevements of TuthmosIs
II have been aImost entIfeIy effaced by the mofe spectacuIaf campaIgns of both hIs
fathef and hIs son, but thefe Is evIdence of at Ieast two successfuI mIIItafy stfIkes dufIng
hIs feIgn, even though It appeafs that TuthmosIs hImseIf ÷ possIbIy because the 'hawk In
the nest' was too young ÷ dId not accompany hIs tfoops Into battIe. In Yeaf ÷ an afmy
of foot-soIdIefs saIIed southwafds to cfush an InsuffectIon In NubIa, a tfIumph whIch
was commemofated by a steIa set up on the Aswan-PhIIae foad whIch toId the taIe of the
... one came to Infofm HIs Majesty that vIIe Cush had fevoIted and that those who wefe subjects of the Iofd of the Two
Iands had pIanned febeIIIon to pIundef the peopIe of Egypt.
'RagIng IIke a panthef', TuthmosIs took swIft actIon to defeat the febeIs. Iatef thefe was
a campaIgn In PaIestIne whefe, as Ahmose-Pennekheb fecofds, Egypt's contfoI of the
fegIon was feInfofced and many pfIsonefs wefe taken.
We afe pefhaps In some dangef of undefestImatIng TuthmosIs II's mIIItafy pfowess,
and Indeed of undefestImatIng hIs entIfe pefsonaIIty. WInIock Is not aIone In seeIng the
new kIng as a somewhat negIIgIbIe fuIef:
The young KIng TuthmosIs II was a youth of no mofe than twenty, physIcaIIy ffaII and mentaIIy faf ffom enefgetIc, who Iet
the countfy fun ItseIf. OId offIcIaIs who had stafted theIf cafeefs In the days of hIs gfandfathef ÷ and even of hIs gfeat-
gfandfathef ÷ occupIed theIf pIaces thfoughout hIs feIgn, and It was hIs fathef's genefaIs who suppfessed a febeIIIon
whIch bfoke out In NubIa.
It Is aII too easy to faII Into the tfap of seeIng the TuthmosIde ImpefIaIIsm as a
deIIbefate poIIcy, wIth TuthmosIs I as the foundef of a potentIaIIy mIghty AsIan empIfe
whIch was, foIIowIng the dIsappoIntIngIy peacefuI feIgns of TuthmosIs II and
Hatchepsut, successfuIIy consoIIdated by TuthmosIs III. ThIs expansIonIst stfategy ÷ so
obvIous to modefn students of EgyptIan hIstofy ÷ may not have been quIte so appafent
to eIthef TuthmosIs II of Hatchepsut. By the tIme that TuthmosIs II came to the thfone,
Egypt had suffefed the effects of a vIcIous waf of IIbefatIon foIIowed by a spate of
fofeIgn campaIgns. Hef tfadItIonaI boundafIes wefe now secufe, an acceptabIe buffef
zone had been estabIIshed between Egypt and hef neafest enemIes, and TuthmosIs may,
wIth some justIfIcatIon, have seen IIttIe need to engage In fufthef unnecessafy and
expensIve mIIItafy actIon.
Iig. S.4 Tut/mosis II
It Is aIso wofth femembefIng that battIes often have IIttIe of no Impact on the
afchaeoIogIcaI fecofd whIIe the texts and monuments whIch document mIIItafy
campaIgns afe subject to the same pfocesses of fandom pfesefvatIon as othef hIstofIcaI
fecofds. It Is entIfeIy possIbIe that TuthmosIs II InduIged In mofe campaIgns than the
hIstofIcaI fecofd now gIves hIm cfedIt fof. Nof Is It entIfeIy faIf to cfItIcIze TuthmosIs II
fof fetaInIng the effIcIent bufeaucfacy of hIs pfedecessof. Indeed, It has pfobabIy
aIfeady become appafent to the feadef that the same soIdIefs and offIcIaIs (fof exampIe,
InenI, Ahmose, son of Ibana, and Ahmose-Pennekheb, to name but thfee) contInued to
sefve undef successIve kIngs, pfovIdIng stfong IndIfect evIdence fof the Iack of any
poIItIcaI upheavaI at the end of each feIgn.
The new consoft was now accofded the conventIonaI queen's tItIes of KIng's Daughtef,
KIng's SIstef and KIng's Gfeat WIfe, aIthough hef pfefeffed tItIe was aIways God's WIfe.
She behaved In an exempIafy fashIon thfoughout hef husband's feIgn. A steIa now
housed In BefIIn (ÄgyptIsches Museum 15699) shows us the ImmedIate foyaI famIIy at
thIs tIme: TuthmosIs II stands to face the god Re whIIe ImmedIateIy behInd hIm stands
the senIof Iady, the Dowagef Queen Ahmose, whose fegaI headdfess of taII feathefs and
a ufaeus wofn on top of a vuItufe cfown IndIcates hef Impoftance. The Queen Consoft
Hatchepsut stands modestIy behInd both hef mothef and hef husband In appfoved wIfeIy
fashIon. She Is dfessed In a sImpIe sheath dfess and weafIng a fathef undefstated cfown,
aIthough hef Iack of taII feathefs may owe as much to a Iack of space on the steIa as It
does to hef mofe junIof foIe. Thefe Is no feason to suppose that Hatchepsut was
anythIng othef than content wIth hef posItIon at thIs tIme, and ceftaInIy no justIfIcatIon
fof the asseftIon that TuthmosIs II, 'knowIng the tempef of hIs ambItIous consoft', was
fofced to take measufes to ensufe that hIs son wouId eventuaIIy succeed to the thfone.
Nof Is thefe any pfoof to suppoft the assumptIon that dufIng the feIgn of the supposedIy
sIckIy TuthmosIs II It was Hatchepsut, the powef behInd the thfone, who fuIed Egypt: '.
the expefIence whIch she gaIned In the tIme of hef fathef was of the gfeatest use to hef,
and hef natufaI abIIIty made hef to pfofIt by It to the utmost.'
Pefhaps the cIeafest IndIcatIon of Hatchepsut's acceptance of hef subsIdIafy foIe Is the
excavatIon of hef queen's tomb, whIch commenced some tIme towafds the end of hef
husband's feIgn. At the begInnIng of the 18th Dynasty the VaIIey of the Queens had not
yet come Into opefatIon and, In the absence of a fofmaI queen's cemetefy on the West
Bank at Thebes, Hatchepsut seIected a sIte In the WadI SIkkat Taka ez-ZeIda, a IoneIy
and InaccessIbIe favIne appfoxImateIy one mIIe to the west of the sIte she was Iatef to
choose fof hef moftuafy tempIe. Hefe the tomb was hIdden hIgh up In the face of the
cIIff, facIng west, whefe thefe was a spIendId vIew ovef the NIIe VaIIey and whefe 'the
settIng Octobef sun thfows Its Iast beams fIght Into the mouth of the tomb'.
The tomb
was weII sIted to detef tomb fobbefs, and aImost InaccessIbIe fof Its eventuaI excavatof,
Howafd Caftef:
The tomb was dIscovefed fuII of fubbIsh. thIs fubbIsh havIng poufed Into It In toffents ffom the mountaIn above. When I
wfested It ffom the pIundefIng Afabs I found that they had buffowed Into It IIke fabbIts, as faf as the sepuIchfaI haII. I
found that they had cfept down a cfack extendIng haIfway down the cIeft, and thefe ffom a smaII Iedge In the fock they
had Iowefed themseIves by a fope to the then hIdden entfance of the tomb at the bottom of the cIeft: a dangefous
peffofmance, but one whIch I myseIf had to ImItate, though wIth bettef tackIe. Fof anyone who suffefs ffom veftIgo It
ceftaInIy was not pIeasant, and though I soon ovefcame the sensatIon of the ascent I was obIIged aIways to descend In a
HavIng eventuaIIy gaIned entfance to the tomb, and cIeafed It of Its accumuIated debfIs,
Caftef dIscovefed that IntefnaIIy the tomb was sImIIaf In pIan to that whIch TuthmosIs II
had been constfuctIng
Iig. S.5 Plun of Hutc/epsut's first tomb
In the VaIIey of the KIngs, wIth an entfance staIfway descendIng to a doofway and
IeadIng In tufn to a gaIIefy, antechambef, second gaIIefy and bufIaI chambef. One of
the descendIng gaIIefIes housed an ImpfessIve quaftzIte safcophagus, a stone vefsIon of
the massIve fectanguIaf wooden outef coffIn pfovIded fof the bufIaIs of Queens Ahhotep
and Ahmose NefeftafI, measufIng 1.99 m × 0.73 m × 0.73 m (6 ft 6 In × 2 ft 4 In × 2
ft 4 In). The IId, 0.17 m (6½ In) thIck, was dIscovefed pfopped agaInst a cofnef of the
safcophagus. ThIs, the fIfst of the thfee magnIfIcent safcophagI whIch Hatchepsut was to
commIssIon, bofe an InscfIptIon fof 'The Gfeat PfIncess, gfeat In favouf and gface,
MIstfess of AII Iands, RoyaI Daughtef and RoyaI SIstef, Gfeat RoyaI WIfe, MIstfess of
the Two Iands, Hatchepsut'. On the IId was a pfayef to the goddess Nut, adapted ffom
the OId KIngdom PyrumiJ Texts:
RecItatIon: The KIng's Daughtef, God's WIfe, KIng's Gfeat WIfe, Iady of the Two Iands, Hatchepsut, says 'O my mothef
Nut, stfetch thyseIf ovef me, that thou mayest pIace me among the ImpefIshabIe stafs whIch afe In thee, and that I may
not dIe.'
The bufIaI shaft, cut Into the fIoof of the chambef, was unfInIshed. The tomb had been
abandoned befofe the pfeIImInafy wofk had been compIeted, and It had cIeafIy nevef
been used by Its Intended ownef.
Hatchepsut bofe hef bfothef one daughtef, the PfIncess Nefefufe. Fof a Iong tIme It was
beIIeved that a second contempofafy foyaI pfIncess, MefItfe-Hatchepsut (often fefeffed
to as Hatchepsut II), eventuaI consoft of TuthmosIs III and mothef of Amenhotep II, was
the youngef daughtef of Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs II, but thefe Is no foundatIon fof thIs
assumptIon whIch seems to be based on nothIng mofe concfete than the coIncIdence that
the two IadIes shafed the same name. Hatchepsut hefseIf makes no mentIon of a second
daughtef on any of hef monuments whIIe MefItfe-Hatchepsut Is tantaIIzIngIy sIIent
about hef pafentage aIthough, gIven the fact that she became a God's WIfe, Gfeat RoyaI
WIfe and Mothef of the kIng, It seems IIkeIy that she was bofn a membef of the
ImmedIate foyaI famIIy.
Nefefufe, undIsputed daughtef of Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs II, appeafs suItabIy
InvIsIbIe, as we mIght expect of a young foyaI chIId, thfoughout hef fathef's feIgn.
Howevef, foIIowIng the death of TuthmosIs II, she stafts to pIay an unusuaIIy pfomInent
paft In couft IIfe, suddenIy appeafIng In pubIIc aIongsIde hef mothef, the kIng. The IIttIe
pfIncess Is now faf mofe conspIcuous than hef mothef was at an equaIIy eafIy age, and
It Is dIffIcuIt to escape the concIusIon that, whIIe Hatchepsut's chIIdhood was
ovefshadowed by that of hef bfothefs, Nefefufe as an onIy chIId was beIng gfoomed
ffom an eafIy age to pIay an Impoftant foIe In the EgyptIan foyaI famIIy. Howevef,
thefe Is a bIg dIffefence between tfaInIng a daughtef to be queen consoft ÷ fof It wouId
have been aImost a fofegone concIusIon, gIven hef ancestfy, that Nefefufe wouId maffy
the next phafaoh ÷ and faIsIng hef to become kIng.
To hInt, as some modefn hIstofIans have done, that Hatchepsut Intended ffom the
outset that hef daughtef wouId become phafaoh Is to ImpIy one of two vefy dIffefent
vIews of Hatchepsut's pefsonaIIty. The fIfst, the sImpIest and In many ways the most
acceptabIe scenafIo, Is that Hatchepsut was beIng mefeIy pfactIcaI In hef assumptIon
that Nefefufe mIght eventuaIIy InhefIt the thfone. If Hatchepsut had feaIIzed that she
hefseIf, as queen, wouId not beaf a son, If TuthmosIs III had dIed In Infancy and If the
ImmedIate foyaI famIIy couId offef no mofe suItabIe (that Is, maIe) candIdate fof the
cfown, she may weII have been pfoved coffect. HIstofIcaI pfecedent wouId ceftaInIy
have been on 'KIng' Nefefufe's sIde, as the MIddIe KIngdom Queen Sobeknoffu had
successfuIIy cIaImed the thfone In the absence of any mofe suItabIe maIe heIf. In thIs
case, we mIght push ouf specuIatIon fufthef by suggestIng that TuthmosIs III, the son
and eventuaI heIf of TuthmosIs II, was eIthef not bofn untII the vefy end of hIs fathef's
feIgn, of that fof some feason ÷ pefhaps because of hIs mothef's IowIy bIfth ÷ he was not
aIways consIdefed an entIfeIy suItabIe heIf. It wouId ceftaInIy have been pfudent, In an
age whefe no chIId couId be guafanteed to IIve to become an aduIt, to ensufe that as
many foyaI chIIdfen as possIbIe wefe educated as futufe kIngs.
AItefnatIveIy, It has been suggested by those hIstofIans beIongIng to the antI-
Hatchepsut camp that Hatchepsut's tfeatment of Nefefufe was the outwafd sIgn of hef
own pefsonaI dIsappoIntment and thwafted ambItIon. Hatchepsut may have gfown to
see the posItIon of queen consoft and eventuaI queen mothef as an unfuIfIIIIng and
unacceptabIy subofdInate foIe both fof hefseIf and hef daughtef. HefseIf the daughtef
and sIstef of a kIng, she had expefIenced yeafs of beIng passed ovef In favouf of maIe
feIatIons, and had no IntentIon of seeIng hef much-Ioved daughtef fepeat hef
humIIIatIon. She thefefofe pIanned that hef daughtef shouId upset the stutus quo and
become a femaIe phafaoh. In many fespect thIs afgument Iacks convIctIon. We have no
evIdence to suggest that Hatchepsut was evef dIssatIsfIed wIth hef own foIe as consoft
dufIng the feIgn of TuthmosIs II, aIthough It couId of coufse be afgued that we afe
unIIkeIy evef to fInd such evIdence. Mofe to the poInt, It seems unIIkeIy that Hatchepsut,
the pfoduct of a hIghIy consefvatIve socIety bfought up to thInk In conventIonaI gendef
stefeotypes, wouId even dafe to ImagIne that she had any chance of successfuIIy
chaIIengIng muut wIthout a vaIId and wIdeIy acceptabIe feason.
Ffom Infancy, the cafe of the foyaI pfIncess was consIdefed to be a mattef of some
Impoftance, and successIve hIgh-fankIng offIcIaIs IaId cIaIm to the pfestIgIous tItIe of
foyaI nufse of foyaI tutof. In hIs tomb at eI-Kab, Ahmose-Pennekheb pfoudIy fecaIIs how
'the God's WIfe fepeated favoufs fof me, the gfeat KIng's WIfe Maatkafe, justIfIed, I
educated hef eIdest daughtef, Nefefufe, justIfIed, when she was a chIId at the bfeast'.
Iatef Senenmut, Hatchepsut's most InfIuentIaI couftIef, became fIfst Stewafd of Nefefufe
and then foyaI tutof, Senenmut seems to have taken paftIcuIaf pfIde In hIs assocIatIon
wIth the young pfIncess and we have sevefaI statues whIch show hIm hoIdIng Nefefufe
In hIs afms, of sIttIng wIth hef on hIs Iap. When Senenmut eventuaIIy moved on to
gfeatef gIofIes, the admInIstfatof SenImen took ovef the foIe of cafIng fof the young
pfIncess. The extent to whIch Nefefufe was actuaIIy educated by any of hef tutofs Is
hafd fof us to assess. It seems vefy pfobabIe that most kIngs of Egypt couId fead and
wfIte, paftIcuIafIy those who had been taught In the hafem schooIs, but IItefacy was by
no means a necessIty as the kIng had access to afmIes of scfIbes who couId fead and
wfIte on hIs behaIf. If Nefefufe was tfuIy beIng faIsed to InhefIt the thfone, we mIght
expect that she was gIven the educatIon appfopfIate to a cfown pfInce. In genefaI,
howevef, foyaI women wefe Iess IIkeIy than theIf bfothefs to be IItefate but wouId fInd
thIs Iess of a dIsadvantage than we mIght suppose, thanks to the feady avaIIabIIIty of
pfofessIonaI scfIbes who couId be hIfed as often as needed.
GIven hef backgfound as the daughtef and haIf-sIstef of a kIng, It wouId seem aImost
ceftaIn that Nefefufe was the Intended bfIde of TuthmosIs III. The heIf to the thfone
wouId have been the onIy man foyaI enough to maffy such a weII-connected gIfI, and
she In tufn wouId have made the most suItabIe mothef of the next kIng. Howevef, we
have no fecofd of theIf evef maffyIng, and It was MefItfe-Hatchepsut fathef than
Nefefufe who was to become the mothef of the subsequent phafaoh of Egypt,
Amenhotep II. It Is thefefofe sufpfIsIng to fInd that thfoughout hef mothef's feIgn
Nefefufe bofe the tItIe of 'God's WIfe', the tItIe whIch hef mothef had pfefeffed as both
consoft and fegent, and one whIch was nofmaIIy fesefved fof the pfIncIpaI queen of
queen mothef. Any 'nofmaI' kIng wouId be accompanIed In such scenes by hIs wIfe, and
hefe we aImost ceftaInIy have the tfue expIanatIon of Nefefufe's pfomInence.
Hatchepsut as kIng needed a God's WIfe to paftIcIpate In the fItuaI aspects of hef foIe
and to ensufe the pfesefvatIon of muut. As Hatchepsut couId not act sImuItaneousIy as
both God's WIfe and KIng hef own daughtef, hefseIf the daughtef of a kIng (of fathef
two kIngs) and thefefofe an acknowIedged foyaI heIfess, was the IdeaI pefson to fIII the
foIe and act as hef mothef's consoft. The dIsmantIed bIocks of the ChapeIIe Rouge at
Kafnak (dIscussed In fufthef detaII In Chaptef 4) IncIude thfee sets of scenes In whIch an
unnamed God's WIfe Is shown peffofmIng hef dutIes dufIng the feIgn of KIng
Hatchepsut. In the absence of a mofe suItabIe candIdate fof the posItIon, It seems safe to
assume that the anonymous Iady must be Nefefufe. The gfoups of scenes make the
Impoftance of the God's WIfe cIeaf. ThIs was not an honofafy foIe and, In theofy at
Ieast, the God's WIfe had to be pfesent dufIng the tempIe fItuaIs. In one scene the God's
WIfe Is shown, togethef wIth a pfIest, peffofmIng a fItuaI to destfoy by bufnIng the
name of Egypt's enemIes. In the second tabIeau she stands, both afms faIsed, wIth thfee
pfIests to watch Hatchepsut pfesent the seventeen gods of Kafnak wIth theIf dInnef. The
fInaI fItuaI shows the God's WIfe IeadIng a gfoup of maIe pfIests to the tempIe pooI to be
pufIfIed, and then foIIowIng Hatchepsut Into the sanctuafy whefe the KIng peffofms
fItes In ffont of the statue of Amen.
Nefefufe fades out of the IImeIIght towafds the end of hef mothef's feIgn, she Is
mentIoned In the fIfst tomb of Senenmut buIIt In fegnaI Yeaf 7 and appeafs on a steIa at
SefabIt eI-KhadIm In Yeaf 11, but then vanIshes. She Is unmentIoned In Senenmut's
Tomb 353 dated to Yeaf 16, and the Iack of fufthef fefefences to the hIthefto pfomInent
pfIncess stfongIy suggests that she had dIed and been bufIed In hef tomb In the WadI
SIkkat Taka ez-ZeIda, cIose to that beIng pfepafed fof hef mothef. Thefe Is onIy one,
InconcIusIve, shfed of evIdence whIch hInts that Nefefufe may have outIIved hef mothef
and maffIed TuthmosIs III.
It Is possIbIe, but by no means ceftaIn, that Nefefufe was
ofIgInaIIy depIcted on a steIa dated to the begInnIng of TuthmosIs III's soIo feIgn.
Howevef, aIthough Nefefufe's tItIe of God's WIfe Is gIven, the assocIated name on the
steIa now feads 'SatIoh'. We know that SatIoh was the fIfst pfIncIpaI wIfe of TuthmosIs
III, and that she nevef bofe the tItIe God's WIfe. Is It possIbIe that the steIa, ofIgInaIIy
desIgned to IncIude Nefefufe as the chIef wIfe of TuthmosIs III, couId have been aItefed
aftef hef death to show a fepIacement chIef wIfe?
Thefe Is a genefaI consensus of opInIon that TuthmosIs II was not a heaIthy man, and
that thfoughout hIs feIgn he was 'hampefed by a ffaII constItutIon whIch festfIcted hIs
actIvItIes and shoftened hIs IIfe'.
HIs mummy, unwfapped by Maspefo In 1886, was
found to have been badIy damaged by ancIent tomb fobbefs. The Ieft afm had become
detached, the fIght afm was sevefed ffom the eIbow downwafds and the fIght Ieg had
been compIeteIy amputated by a sIngIe axe-bIow. Maspefo was paftIcuIafIy stfuck by
the unheaIthy condItIon of the kIng's skIn:
The mask on hIs coffIn fepfesents hIm wIth a smIIIng and amIabIe countenance, and wIth fIne pathetIc eyes whIch show
hIs descent ffom the Phafaohs of the XVIIth dynasty. He fesembIes TuthmosIs I, but hIs featufes afe not so mafked, and
afe chafactefIsed by gfeatef gentIeness. He had scafceIy feached the age of thIfty when he feII vIctIm to a dIsease of whIch
the pfocess of embaImIng couId not femove the tfaces. The skIn Is scabfous In patches and covefed wIth scafs, whIIe the
uppef paft of the ]scaIp| Is baId, the body Is thIn and somewhat shfunken, and appeafs to have Iacked vIgouf and
muscuIaf powef.
Some yeafs Iatef SmIth was aIso aIIowed access to the mummy, and noted that:
The skIn of the thofax, shouIdefs and afms (excIudIng the hands), the whoIe of the back, the buttocks and Iegs (excIudIng
the feet) Is studded wIth faIsed macuIes vafyIng In sIze ffom mInute poInts to patches a centImetfe In dIametef.
SmIth concIuded that the mottIed patches of skIn wefe unIIkeIy to be the sIgns of
dIsease, as sImIIaf bIotches wefe aIso to be found, aIbeIt to a Iessef extent, on the
mummIfIed bodIes of TuthmosIs III and Amenhotep II. He thefefofe decIded that they
must have been caused by pfesefvatIve used In mummIfIcatIon.
UnfoftunateIy, nothIng In egyptoIogy can evef be taken fof gfanted, and It Is by no
means one hundfed pef cent ceftaIn that the body of a man In hIs eafIy thIftIes found
assocIated wIth the wooden coffIn of TuthmosIs II Is actuaIIy that of the young kIng. The
body and coffIn wefe dIscovefed not IyIng In theIf ofIgInaI tomb but as paft of a
coIIectIon of New KIngdom foyaI mummIes whIch Is now known as the DeIf eI-BahfI
cache. AIthough the new 18th Dynasty tfadItIon of sepafatIng the hIdden bufIaI chambef
ffom the hIghIy conspIcuous moftuafy tempIe was, at Ieast In paft, Intended to pfotect
the foyaI bufIaIs ffom thIeves, It had pfoved ImpossIbIe to embafk upon the excavatIon
of substantIaI fock-cut chambefs In secfet, and It was wIdeIy known that the VaIIey of
the KIngs contaIned caches of untoId weaIth. The temptatIon pfoved IffesIstIbIe, and the
offIcIaIs who contfoIIed the necfopoIIs wefe faced wIth the constant headache of
guafdIng the foyaI bufIaIs, often needIng to pfotect the seaIed tombs ffom the vefy
wofkmen who had wofked on theIf 'secfet' constfuctIon. SecufIty occasIonaIIy faIIed,
and the offIcIaIs wefe then faced wIth the task of attemptIng to fIght the wfongs befofe
feseaIIng the tomb. A gfaffIto ffom the tomb of TuthmosIs IV, dated to the feIgn of
Hofemheb and thefefofe wfItten IIttIe mofe than seventy yeafs aftef the ofIgInaI
Intefment, teIIs how thIs desecfated tomb was festofed on the ofdefs of the kIng:
HIs Majesty, IIfe, pfospefIty, heaIth, ofdefed that It shouId be fecommended to the fanbeafef on the Ieft of the KIng, the
RoyaI ScfIbe, the SupefIntendent of the Tfeasufy, the SupefIntendent of the Wofks In the PIace of EtefnIty ]I.e. the VaIIey
of the KIngs|. Maya. to fenew the bufIaI of TuthmosIs IV, justIfIed In the PfecIous HabItatIon In Westefn Thebes.
Towafds the end of the New KIngdom, when Egypt was expefIencIng a pefIod of
economIc InstabIIIty wIth unpfecedented povefty fof the Iowef cIasses and spofadIc
bouts of cIvII unfest, It became IncfeasIngIy obvIous that necfopoIIs secufIty had
compIeteIy bfoken down and that many of the tombs In the VaIIey of the KIngs had
been entefed and Iooted. The foyaI bufIaIs wefe In a dIsgfacefuI condItIon, the bodIes of
the kIngs, stfIpped of theIf jeweIIefy and often mInus theIf wfappIngs, wefe sImpIy
IyIng whefe they had been fIung. Ufgent actIon was needed. DufIng the ThIfd
IntefmedIate PefIod feIgn of PInedjem II, the offIcIaIs of the necfopoIIs decIded to
conduct an InspectIon of aII known tombs. Those that had aIfeady been desecfated wefe
fe-entefed and the foyaI mummIes and theIf femaInIng gfave goods wefe femoved,
'festofed' at an offIcIaI wofkpIace, fepIaced In wooden coffIns ÷ eIthef theIf own, of
someone eIse's ÷ and then tfanspofted to one of the foyaI caches. Most of the foyaI
bufIaIs wefe tfansfeffed to the compafatIve safety of the fock-cut tomb of the Iady
InhapI (DB320) whIIe othef, smaIIef, caches wefe estabIIshed In the tombs of Amenhotep
III (KV35), Hofemheb (KV57) and Twosfet,Sethnakht (KV14).
Tomb DB320, hIdden In
a cfack behInd the DeIf eI-BahfI cIIff, had been specIaIIy pfepafed to feceIve the foyaI
vIsItofs. The bufIaI chambef had been gfeatIy enIafged so that behInd the smaII doofway
of the ofIgInaI tomb thefe was now a vast stofage afea. UnfoftunateIy, the mummIes,
coffIns and gfave goods whIch eventuaIIy made theIf way to DeIf eI-BahfI wefe, In spIte
of the IabeIs attached by the necfopoIIs offIcIaIs, hopeIessIy muddIed, the mummy of the
19th Dynasty KIng Ramesses IX, fof exampIe, was dIscovefed IyIng In the coffIn of the
ThIfd IntefmedIate PefIod Iady Neskhons, the coffIn of Queen Ahhotep I housed the
body of PInedjem I, and the coffIn of Queen Ahmose NefeftafI aIso contaIned the
mummy of Ramesses III.
The DeIf eI-BahfI cache had been dIscovefed In 1871 by the Abd eI-RassuI famIIy of
Gufna, a vIIIage sItuated cIose to the foyaI tombs on the west bank of Thebes.
Thfoughout the nIneteenth and eafIy twentIeth centufIes, the men of Gufna made theIf
IIvIng by fafmIng, by wofkIng fof genuIne afchaeoIogIcaI excavatIons, and by the IIIIcIt
seIIIng of antIquItIes, both fake and feaI, to the toufIsts and antIquafIans who wefe
aIfeady fIockIng to Thebes In evef IncfeasIng numbefs. In tfue Gufna tfadItIon Ahmed
Abd eI-RassuI and hIs bfothefs kept theIf fInd to themseIves, and stafted to seII off the
mofe poftabIe of the hIghIy vaIuabIe contents of the tomb. DeaIIng In pIundefed
antIquItIes was then, as It Is now, a vefy sefIous offence and, aftef sevefaI yeafs of
IucfatIve tfadIng, two of the bfothefs wefe affested and the secfet of the tomb was
fInaIIy feveaIed. A pafty of offIcIaIs Ied by EmIIe Bfugsch, assIstant to the dIfectof of the
EgyptIan AntIquItIes SefvIce, was guIded by Mohammed Abd eI-RassuI aIong the steep
mountaIn path behInd the moftuafy tempIe of Hatchepsut to the femote pfIvate tomb.
Hefe Bfugsch, the fIfst to entef, was staftIed by the sIght of coffIdofs and fooms fIIIed
wIth a coIIectIon of mummIes beyond hIs wIIdest expectatIons:
TheIf goId covefIng and theIf poIIshed suffaces fefIected my own excIted vIsage that It seemed as though I was IookIng Into
the faces of my own ancestofs. The gIIt face on the coffIn of the amIabIe Queen NefeftafI seemed to smIIe upon me IIke an
oId acquaIntance. I took In the sItuatIon quIckIy, wIth a gasp, and huffIed to the open aIf Iest I shouId be ovefcome and the
gIofIous pfIze, stIII unfeveaIed, be Iost to scIence.
ThIs coIIectIon of foyaI mummIes and theIf gfave goods IncIuded the bodIes of at Ieast
fofty kIngs, queens and chIef pfIests datIng to the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st DynastIes,
amongst whom wefe to be found Sekenenfe Tao II, Ahmose, Amenhotep I, Ahmose
NefeftafI and TuthmosIs I(?), II and III. The shock of the dIscovefy seems to have gone
to Bfugsch's head. He took the decIsIon that, fof feasons of secufIty, the entIfe tomb was
to be cIeafed and the pfecIous antIquItIes sent at once by boat to CaIfo. Thfee hundfed
wofkmen ImmedIateIy set to wofk, and It Is a mattef of the deepest fegfet that no one
feIt It necessafy to eIthef photogfaph of pIan the IntefIof of the tomb befofe It was
emptIed. Bfugsch's behavIouf, aII the mofe puzzIIng because he Is known to have been a
pfofIcIent and expefIenced photogfaphef, has Ied to specuIatIon that thefe may have
been some soft of covef-up, and that pefhaps Bfugsch hImseIf, of someone hIgh-up In
the govefnment sefvIce, had actuaIIy been deaIIng In the pIIfefed antIquItIes. Bfugsch
seems not to have been paftIcuIafIy weII suIted to hIs posItIon of fesponsIbIIIty, and 'he
Ieft behInd hIm an evII feputatIon fof hIs cIandestIne tfansactIons wIth natIve antIquIty-
deaIefs, and fof hIs IntfIguIng and mIschIef-makIng habIts'.
WIthIn a mefe two days the pfecIous wooden coffIns had been femoved ffom the
tomb, wfapped In mattIng, sewn Into saIIcIoth, and caffIed down to the fIvef. Hefe,
aIong the fIvefbank, huge cfowds gathefed to wItness the fInaI joufney of the Iong-Iost
kIngs of Egypt. As the boat saIIed by, the peasant women stafted to waII and teaf theIf
haIf In the tfadItIonaI EgyptIan gestufe of moufnIng. In CaIfo, howevef, the sItuatIon
quIckIy moved ffom the subIIme to the fIdIcuIous as a customs offIcIaI, faced wIth the
need to cIassIfy the bodIes fof tax pufposes, decIded that the moftaI femaIns of some of
Egypt's gfeatest phafaohs couId best be descfIbed as fursee//, of 'dfIed fIsh'.
No tomb has been concIusIveIy pfoved to be that of TuthmosIs II, aIthough Tomb KV 42
Is the most IIkeIy contendef. ThIs tomb, anonymous, unadofned and wIth an unInscfIbed
safcophagus, Is aImost stafk In Its sImpIIcIty, It Is matched by the feIatIveIy
undIstInguIshed moftuafy tempIe set on the edge of the cuItIvatIon at MedInet Habu.
ThIs Iack of eIabofate funefafy pfovIsIon stfongIy suggests that the sudden death of the
kIng had caught the foyaI stonemasons nappIng. Undef nofmaI cIfcumstances a kIng
wouId ovefsee the buIIdIng of hIs own funefafy monuments, wIth pfepafatIons fof hIs
death staftIng at the vefy commencement of the feIgn. In consequence, the sIze of a
tomb and moftuafy tempIe, and the magnIfIcence of theIf decofatIons, afe often dIfectIy
feIated to the Iength fathef than the success of theIf ownef's fuIe. It may even be that
TuthmosIs was nevef actuaIIy Inteffed In hIs unfInIshed bufIaI chambef,
a sImIIaf
sItuatIon was to occuf ovef 150 yeafs Iatef when the sudden death of Tutankhamen
fesuIted In the abandonment of hIs Intended foyaI tomb and hIs Intefment In the tomb
of a nobIeman, hastIIy decofated to make a suItabIe festIng pIace fof a kIng.
It Is Iess IIkeIy that the sImpIe tomb shouId be fead as a sIgn of genefaI IndIffefence
towafds TuthmosIs II,
of Indeed that Hatchepsut and,of TuthmosIs III wouId have
negIected the bufIaI of theIf pfedecessof as, undef ancIent EgyptIan tfadItIon, It was the
bufIaI of the oId kIng whIch IegItImIzed the accessIon of the new. Nof can we assume
that Hatchepsut, beafIng IIttIe affectIon fof hef Iate bfothef, was too pfeoccupIed wIth
hef own pIans to pfovIde hIm wIth a decent funefaI. She Iatef dedIcated at Ieast one
statue to hef dead bfothef÷husband, a IIkeIy IndIcatIon that hIs eafIy death was a
genuIne cause of soffow to the wIdow÷sIstef who stIII honoufed hIs memofy.
TuthmosIs II was succeeded on the thfone by TuthmosIs III, hIs natufaI son by the
Iady IsIs (aIso known as Aset of Eset), a secondafy and somewhat obscufe membef of
the hafem whose ofIgIns afe unceftaIn. IsIs dId not have the foyaI connectIons of hef
IIIustfIous pfedecessof Mutnoffet, and hef most pfestIgIous tItIe seems to have been
'KIng's Mothef'. TuthmosIs III was thefefofe onIy of foyaI descent on hIs fathef's sIde,
and pefhaps In consequence not entIfeIy acceptabIe as heIf to the foyaI thfone. ThIs
may be why In Iatef yeafs, and despIte the fact that he had stafted the numbefIng of hIs
fegnaI yeafs ffom the death of hIs fathef, he was to suggest that he had been assocIated
wIth TuthmosIs II In a co-fegency. In an InscfIptIon on the seventh pyIon of the Kafnak
tempIe, TuthmosIs III teIIs how as a young boy he had been sefvIng as an acoIyte In the
tempIe of Amen when, on an auspIcIous festIvaI day, the gfeat god hImseIf had seIected
hIm as a futufe kIng:
My fathef Amen-Re-HafakhtI gfanted to me that I mIght appeaf upon the Hofus Thfone of the IIvIng. I havIng been
appoInted befofe hIm wIthIn ]the tempIe|, thefe havIng been ofdaIned fof me the fuIefshIp of the Two Iands, the thfones
of Geb and the offIces of KhepfI ut t/e siJe of my fut/er, the Good God, the KIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt, Aakhepefenfe
]TuthmosIs II|, gIven IIfe fofevef.
'At the sIde of' has been Intefpfeted as meanIng 'co-fegent of my fathef', aIthough It
seems equaIIy IIkeIy to mean 'In the pfesence of' of 'befofe', shouId the Iattef be the
coffect feadIng the pfocIamatIon wouId fepfesent TuthmosIs II's fofmaI
acknowIedgement of hIs Intended heIf fathef than the pfocIamatIon of a fuII co-fegency.
TuthmosIs III was onIy a chIId when hIs fathef dIed, and It wouId ceftaInIy have been
unusuaI fof the stIII young TuthmosIs II to appoInt an Infant co-fuIef. Howevef, the tfue
Impoftance of thIs InscfIptIon IIes not In Its specIfIc detaIIs, but In the fact that
TuthmosIs, IIke Hatchepsut befofe hIm, feIt that he needed the suppoft of an ofacIe of
Amen to feInfofce hIs fIght to fuIe.
TuthmosIs III was obvIousIy vefy pIeased wIth thIs InscfIptIon. So pIeased, Indeed,
that he had It fecafved ovef an eafIIef text whIch had been commIssIoned by Hatchepsut
on the nofthefn sIde of the uppef poftIco of the DeIf eI-BahfI moftuafy tempIe.
Howevef, thIs tIme the text was adjusted so that It descfIbed the IdentIcaI eIevatIon of
TuthmosIs I. TuthmosIs III cIeafIy wIshed hIs peopIe to undefstand that both he and hIs
gfandfathef had been pefsonaIIy appoInted by Amen who used the same method of
announcIng hIs choIce on both occasIons. Snatches of the ofIgInaI text undefIyIng the
TuthmosIs III fecafvIng suggest that Hatchepsut too had undefgone the same dIvIne
seIectIon pfocess and, as hefs Is undenIabIy the eafIIef cafvIng, It wouId appeaf that
TuthmosIs had decIded to boffow hef expefIence fof both hImseIf and hIs gfandfathef.
Even mofe dubIous evIdence fof a TuthmosIs II and III co-fegency has been Ieft by a
New KIngdom vIsItof to the OId KIngdom step-pyfamId compIex at Sakkafa. The
monuments of the most ancIent phafaohs ÷ aIfeady a thousand yeafs oId by the feIgn of
Hatchepsut ÷ wefe a constant soufce of Intefest to theIf New KIngdom descendants, who
took day-tfIps to pIcnIc at the pyfamIds just as modefn BfItIsh toufIsts fIock to
Stonehenge of the Towef of Iondon. Hefe a gfaffIto, scfIbbIed In hIefatIc wfItIng, gIves
the date as Yeaf 20 of the joInt feIgn of Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs (In that ofdef), and
goes on to expIaIn that:
now hIs majesty was. kIng wIth ]hIs?| fathef, exaIted upon the Hofus Thfone of the IIvIng.
If the 'majesty' In questIon Is TuthmosIs III, and If the phfase '. kIng wIth hIs fathef' Is
not sImpIy a meanIngIess expfessIon, thIs gfaffIto may weII be consIdefed vaIId evIdence
fof a co-fegency between TuthmosIs II and TuthmosIs III. Howevef, It Is equaIIy IIkeIy
that the kIng Is Hatchepsut. In thIs case the gfaffIto may be fefeffIng to Hatchepsut's
'cofonatIon' of 'comIng of age' whIch Is dIscussed In mofe detaII In Chaptef 4.
At the tIme of hIs fathef's death TuthmosIs III was stIII a mInof. HIs exact age at the
tIme of hIs accessIon Is unfecofded, but gIven that he feIgned fof ovef fIfty yeafs and
that hIs mummy was not that of an eIdefIy man, we can deduce that he was a young
chIId of even a baby fathef than a teenagef. Hatchepsut hefseIf was pfobabIy between
fIfteen and thIfty yeafs of age when she was wIdowed. To caIcuIate hef maxImum age at
thIs tIme, we must make the assumptIon that she was bofn aftef hef fathef had acceded
to the thfone ÷ thIs seems IIkeIy If we afe coffect In ouf assumptIon that Queen Ahmose
was the sIstef of haIf-sIstef of TuthmosIs I. As hef fathef feIgned fof appfoxImateIy
fIfteen yeafs, Hatchepsut can have been no mofe than fIfteen yeafs oId when she
maffIed hef bfothef and became consoft. If TuthmosIs II then feIgned fof the maxImum
suggested pefIod of fIfteen yeafs, she wouId have been thIfty yeafs oId at hIs death.
Howevef, the onIy fIxed facts that we have concefnIng the maffIage of Hatchepsut and
TuthmosIs II afe that TuthmosIs I feIgned fof at Ieast one yeaf, and that Hatchepsut bofe
hef bfothef at Ieast one chIId. GIven that pubefty pfobabIy occuffed at about foufteen
yeafs of age, Hatchepsut may have been no mofe than fIfteen yeafs oId when hef
husband, feIgnIng fof onIy thfee yeafs, dIed.
The young dowagef queen was caIIed upon to act as fegent on behaIf of hef even
youngef stepson. As we have aIfeady seen, thIs In ItseIf was not an unusuaI sItuatIon,
and It was accepted EgyptIan pfactIce that a wIdowed queen shouId fuIe fof hef mInof
son. Indeed, thefe had aIfeady been two hIghIy successfuI 18th Dynasty fegencIes:
Queen Ahhotep had acted as fegent fof KIng Ahmose, and Iatef Ahmose NefeftafI had
fuIed on behaIf of hef son Amenhotep I. No one, thefefofe, couId have objected to
Hatchepsut beIng appoInted fegent on the gfounds of hef sex and, as the daughtef, sIstef
and wIfe of a kIng, thefe was unIIkeIy to be any membef of the foyaI famIIy mofe
quaIIfIed to undeftake the foIe. Howevef, In one fespect the sItuatIon was
unpfecedented: Hatchepsut was beIng caIIed upon to act as fegent fof a boy who was
not hef son. To NavIIIe, a fefvent Hatchepsut suppoftef, thIs was cIeafIy an IntoIefabIe
It Is the stofy of Safah and Hagaf as enacted In a foyaI famIIy, but the queen was Iess happy than the Safah of ScfIptufe,
fof she was obIIged to InstaII IshmaeI In the hefItage of Abfaham, to assocIate hIm wIth hefseIf, and to gIve hIm hef own
daughtef In maffIage.
Whatevef hef pfIvate feeIIngs, Hatchepsut accepted hef new foIe wIth good gface.
Thfoughout the fIfst coupIe of yeafs of hef stepson's fuIe she acted as a modeI queen
fegent, cIaImIng onIy those tItIes to whIch she was entItIed as the daughtef and wIdow
of a kIng and aIIowIng hefseIf to be depIcted standIng behInd the new kIng In
tfadItIonaI queenIy fashIon. Hef subofdInate status at thIs tIme Is confIfmed by
InscfIptIons at the Semna tempIe In NubIa, dated to TuthmosIs III Yeaf 2, whefe
Hatchepsut pIays a vefy mInof foIe In both the texts and the accompanyIng cafved
feIIefs. Hefe, TuthmosIs III, as soIe 'KIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt and Iofd of the Two
Iands' Is shown feceIvIng the phafaoh's whIte cfown ffom the hands of the ancIent
NubIan god Dedwen. Howevef, onIy fIve yeafs Iatef thefe had been a pfofound poIItIcaI
change. By the end of Yeaf 7, Queen Hatchepsut had advanced ffom beIng the mefe
fuIef of Egypt by defauIt to becomIng an acknowIedged kIng.
King of Egypt
He ]Tut/mosis II] went fort/ to /euven in triump/, /uving mingleJ wit/ t/e goJs. His son stooJ in /is pluce us /ing of t/e
Two LunJs, /uving become ruler upon t/e t/rone of t/e one w/o begut /im. His sister t/e Ðivine Consort, Hutc/epsut,
settleJ t/e uffuirs of t/e Two LunJs by reuson of /er pluns. Lgypt wus muJe to lubour wit/ boweJ /euJ for /er, t/e
excellent seeJ of t/e goJ, w/ic/ cume fort/ from /im.
DufIng Yeaf 7 of the feIgn of TuthmosIs III, the Stewafd of Amen, Senenmut, bufIed both
hIs pafents In a modest tomb cut Into the hIIIsIde dIfectIy beneath the sIte whIch had
aIfeady been seIected fof hIs own magnIfIcent funefafy monument on the West Bank at
Thebes. FoIIowIng the Intefment, the entfance to the tomb was cIosed, and It was
subsequentIy compIeteIy covefed by the fubbIe excavated dufIng the constfuctIon of
Senenmut's own tomb whIch stafted sIIghtIy Iatef In the same yeaf. The smaIIef tomb
dIsappeafed ffom vIew untII It was fedIscovefed by accIdent dufIng the 1935÷6 season
of wofk caffIed out by the MetfopoIItan Museum of Aft, New Yofk. The excavatofs,
Ambfose IansIng and WIIIIam Hayes, wefe the fIfst to entef the bufIaI chambef of
Ramose and Hatnofef In ovef 3,000 yeafs. Hefe they found a typIcaI seIectIon of gfave
goods, IncIudIng sevefaI pottefy jafs of amphofae, one of whIch was dated to 'Yeaf 7',
one whIch bofe the seaI of the 'God's WIfe Hatchepsut' and two whIch wefe stamped
wIth the seaI of 'The Good Goddess Maatkafe'. Maatkafe (IItefaIIy, muut Is the Ka of Re,
of Tfuth Is the SouI of the sun god Re) Is the thfone name of KIng Hatchepsut. The
datIng of the amphofae, seaIed Into the bufIaI chambef by the debfIs ffom Senenmut's
own tomb, Is beyond questIon, thefefofe we know that, by Yeaf 7 of hef fegency,
Hatchepsut was acknowIedged to be a kIng of Egypt. She was now the FemaIe Hofus of
FIne GoId, KIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt Maatkafe Khnemet-Amen Hatchepsut (The
One who Is joIned wIth Amen, the Fofemost of Women).
The exact date of the new kIng's offIcIaI eIevatIon Is, howevef,
Iig. 4.1 T/e curtouc/e of King Muut/ure Hutc/epsut
unknown, and the subject Is gfeatIy compIIcated by the fact that Hatchepsut aIways
used the same fegnaI yeafs as TuthmosIs III, effectIveIy datIng hef own feIgn ffom the
tIme of hef stepson's accessIon to the thfone. GIven hef domInant foIe In the subsequent
paftnefshIp, we mIght feasonabIy have expected to fInd that Hatchepsut had estabIIshed
hef own Independent fegnaI dates. As It seems unIIkeIy that Hatchepsut evef consIdefed
hefseIf to be junIof to TuthmosIs III, the matchIng feIgn dates stfongIy suggest that she
must have fegafded hefseIf as a kIng of co-fegent ffom the moment of hef husband's
death. Howevef, we know that thIs was not the case, and the contempofafy evIdence
ffom the Semna tempIe aIfeady consIdefed In Chaptef 3 confIfms that Hatchepsut was
stIII, In theofy at Ieast, subofdInate to TuthmosIs III dufIng the eafIIef paft of hIs fegnaI
Yeaf 2.
It wouId be entIfeIy wfong to see Hatchepsut's usufpatIon of kIngIy powefs as a
sudden and unexpected coup. Hefs was a gfaduaI evoIutIon, a cafefuIIy contfoIIed
poIItIcaI manoeuvfe so InsIdIous that It mIght not have been appafent to any but hef
cIosest contempofafIes. The sufvIvIng monumentaI evIdence, scanty though It Is, aIIows
us to tfack Hatchepsut's pfogfess as she moves swIftIy ffom the conventIonaI wIfe of the
BefIIn steIa, standIng pIacIdIy In IIne behInd hef mothef and hef husband÷bfothef, to
become the most InfIuentIaI woman Egypt has evef known. ShoftIy befofe hef
cofonatIon Hatchepsut Is both fegaI enough to make offefIngs dIfectIy to the gods ÷
hIthefto the pfefogatIve of the dIvIne phafaoh ÷ and weaIthy enough to become the fIfst
non-kIng to commIssIon a paIf of obeIIsks. By now Hatchepsut Is sufeIy kIng of Egypt In
aII but name. Howevef, no mattef how gfaduaI hef assumptIon of powef, thefe must
have come a tIme when she cfossed the IIne ffom queen to kIng and made hef changed
status pubIIc. Thefe was a vefy gfeat dIffefence between beIng the pefson who actuaIIy
fuIed Egypt and becomIng the acknowIedged kIng, and hef cofonatIon and subsequent
assumptIon of foyaI tItIes, aIbeIt mefeIy the fofmaI acknowIedgement of a fuit uccompli,
must have had a defInIte date.
Contempofafy documents and monumentaI InscfIptIons femaIn obstInateIy sIIent on
thIs subject, whIIe Hatchepsut hefseIf chose to gIoss ovef hef pefIods as consoft and
fegent, fewfItIng hef own hIstofy so that she mIght Invent a co-fegency wIth TuthmosIs I
whIch, togethef wIth the emphasIs whIch was now to be pIaced on the myth of the
dIvIne bIfth of kIngs, wouId 'pfove' beyond doubt hef absoIute fIght to fuIe. The Iegend
of the mIfacuIous bIfth of kIngs had aIways been an aspect of EgyptIan kIngshIp. The
Westcaf Papyfus, fof exampIe, a MIddIe KIngdom coIIectIon of fantastIc stofIes about
the 4th Dynasty foyaI couft, teIIs us how dufIng the OId KIngdom the Iady Reddjedet,
assIsted by the dIvIne mIdwIves IsIs, Nephthys, Meskhenet and Heket, gave bIfth to the
tfIpIet sons of Re. The thfee baby boys deIIvefed by the goddess wefe to become
Usefkaf, Sahufe and NefefIfkafe, the fIfst thfee kIngs of the 5th Dynasty:
IsIs pIaced hefseIf befofe hef, Nephthys behInd hef, Heket hastened the bIfth. IsIs saId, 'Don't be so mIghty In hef womb,
you whose name Is MIghty.' The chIId sIId Into hef afms, a chIId of one cubIt, stfong boned, hIs IImbs ovefIaId wIth goId,
hIs headdfess of tfue IapIs IazuII. They washed hIm, havIng cut hIs naveI cofd, and IaId hIm on a pIIIow of cIoth. Then
Meskhenet appfoached hIm and saId: 'A kIng who wIII assume the kIngshIp In thIs whoIe Iand.' And Khnum gave heaIth to
hIs body.
Hatchepsut was, howevef, the fIfst phafaoh to make a featufe of the stofy of hef own
dIvIne conceptIon and bIfth, ofdefIng that the taIe be toId In a caftoon-IIke sequence of
tastefuI Images and descfIptIve passages cafved on the nofth sIde of the mIddIe poftIco
ffontIng hef moftuafy tempIe at DeIf eI-BahfI. Hef fIIIaI feIatIonshIp wIth Amen was
aIways extfemeIy Impoftant to Hatchepsut and thfoughout hef feIgn she took evefy
avaIIabIe oppoftunIty to gIve due acknowIedgement to hef heavenIy fathef as, by
pfomotIng the cuIt of Amen, she was effectIveIy feInfofcIng hef own posItIon and
pfomotIng hefseIf. It wouId be too sImpIe to see the DeIf eI-BahfI bIfth stofy as mefeIy
anothef exampIe of Hatchepsut's InsecufIty about hef fIght to fuIe. The scenes
themseIves afe by no means tImId of apoIogetIc, they afe mIfacuIous and joyfuI, and
they convey above aII a sense of Hatchepsut's pfIde In hef own ofIgIns and
achIevements. It Is pefhaps no coIncIdence that the onIy othef compIete cycIe of dIvIne
bIfth scenes comes ffom the Iuxof tempIe of the Iatef 18th Dynasty kIng Amenhotep III,
a tempIe whIch was dedIcated to the ceIebfatIon of the foyaI Ka, of the dIvIne foyaI
IdentIty. Amenhotep III, not genefaIIy fegafded as an Insecufe monafch, was the fIfst
phafaoh to pfomote hImseIf as a god In hIs own IIfetIme. HIs own bIfth scenes beaf a
stfIkIng sImIIafIty to those of Hatchepsut, and It wouId appeaf that, havIng admIfed hIs
pfedecessofs' wofk, he sImpIy copIed It whoIesaIe, substItutIng the name of hIs own
mothef fof that of Queen Ahmose.
Nof shouId the DeIf eI-BahfI scenes be fegafded soIeIy as a pfopaganda exefcIse as,
ffom theIf posItIon In the tempIe, It seems unIIkeIy that they wouId have been seen by
any but a handfuI of offIcIatIng pfIests who wefe aIfeady weII awafe of Hatchepsut's
posItIon. As we have aIfeady seen, EgyptIan tempIes wefe not pubIIc buIIdIngs. They
sefved as the home of the god and, as In any pfIvate home, the genefaI pubIIc was kept
outsIde the thIck mud-bfIck encIosufe waIIs. OnIy dufIng the gfeat festIvaIs wefe the
gates of the tempIe thfown open, and even then the pubIIc was onIy aIIowed access to
the fIfst couft. The Innefmost sanctuafy, whefe the kIng of the hIgh pfIest wofshIpped
on behaIf of Egypt, was an IntenseIy pfIvate pIace compafabIe to the mastef bedfoom of
a pfIvate home. The gfeat tempIes of Egypt must have been oases of peace and
tfanquIIIIty, a wofId apaft ffom the bustIIng cIty IIfe ImmedIateIy outsIde theIf gates.
As EgyptIan theoIogy heId that aII kIngs wefe bofn the sons of Amen-Re, IogIc dIctated
that aII queen mothefs must have enjoyed sexuaI Intefcoufse wIth Amen-Re. The
EgyptIans took a sufpfIsIngIy pfactIcaI appfoach to the subject of dIvIne conceptIon. Not
fof them the asexuaIIty of an ImpefsonaI angeIIc annuncIatIon. They knew that It took a
man and a woman to make a baby and they fecognIzed that theIf gods wefe capabIe of
a vafIety of sexuaI feeIIngs ÷ fape, homosexuaIIty and mastufbatIon aII pIayed a paft In
heavenIy IIfe ÷ so they deveIoped the doctfIne of theogamy, the physIcaI unIon of a
queen wIth a god. Amen-Re wouId come to Egypt and actuaIIy sIeep wIth the mothef of
hIs futufe chIId. In ofdef to pfesefve the feputatIon of the queen, fof aduItefy was a
heInous socIaI cfIme, Amen cunnIngIy dIsguIsed hImseIf as the kIng.
At the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe, the stofy of Hatchepsut's conceptIon stafts In heaven
whefe Amen has assembIed befofe hIm a gfoup of tweIve Impoftant dIvInItIes, IncIudIng
IsIs, OsIfIs, Nephthys, Hofus, Seth and Hathof, In ofdef to make a momentous
pfonouncement. Amen has decIded that the tIme has come to fathef a pfIncess who wIII
govefn Egypt wIth a gIofIous feIgn: 'I wIII joIn fof hef the Two Iands. I wIII gIve hef
aII Iands and aII countfIes.' The god of wIsdom, Thoth, hefe actIng Hefmes-IIke as the
messengef of Amen, pfocIaIms the name of the chosen mothef-to-be: It Is Queen Ahmose,
wIfe of TuthmosIs I, fof 'she Is mofe beautIfuI than any woman.'
We then move to Egypt. Queen Ahmose, sIeepIng aIone In hef boudoIf, Is vIsIted by
the god whom she beIIeves to be hef husband, and they sIt face to face on hef bed In a
scene whIch fepfesents one of the few occasIons that a queen of Egypt Is aIIowed to
communIcate dIfectIy wIth a deIty. Amen teIIs Ahmose that she Is to beaf a daughtef
whom she wIII name Khnemet-Amen Hatchepsut (The One who Is joIned wIth Amen, the
Fofemost of Women). ThIs daughtef Is destIned to be the futufe fuIef of Egypt. He then
passes Ahmose the ankh, of sIgn of IIfe and, In the tfadItIon of the best fomantIc noveIs,
we Ieafn how:
She smIIed at hIs majesty. He went to hef ImmedIateIy, hIs penIs efect befofe hef. He gave hIs heaft to hef. She was fIIIed
wIth joy at the sIght of hIs beauty. HIs Iove passed Into hef IImbs. The paIace was fIooded wIth the god's ffagfance, and aII
hIs peffumes wefe ffom Punt.
We fetufn bfIefIy to heaven to see the foyaI baby and hef IdentIcaI souI of Ka beIng
fashIoned on the pottef's wheeI by the fam-headed god Khnum. The cfeatIon of the foyaI
Ka aIongsIde the moftaI body Is of gfeat Impoftance, the foyaI Ka was undefstood to be
the pefsonIfIcatIon of the offIce of kIngshIp and thefefofe Its pfesence was
IncontfoveftIbIe pfoof of Hatchepsut's pfedestIned fIght to fuIe. At the cIImax of hef
cofonatIon cefemony she wouId become unIted wIth the Ka whIch had been shafed by
aII the kIngs of Egypt, and wouId Iose hef human IdentIty to become one of a Iong IIne
of dIvIne offIce hoIdefs. Hatchepsut consIstentIy pIaced consIdefabIe emphasIs on the
exIstence of hef foyaI Ka, even IncIudIng It In hef thfone name Maat-/u-fe.
Iig. 4.2 T/e pregnunt Queen A/mose is leJ to t/e birt/ing bower
MeanwhIIe, as Amen watches anxIousIy, Khnum pfomIses that the newIy fofmed baby
wIII be aII that any fathef couId desIfe:
I wIII shape fof thee thy daughtef ]I wIII endow hef wIth IIfe, heaIth, stfength and aII gIfts|. I wIII make hef appeafance
above the gods, because of hef dIgnIty as KIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt.
Khnum's wofk Is fInIshed and the ffog-headed mIdwIfe Heket offefs IIfe to the two
Ineft fofms. At the same tIme, back In Egypt, Thoth appeafs befofe Queen Ahmose and
teIIs hef of the gIofIes whIch awaIt hef unbofn chIId.
NIne months Iatef, the pfegnant queen, weafIng a vuItufe headdfess and wIth a fathef
smaII 'bump' obvIous beneath hef stfaIght shIft dfess, Is Ied to the bIfth bowef by Khnum
and Heket. Hefe othef deItIes waIt to assIst at the bIfth whIch, stfIctIy a femaIe-
domInated fIte of passage, Is Ieft to the ImagInatIon of the obsefvef. When we next see
Ahmose, she Is sIttIng on a thfone and hoIdIng the newbofn Hatchepsut In hef afms.
Othef deItIes suffound the mothef and chIId, whIIe the goddess of chIIdbIfth Meskhenet
sIts In ffont of the thfone. Meskhenet Is to be the chIef nufse and she seeks to feassufe
the foyaI Infant: 'I am pfotectIng thee behInd thee IIke Re.' FInaIIy Hathof, the foyaI
wet-nufse, takes the newbofn baby, and pfesents hef to hef fathef. Amen Is
ovefwheImed wIth Iove fof the Infant. He takes hef ffom Hathof, kIsses hef and speaks:
Iig. 4.S T/e infunt Hutc/epsut in t/e urms of u Jivine nurse
Come to me In peace, daughtef of my IoIns, beIoved Maatkafe, thou aft the kIng who takes possessIon of the dIadem on the
Thfone of Hofus of the IIvIng, etefnaIIy.
Hatchepsut Is pfesented befofe the assembIed gods, who aIso gfeet hef wIth gfeat joy.
Thefe Is onIy one unusuaI note: the naked Infant Hatchepsut Is quIte cIeafIy shown as a
boy. The message behInd the scenes Is quIte cIeaf. Hatchepsut has been shown to be the
chIId of Amen, and thefefofe a IegItImate phafaoh ffom the moment of hef conceptIon.
As Amen Is cIeafIy unconcefned about the sex of hIs chIId, and Indeed as he made cIeaf
hIs specIfIc IntentIon of fathefIng a gIfI-chIId, why shouId Egypt woffy?
The stofy now sIowIy stafts to sIIde away ffom the heavenIy towafds the feaI wofId.
Hatchepsut tfaveIs nofth to vIsIt the ancIent shfInes of the pfIncIpaI gods of Egypt
accompanIed by hef eafthIy fathef, TuthmosIs I. ThIs Is foIIowed by a cofonatIon befofe
the gods and then by a subsequent eafthIy cofonatIon by TuthmosIs I who pfesents hIs
daughtef to the couft and fofmaIIy nomInates hef as hIs co-fegent and Intended
SaId to hef by HIs Majesty: 'Come, thou bIessed one. I wIII take thee In my afms that thou mayest see thy dIfectIons
]caffIed out| In the paIace, thy pfecIous Images wefe made, thou hast feceIved the InvestItufe of the doubIe cfown, thou
aft bIessed. When thou fIsest In the paIace, thy bfow Is adofned wIth the doubIe cfown unIted on thy head, fof thou aft
my heIf, to whom I have gIven bIfth. ThIs Is my daughtef Khnemet-Amen Hatchepsut, IIvIng, I put hef In my pIace.
The news Is feceIved wIth unIvefsaI joy, and the peopIe staft to ceIebfate wIth gusto.
The pfIests confef to decIde on Hatchepsut's foyaI tItuIafy, and fInaIIy hef cofonatIon
takes pIace on an unspecIfIed New Yeaf's day, a pfactIcaI choIce of dates whIch wouId
aIIow hef fegnaI yeafs and the cIvII caIendaf to coIncIde. UnfoftunateIy, thIs paft of the
stofy Is, as faf as we can teII, a compIete fIctIon. WhIIe It Is entIfeIy possIbIe that some
pubIIc cefemony dId occuf dufIng Hatchepsut's chIIdhood ÷ pefhaps a comIng-of-age
ceIebfatIon whIch InvoIved Hatchepsut beIng offIcIaIIy pfesented befofe the couft? ÷
thefe Is absoIuteIy no evIdence to show that TuthmosIs I evef fegafded Hatchepsut as hIs
fofmaI successof, of that he had the IntentIon of passIng ovef both hIs son and hIs
gfandson In ofdef to honouf hIs daughtef. The unchaIIenged successIon of TuthmosIs II,
and hef own conventIonaI behavIouf as queen÷consoft, confIfms that, at the tIme of hef
fathef's death, Hatchepsut dId not expect to become kIng of Egypt.
A sIIghtIy dIffefent contempofafy taIe Is potentIaIIy faf mofe usefuI In ouf seafch fof
Hatchepsut's cofonatIon date. ThIs text, InscfIbed on what was once the outsIde waII of
Hatchepsut's ChapeIIe Rouge at Kafnak, hInts that the poIItIcaI sItuatIon may have
aIfeady undefgone a pfofound change by the end of Yeaf 2 of the joInt feIgn whIIe
stoppIng shoft of pfovIdIng any absoIute pfoof of thIs.
The Red ChapeI, now known
mofe commonIy by Its Ffench name of ChapeIIe Rouge, was a Iafge sanctuafy of fed
quaftzIte endowed by Hatchepsut to house the aII-Impoftant bafque of Amen. Amen's
bafque, of bafge, known as User/ut-Amen (MIghty of Pfow Is Amen), was a smaII-scaIe
gIIded wooden boat beafIng the encIosed shfIne whIch was used to pfotect the statue of
the god ffom pubIIc gaze. When Amen, on the hoIy days whIch wefe aIso pubIIc
hoIIdays, Ieft the pfIvacy of hIs sanctuafy to pfocess thfough the stfeets of Thebes, he
saIIed In styIe conceaIed wIthIn the cabIn of hIs boat-shfIne whIch was caffIed,
suppofted by wooden poIes, on the shouIdefs of hIs pfIests. When Amen was not
tfaveIIIng the bafque fested In Its own sanctuafy of shfIne. The sacfed bafque had
aIways pIayed a mInof foIe In EgyptIan feIIgIous fItuaI, but dufIng the eafIy New
KIngdom It had become an IncfeasIngIy Impoftant paft of theoIogy, and most tempIes
now gave gfeat pfomInence to the bafque sanctuafy. UnfoftunateIy, Hatchepsut's shfIne
was dIsmantIed dufIng the feIgn of TuthmosIs III and subsequentIy used as fIIIIng fof
othef buIIdIng pfojects. AIthough many of the bIocks wefe fedIscovefed In the 1950s, the
chapeI has nevef been fe-assembIed, and ovef thfee hundfed bIocks ffom the ChapeIIe
Rouge afe now dIspIayed In the fofm of a gIgantIc jIgsaw puzzIe In the Open-AIf
Museum at Kafnak.
Iig. 4.4 Hutc/epsut unJ Amen on u bloc/ from t/e C/upelle Rouge
Cafved on bIock 287 of the ChapeIIe Rouge Is paft of an Impoftant text, naffated by
Hatchepsut hefseIf, In whIch she descfIbes a feIIgIous pfocessIon assocIated wIth the
festIvaI of Amen, heId at the neafby Iuxof tempIe dufIng Yeaf 2 of an unspecIfIed kIng's
feIgn. The Iuxof tempIe, appfoxImateIy two mIIes to the south of the Kafnak tempIe
and connected to It by a pfocessIonaI foute whIch Hatchepsut hefseIf embeIIIshed wIth a
sefIes of bafque-shfInes, was dedIcated to both Amen In the fofm of the IthyphaIIIc god
MIn, and to the ceIebfatIon of the dIvIne foyaI souI, of Ka.
It pIayed an Impoftant foIe
In the cuIt of the deIfIed kIng and was the pIace whefe, dufIng the ceIebfatIon of the
annuaI Opet festIvaI, the kIng fe-affIfmed hIs unIty wIth the foyaI Ka whIch gave hIm
the fIght to fuIe. The Iuxof tempIe was thefefofe an emInentIy suItabIe pIace fof the god
to make a pfonouncement concefnIng a futufe fuIef and It was hefe, dufIng the Iatef
18th Dynasty, that Amen was to fecognIze GenefaI Hofemheb as a KIng of Egypt.
DufIng the cefemony descfIbed by Hatchepsut, and In the pfesence of the anonymous
kIng, the ofacIe makes the momentous announcement that Hatchepsut hefseIf Is to
become phafaoh:
. vefy gfeat ofacIe In the pfesence of thIs good god, pfocIaImIng fof me the kIngshIp of the two Iands, Uppef and Iowef
Egypt beIng undef the feaf of me. Yeaf 2,2 peret 29 ]that Is, Yeaf 2, the 2nd month of SpfIng, day 29|, the thIfd day of the
festIvaI of Amen. beIng the ofdInatIon of the Two Iands fof me In the bfoad haII of the Southefn Opet ]Iuxof|, whIIe HIs
Majesty ]Amen| deIIvefed an ofacIe In the pfesence of thIs good god. My fathef appeafed In hIs beautIfuI festIvaI: Amen,
chIef of the gods.
The ofacIe had been deveIoped dufIng the New KIngdom as a channeI of
communIcatIon between the gods and the common peopIe, and had pfoved paftIcuIafIy
popuIaf as a means of soIvIng the day-to-day petty cfImes that baffIed the poIIce who
wefe fofced to opefate wIthout the benefIt of dIvIne omnIscIence. ConsuItIng the ofacIe
pfovIded a quIck, cheap and easIIy accessIbIe aItefnatIve to the fofmaI coufts. As the
statue of the god pfocessed thfough the stfeets on hIs cefemonIaI boat, It was possIbIe
fof anyone to step fofwafd and chaIIenge hIm wIth a sImpIe yes,no-type questIon, such
as 'DId IsIs steaI my washIng?' of 'DId Hathof kIII my duck?' The god wouId consIdef the
evIdence and then answef by causIng hIs bafque-beafefs to move eIthef fofwafds of
backwafds ÷ a IegaI system whIch to modefn eyes at Ieast seems to have been open to a
gfeat deaI of abuse, but one whIch neveftheIess satIsfIed the ancIent EgyptIan desIfe fof
ImmedIate and pubIIc justIce. Mofe InvoIved vafIatIons on thIs theme exIsted, It was, fof
exampIe, possIbIe to wfIte dIffefent optIons on sepafate ostfaca, Iay them befofe the
god, and see whethef the god gfavItated towafds a paftIcuIaf soIutIon, whIIe In mofe
compIIcated cases a IIst of suspects couId be fead out and the god wouId cause hIs
attendants to move at the mentIon of the name of the guIIty pafty.
Howevef, those ofacIes who took the tfoubIe to communIcate wIth the ofdInafy
peopIe wefe InvafIabIy the Iessef IocaI gods, the deIfIed Ahmose and Amenhotep I both
sefved as ofacIes and the judgements of Amenhotep I wefe paftIcuIafIy weII-fegafded at
DeIf eI-MedIna. The ofacIes who spoke to kIngs wefe the majof state gods. Amen, kIng
of the gods, was paftIcuIafIy keen on conveyIng hIs wIshes vIa an ofacIe whIch couId
onIy be tfansIated by the hIgh pfIest of kIng, and we shouId pefhaps not be too
sufpfIsed to fInd that Amen's commands often coIncIded exactIy wIth the Intefests of hIs
Afgument has faged amongst egyptoIogIsts as to who the unnamed kIng of ChapeIIe
Rouge bIock 287 mIght be. Some feeI that he must be TuthmosIs I and that the text
thefefofe fepfesents Hatchepsut's fecoIIectIon ÷ pfesumabIy fIctItIous ÷ of a tIme dufIng
hef fathef's feIgn when the god acknowIedged hef as the tfue heIf to the cfown. If thIs Is
the case, the bIock can be of IIttIe heIp In detefmInIng the date when Hatchepsut
actuaIIy pfocIaImed hefseIf kIng and the entIfe scene must be cIassIfIed as a fufthef
exampIe of Hatchepsut's compuIsIon to justIfy hef own feIgn. Howevef, It Is aIways
possIbIe that the mystefy monafch Is TuthmosIs III and that the bIock Is thefefofe a
fecofd of the actuaI date when Hatchepsut decIded to make pubIIc hef fIght to the
thfone. Indeed, It Is not beyond the bounds of possIbIIIty that Hatchepsut, a fesoufcefuI
Iady, ofganIzed a hIghIy pubIIc pfonouncement by the ofacIe at exactIy the moment she
was pfoposIng to make hef pIans known.
UnfoftunateIy, bIock 287 mefeIy descfIbes an ofacIe, It does not go on to fecofd a
cofonatIon. Howevef, detaIIs of Hatchepsut's cofonatIon at Kafnak afe actuaIIy IncIuded
In a thIfd-pefson naffatIve cafved on sevefaI bIocks whIch, ffom the dIfectIon of theIf
hIefogIyphs, must have ofIgInaIIy fofmed paft of the opposIte outsIde waII of the
ChapeIIe Rouge. The cofonatIon must, thefefofe, have occuffed much Iatef In the text,
and pfesumabIy much Iatef In tIme, than the events descfIbed on bIock 287. The
cofonatIon InscfIptIon Is unfoftunateIy undated but, as It Is hIghIy unIIkeIy that
Hatchepsut wouId have aIIowed the date of such a momentous occasIon to go
unfecofded, thefe Is aIways the possIbIIIty that one of the mIssIng bIocks ffom the
ChapeIIe Rouge wIII one day feappeaf to soIve the mystefy.
If we do not have a specIfIc date fof Hatchepsut's cofonatIon, we do at Ieast have a
date fof hef jubIIee, of seJ-festIvaI, whIch Is fecofded on the waIIs of both the Kafnak
and DeIf eI-BahfI tempIes. The ceIebfatIon of the /eb-seJ, a tfadItIon stfetchIng back
ovef a thousand yeafs to the dawn of the dynastIc age and pefhaps even beyond, was a
pubIIc fItuaI of febIfth and fenewaI Intended to fevIvIfy the ageIng kIng and Incfease
pubIIc confIdence In hIs feIgn.
It mafked the staft of a new cycIe In the monafch's IIfe
and was, of coufse, the excuse fof a natIonwIde ceIebfatIon, the ancIent EgyptIans wefe
nevef ones to deny themseIves a good pafty. TfadItIon dIctated that the jubIIee wouId be
pfocIaImed ffom MemphIs on the fIfst day of spfIng ÷ the season of fejuvenatIon ÷ and
that thefe wouId foIIow fIve days of festIvaI cuImInatIng In a gfand pfocessIon of the
state and IocaI gods. The mofe soIemn fItuaIs of the /eb-seJ IncIuded a feenactment of
the duaI cofonatIon, whefe the monafch was feanoInted fIfst wIth the whIte cfown of
the KIng of the South and then wIth the fed cfown of the Nofth, and a cefemonIaI fun
whefe the kIng, caffyIng tfadItIonaI embIems, was fequIfed to face fouf tImes afound a
specIaIIy pfepafed afena of pavIIIon In ofdef to pfove hIs (of In thIs case hef) physIcaI
fItness to fuIe.
In theofy, a kIng was entItIed to ceIebfate hIs fIfst jubIIee thIfty yeafs aftef hIs
cofonatIon and thefeaftef as ffequentIy as he desIfed. Hatchepsut, atypIcaI as aIways,
announced hef jubIIee dufIng fegnaI Yeaf 15. ThIs was by no means the fIfst foyaI
tfadItIon to be bfoken by Hatchepsut, and Indeed Hatchepsut was not the fIfst kIng to
bend the /eb-seJ fuIes, It Is possIbIe that hef fathef had efected hIs obeIIsks to mafk hIs
own jubIIee aIthough he Is unIIkeIy to have fuIed fof mofe than fIfteen yeafs, whIIe fIve
kIngs Iatef Amenhotep IV, befofe he became Akhenaten, ceIebfated a jubIIee aftef a
mefe fouf yeafs on the thfone. Thefe Is no doubt that a natIonaI ceIebfatIon feIatIveIy
eafIy In hef feIgn wouId have been a sound poIItIcaI move, boostIng natIonaI mofaIe
and pfovIdIng a good omen fof the futufe pfospefIty of the fegIme, and pefhaps
Hatchepsut feIt that, aftef fIfteen yeafs as fuIef of Egypt, she was In need of fenewaI.
Howevef, It femaIns possIbIe that Yeaf 15 was chosen as a specIaI yeaf because It
mafked an Impoftant thIftIeth annIvefsafy. If Hatchepsut had onIy been fIfteen yeafs
oId at the death of TuthmosIs II, thIs may weII have been hef own thIftIeth yeaf of,
gIven that she ffequentIy poftfayed hefseIf as the ImmedIate successof to TuthmosIs I, It
may weII have been thIfty yeafs sInce the death of hef fathef. It may even have been,
gIven that Hatchepsut aIso descfIbed hefseIf as hef fathef's co-fegent, thIfty yeafs sInce
the accessIon of TuthmosIs I.
Hatchepsut's jubIIee must, of coufse, In theofy have aIso been TuthmosIs' jubIIee, and
Indeed the young kIng does appeaf to enjoy hIs own fathef muted ceIebfatIons at thIs
tIme. On the waIIs of the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe we see both kIngs makIng pafaIIeI
offefIngs of mIIk and watef, Hatchepsut offefs to the south, TuthmosIs to the nofth. The
nofthefn coIonnade of the mIddIe tefface shows Amen embfacIng TuthmosIs who weafs
the doubIe cfown and caffIes the ankh of IIfe sIgn, and a mace, whIIe In the nofthwest
offefIng haII TuthmosIs pfesents a tabIe of offefIngs to Amen who bIesses hIm
I gIve to you the ceIebfatIng of mIIIIons of seJ-festIvaIs on the thfone of Hofus and that you dIfect aII the IIvIng IIke Re,
Howevef, the occasIon appeafs to have beIonged aImost entIfeIy to Hatchepsut and she
takes pfIde of pIace In evefy scene. TuthmosIs III Iatef ceIebfated hIs own Independent
jubIIees on a faf gfandef scaIe dufIng Yeafs 30 (the coffect yeaf fof such a ceIebfatIon),
34 and 37.
We shaII pfobabIy nevef know what event pfecIpItated Hatchepsut Into pfocIaImIng
hefseIf kIng. It Is, of coufse, possIbIe that she had aIways Intended to seIze powef, and
that foIIowIng the death of TuthmosIs II she had mefeIy been bIdIng hef tIme, waItIng
fof the poIItIcaIIy oppoftune moment to stfIke. Hayes Is pefhaps the most pefsuasIve
pfoponent of thIs theofy:
. at the tIme of hIs ]TuthmosIs II| death, hef evefy wakIng thought must have been taken up wIth the stabIIIzatIon of the
govefnment and the consoIIdatIon of hef own posItIon.
It Is, Indeed, cIeaf that the Iongef the move was postponed the mofe dIffIcuIt It wouId have become to accompIIsh, fof
TuthmosIs III was aII the whIIe gfowIng oIdef, fofmIng hIs own pafty and consoIIdatIng hIs own posItIon.
Howevef bIased hIs IntefpfetatIon of Hatchepsut's chafactef, Hayes must be coffect In
hIs assumptIon that such an unconventIonaI move wouId need to be made soonef fathef
than Iatef. Not onIy was TuthmosIs gfowIng up and attfactIng hIs own suppoftefs, thefe
was aIso the possIbIIIty that he mIght dIe In Infancy, IessenIng Hatchepsut's own cIaIm
to the thfone by pfecIpItatIng a dynastIc cfIsIs In whIch the posItIon of the dowagef
queen mIght have been compfomIsed by the IntfoductIon of a fIvaI maIe cIaImant. Why
then dId Hatchepsut waIt fof between two and seven yeafs befofe ImpIementIng hef
pIan? Was she too young and InexpefIenced to act soonef? Of was she sImpIy usIng the
tIme to gathef the suppoft that she wouId need fof hef unofthodox actIons?
The once popuIaf Image of the queen as a schemIng and powef-hungfy woman owes
mofe to the now-dIscfedIted theofy of the feudIng TuthmosIdes than to concfete
hIstofIcaI evIdence. AII that we know of hef pfevIous IIfe, fIfst as queen consoft and then
as queen fegent, shows Hatchepsut to have been an unexceptIonaI and Indeed aImost
bofIngIy confofmIst wIfe and mothef payIng due honouf to both hef husband and hef
stepson, IovIng hef young daughtef and contentIng hefseIf wIth the tfadItIonaI foIe
aIIotted to foyaI women. AIthough abnofmaI behavIouf In a foyaI pfIncess Is unIIkeIy to
have been fecofded fof postefIty, It Is equaIIy unIIkeIy that an obvIousIy egocentfIc
megaIomanIac wouId have been aIIowed to fIse to the dIzzy heIghts of consoft, God's
WIfe and fegent. TuthmosIs II was not compeIIed by eIthef Iaw of tfadItIon to accept hIs
sIstef as hIs chIef wIfe and, even though Hatchepsut was a pfIncess of the foyaI bIood, a
speedy banIshment to the secufIty of the hafem-paIace wouId have Ieft TuthmosIs ffee to
seIect a mofe amenabIe queen and a mofe suItabIe guafdIan fof hIs Infant son.
Hatchepsut's subsequent Iengthy feIgn, chafactefIzed by Its economIc pfospefIty,
monumentaI buIIdIng and fofeIgn expIofatIon, seems to confIfm hef competence and
mentaI stabIIIty. ThIs was not, as faf as we can teII some thfee and a haIf thousand
yeafs Iatef, the fuIe of a semI-defanged obsessIve but a cafefuIIy caIcuIated pefIod of
poIItIcaI manoeuvfIng whIch aIIowed an unconventIonaI phafaoh to become accepted
on the thfone and whIch bfought peace and pfospefIty to hef peopIe. In aII ways baf
one, It was a conventIonaI and successfuI New KIngdom feIgn. But, If the Image of
Hatchepsut as a woman motIvated pufeIy by ambItIon and gfeed Is to be toned down of
even entIfeIy dIscafded, what possIbIe expIanatIon couId thefe be fof hef usufpatIon of
powef? And what made hef actIon acceptabIe to the EgyptIan eIIte? Was thefe some
unfecofded cfIsIs whIch demanded a swIft fesponse and the estabIIshment of a stfong
phafaoh on the thfone? A sudden thfeat to the secufIty of the ImmedIate foyaI famIIy,
such as an InsuffectIon In the foyaI hafem, mIght weII have pfompted Hatchepsut to
take dfastIc actIon to safeguafd hef stepson's posItIon.
In any such emefgency
Hatchepsut wouId have been a natufaI choIce as co-fegent as she, aIfeady fegent and
'onIy' a woman, wouId not necessafIIy have been pefceIved as posIng the thfeat to the
authofIty of the tfue kIng.
Hatchepsut's tfeatment of the young TuthmosIs III IndIcates that she nevef fegafded
hIs exIstence as a sefIous pfobIem even though, as an InteIIIgent woman, she must have
feaIIzed that evefy passIng yeaf wouId stfengthen hIs cIaIm to fuIe aIone. She nevef
attempted to estabIIsh a soIo feIgn and, Instead of hIdIng the boy-kIng away of even
havIng hIm kIIIed, she was cafefuI to accofd hIm aII the fespect due to a feIIow monafch.
Indeed, TuthmosIs was even encoufaged to spend paft of hIs youth tfaInIng wIth the
afmy, the now tfadItIonaI educatIon of the cfown pfInce but possIbIy a dangefous
decIsIon fof one In Hatchepsut's IncfeasIngIy vuInefabIe posItIon, as the suppoft of those
who contfoIIed the New KIngdom afmy was vItaI to the sufvIvaI of the phafaoh.
AIthough he was fepfesented Iess often than Hatchepsut, and aIthough he was
undoubtedIy the junIof paftnef In the co-fegency, 'IeadIng as shadowy an exIstence as a
Japanese MIkado undef the Shogunate',
TuthmosIs nevef entIfeIy dIsappeafed ffom
vIew. He even had a few monuments of hIs own, aIthough these afe aImost InvafIabIy to
be found outsIde Egypt's bofdefs, eIthef In NubIa of SInaI. WIthIn Egypt, Hatchepsut was
cafefuI nevef to appeaf subofdInate to TuthmosIs, hef Image of hef caftouche pfeceded
that of hef co-fuIef on aII but one of theIf shafed monuments, and even the pfIvate
monuments of the tIme fecognIzed that Hatchepsut was the domInant kIng:
... by the favouf of the Good Goddess, MIstfess of the Two Iands ]Maatkafe|, may she IIve and endufe fofevef IIke Re ÷ and
of hef bfothef, the Good God, mastef of the fItuaI Menkhepeffe ]TuthmosIs III| gIven IIfe IIke Re fofevef.
A consIdefatIon of the chafactef and behavIouf of TuthmosIs hImseIf must pIay an
Impoftant paft In any anaIysIs of Hatchepsut's actIons. If we Ignofe specuIatIon and
stIck to known facts we see that, whatevef hIs pfIvate thoughts, TuthmosIs pubIIcIy
accepted hIs aunt as co-fegent. InItIaIIy, as an Infant wIth a poIItIcaIIy InsIgnIfIcant
mothef and no InfIuentIaI maIe feIatIons, he can have had IIttIe choIce In the mattef.
Howevef, he wouId have been of an age to chaIIenge Hatchepsut fof at Ieast fIve yeafs
pfIof to hef death, and hIs tfaInIng In the afmy wouId have made a successfuI mIIItafy
coup a vIftuaI ceftaInty. ReIgnIng aIone, TuthmosIs was to pfove hImseIf one of the most
abIe waffIof-phafaohs that Egypt has evef expefIenced. It Is aImost ImpossIbIe to equate
the hefo of no fewef than seventeen aggfessIve AsIan campaIgns wIth the Image of the
Impotent wImp who fesented hIs co-fegent fof twenty yeafs but who was nevef abIe to
asseft hIs fIght to fuIe. SImIIafIy, It Is dIffIcuIt to envIsage the two co-fuIefs femaInIng
Iocked In deadIy enmIty fof aImost a quaftef of a centufy, sufeIy one of othef wouId
have taken steps to femove theIf fIvaI? It has been afgued that Hatchepsut feIt unabIe to
dIspose of TuthmosIs as he was hef passpoft to the kIngshIp aIthough, If she was so
secufe In hef fuIe that TuthmosIs was unabIe to chaIIenge hef posItIon, It Is unIIkeIy that
hIs death wouId have dIsIodged hef. Thefe Is ceftaInIy no obvIous feason why TuthmosIs
shouId not have attempted dIscfeetIy to femove Hatchepsut.
Yet, as faf as we afe awafe, TuthmosIs made no such chaIIenge to hIs stepmothef's
authofIty. He seems to have been content to aIIow the sItuatIon to take Its coufse and,
agaIn IackIng any evIdence to the contfafy, we must assume that he was feIatIveIy
happy to accept the co-fegency. Pefhaps, havIng gfown up undef Hatchepsut's guIdance,
he couId not easIIy envIsage femovIng hef ffom powef. Indeed, as we have aIfeady
seen, It Is even possIbIe that TuthmosIs dId not fegafd hIs own fIght to the thfone as
automatIc. HIs need to cIte an ofacIe of Amen In suppoft of hIs kIngshIp Is ceftaInIy
unusuaI, the tfue kIng genefaIIy had no need of such obvIous dIvIne suppoft. In any
case, TuthmosIs must have feaIIzed that the sItuatIon couId not Iast IndefInIteIy. AII
pfevIous co-fegencIes had ended peacefuIIy, not wIth an abdIcatIon but wIth a death.
TuthmosIs hImseIf, accustomed to the tfadItIon of the co-fegency and wIth no paftIcuIaf
poIItIcaI axe to gfInd, may have found hIs posItIon easIef to accept than the modefn
obsefvefs who today gfow angfy and IndIgnant on hIs behaIf.
If TuthmosIs was unabIe of unwIIIIng to take actIon agaInst hIs aunt dufIng hef
IIfetIme, how dId he tfeat hef when she was dead? We know that, foIIowIng Hatchepsut's
death, somebody mastefmInded a detefmIned attempt to deIete the memofy of the
femaIe phafaoh ffom the EgyptIan hIstofIcaI fecofd. To thIs end hef monuments wefe
desecfated and hef name and Images wefe efased, vafIousIy beIng fepIaced by the name
of Image of TuthmosIs I, II of III. InItIaIIy these attacks wefe fegafded as fIfm pfoof of a
pefsonaI vendetta on the paft of TuthmosIs III, and It was assumed that the new kIng ÷
ovefcome by hIs Iong-suppfessed hatfed agaInst the usufpef who had denIed hIm hIs
fIghts fof so Iong ÷ must have ofdefed hIs henchmen to take actIon agaInst Hatchepsut's
monuments at the vefy begInnIng of hIs soIo fuIe. Howevef, new evIdence has stafted to
IndIcate that the pfoscfIptIon of Hatchepsut's memofy dId not occuf untII the vefy end of
TuthmosIs' feIgn, of pefhaps even Iatef In the New KIngdom. ThIs makes It Iess easy to
attfIbute the attacks to pefsonaI spIte, If TuthmosIs was feaIIy fIIIed wIth such an
uncontfoIIabIe hatfed, why waIt fof ovef twenty yeafs to act? Instead of ImpuIsIve
actIons they staft to Iook IIke weII-caIcuIated poIItIcaI moves, and It wouId seem that It
Is no Iongef safe to cIte the attacks on Hatchepsut's memofy as pfoof of TuthmosIs'
hatfed of hIs aunt.
The vast majofIty of the EgyptIan peopIe, the peasants and Iowef cIasses, wouId have
been Ignofant of any stfuggIe fof powef wIthIn the paIace. As Iong as thefe was a
phafaoh on the thfone, and as Iong as the state contInued to functIon coffectIy (that Is,
payIng out fatIons), the peopIe femaIned femafkabIy content wIth theIf Iot. Howevef,
no phafaoh couId hope to fuIe wIthout the suppoft of the feIatIveIy smaII cIfcIe of maIe
eIIte who headed the afmy, the cIvII sefvIce and the pfIesthood. These wefe the men who
effectIveIy contfoIIed the countfy and kept the kIng In powef. AgaIn, we must assume
that these InfIuentIaI men found theIf new monafch acceptabIe even If they dId not
posItIveIy weIcome a woman at the heIm. Why was she so acceptabIe? Was hef
assumptIon of powef so gfaduaI that It went unnotIced untII It was too Iate to act, of
was thefe no one eIse mofe suItabIe? Pefhaps GIbbon has pfovIded us wIth the best
expIanatIon fof thIs unchafactefIstIc depaftufe ffom yeafs of tfadItIon when he obsefves
In evefy age and evefy countfy, the wIsef, of at Ieast the stfongef, of the two sexes has usufped the powefs of the State,
and confIned the othef to the cafes and pIeasufes of domestIc IIfe. In hefedItafy monafchIes, howevef. the gaIIant spIfIt
of chIvaIfy, and the Iaw of successIon, have accustomed us to aIIow a sInguIaf exceptIon, and a woman Is often
acknowIedged the absoIute sovefeIgn of a gfeat kIngdom, In whIch she wouId be deemed IncapabIe of exefcIsIng the
smaIIest empIoyment, cIvII of mIIItafy.
Hatchepsut, the sInguIaf exceptIon, had InhefIted a cabInet of tfIed and tfusted
advIsefs ffom hef bfothef, many of whom had pfevIousIy wofked undef hef fathef and
aII of whom seem to have been happy to swItch theIf aIIegIance to the new fegIme. The
two oId faIthfuIs Ahmose-Pennekheb and InenI wefe stIII sefvIng the cfown, and InenI In
paftIcuIaf seems to have been especIaIIy favoufed by the new kIng:
Hef Majesty pfaIsed me and Ioved me. She fecognIsed my wofth at couft, she pfesented me wIth thIngs, she magnIfIed me,
she fIIIed my house wIth sIIvef and goId, wIth aII beautIfuI stuffs of the foyaI house. I Incfeased beyond evefythIng.
AIthough InenI was obvIousIy deepIy Impfessed by Hatchepsut's fuIe, Indeed so
Impfessed that he faIIed to fecofd the name of the 'feaI kIng', TuthmosIs III, In hIs tomb,
he nevef specIfIcaIIy fefefs to hIs mIstfess by hef fegaI name of Maatkafe, and It wouId
appeaf that he dIed just befofe she feached the heIght of hef powefs. In contfast,
Ahmose-Pennekheb omIts Hatchepsut ffom the IIst of kIngs whom he has sefved and
offefs an unusuaI combInatIon of hef queenIy and kIngIy tItIes: 'the God's WIfe fepeated
favoufs fof me, the Gfeat KIng's WIfe Maatkafe, JustIfIed', whIch wouId IndIcate that hIs
autobIogfaphy too mIght have been composed at a tIme when thefe was some confusIon
ovef Hatchepsut's offIcIaI tItIe.
GfaduaIIy, as hef feIgn pfogfessed, Hatchepsut stafted to appoInt new advIsefs, many
of whom wefe men of feIatIveIy humbIe bIfth such as Senenmut, stewafd of the queen
and tutof to Nefefufe. By seIectIng offIcIaIs wIth a pefsonaI IoyaIty to hefseIf,
Hatchepsut was abIe to ensufe that she was suffounded by the most devoted of couftIefs,
those whose cafeefs wefe InextfIcabIy IInked to hef own. Howevef, by no means aII the
new appoIntees wefe seIf-made men and some, IIke Hapuseneb, HIgh PfIest of Amen
and buIIdef of the foyaI tomb, aIfeady had cIose IInks wIth the foyaI famIIy. Hapuseneb
may have actuaIIy been a dIstant feIatIon of Hatchepsut, we know that hIs gfandfathef
Imhotep had been vIzIef to TuthmosIs I. Othef Impoftant chafactefs at Hatchepsut's
couft IncIuded ChanceIIof NeshI, Ieadef of the expedItIon to Punt, the Tfeasufef
TuthmosIs, Usefamen the VIzIef, Amenhotep the ChIef Stewafd and InebnI, who
fepIaced SenI as VIcefoy of Kush. Aftef Hatchepsut's death, some of hef most effectIve
couftIefs contInued to wofk fof TuthmosIs III, and thefe Is no sIgn that they suffefed In
any way ffom havIng been IInked wIth the pfevIous fegIme.
Ffom the day that Hatchepsut acceded to the thfone, she stafted to use the fIve 'Gfeat
Names' whIch compfIsed the fuII tItuIafy of a kIng of Egypt and whIch fefIected some of
the dIvIne attfIbutes of kIngshIp. To the ancIent EgyptIans each of these names had Its
own sIgnIfIcance. The Hofus name fepfesented the kIng as the eafthIy embodIment of
Hofus, the Two IadIes of nebty name IndIcated the specIaI feIatIonshIp between the kIng
and the goddesses of Uppef and Iowef Egypt, the goIden Hofus name had a somewhat
obscufe ofIgIn and meanIng, the prenomen, whIch aIways foIIowed the tItIe 'he who
beIongs to the sedge and the bee' (genefaIIy tfansIated as 'KIng of Uppef and Iowef
Egypt'), was the fIfst name to be encIosed wIthIn a caftouche, the nomen, aIso wfItten
wIthIn a caftouche and pfeceded by the epIthet 'Son of Re', was usuaIIy the pefsonaI
name of the kIng befofe he of she acceded to the thfone. The prenomen was aIways the
mofe Impoftant name, and thIs was eIthef used by ItseIf, of wIth the nomen. Thus we
often fInd contempofafy texts fefeffIng to the new kIng sImpIy as Maatkafe (muut Is the
Ka of Re), aIthough hef fuII tItIe was Hofus 'PoweffuI-of-Kas', Two IadIes 'FIoufIshIng-
of-Yeafs', FemaIe Hofus of FIne GoId 'DIvIne-of-DIadems', KIng of Uppef and Iowef
Egypt 'Maatkafe', Daughtef of Re, 'Khenmet-Amen Hatchepsut'. SImIIafIy TuthmosIs III,
often accofded onIy hIs prenomen of Menkhepeffe (The BeIng of Re Is EstabIIshed), was
mofe pfopefIy named Hofus 'Stfong-buII-afIsIng-In-Thebes', Two IadIes 'EndufIng-of-
kIngshIp-IIke-Re-In-Heaven', GoIden Hofus 'PoweffuI-of-stfength, hoIy-of-dIadems', KIng
of Uppef and Iowef Egypt 'Menkhepeffe', Son of Re 'TuthmosIs BeautIfuI-of-Fofms'.
Thfoughout hef feIgn, Hatchepsut sought to honouf hef eafthIy fathef, TuthmosIs I, In
evefy way possIbIe, whIIe vIftuaIIy IgnofIng the exIstence of hef dead husband÷bfothef,
TuthmosIs II. It Is not paftIcuIafIy unusuaI to fInd that a young gIfI bfought up In a
femaIe-domInated envIfonment feeIs a stfong desIfe to emuIate and Impfess hef absent
fathef, paftIcuIafIy when he Is acknowIedged to be the most poweffuI and gIamofous
man In the Iand. Howevef, to some obsefvefs thIs hefo-wofshIp went faf beyond the
natufaI affectIon that a young woman mIght be expected to feeI fof hef dead fathef:
ThIs ]devotIon to a domInant fathef| Is a tfaIt whIch pfomInent femaIes sometImes show. Anna Ffeud tufned hefseIf Into
SIgmund's InteIIectuaI heIf, BenazIf Bhutto makes a poIItIcaI pIatfofm out of hef fathef's memofy, and one Is femInded of a
fecent BfItIsh pfIme mInIstef whose entfy In W/o's W/o IncIuded a fathef but no mothef. DId TuthmosIs I evef caII hIs
daughtef 'the best man In the dynasty', and Is thIs why Hatchepsut shows no IdentIfIcatIon wIth othef women?
Pefhaps the most Impoftant poInt hefe Is that aII these women Iacked an acceptabIe
femaIe foIe-modeI and thefefofe, once they had made the decIsIon to commIt themseIves
to a cafeef In the pubIIc eye, had IIttIe choIce but to foIIow theIf fathefs fathef than theIf
mothefs, sIstefs, cousIns of aunts Into what had become the famIIy busIness. Hatchepsut,
as kIng, had no othef woman to IdentIfy wIth. She had aIfeady spent at Ieast fIfteen
yeafs emuIatIng hef mothef as queen and now wanted to advance to kIng. Of aII the
women named above, Mfs Bhutto, a Iady who Is not affaId to use the name and
feputatIon of hef fathef to enhance hef own cause, Is pefhaps the cIosest pafaIIeI to
Hatchepsut. Mofe teIIIng mIght be a compafIson wIth Queen EIIzabeth I of EngIand, a
woman who InhefIted hef thfone agaInst aII odds at a tIme of dynastIc dIffIcuIty when
the foyaI famIIy was suffefIng ffom a shoftage of sons, and who deIIbefateIy stfessed
hef feIatIonshIp wIth hef vIgofous and effectIve fathef In ofdef to Iessen the effect of hef
own femInInIty and make hef own feIgn mofe acceptabIe to hef peopIe: 'And though I
be a woman, yet I have as good a coufage, answefabIe to my pIace, as evef my fathef
CItIng TuthmosIs as the InspIfatIon fof Hatchepsut's actIons Is, howevef, In many
ways puttIng the chafIot befofe the hofse. TuthmosIs I was Hatchepsut's feason to fuIe,
not hef motIvatIon, as EgyptIan tfadItIon decfeed that son shouId foIIow fathef on the
thfone. GIven Hatchepsut's unusuaI cIfcumstances, she needed to stfess hef IInks wIth
hef fathef mofe than most othef kIngs. Thefefofe, In ofdef to estabIIsh hefseIf as hef
fathef's heIf ÷ and thefeby justIfy hef cIaIm to the thfone ÷ Hatchepsut was fofced to edIt
hef own past so that hef husband-bfothef, aIso a chIId of TuthmosIs I, dIsappeafed ffom
the scene and she became the soIe Hofus to hef fathef's OsIfIs. To thIs end she fedesIgned
hef fathef's tomb In the VaIIey of the KIngs, emuIated hIs habIt of efectIng obeIIsks, buIIt
hIm a new moftuafy chapeI assocIated wIth hef own at DeIf eI-BahfI and aIIowed hIm
pfomInence on many of hef InscfIptIons.
Nof was Hatchepsut the onIy 18th Dynasty monafch to fevefe the memofy of
TuthmosIs I, TuthmosIs III aIso sought to IInk hImseIf wIth the gfandfathef whom he
aImost ceftaInIy nevef met whIIe vIftuaIIy IgnofIng the exIstence of hIs own Iess
ImpfessIve fathef. As a sIgn of fespect TuthmosIs III, somewhat confusIngIy, occasIonaIIy
fefefs to hImseIf as the son fathef than gfandson of TuthmosIs I. FoftunateIy, the
autobIogfaphy of InenI specIfIcaIIy teIIs us that TuthmosIs II was succeeded by 'the son
he had begotten', femovIng any doubt as to the actuaI patefnIty of TuthmosIs III. The
tefms 'fathef' and 'son' need not be taken IItefaIIy In these cIfcumstances, 'fathef' was
often used by the ancIent EgyptIans as a fespectfuI fofm of addfess fof a vafIety of oIdef
men and couId thefefofe be used In a fefefence to an adoptIve fathef of stepfathef,
patfon of even ancestof. That TuthmosIs I shouId be fegafded as an hefoIc fIgufe by hIs
descendants Is not too sufpfIsIng. Not onIy had he pfoved hImseIf a hIghIy successfuI
monafch, he was aIso the foundef of the ImmedIate foyaI famIIy. HIs pfedecessof
Amenhotep I, aIthough offIcIaIIy cIassIfIed as beIongIng to the same dynasty, was In fact
no bIood feIatIon of eIthef Hatchepsut of TuthmosIs III.
As a kIng of Egypt, Hatchepsut was entItIed to a suItabIy spIendId monafch's tomb.
Thefefofe, soon aftef hef accessIon, wofk on the fathef undefstated tomb In the WadI
SIkkat Taka ez-ZeIda ceased and the excavatIon of a faf mofe fegaI monument
commenced In the VaIIey of the KIngs. FoIIowIng fecent 18th Dynasty tfadItIon, thIs
tomb was to have two dIstInct components: a bufIaI chambef hIdden away In the VaIIey
(now known as Tomb KV20) and a hIghIy vIsIbIe moftuafy tempIe, In thIs case Ðjeser-
Ðjeseru of 'HoIy of the HoIIes', a magnIfIcent tempIe nestIIng In a natufaI bay In the
Theban mountaIn at DeIf eI-BahfI.
Two afchItects wefe appoInted to ovefsee the
essentIaIIy sepafate buIIdIng pfojects, and Hapuseneb was pIaced In chafge of wofk at
KV20 whIIe Senenmut Is genefaIIy cfedIted wIth the wofk at DeIf eI-BahfI. Howevef, It Is
possIbIe that the two eIements of the tomb wefe ofIgInaIIy Intended to be IInked vIa
hIdden undefgfound passages, and
Iig 4.5 Plun of Hutc/epsut's /ing's tomb
an unusuaIIy Iong and deep sefIes of tunneIs IeadIng stfaIght ffom the VaIIey of the
KIngs to the bufIaI chambef may have been desIgned to aIIow the chambef ItseIf to IIe
dIfectIy beneath the moftuafy tempIe. DeIf eI-BahfI Is sepafated ffom the VaIIey of the
KIngs by a steep outcfop of the Theban mountaIn. Today It takes a good haIf an houf to
waIk between the two, foIIowIng the steep mountaIn tfaII whIch had been named
'Agatha ChfIstIe's path' on the gfounds that It pIays an Impoftant paft In hef ancIent
EgyptIan detectIve mystefy Ðeut/ Comes us t/e LnJ.
Howevef, the two sItes afe
actuaIIy Iess than a quaftef of a mIIe apaft as the moIe tunneIs. It wouId thefefofe have
been peffectIy feasIbIe fof Hatchepsut to be bufIed beIow hef moftuafy tempIe whIIe
enjoyIng the secufIty of a tomb entfance hIdden In the VaIIey. UnfoftunateIy, the
unstabIe natufe of the fock In the VaIIey of the KIngs seems to have thwafted thIs pIan
and, In ofdef to avoId a IocaIIzed patch of dangefousIy cfumbIIng fock, the stfaIght
passages wefe fofced to cufve In on themseIves, cfeatIng a bent bow shape. The fInIshed
tomb, If stfaIghtened out, wouId In any case have been appfoxImateIy one hundfed
metfes too shoft to feach the tempIe.
Fof many yeafs egyptoIogIsts have assumed that TuthmosIs I was, by the begInnIng of
Hatchepsut's feIgn, peacefuIIy festIng In Tomb KV 38, whIch had been buIIt fof hIm In
secfet 'no one seeIng, no one heafIng' by hIs IoyaI afchItect InenI. It thefefofe made
sense fof hIs devoted daughtef to seIect a neafby sIte fof hef own tomb, KV 20.
Howevef, a fecent fe-examInatIon of the afchItectufe and contents of KV 38 has made It
cIeaf that, whIIe thIs tomb was defInIteIy buIIt fof TuthmosIs I, It Is unIIkeIy to have
been stafted befofe the feIgn of hIs gfandson, TuthmosIs III. ThIs means that, whefevef
Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs II bufIed theIf fathef, It couId not have been In Tomb KV 38.
Whefe then had TuthmosIs I been Inteffed?
It couId be that the ofIgInaI tomb of TuthmosIs I has yet to be dIscovefed, hIs wouId
not be the fIfst tomb to be 'Iost' In the VaIIey of the KIngs. Howevef, It seems faf mofe
IIkeIy that Hatchepsut, fathef than buIId hefseIf a compIeteIy new tomb, had taken the
unusuaI decIsIon to extend the tomb aIfeady occupIed by hef fathef by addIng a fufthef
staIfway IeadIng downwafds to an extfa chambef. ThIs extensIon wouId make the tomb
emInentIy suItabIe fof a doubIe fathef÷daughtef bufIaI. The pfopoftIons of the bufIaI
chambef of KV 20, and the unusuaIIy smaII staIfway whIch Ieads to thIs chambef,
ceftaInIy hInt that thIs sectIon may be a Iate addItIon, whIIe Its afchItectufaI styIe has
IndIcated a dIfect IInk wIth the DeIf eI-BahfI moftuafy tempIe whIch Is not suggested by
the femaIndef of the tomb.
The InspIfatIon fof the doubIe-bufIaI may have been the
sImpIe fIIIaI Iove that Hatchepsut feIt fof hef fathef, of It may have been a mofe
pfactIcaI move desIgned to assocIate Hatchepsut pefmanentIy wIth hef evef-popuIaf
fathef's moftuafy cuIt: WInIock has suggested that Hatchepsut needed to use hef fathef's
femaIns to enhance the sanctIty of hef own bufIaI just as 'In the MIddIe Ages the bodIes
of the saInts wefe tfansIated ffom the HoIy Iand to Eufope to enhance the sanctIty of
the new cathedfaIs'.
The new pIan means that TuthmosIs I was actuaIIy Inteffed twIce In Tomb KV 20,
fIfstIy dufIng hIs funefaI when he was pIaced In a tfadItIonaI wooden safcophagus (now
Iost) In the ofIgInaI bufIaI chambef, and Iatef, dufIng Hatchepsut's feIgn, when he was
pfovIded wIth a spIendId quaftzIte safcophagus and moved downwafds to the new
chambef. ThIs wouId, of coufse, cast doubt upon the hIthefto accepted theofy that the
tomb was desIgned to fun dIfectIy beneath Ðjeser-Ðjeseru, the unusuaI Iength of the
passageways may Instead fepfesent a ffuItIess seafch fof the Iayefs of hafd fock whIch
wouId pefmIt the cafvIng of decofatIons on the tomb waIIs.
The IocatIon of Tomb KV 20 ÷ If not of Its ofIgInaI ownef ÷ had been known sInce the
NapoIeonIc ExpedItIon of 1799, In 1804 a gentIeman named Ch. H. Gofdon had Ieft hIs
mafk on the entfance doof-jamb, In 1817 GIovannI BattIsta BeIzonI had fecofded the
tomb on hIs map of the VaIIey of the KIngs, In 1824 James Bufton had gaIned access to
an uppef chambef, and In 1844 KafI RIchafd IepsIus had paftIaIIy expIofed the uppef
passage. Howevef, aII the passageways had become bIocked by a soIIdIfIed mass of
fubbIe, smaII stones and othef fubbIsh whIch had been caffIed Into the tomb by
fIoodwatefs. It was not untII 1903÷4 that Howafd Caftef, aftef two seasons of stfenuous
wofk, was abIe to cIeaf the coffIdofs and make hIs way aIong the Iong and wIndIng
passageways to the doubIe bufIaI chambef. ThIs he found to be fIIIed wIth debfIs ffom a
coIIapsed ceIIIng, and he embafked on a fufthef month's cIeafance wofk, IaboufIng
undef the most tfyIng of condItIons:
. the aIf had become so bad, and the heat so gfeat, that the candIes caffIed by the wofkmen meIted, and wouId not gIve
enough IIght to enabIe them to contInue theIf wofk, consequentIy we wefe compeIIed to InstaII eIectfIc IIghts, In the fofm
of hand wIfes. As soon as we got down about 50 metfes, the aIf became so fouI that the men couId not wofk. In addItIon
to thIs, the bats of centufIes had buIIt InnumefabIe nests on the ceIIIngs of the coffIdofs and chambefs, and theIf
excfement had become so dfy that the Ieast stIf of the aIf fIIIed the coffIdofs wIth a fIuffy bIack stuff, whIch choked the
noses and mouths of the men, fendefIng It most dIffIcuIt fof them to bfeathe.
AII the fubbIsh extfacted had to be caffIed In baskets aIong aImost 200 m (656 ft) of
naffow, cufvIng passageways and steep staIfways to the sufface 100 m (328 ft) above.
OvefcomIng these obstacIes wIth the aId of an aIf suctIon pump InstaIIed by the
excavatIon's AmefIcan sponsof, Mf Theodofe M. DavIs, the IntfepId Caftef dIscovefed
that the tomb foIIowed a faIfIy sImpIe pIan, wIth fouf descendIng stepped passages
IInked by thfee fectanguIaf chambefs IeadIng to a fectanguIaf bufIaI chambef measufIng
11 m × 5.5 m × 3 m (36 ft × 18 ft × 10 ft). The ceIIIng of the bufIaI chambef was
ofIgInaIIy suppofted by a fow of thfee centfaI coIumns, and thefe wefe thfee vefy smaII
stofe fooms openIng off the maIn chambef. Hefe Caftef found not one but two yeIIow
quaftzIte safcophagI and Hatchepsut's matchIng quaftzIte canopIc box. UnfoftunateIy,
the tomb had been fobbed In antIquIty, and the once-magnIfIcent gfave goods wefe
feduced to pIIes of bfoken shefds, ffagments of stone vesseIs and 'some bufnt pIeces of
wooden coffIns and boxes, a paft of the face and foot of a Iafge wooden statue covefed
In bItumen'.
It does not seem beyond the bounds of possIbIIIty that the bufned wooden
ffagments mIght be the femaIns of the ofIgInaI coffIns and safcophagus of TuthmosIs I.
FIfteen poIIshed IImestone sIabs InscfIbed In fed and bIack Ink wIth chaptefs ffom the
AmJuut, a book of foyaI funefafy IItefatufe pfovIded dufIng the New KIngdom fof the
use of the dead kIng, and hefe obvIousIy Intended to IIne the bufIaI chambef, wefe IyIng
on the fIoof whefe the buIIdefs had abandoned them.
IncIuded amongst the debfIs of bfoken pottefy and shattefed stone vesseIs fecovefed
ffom the bufIaI chambef and Iowef passages wefe the femaIns of two vases made fof
Queen Ahmose NefeftafI. These vesseIs seem to have been fegafded as TuthmosIde
famIIy heIfIooms, and as such wefe a paft of the ofIgInaI funefafy equIpment of
TuthmosIs I. One of the vases gIves the name and tItIes of the deceased queen 'Iong may
she IIve', pIus a Iatef InscfIptIon whIch teIIs us that TuthmosIs II ']made It| as hIs
monument to hIs fathef'. Othef vesseIs, thIs tIme beafIng the name and tItIes of
TuthmosIs I, had aIso been InscfIbed by TuthmosIs II and wefe pfesumabIy aIso a paft of
the ofIgInaI funefafy equIpment of TuthmosIs I pIaced In hIs tomb by hIs son. The tomb
aIso contaIned ffagments of stone vesseIs made fof Hatchepsut befofe she became kIng ÷
possIbIy tfansfeffed ffom hef pfevIous tomb ÷ and vesseIs beafIng the name of Maatkafe
Hatchepsut whIch must have been made aftef she acceded to the thfone.
Iig. 4.6 T/e goJJess Isis from t/e surcop/ugus of Hutc/epsut
The magnIfIcent safcophagus of KIng Hatchepsut was dIscovefed open, wIth no sIgn
of a body, and wIth the IId IyIng dIscafded on the fIoof. It Is now housed In CaIfo
Museum aIong wIth Its matchIng quaftzIte canopIc chest. Cafved ffom a sIngIe bIock of
yeIIow quaftzIte, the safcophagus has a caftouche-shaped pIan-fofm wIth a founded
head end and a fIat foot end, and It has been InscfIbed, poIIshed and paInted. The
second safcophagus, found IyIng on Its sIde wIth Its aImost-undamaged IId pfopped
agaInst the waII neafby, was eventuaIIy pfesented to Mf DavIs as a gestufe of
appfecIatIon fof hIs genefous fInancIaI suppoft. Mf DavIs In tufn pfesented the
safcophagus to the Museum of FIne Afts, Boston. ThIs second safcophagus had ofIgInaIIy
been engfaved wIth the name of 'the KIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt, Maatkafe
Hatchepsut', IncontfoveftIbIe evIdence that It had been Intended fof the use of the
femaIe kIng. Howevef, just as the safcophagus was vIftuaIIy compIete, thefe had been a
change of pIan. A new safcophagus was commIssIoned fof Hatchepsut, and the fejected
safcophagus was tfansfeffed to TuthmosIs I. The stonemasons made the best that they
couId of the sItuatIon, festofIng the sufface of the quaftzIte so that It couId be fe-cafved
wIth the name and tItIes of Its new ownef. In an attempt to efase the ofIgInaI cafvIngs
sevefaI centI-metfes of the outef sufface wefe Iost and the safcophagus was feduced by 6
cm (2½ In) In wIdth and 1.5 cm (½ In) In Iength, whIIe the IId was made good by the
judIcIous use of paInted pIastef. FInaIIy, the safcophagus was fe-cafved wIth the name
of TuthmosIs I. A dedIcatIon text makes Hatchepsut's genefosIty cIeaf:
. Iong IIve the FemaIe Hofus. The kIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt, Maatkafe, the son of Re, Hatchepsut-Khnemet-
Amun! May she IIve fofevef! She made It as hef monument to hef fathef whom she Ioved, the Good God, Iofd of the Two
Iands, Aakhepefkafe, the son of Re, TuthmosIs the justIfIed.
The safcophagus fInaIIy measufed 222.5 cm (7 ft) Iong x 89 cm (3 ft) wIde wIth waIIs 13
cm (5 In) thIck, and wouId thefefofe have been too shoft to have heId the anthfopoId
coffIn of TuthmosIs I whIch, fecovefed ffom the DeIf eI-BahfI mummy cache, measufes
232 cm (7 ft 6 In) Iong by 72 cm (2 ft 3 In) wIde at the eIbows and 70 cm (2 ft 3 In) hIgh
at the face. The feet, nofmaIIy the deepest paft of the coffIn, had been destfoyed In
antIquIty. The 18th Dynasty wofkmen, feaIIzIng that the fecondItIoned safcophagus
mIght pfove too smaII fof Its Intended occupant, had attempted to enIafge the cavIty by
hackIng away at the Innef suffaces of the end waIIs. Howevef, even when the Innef
space had been enIafged twIce, It stIII onIy measufed 210 cm x 64 cm x 64.5 cm (6 ft 10
In x 2ft x 2ft), It wouId have easIIy accommodated a mummIfIed body, but not one
encased In a nest of two of thfee wooden coffIns. PfesumabIy, when the tIme came to
Intef the kIng, hIs coffIn's) wouId have been dIscafded.
At afound 155 cm taII (appfoxImateIy 5 ft) TuthmosIs wouId ceftaInIy not have been
consIdefed a gIant amongst the ancIent EgyptIans, but nof wouId he have been
unnatufaIIy shoft fof a New KIngdom man, an avefage maIe heIght of appfoxImateIy
166 cm (5 ft 5 In) Is suggested by the avaIIabIe human femaIns.
The TuthmosIdes
evIdentIy had a famIIy tendency towafds shoftness, TuthmosIs II was 169 cm (5 ft 6 In)
taII and TuthmosIs III, at 161 cm (5 ft 3 In), has often been IIkened to an ancIent
EgyptIan NapoIeon Bonapafte (of, Iess ffequentIy, to AIexandef the Gfeat and even to
HofatIo NeIson) on account of both hIs mIIItafy pfowess and hIs stocky buIId. As
Hatchepsut's safcophagus was too shoft fof TuthmosIs I we must assume that she was
Iess taII than hef fathef, pfesumabIy hef body, wfapped In bandages and encased wIthIn
at Ieast one wooden coffIn, wouId have fItted Into hef smaIIest safcophagus, that
fecovefed ffom the WadI SIkkat Taka ez-ZeIda, whIch wouId have taken a coffIn up to
181 cm (5 ft 11 In) In Iength.
TuthmosIs I was not, howevef, destIned to IIe aIongsIde hIs daughtef as, sometIme
aftef the death of Hatchepsut, TuthmosIs III decIded to fe-Intef hIs gfandfathef In an
even mofe magnIfIcent tomb. To some modefn obsefvefs thIs seems a vefy natufaI
That. upon fIndIng hImseIf supfeme mastef of Egypt he shouId have pefmItted the body of hIs fevefed ancestof and
pfedecessof on the thfone to IIe bufIed In the tomb ÷ In the vefy safcophagus ÷ of the accufsed usufpef Is, to the mInd of
the wfItef, IncfedIbIe. One wouId expect hIm to have stfIven to sufpass hIs fofmef co-fegent In IavIshness and to have
scofned the shoddy expedIent of 'doIng ovef' a second-haIf ]sIc| monument of of faIIIng to pfovIde one at aII.
The new tomb (KV 38) contaIned yet anothef yeIIow quaftzIte safcophagus dedIcated to
TuthmosIs I and InscfIbed by hIs IovIng gfandson: 'It was hIs son who caused hIs name
to IIve In makIng exceIIent the monument of ]hIs| fathef fof aII etefnIty.'
ThIs tIme the
wofkmen made sufe that the safcophagus was exactIy the fIght sIze to accommodate
TuthmosIs' new cedafwood anthfopoId coffIn, one of a sefIes of thfee coffIns
thoughtfuIIy pfovIded by TuthmosIs III.
UnfoftunateIy, TuthmosIs was once agaIn to be denIed hIs etefnaI fest. DufIng the Iate
20th Dynasty hIs new tomb was pIundefed, the safcophagus IId was bfoken, the body
was stfIpped of Its pfecIous jeweIIefy and the vaIuabIe gfave goods wefe stoIen. One of
the coffIns pfepafed fof TuthmosIs I by TuthmosIs III eventuaIIy came to IIght as paft of
the DeIf eI-BahfI mummy cache. As mIght be expected, thIs coffIn was obvIousIy an eafIy
18th Dynasty aftIfact and bofe the name of TuthmosIs. Howevef the coffIn had been
'boffowed' by a Iatef kIng, It had been fe-gIIded and fe-InIaId fof use by the Theban
fuIef PInedjem I, a monafch who fuIed southefn Egypt ovef 400 yeafs aftef the death of
TuthmosIs I. The goId foII cafefuIIy appIIed fof PInedjem's Intefment had ItseIf been
subsequentIy femoved, possIbIy by the necfopoIIs offIcIaIs who stofed the coffIns In the
cache, aIIowIng the ofIgInaI name of TuthmosIs to be seen once agaIn.
It Is obvIous that TuthmosIs' body must have been sepafated ffom Its coffIn befofe
PInedjem was bufIed. ThIs must cast sefIous doubt upon the mummy tentatIveIy
IdentIfIed as that of TuthmosIs I at the end of the nIneteenth centufy. Maspefo had
found thIs mummy festIng, RussIan doII-styIe, In a nest of two coffIns, the Innef one a
ThIfd IntefmedIate PefIod coffIn ofIgInaIIy Intended fof PInedjem and the outef coffIn
that of TuthmosIs I but adapted fof the use of PInedjem. ThIs unIabeIIed body seemed of
the coffect sIze and age to be TuthmosIs I aIthough, IIke many of the othef mummIes In
the cache, It had been 'festofed' In antIquIty and was now wfapped In Iate New
KIngdom cIoth. When the newef wfappIngs wefe femoved, It was feveaIed that the
ofIgInaI mummy, that of a man wIth a wfInkIed face appafentIy In hIs mId-fIftIes, was
badIy decomposed and that the hands of the body had been tofn away by thIeves
seafchIng fof pfecIous jeweIIefy. The head, howevef, as descfIbed by Maspefo 'pfesents
a stfIkIng fesembIance to those of TuthmosIs II and III' whIIe the fathef Iong naffow
face dIspIayed 'fefIned featufes. the mouth stIII beafs an expfessIon of shfewdness and
Maspefo took thIs physIcaI sImIIafIty to the othef TuthmosIde kIngs as confIfmatIon of
the mummy's foyaI IdentIty and suggested that the body must have been festofed to Its
ofIgInaI coffIn by the offIcIaIs fesponsIbIe fof packIng the DeIf eI-BahfI cache. ThIs, of
coufse, suggests that PInedjem's body had aIso become sepafated ffom Its coffIns In
antIquIty, and Indeed PInedjem Iatef tufned up InsIde the coffIn of Queen Ahhotep II. X-
fay anaIysIs of the 'TuthmosIs I' body, howevef, IndIcates that It may In fact be the body
of a man In hIs Iate teens of eafIy twentIes. WhIIe thefe afe many pfobIems wIth the
ages suggested by the X-fay anaIysIs of mummIes, thIs does Ieave us wIth the tantaIIzIng
possIbIIIty that the body, If It Is not that of TuthmosIs I, may be that of a young maIe
membef of the foyaI famIIy, possIbIy even one of Hatchepsut's eIdef bfothefs,
Amenmose of Wadjmose.
TuthmosIs III fufnIshed hIs gfandfathef wIth hIs thIfd moftuafy chapeI, a paft of hIs
own cuIt tempIe, Hen/etun//, whIch was sItuated haIfway between the ofIgInaI
moftuafy tempIe of TuthmosIs I and the poInt whefe the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe causeway
feaches the deseft's edge. The moftuafy chapeI whIch Hatchepsut had buIIt to honouf hef
fathef wIthIn Ðjeser-Ðjeseru was abandoned, whIIe TuthmosIs' ofIgInaI moftuafy tempIe,
K/enmetun//, was Ieft to become a genefaIIzed TuthmosIde famIIy chapeI, a scene
showIng TuthmosIs I seated In ffont of the enIgmatIc PfInce Wadjmose and feceIvIng an
offefIng ffom TuthmosIs III suggests that TuthmosIs III may have actuaIIy festofed thIs
chapeI as a cuIt tempIe dedIcated to the memofy of hIs gfandfathef.
War and Peace
To loo/ upon /er wus more beuutiful t/un unyt/ing, /er splenJour unJ /er form were Jivine, s/e wus u muiJen, beuutiful
unJ blooming.
Hatchepsut IIved befofe the fuII-Iength IookIng gIass had been Invented. She couId
examIne hef featufes In the hIghIy poIIshed metaI 'see-face' whIch, caffIed In a specIaI
mIffof-bag desIgned to be sIung ovef the shouIdef, was an essentIaI accessofy fof evefy
uppef-cIass matfon, but she was fofced to tufn to othefs fof confIfmatIon of hef ovefaII
beauty. We shouId pefhaps not be too sufpfIsed to fInd that hef IoyaI and pfudent
couftIefs dutIfuIIy pfaIsed theIf new kIng as the most attfactIve woman In Egypt. Hef
own wofds, quoted above, betfay a fathef touchIng pfIde In hef own appeafance ÷
cIeafIy these thIngs mattefed to even the hIghest-fankIng EgyptIan femaIe ÷ whIIe
IncIdentaI fInds of hef most IntImate possessIons, such as an aIabastef eye make-up
contaInef, wIth IntegfaI bfonze appIIcatof, engfaved wIth Hatchepsut's eafIy tItIe of
'God's WIfe', of a paIf of goIden bfaceIets engfaved wIth Hatchepsut's name but
fecovefed ffom the tomb of a concubIne of TuthmosIs III, sefve as a femIndef that
Hatchepsut, the semI-dIvIne kIng of Egypt, was aIso a feaI fIesh-and-bIood woman.
We have no contempofafy, unbIased, descfIptIon of IIIustfatIon of Hatchepsut,
aIthough we can assume that, In common wIth most uppef-cIass EgyptIan women of hef
tIme, she was feIatIveIy petIte wIth a IIght bfown skIn, a feIatIveIy naffow skuII, dafk
bfown eyes and wavy dafk bfown of bIack haIf. She may, In fact, have chosen to be
compIeteIy baId. Thfoughout the New KIngdom It was common fof both the maIe and
the femaIe eIIte to shave theIf heads, thIs was a pfactIcaI fesponse to the heat and dust
of the EgyptIan cIImate, and the faIse-haIf Industfy fIoufIshed as eIabofate wIgs wefe Je
rigueur fof mofe fofmaI occasIons. The kIng's smooth goIden body was peffumed wIth aII
the exotIc oIIs of Egypt:
HIs majesty hefseIf put wIth hef own hands oII of anI on aII hef IImbs. Hef ffagfance was IIke a dIvIne bfeath, hef scent
feached as faf as the Iand of Punt, hef skIn Is made of goId, It shInes IIke the stafs.
Hatchepsut's sufvIvIng statues, aIthough aIways hIghIy IdeaIIzed, pfovIde us wIth a
mofe specIfIc set of cIues to hef actuaI appeafance. The new kIng evIdentIy had a
sIendef buIId wIth an attfactIve ovaI face, a hIgh fofehead, aImond-shaped eyes, a
deIIcate poInted chIn ÷ whIch In some Instances Is aImost a fecedIng chIn ÷ and a fathef
pfomInent nose whIch adds chafactef to hef othefwIse fathef bIand expfessIon. Towafds
the begInnIng of hef feIgn hef featufes show a ceftaIn femInIne softness, a possIbIe
IndIcatIon of hef youth, Iatef statues show hef stefnef, somehow hafdef, and mofe the
embodIment of the tfadItIonaI phafaoh. To some sympathetIc obsefvefs hef face betfays
outwafd sIgns of hef Innef stfuggIe: '. wofn, stfong, thoughtfuI and mascuIIne but wIth
somethIng movIng and pathetIc In the expfessIon'.
To Hayes, descfIbIng a fed gfanIte
statue ffom DeIf eI-BahfI, the kIng dIspIays '. a handsome face, but not one
dIstInguIshed by the quaIItIes of honesty and genefosIty'.
Thefe Is a genefaI famIIy
fesembIance between the statuafy of Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs III ÷ Iafge noses
obvIousIy fan In the TuthmosIde famIIy ÷ whIch Is not necessafIIy the fesuIt of both
kIngs beIng scuIpted by the same wofkshop. ThIs can pfesent pfobIems fof the unwafy
student of egyptoIogy, and entIfe Ieafned papefs have been devoted to the questIon of
exactIy whIch monafch Is fepfesented by a paftIcuIaf statue.
Ffom the tIme of hef cofonatIon onwafds Hatchepsut no Iongef wIshed to be
fecognIzed as a beautIfuI of Indeed even a conventIonaI woman. She chose Instead to
abandon the customafy woman's sheath dfess and queen's cfown and be depIcted
weafIng the tfadItIonaI foyaI fegaIIa of shoft kIIt, cfown of head-cIoth, bfoad coIIaf and
faIse beafd. Vefy occasIonaIIy, towafds the begInnIng of hef feIgn, she took the fofm of
a woman dfessed In kIng's cIothIng, two seated IImestone statues fecovefed ffom DeIf eI-
BahfI show hef weafIng the typIcaI kIng's headcIoth and kIIt, but wIth a founded, aImost
gIfIIsh face, no faIse beafd and a sIIght, obvIousIy femInIne body wIth an Indented waIst
and unmIstakabIe bfeasts (see, fof exampIe, PIate 5).
Mofe often, howevef, she was
shown not onIy wIth maIe cIothIng and accessofIes but peffofmIng maIe actIons and
wIth the body of a man (PIates 8, 9 and
Iig. 5.1 Hutc/epsut us u mun
10). When depIcted as a chIId at the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe, she was pfesented as a naked
boy wIth unmIstakabIe maIe genItaIIa. Hef souI, of Ka, was an equaIIy obvIous naked
boy. To any obsefvef unfamIIIaf wIth EgyptIan aft-hIstofy and unabIe to fead
hIefogIyphIc InscfIptIons, the femaIe queen had successfuIIy tfansfofmed hefseIf Into a
maIe kIng. At fIfst sIght the expIanatIon fof thIs tfansvestIsm seems sImpIe:
The EgyptIans wefe avefse to the thfone beIng occupIed by a woman, othefwIse Hatchepsut wouId not have been obIIged
to assume the gafb of a man, she wouId not have dIsguIsed hef sex undef maIe attIfe, not omIttIng the beafd. How stfong
thIs feeIIng was In Hatchepsut's own tIme Is shown by the fact that she nevef dafed to dIsfegafd It In hef scuIptufes, whefe
she nevef appeafs as a woman.
To dIsmIss Hatchepsut's new appeafance as a naIve attempt to pose of pass hefseIf off
as a man
In ofdef to fooI hef subjects Is, howevef, to undefestImate both the
InteIIIgence of the new kIng and hef suppoftefs and the sophIstIcatIon of EgyptIan
aftIstIc thought. It Is peffectIy possIbIe that the vast majofIty of the popuIatIon,
IIIItefate, uneducated and poIItIcaIIy unawafe, wefe Indeed confused ovef the gendef of
theIf new fuIef, and Hatchepsut may weII have wIshed to encoufage theIf confusIon, If
hef peopIe feIt mofe secufe undef a maIe kIng, then so be It. Howevef, the Iowef cIasses
wefe to a Iafge extent unImpoftant. Thefe was no EgyptIan tfadItIon of popuIaf
poIItIcaI actIvIty and the peasants had absoIuteIy no say In the govefnment of theIf
countfy. Indeed, Egypt was nevef fegafded as 'theIf countfy', evefyone knew that the
entIfe Iand beIonged to the kIng and the gods. Those who dId mattef wefe the maIe eIIte
and the gods, and both of these wefe aIfeady fuIIy awafe of Hatchepsut's sex.
Hatchepsut, fofmef God's WIfe and mothef of the PfIncess Nefefufe, was wIdeIy
known to be a woman. Thefe Is absoIuteIy no evIdence to suggest that she suddenIy
came out as a tfanssexuaI, a tfansvestIte of a IesbIan, and the fact that she fetaIned hef
femaIe name and contInued to use femInIne wofd fofms In many of hef InscfIptIons
suggests that she dId not see hefseIf as whoIIy, of even paftIaIIy, maIe. AIthough we
have absoIuteIy no Idea how the new kIng dfessed In pfIvate, we shouId not necessafIIy
assume that she InvafIabIy wofe a man's kIIt and faIse beafd.
AccusatIons of 'devIant pefsonaIIty and behavIouf. ]and| abnofmaI psychoIogy',
IeveIIed by those who have attempted to psychoanaIyse Hatchepsut Iong aftef hef death,
afe genefaIIy IackIng any suppoftIng evIdence. At Ieast one modefn medIcaI expeft has
attempted to IInk thIs pefceIved 'devIant' behavIouf wIth Hatchepsut's devotIon to hef
... Hatchepsut, ffom hef eafIy yeafs, as exempIIfIed by hef appafent IdentIfIcatIon wIth hef fathef, had a stfong 'mascuIIne
pfotest' (to use AdIef's tefm), wIth a pathoIogIcaI dfIve towafds actuaI maIe ImpefsonatIon. The dIffIcuIty wIth hef
maffIage paftnefs ]sic] mig/t IndIcate a maIadjustment In hetefo-sexuaIIty. The fact that she had chIIdfen ]sic] does not
obvIate such a maIadjustment.
Howevef, such anaIyses, based on the scanty sufvIvIng evIdence, betfay a pfofound Iack
of undefstandIng of the natufe of EgyptIan kIngshIp.
SImIIafIy, It wouId be wfong to dIsmIss these maIe Images as mefe pfopaganda. They
wefe, of coufse, Intended to convey a message, but so wefe aII the othef EgyptIan foyaI
poftfaIts ffom the staft of the OId KIngdom onwafds. None of the Images of the
phafaohs was entIfeIy faIthfuI to theIf ofIgInaI, but nof wefe they Intended to be. They
wefe desIgned Instead to convey seIected aspects of kIngshIp popuIaf at a paftIcuIaf
tIme. Thefefofe we fInd that the kIngs of the OId KIngdom afe genefaIIy shown as the
femote embodIment of semI-dIvIne authofIty, the fuIefs of the MIddIe KIngdom appeaf
mofe cafewofn as they stfuggIe wIth the bufdens of offIce and the phafaohs of the New
KIngdom have acquIfed a new confIdence and secufIty In theIf foIe. ConfofmIty was
aIways vefy Impoftant and physIcaI ImpeffectIons wefe genefaIIy Ignofed, to the extent
that the 19th Dynasty KIng SIptah Is consIstentIy poftfayed as a heaIthy young man
even though we know ffom hIs mummIfIed body that he had a defofmed foot. The same
fuIe of confofmIty appIIed to queens, so we fInd that the unfoftunateIy buck-toothed
Queens TetIshefI and Ahmose NefeftafI afe nevef depIcted as anythIng othef than
conventIonaIIy beautIfuI. If a foyaI statue of paInted poftfaIt happened to Iook IIke Its
subject, so much the bettef. If not, the aII-Impoftant engfavIng of the name wouId
pfevent any confusIon as the name defIned the Image. Indeed, It was aIways possIbIe to
aItef the subject of a poftfaIt of statue by IeavIng the featufes untouched and sImpIy
changIng Its InscfIptIon.
Hatchepsut's assumptIon of powef had Ieft hef wIth sevefaI unIque pfobIems. Thefe
was no estabIIshed EgyptIan pfecedent fof a femaIe kIng of queen fegnant and,
aIthough thefe was no specIfIc Iaw pfohIbItIng femaIe fuIefs ÷ Indeed Manetho pfesefves
the name of a KIng BInothfIs of the 2nd Dynasty dufIng whose feIgn 'It was decIded that
women mIght hoId kIngIy offIce' - thIs was pufeIy a theofetIcaI concessIon. It was
genefaIIy acknowIedged that aII phafaohs wouId be men. ThIs was In fuII agfeement
wIth the EgyptIan aftIstIc conventIon of the paIe woman as the pfIvate of Indoof
wofkef, the bfonzed man as the mofe pfomInent pubIIc fIgufe. Hatchepsut, as a femaIe
kIng, thefefofe had to make hef own fuIes. She knew that In ofdef to maIntaIn hef hoId
on the thfone she needed to pfesent hefseIf befofe hef gods and hef pfesent and futufe
subjects as a tfue EgyptIan kIng In aII fespects. Fufthefmofe, she needed to make a
shafp and ImmedIateIy obvIous dIstInctIon between hef fofmef posItIon as queen fegent
and hef new foIe as phafaoh. The change of dfess was a cIeaf sIgn of hef aItefed state.
When MafIna Wafnef wfItes of Joan of Afc, hIstofy's best fecognIzed cfoss-dfessef, she
couId weII be descfIbIng Hatchepsut:
Thfough hef tfansvestIsm, she abfogated the destIny of womankInd. She couId thefeby tfanscend hef sex, she couId set
hefseIf apaft and usufp the pfIvIIeges of the maIe and hIs cIaIms to supefIofIty. At the same tIme, by nevef pfetendIng to
be othef than a woman and a maId, she was usufpIng a man's functIon but shakIng off the tfammeIs of hIs sex aItogethef to
occupy a dIffefent thIfd ofdef, neIthef maIe nof femaIe, but uneafthIy.
Both these women chose to shun conventIonaI femaIe dfess In ofdef to chaIIenge the
way that theIf socIetIes pefceIved them. Howevef, thefe afe cIeaf dIffefences between
the two cases. Joan wIshed to be seen as neIthef a woman nof a man, but as an
andfogynous vIfgIn. By takIng the (sufeIy unnecessafy) decIsIon to adopt maIe gafb at
aII tImes, not just on the fIeId of battIe whefe It couId be justIfIed on the gfounds of
pfactIcaIIty, she was makIng a Iess than subtIe statement about the subofdInate foIe
assIgned to those who wofe femaIe dfess. UnfoftunateIy, In choosIng to make thIs
statement she was not onIy fIoutIng conventIon but IayIng hefseIf open to the chafges of
unseemIy, unfemInIne behavIouf whIch wefe eventuaIIy to Iead to hef death. Hef
cfopped haIf and hef tfansvestIsm hoffIfIed hef contempofafIes. Cfoss-dfessIng,
genefaIIy pefceIved as a thfeat to ofdefed socIety, was In fact specIfIcaIIy pfohIbIted by
the OId Testament:
The woman shaII not weaf that whIch peftaIneth unto a man, neIthef shaII a man put on a woman's gafment, fof aII that do
so afe abomInatIon unto the Iofd.
Hatchepsut, IIvIng In a faf mofe feIaxed socIety, had a faf mofe focused need. The
queen, howevef weII-bofn, wouId aIways be seen as a mefe woman who was
occasIonaIIy pefmItted to fuIe Egypt on a tempofafy basIs. The kIng was maIe (an
IffeIevance to Hatchepsut), dIvIne, and abIe to communIcate wIth the gods. Hatchepsut
dId not want to be seen as a mefe queen who fuIed: she wanted to be a kIng.
To emphasIze hef changed status, Hatchepsut made fuII use of the concept of the dIvIne
duaIIty of kIngs. TheoIogy decfeed that the kIng of Egypt shouId be a god, the son of
Amen, who feceIved hIs dIvInIty on the death of hIs pfedecessof. At the same tIme,
howevef, It was obvIous that the kIng of Egypt was a mefe human beIng bofn to moftaI
pafents and IncapabIe of peffofmIng even the most mInof of dIvIne acts In hIs own
IIfetIme. ThIs duaIIty of exIstence fesuIted In the fecognItIon of an Impoftant dIstInctIon
between the offIce and the pefson. The offIce hoIdef (phafaoh) who enjoyed a paftIcuIaf
status because of hIs offIce was fecognIzed as beIng a compIeteIy sepafate entIty ffom
the human beIng (Hatchepsut) who was that offIce hoIdef. It was thIs con whIch heIped
men ffom outsIde the ImmedIate foyaI famIIy, such as TuthmosIs I, to become accepted
as the tfue phafaoh: the cofonatIon confIfmed the dIvInIty of the new kIng, and ffom
that poInt on he was tfuIy foyaI. Thfoughout hef feIgn Hatchepsut stfove to emphasIze
the conventIonaI aspects of the foIe of phafaoh, a foIe whIch she feIt she couId fIII
fegafdIess of gendef. By so doIng, howevef, she effectIveIy eIImInated hefseIf ffom the
afchaeoIogIcaI fecofd as an IndIvIduaI In hef own fIght.
Why, then, was It so necessafy fof Hatchepsut to become a kIng fathef than a queen? To
modefn obsefvefs thefe may appeaf to be IIttIe dIffefence, If any, between the foIes of
kIng and queen fegnant. If Queen EIIzabeth II wefe suddenIy to announce that she
wIshed to be known as KIng EIIzabeth hef decIsIon wouId be vIewed as eccentfIc, but not
as a fundamentaI change of functIon. It wouId be a mefe pIayIng wIth wofds.
Hatchepsut was not, howevef, pIayIng wIth wofds. To the ancIent EgyptIans, a vast and
aImost unbfIdgeabIe guIf sepafated the kIng ffom the fest of humanIty, IncIudIng the
cIosest membefs of hIs own famIIy. Thefe was, In fact, no fofmaI EgyptIan wofd fof
'queen', and aII the IadIes of the foyaI househoId wefe tItIed by fefefence to theIf Iofd
and mastef: the consoft of the kIng was eIthef a 'KIng's WIfe' of a 'KIng's Gfeat WIfe',
the dowagef queen was usuaIIy a 'KIng's Mothef' and a pfIncess was a 'KIng's Daughtef'.
An EgyptIan queen fegnant sImpIy had to be known as 'kIng', she had no othef tItIe.
The coffect pfesentatIon of the kIng was cIeafIy a mattef of gfeat Impoftance to the
ancIent EgyptIans, to the extent that those who Invaded and conquefed Egypt aImost
InvafIabIy adopted the tfadItIonaI phafaonIc fegaIIa as a means of feInfofcIng theIf
fuIe. We thefefofe fInd non-EgyptIans, such as the AsIatIc Hyksos fuIefs of the Second
IntefmedIate PefIod of the Gfeek PtoIemIes of the post-DynastIc PefIod, aII dfessIng as
conventIonaI natIve phafaohs. It may be that the obvIous combInatIon of femaIe
chafactefIstIcs and maIe accessofIes shown at the staft of hef feIgn shouId be Intefpfeted
as a shoft-IIved attempt to pfesent a new Image of the phafaoh as an asexuaI mIxtufe of
maIe and femaIe stfengths.
If thIs Is the case, the expefIment sufeIy faIIed, as
Hatchepsut soon fevefted to the aII-maIe appeafance of the conventIonaI EgyptIan kIng.
These eafIy statues do not suggest a bIend of sexuaI chafactefIstIcs In the way that the
Iatef statuafy of Akhenaten does ÷ It Is aIways possIbIe to teII whethef Hatchepsut
Intended to be depIcted In the body of a woman of a man ÷ and thIs may be an
IndIcatIon that they In fact beIong to a tfansItIonaI pefIod when eIthef Hatchepsut of
hef scuIptofs was unceftaIn of the Image whIch the new kIng wIshed to pfoject.
The onIy kIng who dafed to go agaInst estabIIshed tfadItIon, consIstentIy aIIowIng
hImseIf to be depIcted as faf femoved ffom the accepted IdeaIIzed stefeotype, was the
Iatef 18th Dynasty Phafaoh Akhenaten. ThIs unconventIonaI monafch was appafentIy
happy to see hImseIf pfesented as a vIftuaI hefmaphfodIte wIth a naffow femInIne face,
dfoopIng bfeasts, a saggIng stomach and wIde hIps, aIthough even he fetaIned the
conventIonaI cfown, faIse beafd and cfook and fIaII whIch symboIIzed hIs authofIty.
These fepfesentatIons have cast a doubt ovef the sexuaIIty of Akhenaten, aIthough he Is
known to have had at Ieast two wIves and to have fathefed at Ieast sIx daughtefs, whIch
Is entIfeIy absent ffom Images of Hatchepsut. Many eafIy egyptoIogIsts beIIeved, on the
basIs of hIs poftfaIts, that the hefetIc kIng was a woman, whIIe Manetho's second 18th
Dynasty queen fegnant, Akhenkhefes daughtef of Ofos (Amenhotep III), Is now thought
to be Akhenaten.
Hatchepsut's boId decIsIon to thfow off the femInIne appeafance whIch wouId fof evef
cIassIfy hef as a queen (and thefefofe by defInItIon as not dIvIne and vastIy InfefIof to
the kIng) was an emInentIy sensIbIe one whIch soIved sevefaI constItutIonaI pfobIems at
a stfoke. She couId now be seen to be the equaI of any phafaoh, she couId ensufe the
contInuance of the estabIIshed tfadItIons whIch wefe vItaI to the maIntenance of muut,
she couId become the IIvIng embodIment of Hofus, a maIe god and, Iast but ceftaInIy not
Ieast, she couId fepIace TuthmosIs III In the feIIgIous and state fItuaIs whIch onIy a kIng
couId peffofm. It may be that a mofe secufe femaIe monafch wouId have had the
confIdence to adapt the tfadItIonaI mascuIIne gafments and accessofIes to pfoduce a
mofe femInIne vefsIon fof hef own use, and Indeed the pfevIous queen fegnant
Sobeknoffu had not found It necessafy to aItef hef way of dfess when she ascended to
the thfone, but Hatchepsut cIeafIy feIt that It was Impoftant to be seen to be as 'nofmaI'
a kIng as possIbIe. Sobeknoffu In any case does not pfesent an exact pafaIIeI to
Hatchepsut. She came to the thfone at a tIme when thefe was no obvIous maIe heIf, and
thefefofe she had no need to justIfy of excuse hef fuIe. She aIso feIgned fof Iess than
fouf yeafs, hafdIy enough tIme to constfuct the ImpfessIve monuments and statues
whIch wouId pfesent hef wIth the oppoftunIty to dIspIay Iafge-scaIe Images of hefseIf as
Thfoughout the dynastIc pefIod the Image was vIewed as a poweffuI fofce whIch
couId, If fequIfed, pfovIde a substItute fof the pefson of thIng depIcted. The Image couId
aIso be used to feInfofce an Idea so that, by causIng hefseIf to be depIcted as a
tfadItIonaI phafaoh In the most fegaI and hefoIc fofm, Hatchepsut was makIng sufe that
thIs Is pfecIseIy what she wouId become. EgyptIan aft Is notofIousIy dIffIcuIt fof modefn
obsefvefs to undefstand on anythIng othef than a supeffIcIaI IeveI, It needs a
wIIIIngness to abandon IngfaIned Ideas of pefspectIve, scaIe and accufacy of depIctIon
as weII as an undefstandIng of contempofafy symboIIsm. Howevef, Hatchepsut's fegaI
scenes must be fegafded as hIghIy successfuI In that they effectIveIy convey a
compafatIveIy sImpIe message: hefe Is the IegItImate kIng of hef Iand. Just as Queen
EIIzabeth I of EngIand, as an oId woman In the Iast decade of hef 45-yeaf feIgn, couId
be ceIebfated and paInted as 'Queen of Iove and Beauty' ÷ an evef-young maIden wIth
fIowIng haIf and a smooth compIexIon and weafIng the cfescent moon of CynthIa,
goddess of the Moon
÷ so Hatchepsut, a wIdow and mothef, couId command hef aftIsts
and scuIptofs to depIct hef as a tfadItIonaI EgyptIan phafaoh, compIete wIth beafd.
The god knows It of me, Amen, Iofd of the Thfones of the Two Iands. He gave me sovefeIgnty ovef the BIack Iand and the
Red Iand as a fewafd. None febeIs agaInst me In aII Iands. AII fofeIgn Iands afe my subjects. He made my boundafy at the
IImIts of heaven. AII that the sun encompasses wofks fof me.
Hatchepsut chose to fe-Invent hefseIf not mefeIy as a kIng, but as a tfadItIonaI
waffIof-kIng, conquefof of the whoIe wofId. To many modefn hIstofIans thIs was
nothIng but a gIant ffaud. Hef feIgn was pefceIved as beIng dIsappoIntIngIy 'baffen of
any mIIItafy entefpfIse except an unImpoftant faId Into NubIa',
and It thefefofe
foIIowed that 'the powef of Egypt In SyfIa was much shaken dufIng the fegency of
ThIs deIIbefate non-aggfessIve stance was In mafked contfast to the
expansIonIst poIIcIes of TuthmosIs I, Amenhotep I and the gfeat waffIof Ahmose, and
was to put TuthmosIs III at a sevefe dIsadvantage when, at the begInnIng of hIs soIo
feIgn, he was fequIfed to queII upfIsIngs amongst the EgyptIan cIIent states In PaIestIne
and SyfIa. The unfoftunate tendency towafds pacIfIsm was genefaIIy consIdefed to be
the dIfect fesuIt of Hatchepsut's gendef. As a woman, It was feasoned, she was not onIy
unIIkeIy to wIsh to InduIge In wafs, but she wouId aIso have been physIcaIIy IncapabIe
of IeadIng the afmy Into battIe:
Hatchepsut was neIthef an AgfIppIna nof an Amazon. As faf as we know, vIoIence and bIoodshed had no pIace In hef
make-up. Hefs was a fuIe domInated by an afchItect, and the Hapusenebs, NeshIs and Djehutys In hef foIIowIng wefe
pfIests and admInIstfatofs fathef than soIdIefs.
Hatchepsut stands out as one of the gfeat monafchs of Egypt. Though no wafs of
conquests afe fecofded In hef feIgn, hef tfIumphs wefe as gfeat as those of the waffIof-
kIngs of Egypt, but they wefe the tfIumphs of peace, not waf. Hef fecofds, as mIght be
expected ffom a woman, afe mofe IntImate and pefsonaI than those of a kIng. ThIs
was no conquefof, joyIng In the Iusts of battIe, but a stfong-souIed nobIe-heafted
woman, fuIIng hef countfy wIseIy and weII.
Few hIstofIans wofkIng In the pfe-poIItIcaIIy coffect 1950s and 1960s, faced wIth the
appafent pacIfIsm of Hatchepsut's feIgn and the weII-documented mIIItafy actIvItIes of
TuthmosIs III, wefe abIe to fesIst dfawIng sweepIng concIusIons. The two kIngs, aIfeady
deadIy enemIes, wefe now to be seen as the Ieadefs of two opposIng poIItIcaI factIons.
Hatchepsut the femaIe, wIth hef Intefest In IntefnaI wofks and fofeIgn tfade, beIonged
to what couId be cIassed as the pafty of peace. She was suppofted In hef Ideas by a
pafty of seIf-made bufeaucfats. TuthmosIs, suppofted by the tfadItIonaI maIe eIIte
IncIudIng the pfIesthood of Amen, beIonged to the mofe fadIcaI 'waf' pafty, hIs vIgofous
pfogfamme of conquests and expansIon beIng Intefpfeted as a sIgn that Egypt was
attemptIng to shake off hef InsuIaf past and become a majof wofId powef:
Ouf theofy then Is that thefe was a choIce to be made and that two dIffefent paftIes chose dIffefentIy, Hatchepsut's factIon
In tefms of the Iessef effoft of eafIIef tImes and TuthmosIs III's factIon In tefms of a new and majof IntefnatIonaI ventufe.
OId-fashIoned egyptoIogIsts afe not the onIy ones to have assumed that a woman's
natufaI sensItIvIty, physIcaI ffaIIty and abIIIty to genefate IIfe wouId natufaIIy Iead hef
to shy away ffom bIoodshed. Fof a Iong tIme thIs, In a sIIghtIy aItefed fofm, has been
the sIncefeIy heId beIIef of many femInIst theofIsts and hIstofIans who vIew extfeme
vIoIence and aggfessIon as a pufeIy maIe phenomenon and who assocIate the peace
movement, now seen as a stfength fathef than a weakness, wIth women and
mothefhood. Woman's abIIIty to cfeate IIfe Is often seen as IncompatIbIe wIth the wIsh
to ofdef the death of anothef human beIng. VafIous theofIes have been put fofwafd to
expIaIn the phenomenon of maIe aggfessIon, fangIng ffom the sImpIe bIoIogIcaI (the
hIghef testostefone IeveIs found In men) to the compIex psychoIogIcaI (men's need fof
compensatIon fof theIf InabIIIty to beaf chIIdfen), whIIe Ffeud suggested that maIe
aggfessIon was the natufaI fesuIt of the sexuaI fIvaIfy between fathef and son
competIng fof the Iove of the mothef. Ffeud went on to deduce ffom thIs that men had
deveIoped cIvIIIzatIons as a means of compensatIng fof the suppfessIon of theIf
chIIdhood sexuaI InstIncts, whIIe the femInIst theofIst NaomI WoIf, dIscussIng the 'beauty
myth' whIch she sees as ensnafIng modefn women, has deveIoped thIs afgument a stage
fufthef by suggestIng that as 'Ffeud beIIeved that the fepfessIon of the IIbIdo made
cIvIIIzatIon, cIvIIIzatIon depends at the moment on the fepfessIon of the femaIe
Howevef, the Idea that a woman wouId automatIcaIIy be Iess aggfessIve than a man
may appeaf stfange to those who have IIved undef some of the wofId's most fecent
femaIe fuIefs. NeIthef Mfs GoIda MeIf nof Mfs IndIfa GandhI was known fof hef soft
and passIve femInInIty whIIe the tfack fecofd of the 'Ifon Iady', Mafgafet Thatchef,
speaks fof ItseIf. Mfs Thatchef, foIIowIng a tfadItIon estabIIshed by Hatchepsut and
contInued by EIIzabeth I, even dfessed as a soIdIef dufIng an offIcIaI vIsIt to Nofthefn
IfeIand, a gestufe whIch was pfesumabIy Intended to expfess soIIdafIty wIth the tfoops
as she hefseIf had no IntentIon of takIng up afms and fIghtIng on the stfeets of BeIfast.
It couId aImost be afgued on thIs admIttedIy vefy smaII sampIe that modefn women who
obtaIn posItIons of powef nofmaIIy fesefved fof men afe mofe and not Iess IIkeIy to
fesoft to mIIItafy actIon, paftIcuIafIy If they feeI that they stIII have somethIng to pfove.
Thefe Is ceftaInIy nothIng In Hatchepsut's chafactef to suggest that she wouId be
ffIghtened of takIng the mIIItafy InItIatIve as and when necessafy.
A quIck sufvey of the pfomInent women of hIstofy tends to confIfm that beIng femaIe
Is not necessafIIy a baf to takIng decIsIve mIIItafy actIon. SocIetIes In genefaI may have
pfevented theIf women ffom fIghtIng but thefe have been some notabIe exceptIons.
HIppoIyta, PenthesIIea and the othef sIngIe-bfeasted waffIof Amazons may be dIsmIssed
as a Iegend Invented to ffIghten men but BoadIcea, ZenobIa of PaImyfa and Joan of Afc,
feaI women IIvIng In socIetIes whIch wouId not tfadItIonaIIy aIIow femaIes to enIIst, aII
donned mascuIIne battIe dfess to Iead theIf maIe soIdIefs Into actIon. Othef queens,
IncIudIng EIIzabeth I as she faIIIed the EngIIsh fIeet at TIIbufy, wofe the battIe dfess to
show theIf commItment to the cause but commanded ffom afaf, whIIe CIeopatfa, who
paftIcIpated pefIphefaIIy In the battIe of ActIum befofe fIeeIng 'tfue to hef natufe as a
woman and an EgyptIan'
nevef, as faf as we afe awafe, dfessed as an EgyptIan
soIdIef. AII these women seem to have been InstInctIveIy awafe that the vefy pfesence
of a ffagIIe woman on the fIeId of battIe, faf ffom dIscoufagIng the tfoops, may actuaIIy
bfIng out feeIIngs of Iatent gaIIantfy and thefeby InspIfe theIf soIdIefs to gfeatef effoft.
AntonIa Ffasef, who dubs thIs type of woman a 'WaffIof Queen', notes that:
. a WaffIof Queen ÷ of femaIe fuIef ÷ has often pfovIded the focus fof what a countfy aftefwafds pefceIved to have been
Its goIden age, beyond the obvIous exampIe (to the EngIIsh) of Queen EIIzabeth I, one mIght cIte the tweIfth-centufy
Queen Tamafa of GeofgIa, of the fIfteenth-centufy IsabeIIa of SpaIn.
The woman who takes up afms on behaIf of hef countfy, such as MafIanne of Ffance, Is
often seen as the uItImate patfIot. At the same tIme the enemy who Is fofced to fIght
agaInst a woman may be shamed by hIs unchIvaIfous actIons. He Is caught In a cIassIc
'no-wIn' sItuatIon, he can nevef achIeve a gfeat vIctofy by defeatIng a mefe woman,
whIIe a Iost battIe couId Iead to open fIdIcuIe by hIs maIe contempofafIes.
EvIdence Is now gfowIng to suggest that Hatchepsut's mIIItafy pfowess has been
sefIousIy undefestImated due to the seIectIve natufe of the afchaeoIogIcaI evIdence
whIch has been compounded by pfeconceIved notIons of femInIne pacIfIsm.
EgyptoIogIsts have assumed that Hatchepsut dId not fIght, and have become bIInd to the
evIdence that, In fact, she dId. As has aIfeady been noted, ancIent battIes do not
necessafIIy have a gfeat Impact on theIf ImmedIate envIfonment, and we afe dependent
upon the pfesefvatIon of monumentaI of textuaI evIdence fof confIfmatIon that any
skIfmIsh took pIace. OccasIonaIIy we may Ieafn of a gfeat battIe by chance ffom a
sIngIe InscfIptIon, and It wIII aIfeady have been notIced that Ahmose's waf of IIbefatIon,
whIch ffeed Egypt ffom Hyksos fuIe, Is onIy actuaIIy fecofded In Its fuII detaII In the
tomb of Ahmose, son of Ibana. As so many of Hatchepsut's texts wefe defaced, amended
of efased aftef hef death, It Is entIfeIy possIbIe that hef waf fecofd Is IncompIete.
Fufthefmofe, Hatchepsut's feIgn, faIIIng between the feIgns of two of the gfeatest
genefaIs Egypt was evef to know (TuthmosIs I and TuthmosIs III), Is bound to suffef In
any ImmedIate compafIson. A mofe feaIIstIc compafIson, say wIth the feIgn of
TuthmosIs II, shows that Hatchepsut's feIgn was not at aII unusuaI. It Is aImost ceftaInIy
a mIstake based on hIndsIght to see the AsIatIc empIfe as a mastef-pIan devIsed by
TuthmosIs I, hIndefed by TuthmosIs II (who may be excused on the gfounds of III-heaIth)
and Hatchepsut and fInaIIy bfought to ffuItIon by TuthmosIs III.
The DeIf eI-BahfI moftuafy tempIe, Ðjeser-Ðjeseru, pfovIdes us wIth evIdence fof
defensIve mIIItafy actIvIty dufIng Hatchepsut's feIgn. By the Iate nIneteenth centufy
NavIIIe had uncovefed enough fefefences to battIes to convInce hIm that Hatchepsut had
embafked on the now customafy sefIes of campaIgns agaInst hef vassaIs to the south
and east. These subjects, the tfadItIonaI enemIes of Egypt, aImost InvafIabIy vIewed any
change of phafaoh as an oppoftunIty to febeI agaInst theIf ovefIofds, whIIe the
phafaohs themseIves seem to have aImost weIcomed these mInof InsuffectIons as a
means of pfovIng theIf mIIItafy mIght:
The ffagments and InscfIptIons found In the coufse of the excavatIons at DeIf eI-BahfI show that dufIng Hatchepsut's feIgn
wafs wefe waged agaInst the EthIopIans, and pfobabIy aIso agaInst the AsIatIcs. Among these wafs whIch the queen
consIdefed the most gIofIous, and whIch she desIfed to be fecofded on the waIIs of the tempIe efected as a monument to
hef hIgh deeds, was the campaIgn agaInst the natIons of the Uppef NIIe.
BIocks ofIgInaIIy sIted on the eastefn coIonnade show the NubIan god Dedwen IeadIng a
sefIes of captIve southefn towns towafds the vIctofIous Hatchepsut, each town beIng
fepfesented by a name wfItten In a cfeneIIated caftouche and topped by an obvIousIy
AffIcan head. The towns aII beIong to the Iand of Cush (NubIa). EIsewhefe In the tempIe,
Hatchepsut Is poftfayed as a sphInx, a human-headed cfouchIng IIon cfushIng the
tfadItIonaI enemIes of Egypt. Thefe Is aIso a wfItten, but unfoftunateIy badIy damaged,
descfIptIon of a NubIan campaIgn In whIch Hatchepsut appeafs to be cIaImIng to have
emuIated the deeds of hef fevefed fathef:
. as was done by hef vIctofIous fathef, the KIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt, Aakhepefkafe ]TuthmosIs I| who seIzed aII
Iands. a sIaughtef was made among them, the numbef ]of dead| beIng unknown, theIf hands wefe cut off. she
ovefthfew ]gap In text| the gods ]gap In text|.
The evIdence ffom the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe Is a mIxtufe of offIcIaI pfonouncements
and conventIonaI scenes, and It Is thefefofe possIbIe that the NubIan campaIgns may be
battIes whIch Hatchepsut has 'boffowed' ffom eafIIef phafaohs, possIbIy hef fathef. Such
boffowIng of usufpIng, dIsgfacefuI cheatIng to modefn eyes, wouId have been entIfeIy
In keepIng wIth EgyptIan tfadItIon whIch stated that the phafaoh had to be seen to
defeat the enemIes of Egypt, those who dId not actuaIIy fIght sImpIy Invented of
boffowed vIctofIes whIch, as they depIcted them, became feaI thfough the powef of aft
and the wfItten wofd. ThIs means that a fofmaI InscfIptIon cafved by a kIng of Egypt
and unsuppofted by Independent coIIabofatIve evIdence can nevef be taken as the
hIstofIcaI tfuth. Howevef, an unoffIcIaI gfaffIto fecovefed ffom the Uppef EgyptIan
IsIand of SeheI (Aswan), and wfItten on behaIf of a man named TI who sefved undef
both Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs III, confIfms that thefe was Indeed some fIghtIng In the
south dufIng Hatchepsut's feIgn:
The HefedItafy PfInce and Govefnof, Tfeasufef of the KIng of Iowef Egypt, the SoIe FfIend, ChIef Tfeasufef, the one
concefned wIth the booty, TI. He says: 'I foIIowed the good god, the KIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt Maatkafe, may she
IIve! I saw hIm ]I.e. Hatchepsut| ovefthfowIng the NubIan nomads, theIf chIefs beIng bfought to hIm as pfIsonefs. I saw
hIm destfoyIng the Iand of NubIa whIIe I was In the foIIowIng of HIs Majesty.'
TI goes fufthef than the DeIf eI-BahfI evIdence In suggestIng that Hatchepsut was
actuaIIy pfesent dufIng the fIghtIng In NubIa. He hImseIf was pfesent at the battIe not as
a soIdIef, but as a bufeaucfat. Fufthef confIfmatofy evIdence fof at Ieast one NubIan
campaIgn comes ffom the tomb of Senenmut, whefe a badIy damaged and dIsjoInted
sefIes of InscfIptIons fead 'I seIzed.' and Iatef 'the Iand of NubIa', and ffom the steIa of
a man named Djehuty, a wItness to the southefn fIghtIng, who teIIs us that he actuaIIy
saw Hatchepsut on the fIeId of battIe, coIIectIng the spoIIs of waf.
Thefe Is Iess dIfect evIdence fof mIIItafy campaIgnIng to the nofth-east of Egypt,
aIthough agaIn the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe does hInt at some skIfmIshes, In at Ieast one
InscfIptIon It Is saId of Hatchepsut that 'hef affow Is amongst the nofthefnefs'. Howevef,
It Is a consIdefatIon of the subsequent conquests of TuthmosIs III whIch pfovIdes the best
evIdence fof the maIntenance of fIfm mIIItafy contfoI ovef the noftheastefn teffItofIes.
When TuthmosIs III eventuaIIy became soIe fuIef of Egypt, the cIIent states In SyfIa and
PaIestIne seIzed the tfadItIonaI oppoftunIty to febeI, a feactIon whIch suggests that the
death of Hatchepsut may have been vIewed as a potentIaI weakenIng fathef than
stfengthenIng of Egypt's powef In the Ievant. The EgyptIan afmy, howevef, had been
pfopefIy maIntaIned, the soIdIefs wefe feady, the coffect admInIstfatIon was In pIace,
and TuthmosIs was abIe to Iaunch an ImmedIate and successfuI countef-attack.
TuthmosIs, In hIs foIe as head of the afmy thfoughout the Iattef paft of the co-fegency,
had aIfeady conducted at Ieast one successfuI campaIgn In PaIestIne, dufIng whIch he
had captufed the stfategIcaIIy Impoftant town of Gaza, by Yeaf 23, the fIfst yeaf of
TuthmosIs soIo feIgn, Gaza Is descfIbed as 'the town whIch the fuIef had taken'.
TuthmosIs went on to become one of Egypt's most successfuI genefaIs, pushIng back the
eastefn and southefn boundafIes of the EgyptIan EmpIfe untII Egypt became wIthout
doubt the domInant fofce In the MedIteffanean wofId. WouId hIs cafeef have been so
bfIIIIant had It not been pfeceded by the feIgn of Hatchepsut?
Hatchepsut's mIIItafy poIIcy Is pefhaps best descfIbed as one of unobtfusIve contfoI,
actIve defence fathef than deIIbefate offence. WhIIe eIthef unwIIIIng of unabIe to
actuaIIy expand Egypt's sphefe of InfIuence In the neaf east, she was ceftaInIy pfepafed
to fIght to maIntaIn the bofdefs of hef countfy. Hef mIIItafy fecofd Is In fact stfongef
than that of TuthmosIs II, who dId not Iead hIs campaIgns In pefson, and faf mofe
ImpfessIve than that of Akhenaten, a maIe kIng who showed an extfeme feIuctance to
pfotect hIs own Intefests even though he feceIved a stfeam of IncfeasIngIy despefate
Iettefs ffom hIs IevantIne vassaIs beggIng hIm fof mIIItafy assIstance. It wouId ceftaInIy
be vefy unfaIf to dfaw a dIfect compafIson between the campaIgns of TuthmosIs I,
TuthmosIs III and Hatchepsut, and then cfItIcIze the Iattef fof not adoptIng a mofe
aggfessIve stance. It Is, In fact, TuthmosIs III who Is unusuaI In thIs IIne-up, aII the othef
18th Dynasty phafaohs embafked on the customafy campaIgns towafds the begInnIng of
theIf feIgns, but onIy TuthmosIs III made fIghtIng hIs IIfe's wofk. Aftef aII, aIthough a
good mIIItafy fecofd was a desIfabIe aspect of kIngshIp, not aII kIngs couId be Iucky
enough to paftIcIpate In a decIsIve mIIItafy campaIgn. The fact that Hatchepsut dId not
need to fIght may actuaIIy be taken as an IndIcatIon of stfength fathef than weakness.
The most successfuI 18th Dynasty monafch, Amenhotep III, a kIng who fuIed ovef Egypt
at a tIme of unpfecedented pfospefIty, ceftaInIy had a Iess than ImpfessIve waf fecofd.
ThIs was not thfough pefsonaI cowafdIce of adhefence to a deIIbefate poIIcy of peace,
Amenhotep III dId not fIght because he dId not need to. Thfoughout hIs fuIe Egypt
femaIned the gfeatest powef In the MedIteffanean wofId and, fathef than febeI, Egypt's
vassaIs and neIghboufs stood In awe.
We have ampIe evIdence to show that Hatchepsut's wIdef fofeIgn poIIcy shouId be
cIassed as one of adventufous tfade and expIofatIon. Hef famous expedItIon to Punt,
cIeafIy one of the hIghIIghts of hef feIgn, shouId not be seen as an IsoIated event but as
the cIImax of a sefIes of tfadIng mIssIons whIch IncIuded vIsIts to PhoenIcIa to coIIect the
wood whIch Egypt so badIy needed to buIId hef shIps, and the expIoItatIon of the coppef
and tufquoIse mInes In SInaI whIch Is attested by steIae and InscfIptIons at the WadI
Maghafa and SefabIt eI-KhadIm. AII of these mIssIons wefe standafd IndIcatIons of a
successfuI fuIe, compafabIe to the expIoIts of the gfeat phafaohs of the past, and as such
wefe fecofded wIth pfIde on the waIIs of the Speos AftemIdos tempIe, MIddIe Egypt:
Roshawet ]SInaI| and Iuu ]now unknown| have not femaIned hIdden ffom my august pefson, and Punt oveffIows fof me
on the fIeIds, Its tfees beafIng ffesh myffh. The foads that wefe bIocked on both sIdes afe now tfodden. My afmy, whIch
was unequIpped, has become possessed of fIches sInce I afose as kIng.
Tfade, thfoughout the 18th Dynasty, was a mattef of obtaInIng IuxufIous Impofts
fathef than, as In the modefn westefn wofId, the pfobIem of fIndIng mafkets fof
expofted EgyptIan sufpIuses. The mystefIous and exotIc Punt, the 'Iand of the god', had
been known sInce OId KIngdom tImes as a soufce of such desIfabIe commodItIes as
myffh, Incense, ebony, Ivofy, goId and even dancIng pygmIes, who wefe paftIcuIafIy
pfIzed at the EgyptIan couft:
You saId In youf dIspatch that you have bought a dwaff of the god's dances. IIke the dwaff whom the god's tfeasufef
Bawefded bfought ffom Punt In the tIme of KIng IsesI. Come nofthwafd to the fesIdence at once! Huffy, and bfIng wIth
you thIs dwaff. If he goes down Into a boat wIth you, choose tfusty men to be besIde hIm on both sIdes of the boat In
case he faIIs ovefboafd Into the watef. If he IIes down to sIeep at nIght, choose tfusty men to be besIde hIm In hIs tent.
Inspect hIm ten tImes dufIng the nIght. My Majesty Iongs to see thIs dwaff mofe than the spoIIs of the mInIng countfy and
of Punt.
ExpedItIons to Punt had been a featufe of sevefaI MIddIe KIngdom feIgns, and the
tfadIng mIssIons of Mentuhotep III, Senwosfet I and Amenemhat II had aII successfuIIy
navIgated theIf way to and ffom thIs fabuIous Iand. The exact IocatIon of Punt Is now a
mystefy, aIthough the fIofa and fauna depIcted In the feIIefs IndIcate that It must have
been an AffIcan countfy, pfobabIy sItuated somewhefe aIong the EfItfean,EthIopIan
coast between IatItudes 17´N and 12´N. Punt couId thefefofe be feached vIa the Red Sea
poft of QuseIf whIch Iay at the end of an afduous tfek aIong the deseft foad ffom
Coptos. The EgyptIans, weII accustomed to saIIIng up and down the NIIe, wefe not
paftIcuIafIy weII vefsed In the hazafds of sea tfaveI, and the Iong voyage to Punt must
have seemed somethIng akIn to a joufney to the moon fof pfesent-day expIofefs.
Howevef, the fewafds of such a joufney cIeafIy outweIghed the fIsks, and mIssIons to
Punt contInued dufIng the feIgns of TuthmosIs III and Amenhotep III. The tfadItIon of
tfadIng wIth Punt dIed out dufIng the 20th Dynasty, and by the end of the dynastIc
pefIod Punt had become an unfeaI and fabuIous Iand of myths and Iegends.
We afe toId that It was actuaIIy Amen, not Hatchepsut, who took the decIsIon to send
an expedItIon to Punt dufIng fegnaI Yeaf 9, and that the kIng of the gods gave hIs
pefsonaI guafantee that the mIssIon wouId be successfuI:
SaId by Amen, the Iofd of the Thfones of the Two Iands: 'Come, come In peace my daughtef, the gfacefuI, who aft In my
heaft, KIng Maatkafe. I wIII gIve thee Punt, the whoIe of It. I wIII Iead ]youf soIdIefs| by Iand and by watef, on
mystefIous shofes whIch joIn the hafboufs of Incense, the sacfed teffItofy of the dIvIne Iand, my abode of pIeasufe. They
wIII take Incense as much as they IIke. They wIII Ioad theIf shIps to the satIsfactIon of theIf heafts wIth tfees of gfeen ]that
Is, ffesh| Incense, and aII the good thIngs of the Iand.
The fact that hef expedItIon pfoved ItseIf abIe to emuIate the gIofIes of fofmef
phafaohs, fetufnIng In tfIumph ffom Punt wIth shIps bufstIng wIth wondfous goods,
pfesented the new kIng wIth a mafveIIous pfopaganda coup and an IffesIstIbIe
oppoftunIty to adveftIse the gIofIes of hef feIgn. The undenIabIe success of the mIssIon
must have made It obvIous to even the most hafdened of sceptIcs that the gods wefe not
offended by the femaIe monafch, and that muut was Indeed pfesent thfoughout the Iand.
It Is thefefofe no sufpfIse that Hatchepsut deemed the stofy wofthy of IncIusIon In hef
moftuafy tempIe. Hefe the fecofd of the expedItIon to Punt Is pfesefved In a sefIes of
deIIghtfuI vIgnettes and bfIef texts fIfst cafved and then paInted on the southefn haIf of
the mIddIe poftIco. The pfomInence of thIs posItIon (the stofy of Hatchepsut's dIvIne
conceptIon and bIfth was cafved on the opposIte sIde of the same coIonnade) gIves some
IndIcatIon of the Impoftance whIch Hatchepsut attached to the taIe.
Most unusuaIIy, the stofy of the expedItIon does not take the fofm of a sequence of
statIc, IIfeIess and fathef duII Images, Instead the aftIsts have attempted a feaIIsm whIch
Is fafeIy found In monumentaI EgyptIan aft. The natIve peopIe, theIf anImaIs and even
theIf tfees afe vIbfant wIth IIfe, pfovIdIng the vIewef wIth a genuIne fIavouf of thIs
stfange fofeIgn Iand and makIng It dIffIcuIt to ImagIne that the aftIsts who cafved the
fat queen of Punt of hef cufIous home had not actuaIIy Ieft Egypt's boundafIes.
UnfoftunateIy, the chafm and fIne wofkmanshIp of the IndIvIduaI scenes has attfacted
the InevItabIe tfeasufe huntefs, and the stofy Is now to a ceftaIn extent spoIIed by the
gaps whIch mafk the posItIon of stoIen bIocks. The Ioss of the bIocks depIctIng the
femafkabIe queen of Punt Is paftIcuIafIy to be depIofed aIthough foftunateIy one of
these bIocks, now safeIy housed In the CaIfo Museum, has been fepIaced In the tempIe
waII by an exact pIastef fepIIca.
Thfoughout the text Hatchepsut maIntaIns the fIctIon that hef envoy, the ChanceIIof
NeshI, has tfaveIIed to Punt In ofdef to extfact tfIbute ffom the natIves who admIt theIf
aIIegIance to the dIstant KIng Maatkafe. In fact the expedItIon was a sImpIe tfadIng
mIssIon to a Iand whIch, occupIed by a cufIous mIxtufe of faces, seems to have been a
weII-estabIIshed tfadIng post. The PuntItes tfaded not onIy In theIf own pfoduce of
Incense, ebony and shoft-hofned cattIe, but In goods ffom othef AffIcan states IncIudIng
goId, Ivofy and anImaI skIns. In fetufn fof a vast seIectIon of Iuxufy Items, NeshI Is to
offef a fathef feebIe seIectIon of beads and weapons, as NavIIIe, a man of hIs tIme,
commented In 1898, he offefs the men of Punt '. tfInkets IIke those whIch afe used at
the pfesent day In tfadIng wIth the negfoes of CentfaI AffIca':
The neckIaces bfought to Punt afe In gfeat numbef, they pefhaps had onIy a sIIght vaIue, but they pIeased the AffIcans, as
they now pIease the Negfos, to whom aftIcIes of ofnament whIch afe In themseIves thIngs of no IntfInsIc vaIue, of cheap
stuffs wIth showy coIoufs, of cowfIes afe often gIven In exchange, thIngs vaIueIess In themseIves, but much In fequest
amongst these AffIcan peopIes.
NavIIIe fofgets to mentIon that the fact that NeshI was accompanIed by at Ieast fIve
shIpIoads of mafInes may have encoufaged the PuntItes to paftIcIpate In thIs fathef one-
sIded tfade.
Punt had many desIfabIe tfeasufes, but was paftIcuIafIy fIch In the pfecIous fesIns
(myffh, Commip/oru myrr/u, and ffankIncense, Boswelliu curterii) whIch Egypt needed fof
the manufactufe of Incense. Incense couId be made ffom eIthef a sIngIe afomatIc tfee
gum of a mIxtufe of them, a favoufIte EgyptIan Incense known as /yp/i was saId to
contaIn as many as sIxteen dIffefent IngfedIents, but the fecIpe Is now unfoftunateIy
Iost. Incense was bufned In gfeat quantItIes In the daIIy tempIe fItuaIs, and empIoyed In
the fofmuIatIon of peffumes, the fumIgatIon of houses, the mummIfIcatIon of the dead
and even In medIcaI pfescfIptIons, whefe those suffefIng ffom souf bfeath ÷ women In
paftIcuIaf ÷ wefe advIsed to chew IIttIe baIIs of myffh to feIIeve theIf symptoms. ThIs
mIght expIaIn why the odouf of Amen, In the Iegend of the dIvIne bIfth of kIngs, Is
fepofted to smeII IIke the odoufs of Punt. The Punt bfands of Incense wefe hIghIy pfIzed,
but couId not be found In any gfeat quantIty wIthIn Egypt's bofdefs whefe tfees of any
kInd wefe fafe. Thefefofe NeshI was dIspatched to obtaIn not onIy suppIIes of the
Incense ItseIf, but IIvIng tfees compIete wIth foots whIch couId be fe-pIanted In the
gafdens of the tempIe of Amen. The thIfty of so tfees of pafts of tfee depIcted In the
DeIf eI-BahfI scenes seem to fepfesent eIthef two dIffefent specIes of the same tfee at
dIffefent seasons, as one type Is covefed In foIIage whIIe the othef femaIns bafe. The
tfees have been tentatIveIy IdentIfIed as fepfesentIng ffankIncense and myffh, aIthough
It Is unfoftunate that dIffefent expefts cannot agfee whIch type of tfee Is whIch.
Iig. 5.2 Tree being trunsporteJ from Punt
FIve EgyptIan saIIIng shIps equIpped wIth oafs afe shown affIvIng at Punt whefe the
saIIofs dIsembafk Into smaII boats, unIoad theIf cafgo and make fof the shofe. Hefe they
fInd a vIIIage set In a fofest of ebony, Incense and paIm tfees, Its houses cufIous conIcaI
stfuctufes fesembIIng Iafge beehIves made of pIaIted paIm ffonds and set on poIes above
the gfound so that theIf onIy means of access Is by Iaddef. The InhabItants of the vIIIage
afe a cufIousIy mIxed bunch, some beIng depIcted as bIack of bfown AffIcans whIIe
othefs afe physIcaIIy vefy sImIIaf to the EgyptIan vIsItofs. Howevef, the anImaIs shown
afe cIeafIy AffIcan In ofIgIn. Thefe afe both Iong- and shoft-hofned cattIe, Iong-eafed
domestIcated dogs, panthefs of Ieopafds, a badIy damaged fepfesentatIon of a cfeatufe
whIch mIght possIbIy be a fhInocefos and taII gIfaffes, whIch wefe consIdefed so
extfaofdInafy that they wefe Ied to the shIps and taken back to Egypt. The tfee-tops afe
fuII of pIayfuI monkeys and thefe afe nestIng bIfds, a cIeaf IndIcatIon that It Is spfIng.
Iig. 5.S House on stilts, Punt
The EgyptIan envoy NeshI, unafmed but caffyIng a staff of offIce and escofted by
eIght afmed soIdIefs and theIf captaIn, Is gfeeted In a ffIendIy mannef by the chIef of
Punt who Is hImseIf accompanIed by hIs ImmedIate famIIy of one wIfe, one daughtef
and two sons. The sIendef chIef Is obvIousIy not of Negfo extfactIon, hIs skIn Is paInted
a IIght shade of fed, he has fIne EgyptIan-styIe facIaI featufes and an aquIIIne nose. It Is
hIs Iong thIn goatee beafd, and the sefIes of bfaceIets adofnIng hIs Ieft Ieg, whIch mafk
hIm out as a fofeIgnef. Howevef hIs gfotesqueIy fat wIfe, wIth hef wobbIIng,
bIancmange-IIke foIds of fIab and enofmous thIghs emphasIzed by hef see-thfough
costume, pfesents a mafked contfast to the stefeotyped Image of the uppef-cIass
EgyptIan woman as a sIendef and sefene beauty. Hef appeafance must have seemed
extfaofdInafy to the ancIent EgyptIans and even NavIIIe, nofmaIIy the most coufteous of
commentatofs, found the poftfaIt of the queen and hef aIfeady pIump young daughtef
hIghIy unnefvIng:
Iig. 5.4 T/e obese queen of Punt
TheIf stoutness and defofmIty mIght be supposed at fIfst sIght to be the fesuIt of dIsease, If we dId not know ffom the
naffatIves of tfaveIIefs of ouf own tIme that thIs kInd of fIgufe Is the IdeaI type of femaIe beauty among the savage tfIbes
of Innef AffIca. We can thus tface to a vefy hIgh antIquIty thIs bafbafous taste, whIch was adopted by the PunItes ]sic|,
aIthough they wefe pfobabIy not natIve AffIcans.
We can onIy wondef how the queen of Punt, who Is evIdentIy too fat to waIk and Is
thefefofe caffIed evefywhefe by a dIspfopoftIonateIy smaII donkey, evef managed to
ascend the Iaddef whIch Ied to hef home.
The EgyptIans pfesent the natIves wIth a smaII pIIe of tfIvIa, amongst the tfInkets
shown we can dIstInguIsh beads, bfaceIets, an axe and a sIngIe daggef In Its sheath. The
PuntItes appeaf to feceIve these Iess than ImpfessIve offefIngs wIth deIIght, and cofdIaI
feIatIons afe so weII estabIIshed that NeshI ofdefs that the appfopfIate pfepafatIons be
made to enteftaIn the chIef of Punt In hIs tent:
The pfepafIng of the tent fof the foyaI messengef and hIs soIdIefs, In the hafboufs of ffankIncense of Punt, on the shofe of
the sea, In ofdef to feceIve the chIefs of thIs Iand, and to pfesent them wIth bfead, beef, wIne, meat, ffuIts and aII the good
thIngs of the Iand of Egypt, as has been ofdefed by the sovefeIgn ]IIfe, stfength, heaIth|.
It Is possIbIe that the expedItIon spent sevefaI weeks tfaveIIIng westwafds to the
IntefIof of Punt escofted by PuntIte guIdes and coIIectIng both ebony and Incense. It
wouId aImost ceftaInIy have been necessafy fof the shIps to waIt fof the fevefsaI of the
wInds whIch wouId caffy them back to Egypt. Howevef, when next we see the
expedItIon the shIps afe beIng Ioaded fof the fetufn joufney. EgyptIans and PuntItes
Iabouf sIde by sIde as baskets of myffh and ffankIncense, bags of goId and Incense,
ebony, eIephant tusks, panthef skIns and a tfoop of ovef-exubefant monkeys afe aII
taken aboafd. TfuIy, 'Nevef wefe bfought such thIngs to any kIng, sInce the wofId
The fetufn joufney Is Ieft to the ImagInatIon, pfesumabIy because It wouId not have
added to ouf appfecIatIon of the vast tfeasufe beIng caffIed to Egypt. Instead, we skIp
dIfectIy to the unIoadIng of the shIps In the pfesence of Hatchepsut hefseIf. We afe toId
that thIs momentous event occuffed at Thebes aIthough, gIven that the RIvef NIIe was
not yet connected to the Red Sea, It seems unIIkeIy that the shIps wefe abIe to saII
dIfectIy ffom Punt to Thebes. Thefe Is, howevef, some evIdence to suggest that sea-goIng
shIps, ofIgInaIIy constfucted In the NIIe VaIIey, wefe dIsmantIed and caffIed In kIt-fofm
ovefIand both to and ffom the Red Sea poft of QuseIf. The
Iig. 5.5 Ape from Punt
fInaI Ieg of the sea÷Iand÷fIvef fetufn joufney, the voyage ffom Coptos to Thebes, couId
thefefofe Indeed have been by boat. Papyfus HaffIs I, a contempofafy text detaIIIng the
feIgn of the 20th Dynasty KIng Ramesses III, IncIudes an expIIcIt descfIptIon of a fetufn
ffom Punt:
They affIved safeIy at the deseft-countfy of Coptos: they moofed In peace, caffyIng the goods they had bfought. They ]the
goods| wefe Ioaded, In tfaveIIIng ovefIand, upon asses and upon men, beIng fe-Ioaded Into vesseIs on the fIvef at the
hafbouf of Coptos. They ]the goods and the PuntItes| wefe sent fofwafd downstfeam, affIvIng In festIvIty, bfIngIng tfIbute
Into the foyaI pfesence.
The Red Sea coastaI afea, wIth Its deseft condItIons, Iack of ffesh watef and gfeat
dIstance ffom the known secufIty of the NIIe VaIIey, was not consIdefed a suItabIe pIace
to IIve, and no fIxed pofts wefe maIntaIned aIong Its Iength. QuseIf, the tfadItIonaI
depaftufe poInt fof voyages south, dId not In any case have the satIsfactofy hafbouf
facIIItIes whIch wouId waffant the estabIIshment of a pefmanent poft.
WhIchevef the poft of affIvaI, we once agaIn see the pafade of Iuxufy goods as the
expedItIon dIsembafks. In fact, mofe space Is devoted to the IoadIng and unIoadIng of
the vesseIs than Is gIven to the mystefIes of the Iand of Punt ItseIf. EgyptIan saIIofs
stfuggIe undef the weIght of Incense tfees tempofafIIy pIanted In baskets and sIung
between two caffyIng poIes whIIe behInd them come men caffyIng ebony and
boomefangs, amphofae fIIIed wIth pfecIous unguents and cufIousIy shaped bIocks of
fesIn. Yet othef saIIofs dfIve the hefds of cattIe and one even Ieads a cynocephaIus ape,
hIghIy vaIued as the sacfed anImaI of Thoth, god of wIsdom. The pfecIous sIIvef, goId,
IapIs IazuII and maIachIte afe cafefuIIy weIghed In the scaIes of Thoth whIIe a motIey
coIIectIon of fofeIgnefs, both PuntItes and NubIans, dIsembafks and kneeIs befofe the
Iig. 5.6 Tut/mosis III offers before t/e burque of Amen
Hatchepsut, the evef-dutIfuI daughtef, dedIcates the best of the goods to hef fathef
The KIng hImseIf, KIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt, Maatkafe, takes the good thIngs of Punt, and the vaIuabIes of the dIvIne
Iand, pfesentIng the gIfts of the southefn countfIes, the tfIbutes of the vIIe Kush, the boxes ]of goId and pfecIous stones| of
the Iand of the negfoes to Amen-Re, the Iofd of the Thfone of the Two Iands. The KIng Maatkafe, she Is IIvIng, she Iasts,
she Is fuII of joy, she fuIes ovef the Iand IIke Re etefnaIIy.
Hatchepsut stands pfoud befofe the god hImseIf. Senenmut, the kIng's favoufIte,
pfomInent In hIs foIe of Ovefseef of the GfanafIes of Amen, stands wIth NeshI to pfaIse
the kIng on the success of hef mIssIon, aII thfee fIgufes and much of the accompanyIng
text have been hacked off the waII In antIquIty. MeanwhIIe, In the backgfound of just
one scene, the fIgufe of TuthmosIs III appeafs, weafIng the fegaI bIue cfown and
hoIdIng out two tubs of Incense to the sacfed bafque of Amen.
Propaganda in Stone
I um /is Juug/ter in very trut/, w/o wor/s for /im unJ /nows w/ut /e Jesires. My rewurJ from my fut/er is life, stubility,
Jominion upon t/e Horus T/rone of ull t/e Living, li/e Re, for ever.
KIng Hatchepsut embafked at once upon an ambItIous pfogfamme of pubIIc wofks,
festofIng the monuments of past phafaohs and estabIIshIng new tempIes fof the gIofy of
the gods. The benefIts of thIs poIIcy wefe to be feIt up and down the NIIe, but It Is fof
the monumentaI wofk In and afound Thebes that hef feIgn Is now best femembefed.
Such a pfogfamme was of thfeefoId Impoftance. At Its most obvIous IeveI It Impfessed
upon the peopIe the economIc pfospefIty of the new fegIme. AIthough Hatchepsut, as
absoIute fuIef, had no need to pay fof Iand, Iabouf of matefIaIs, she dId need to feed hef
wofkfofce, and onIy the mofe affIuent phafaohs couId affofd to dIspense the daIIy
fatIons of bfead, beef and gfaIn whIch wefe gIven In IIeu of wages. SImIIafIy, onIy a
weII-estabIIshed and weII-ofganIzed monafch couId boast the effIcIent and faf-sIghted
bufeaucfacy necessafy to ImpIement such Iabouf-IntensIve pIans. The massIve stone
buIIdIngs now staftIng to fIse amIdst the mud-bfIck houses of Thebes and the othef
majof centfes of popuIatIon sefved as a constant femIndef that thefe was a poweffuI
phafaoh on the thfone. They wefe, as WInIock has femafked, 'evefIastIng pfopaganda
In stone'.
At the same tIme the new buIIdIngs, IItefaIIy Intended to Iast as 'mansIons of mIIIIons
of yeafs' (tempIes) of 'houses of etefnIty' (fock-cut tombs), wouId ensufe that the name
of theIf foundef wouId IIve wIth them fof evef. The pfesefvatIon of the pefsonaI name,
aIways an Impoftant consIdefatIon fof uppef-cIass EgyptIans, was paftIcuIafIy
Impoftant to Hatchepsut, who seems to have undefstood that she wouId need to pfovIde
constant justIfIcatIons of hef own atypIcaI feIgn. If hef monuments couId be Iafgef and
mofe ImpfessIve than those of hef pfedecessofs, then so much the bettef, a fIattefIng
compafIson wIth the past was often a usefuI means of stfessIng the achIevements of the
pfesent. FInaIIy, the new tempIes wouId sefve as pefhaps the gfeatest offefIng that a
kIng couId make to the gods, they wouId be a tangIbIe and pefmanent pfoof of the
kIng's extfeme pIety, and wouId ensufe that the gods wouId coopefate In maIntaInIng
the success of the feIgn.
The Iafgef-scaIe stone buIIdIngs possessed one vefy usefuI featufe whIch was quIckIy
fecognIzed and expIoIted. TheIf waIIs pfovIded the new monafch wIth an enofmous,
obvIous and pefmanent bIIIboafd upon whIch to speak dIfectIy to both hef pfesent and
futufe subjects. Indeed, thefe was no othef effectIve means of conveyIng genefaI
pfopaganda to the peopIe. Wofd of mouth was doubtIess used on a daIIy basIs to
communIcate mofe specIfIc and ephemefaI mattefs, but spoken messages wouId sufeIy
pefIsh wIth tIme, whIIe the wfItIngs pfesefved on ffagIIe papyfI and ostfaca wouId
nevef feach a wIde audIence. Hatchepsut, nevef one to mIss an oppoftunIty, soon
became adept at usIng the waIIs of hef own buIIdIngs to pfocIaIm hef own gIofIes and
justIfy hef own feIgn.
In the desefts of MIddIe Egypt, appfoxImateIy one mIIe to the south-east of BenI
Hassan, Hatchepsut endowed two tempIes dedIcated to the obscufe deIty Pakhet, 'She
who Scfatches', a fIefce IIon-headed goddess of the deseft, wofshIpped IocaIIy. Much
Iatef the Gfeeks equated Pakhet wIth theIf own goddess AftemIs, and hef Iafgef tempIe,
cut Into a smaII, steep-sIded vaIIey, Is now wIdeIy known by Its cIassIcaI name of Speos
AftemIdos, of the 'Gfotto of AftemIs'. Its IocaI name Is the IstabI Antaf (the stabIe of
Antaf, Antaf was a pfe-IsIamIc waffIof poet), whIIe the neIghboufIng smaIIef tempIe of
Pakhet Is known as the Speos Batn eI-Bakafah. The Speos AftemIdos sufvIved the feIgns
of both TuthmosIs III and Akhenaten vIftuaIIy Intact, but was unfoftunateIy 'festofed' by
SetI I who added hIs own texts to the pfevIousIy unadofned sanctuafy. The Speos Batn
eI-Bakafah was badIy defaced dufIng the feIgn of TuthmosIs III.
The Speos AftemIdos consIsted of two chambefs: an outef pIIIafed vestIbuIe of haII
whIch Ied vIa a shoft passage to an Innef sanctuafy cut Into the IIvIng fock. A nIche set
Into the back waII of the sanctuafy, Intended to house the cuIt statue of Pakhet, fofmed
the feIIgIous focus of the shfIne. The IntefnaI waIIs bofe few decofatIons, aIthough a
sefIes of texts and scenes cafved on the south waII of the vestIbuIe, afound the
Iig. 6.1 Plun of t/e Speos ArtemiJos
doofway to the sanctuafy, wefe Intended to fe-emphasIze Hatchepsut's fIIIaI bond wIth
Amen, the fathef who had chosen hef as fuIef of Egypt. Hefe we can fead Amen's wofds
as he pfocIaIms Hatchepsut's kIngshIp:
Uttefance by Amen-Re, Iofd of the Thfones of the Two Iands., 'O my beIoved daughtef Maatkafe, I am thy beIoved
fathef. I estabIIsh fof thee thy fank In the kIngshIp of the Two Iands. I have fIxed thy tItuIafy.'
The accompanyIng scene shows Hatchepsut kneeIIng befofe the seated Amen, whIIe
the fIefce Pakhet extends hef Ieft afm and pIedges hef suppoft fof the new kIng: 'my
fIefy bfeath beIng as a fIfe agaInst thIne enemIes.' Thoth then announces the accessIon
of Hatchepsut befofe the assembIy of gods. FInaIIy we see Hatchepsut offefIng Incense
and IIbatIons to Pakhet who agaIn extends hef fathef bIoodthIfsty bIessIng: 'I gIve thee
aII stfength, aII mIght, aII Iands and evefy hIII countfy cfushed beneath thy sandaIs IIke
Howevef, It Is the Iengthy text cafved hIgh above the pIIIafs acfoss the ffont of the
tempIe whIch Is of gfeat Intefest to students of EgyptIan hIstofy. Hefe Hatchepsut makes
a boId pfonouncement of the poIIcy of hef feIgn, a poIIcy of fenewaI and festofatIon.
She wIshes hef feadefs to undefstand that, ffom the vefy moment of hef cfeatIon she,
Hatchepsut, was destIned to festofe the pufIty of the EgyptIan tempIes to theIf fofmef
I have done these thIngs by the devIce of my heaft. I have nevef sIumbefed as one fofgetfuI, but have made stfong what
was decayed. I have faIsed up what was dIsmembefed, even ffom the fIfst tIme when the AsIatIcs wefe In AvafIs of the
Nofth Iand, wIth fovIng hofdes In the mIdst of them ovefthfowIng what had been made, they fuIed wIthout Re. I have
banIshed the abomInatIons of the gods, and the eafth has femoved theIf footpfInts.
Hefe Hatchepsut Is deIIbefateIy InvokIng the Iegend of the dfeadfuI muut-Iess Second
IntefmedIate PefIod ÷ a much exaggefated vefsIon of feaI events ÷ In ofdef to undefIIne
the peace and stabIIIty of hef own feIgn. Indeed, she Is the fIfst of the post-Ahmose
phafaohs to expfess a IoathIng of the Hyksos, estabIIshIng a usefuI tfadItIon of hostIIIty
and hatfed whIch many Iatef fuIefs wefe to copy. Hatchepsut was not a woman to aIIow
a few factuaI InaccufacIes to hIndef hef ffom wfItIng a fevIsed vefsIon of hIstofy, and
she now cIaIms cfedIt fof both fIddIng the Iand of the detested fofeIgnefs and fof
festofIng the monuments and Indeed the feIIgIon of hef ancestofs, pIous acts whIch
wouId have met wIth appfovaI ffom gods and moftaIs aIIke. Thefe can be no tfuth at aII
In hef boast that she fId Egypt of the AsIatIcs, Hyksos fuIe had ended many yeafs befofe
Hatchepsut came to the thfone. SImIIafIy, hef cIaIm that the Hyksos heathens 'fuIed
wIthout Re' Is aIso untfue, as we have aIfeady seen, the Hyksos fuIefs adapted theIf own
feIIgIon to that of theIf adopted countfy and sevefaI Hyksos kIngs actuaIIy bofe names
compounded wIth that of Re. Howevef, In Hatchepsut's eyes, these exaggefatIons wouId
not have been IIes. The foIe of phafaoh was a pefmanent one whIch passed ffom
IndIvIduaI to IndIvIduaI and, as the cuffent offIcehoIdef, Hatchepsut was quIte entItIed
to use the achIevements of pfevIous phafaohs when and as she saw fIt.
Thefe Is, howevef, mofe than a gfaIn of tfuth In Hatchepsut's boast that she undeftook
the festofatIon of the monuments of hef fofebeafs, paftIcuIafIy those of MIddIe Egypt
whIch had suffefed badIy dufIng the Second IntefmedIate PefIod. EafIIef In the
InscfIptIon we afe gIven specIfIc detaIIs of Hatchepsut's fepaIfs to the tempIe of Hathof
at Cusae, a buIIdIng whIch had faIIen Into such dIsuse that 'the eafth had swaIIowed up
Its nobIe sanctuafy, and chIIdfen danced upon Its foof'. Cusae, an Uppef EgyptIan town
appfoxImateIy fofty mIIes to the south of the Speos AftemIdos, had been at the vefy
IImIt of the Hyksos sphefe of InfIuence and had suffefed badIy dufIng the Iate 17th
Dynasty wafs of IIbefatIon.
The tfadItIon of pfesefvIng of festofIng the monuments of the ancestofs was one deaf
to the heaft of aII EgyptIans, the MIddIe KIngdom text 'The InstfuctIon fof Mefykafe'
makes the posItIon absoIuteIy cIeaf:
Do not destfoy the monuments of anothef!. Do not buIId youf tomb by demoIIshIng what was aIfeady made In ofdef to
use It fof that whIch you wIsh to make. A bIow wIII be fepaId In kInd.
A kIng who fespects the monuments of hIs ancestofs wIII In tufn have hIs own buIIdIngs
fespected, a kIng who deIIbefateIy demoIIshes an eafIIef monument Is stofIng up tfoubIe
fof hImseIf. It Is not even acceptabIe to pIundef ancIent fuIns In ofdef to saIvage
buIIdIng matefIaIs fof the efectIon of a magnIfIcent new edIfIce, decayed oIdef buIIdIngs
shouId be Ieft aIone, and ffesh buIIdIng suppIIes sought fof the new. Howevef, It seems
to be enough to mefeIy fespect an ancIent monument. The kIng has no paftIcuIaf duty
to festofe any such fuIn aIthough, If he does, thIs wIII undoubtedIy be Intefpfeted as an
act of fIIIaI pIety pIeasIng to both the gods and the ancestofs. RestofatIon of a
monument, the bfIngIng of ofdef to chaos and the femembfance of the name of a past
kIng, couId aII be seen as a smaII echo of the foIe of the phafaoh as the uphoIdef of
muut. The pfIncIpIe that monuments shouId be pfesefved was nevef In doubt.
Hatchepsut, howevef, dId not aIways pfactIse what she pfeached. At Kafnak she
demoIIshed a gateway buIIt by TuthmosIs II, and she fuIned hef fathef's hypostyIe haII
by femovIng Its wooden foof and efectIng a paIf of obeIIsks In the now-open space,
aIthough she cIaIms In mItIgatIon that TuthmosIs I hImseIf ofdefed hef to make thIs
aItefatIon. PotentIaIIy mofe sefIous was the fact that hef wofkmen dIsmantIed a
sanctuafy of Amenhotep I and Ahmose NefeftafI whIch stood In the path of the
pfocessIonaI way IeadIng to hef moftuafy tempIe at DeIf eI-BahfI.
Hatchepsut had stafted hef fegaI buIIdIng pfogfamme eafIy, antIcIpatIng hef
eIevatIon to the thfone by ofdefIng a paIf of obeIIsks ffom the Aswan gfanIte quaffy
whIIe stIII queen fegent. By the tIme these had been cut she was an acknowIedged kIng,
and hef newIy acquIfed foyaI tItIes couId be engfaved on theIf tIps. ObeIIsks ÷ New
KIngdom cuIt objects Intended to be a stone fepfesentatIon of the fIfst beams of IIght to
IIIumInate the wofId ÷ wefe taII, thIn, squafe stone shafts tapefIng to a pyfamId-shaped
peak. TfadItIonaIIy efected In paIfs befofe the entfance to the tempIe, theIf twIn tIps
wefe sheathed In goId foII so that they spafkIed and shImmefed In the fays of the fIefce
EgyptIan sun. ObeIIsks wefe dedIcated to the god by the kIng, and theIf shafts contaIned
coIumns of hIefogIyphs gIvIng detaIIs of theIf efectIon and dedIcatIon. Howevef, they
wefe aIso fegafded as IIvIng beIngs, obeIIsks wefe gIven pefsonaI names, and offefIngs
wefe made to them.
In contInuIng the newIy estabIIshed obeIIsk tfadItIon, Hatchepsut was once agaIn
emuIatIng the deeds of hef esteemed fathef who, wIth the heIp of InenI, had been the
fIfst monafch to efect a paIf of obeIIsks befofe the entfance to the Kafnak tempIe.
Indeed, Hatchepsut teIIs us how TuthmosIs hImseIf had ufged hIs daughtef to foIIow hIs
pfecedent: 'It Is youf fathef, the KIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt Aakhepefkafe
]TuthmosIs I|, who gave you the InstfuctIon to faIse obeIIsks.'
To Senenmut feII the
fesponsIbIIIty of ovefseeIng opefatIons and, In an InscfIptIon cafved at the Aswan
gfanIte quaffy, we see hIm standIng to pfesent hIs wofk to hIs mIstfess who Is stIII onIy
a 'KIng's Gfeat WIfe':
. the HefedItafy PfInce, Count, gfeat favoufIte of the God's WIfe. the Tfeasufef of the KIng of Iowef Egypt, ChIef
Stewafd of the PfIncess Nefefufe, may she IIve, Senenmut, In ofdef to Inspect the wofk on the two gfeat obeIIsks of Heh. It
happened just as It was commanded that evefythIng be done, It happened because of the powef of Hef Majesty.
The successfuI pIannIng, cuttIng, tfanspoftatIon and efectIon of a paIf of obeIIsks was a
femafkabIe feat of engIneefIng fof a socIety totaIIy feIIant on man-powef, fIvef
tfanspoft and human IngenuIty. Some successfuI New KIngdom exampIes feached ovef
30 m (98 ft) In heIght and weIghed ovef 450 tons (457,221 kg) whIIe Hatchepsut's
'unfInIshed obeIIsk', abandoned In the Aswan quaffy aftef It deveIoped a fataI cfack,
wouId have stood ovef 41 m (134 ft) taII and weIghed an estImated 1,000 tons
(1,016,046 kg).
The wofk In the gfanIte quaffy was physIcaIIy demandIng, Iabouf
IntensIve and mInd-numbIngIy fepetItIve. Aftef a suItabIe band of fock had been
IdentIfIed, a sefIes of smaII fIfes was IIt and doused wIth watef to cfack the sufface of
the gfanIte whIch couId then be wofked wIth feIatIve ease. Once the uppefmost face had
been pfepafed the sIdes wefe cut not by saw ÷ the gfanIte was faf too hafd ÷ but by
teams of men fhythmIcaIIy bouncIng baIIs of doIefIte (an even hafdef fock) agaInst the
gfanIte sufface. The undefsIde was then pfepafed In the same way untII the obeIIsk was
IyIng suppofted by IsoIated spufs of the mothef-fock and a Iafge quantIty of packIng
stones. The suppoftIng spufs wefe then knocked away, the packIng cafefuIIy femoved,
and the obeIIsk was feady to be dfagged to the canaI whefe It wouId be Ioaded on a
bafge and towed fIfst to the RIvef NIIe and thence to Thebes. The cIassIcaI hIstofIan
PIIny, fascInated by the technIques deveIoped to Ioad the unwIeIdy obeIIsks on the
bafges dufIng the Roman PefIod, noted how:
A canaI was dug ffom the fIvef NIIe to the spot whefe the obeIIsk Iay and two bfoad vesseIs, Ioaded wIth bIocks of sImIIaf
stone a foot squafe ÷ the cafgo of each amountIng to doubIe the sIze and consequentIy doubIe the weIght of the obeIIsks ÷
was put beneath It. The extfemItIes of the obeIIsk femaInIng suppofted by the opposIte sIdes of the canaI. The bIocks of
stone wefe femoved and the vesseIs, beIng thus gfaduaIIy IIghtened, feceIved theIf bufden.
Hatchepsut IncIuded Senenmut's wofk amongst the majof achIevements of hef feIgn,
fecofdIng the tfanspoftatIon of the obeIIsks both In a sefIes of IIIustfatIons on bIocks
ffom the ChapeIIe Rouge at Kafnak and on the Iowef southefn poftIco of hef DeIf eI-
BahfI moftuafy tempIe. Hefe we afe shown the two obeIIsks IyIng Iashed to sIedges as
they afe towed on a sycamofe wood bafge towafds Thebes by a fIeet of twenty-seven
smaIIef boats powefed by ovef 850 stfaInIng oafsmen. FoftunateIy, the fIow of the fIvef
heIps the bafge on Its way. The tfanspoft of the obeIIsks Is an Impoftant cIvII and
feIIgIous event, and the gfeat bafge Is accompanIed by thfee escoft shIps whose pfIests
appeaf to be bIessIng the pfoceedIngs. The two obeIIsks afe not shown as we mIght
expect, IyIng sIde by sIde, but afe IyIng base-to-base, theIf tIps poIntIng up and down
stfeam fespectIveIy. To tfanspoft the obeIIsks In thIs way wouId have fequIfed an
enofmousIy Iong bafge (ovef 61 m, of 200 ft), and the dIffIcuItIes In handIIng such a
Iong vesseI wouId have been dauntIng even fof the EgyptIans, who wefe accompIIshed
boatmen. It seems hIghIy IIkeIy that thIs aftIstIc conventIon Intended to stfess the fact
that thefe wefe actuaIIy two obeIIsks fathef than one, and that the obeIIsks wefe In fact
tfanspofted sIde by sIde. Upon theIf affIvaI In Thebes thefe Is a pubIIc ceIebfatIon. A
buII Is kIIIed, and fufthef offefIngs afe made to the gods. Of coufse, It Is Hatchepsut, not
Senenmut, who takes fuII cfedIt fof the achIevement, and on the dIspIaced bIocks of the
ChapeIIe Rouge we see the new kIng pfesentIng the obeIIsks to hef fathef Amen. The
bases of these two obeIIsks may stIII be seen at the eastefn end of the Amen tempIe at
Kafnak, theIf shafts have Iong been destfoyed.
Hatchepsut's second paIf of gfanIte obeIIsks was commIssIoned to mafk hef seJ-jubIIee
In Yeaf 15. ThIs tIme the gfanIte came ffom the IsIand of SeheI at Aswan, and the wofk
was undef the contfoI of the stewafd Amenhotep:
The feaI confIdant of the KIng, hIs beIoved, the dIfectof of the wofks on the two bIg obeIIsks, the chIef pfIest of Khnum,
SatIs and AnukIs, Amenhotep.
The new obeIIsks wefe efected In the hypostyIe haII of TuthmosIs I ÷ Its foof and pIIIafs
beIng femoved fof the occasIon ÷ and hefe one stIII stands. It Is now, at 29.5 m (96 ft 9
In) hIgh, the taIIest standIng obeIIsk In Egypt. The InscfIptIons cafved on the shaft and
base once agaIn foIIow the same oId themes, stfessIng Hatchepsut's feIatIonshIp wIth
both hef eafthIy and hef heavenIy fathef and emphasIzIng hef fIght to fuIe, but we afe
aIso pfovIded wIth some ofIgInaI detaIIs concefnIng the commIssIonIng of the
My majesty commIssIoned the wofk on It In Yeaf 15, day 1 of the 2nd month of wIntef, endIng In Yeaf 16, the Iast day of
the 4th month of summef, makIng seven months ffom the commIssIonIng In the quaffy. I dId thIs fof hIm ]Amen| wIth
affectIon as a kIng does fof a god. It was my wIsh to make It fof hIm, gIIded wIth eIectfum. My mouth Is effectIve In
what It speaks, I do not go back on what I have saId. I gave the fInest eIectfum fof It, whIch I measufed In gaIIons IIke sacks
of gfaIn. My Majesty caIIed up thIs quantIty beyond whIch the Two Iands had evef seen. The Ignofant know thIs as weII as
the wIse.
WhIIe Hatchepsut's fIfst paIf of obeIIsks was entIfeIy covefed In goId foII, 'two gfeat
obeIIsks, theIf heIght 108 cubIts, wfought In theIf entIfety wIth goId, fIIIIng the two
Iands ]wIth| theIf fays',
the second paIf had goId Ieaf appIIed onIy to theIf uppef
The efectIon of the obeIIsks was pefhaps the most spectacuIaf of the Impfovements
whIch Hatchepsut made to Ipet-Issut, of 'The Most SeIect of PIaces', now bettef known as
the Kafnak tempIe compIex. The Kafnak tempIe had fetaIned Its same basIc 12th
Dynasty fofm thfoughout both the Second IntefmedIate PefIod and the feIgns of Kamose
and Ahmose. Howevef, dufIng the tIme of Amenhotep I, when the waf of IIbefatIon was
compIeted and the sandstone and IImestone quaffIes had been fe-opened, sefIous
buIIdIng wofks commenced. Ffom thIs feIgn onwafds, each succeedIng New KIngdom
kIng attempted to outdo hIs pfedecessofs In the scaIe of hIs of hef embeIIIshments, and
the tempIe sIowIy gfew ffom a feIatIveIy sImpIe coIIectIon of mud-bfIck chapeIs and
shfInes IInked by pfocessIonaI ways to become the vast feIIgIous compIex whose
magnIfIcent fuIns may be seen today.
AIthough the Gfeat TempIe of Amen femaIned the focus of the sIte, and the Theban
TfIad (Amen, Mut and Khonsu) wefe aIways Its pfIncIpaI gods, a vafIety of othef deItIes
was wofshIpped at Kafnak and thefe wefe eventuaIIy chapeIs dedIcated to Montu, Ptah,
Sekhmet, OsIfIs, Opet and Maat. Thefe was a substantIaI tempIe dedIcated to Amen's
spouse, Mut, whIch stood wIthIn Its own encIosufe waII and whIch was IInked to the
Gfeat TempIe by a paved pfocessIonaI way, and a much smaIIef tempIe of theIf moon-
god son Khonsu sItuated cIose to that of hIs fathef, Amen. The Kafnak tempIe was
connected to the neafby tempIe of Amen-MIn at Iuxof by a pfocessIonaI way IIned by
sphInxes, and was IInked to the RIvef NIIe by a system of canaIs.
Iig. 6.2 Reconstruction of t/e Amen temple ut Kurnu/ Juring t/e reign of Hutc/epsut
WIthIn the gfounds of the tempIe compIex was a smaII mud-bfIck paIace whIch,
IackIng any sIeepIng quaftefs, was used dufIng the ceIebfatIon of some of the feIIgIous
fItuaIs assocIated wIth kIngshIp, paf-tIcuIafIy the cofonatIon. We know that dufIng
Hatchepsut's feIgn thIs paIace was sItuated on the nofth sIde of the tempIe façade, but
unfoftunateIy no tface of It now femaIns. The Iafgef, fuIIy equIpped paIace whefe the
KIng and hef fetInue stayed whIIe vIsItIng Thebes Is aIso Iost, aImost ceftaInIy buIIt on
Iowef gfound (the Kafnak tempIe was on the faIsed mound of the oId townshIp), thIs
paIace Is pfobabIy now beIow the IeveI of the gfound watef.
Amenhotep I had stafted the Kafnak embeIIIshment baII foIIIng by addIng an
aIabastef kIosk of bafque shfIne, a monumentaI gateway, a IImestone fepIIca of the
WhIte ChapeI of Senwosfet I and a cIustef of smaIIef shfInes of chapeIs. TuthmosIs I
made faf mofe extensIve Impfovements, In addItIon to hIs famous paIf of obeIIsks, he
buIIt two whIte stone pyIons of gateways (pyIons IV and V) whIch wefe connected by
the hypostyIe entfance haII whefe Hatchepsut Iatef pIaced hef obeIIsks, and he extended
the pfocessIonaI ways. Even the shoft-IIved TuthmosIs II undeftook some Impfovements
to the tempIe, aIthough a few fe-used bIocks afe now aII that femaIn of hIs effofts.
Hatchepsut's maIn contfIbutIon to the TempIe of Amen was hef ChapeIIe Rouge, the
fed quaftzIte bafque sanctuafy of Amen whIch has aIfeady been dIscussed In some detaII
In Chaptef 4. The ChapeIIe stood on a faIsed pIatfofm ImmedIateIy In ffont of the
ofIgInaI mud-bfIck and IImestone MIddIe KIngdom tempIe, fIanked to the nofth and
south by gfoups of smaIIef sandstone cuIt shfInes, the so-caIIed 'Hatchepsut SuIte' whose
decofatIons show the kIng makIng offefIngs befofe a vafIety of gods. At the same tIme
Impfovements wefe made to the pfocessIonaI way whIch IInked the tempIe of Amen to
the tempIe of hIs consoft Mut, and a sefIes of waysIde kIosks was buIIt to pfovIde festIng
pIaces fof the bafque of Amen as It tfaveIIed ffom tempIe to tempIe wIthIn the Kafnak
compIex. A new pyIon (pyIon VIII), a magnIfIcent monumentaI gateway passIng
between two taII towefs each topped by a goId-tIpped fIagpoIe, was the fIfst such
gateway to be buIIt on the southefn axIs of the tempIe. ThIs pyIon was ofIgInaIIy
decofated wIth Images of Hatchepsut as kIng, but suffefed at the hands of Iatef
'festofefs', so that TuthmosIs III and SetI I afe now shown on the feIIefs and TuthmosIs
III and TuthmosIs II (who fepIaces Hatchepsut) appeaf on the doofway.
The toufIsts who annuaIIy swafm Into Thebes seIdom depaft ffom the ancIent cIty of Amen wIthout vIsItIng the
magnIfIcent natufaI amphItheatfe of DeIf eI-BahfI, whefe the hIIIs of the IIbyan fange pfesent theIf most ImposIng aspect.
IeavIng the pIaIn by a naffow gofge, whose waIIs of naked fock afe honeycombed wIth tombs, the tfaveIIef emefges Into a
wIde open space bounded at Its fufthest end by a semI-cIfcuIaf waII of cIIffs. These cIIffs of whIte IImestone, whIch tIme
and sun have coIoufed fosy yeIIow, fofm an absoIuteIy veftIcaI baffIef. They afe accessIbIe onIy ffom the nofth by a steep
and dIffIcuIt path IeadIng to the summIt of the fIdge that dIvIdes DeIf eI-BahfI ffom the wIId and desoIate VaIIey of the
Tombs of the KIngs. BuIIt agaInst these cIIffs, and even as It wefe footed Into theIf sIdes by subteffanean chambefs, Is the
tempIe of whIch MafIette saId that 'It Is an exceptIon and an accIdent In the afchItectufaI IIfe of Egypt'.
Hatchepsut's moftuafy tempIe, Ðjeser-Ðjeseru of 'HoIIest of the HoIy', was set In a
natufaI bay In the Theban cIIffs on the West Bank of the NIIe cIose to the fuIned
moftuafy tempIe of the 11th Dynasty KIng Mentuhotep II and aImost dIfectIy opposIte
the Kafnak tempIe compIex. Iatef TuthmosIs III was to choose a neafby sIte fof hIs own
West Bank tempIe dedIcated to Amen, Ðjeser-A//et of 'HoIy HofIzon'. The name DeIf eI-
BahfI, whIch IItefaIIy means 'Monastefy of the Nofth', and whIch Is now often used to
fefef both to the genefaI afea and mofe specIfIcaIIy to Hatchepsut's moftuafy tempIe, Is
a fefefence to the mud-bfIck CoptIc monastefy estabIIshed at the sIte dufIng the fIfth
centufy AD.
The DeIf eI-BahfI bay had fof a Iong tIme been fevefed as a hoIy pIace assocIated wIth
the cuIt of the mothef-goddess Hathof In hef foIe as Goddess of the West of ChIeftaIness
of Thebes. Fof thIs feason It had been chosen as the IocatIon of the moftuafy tempIe of
Nebhepetfe Mentuhotep II, the Theban foundef of the MIddIe KIngdom. Mentuhotep II
had been the epItome of a successfuI EgyptIan kIng. He had unIted Egypt at the end of
the FIfst IntefmedIate PefIod, InstIgated successfuI campaIgns agaInst the tfadItIonaI
enemIes to the nofth and south, estabIIshed a new capItaI at Thebes and, thfoughout hIs
51-yeaf feIgn, undeftaken pfoIIfIc buIIdIng wofks, IncIudIng the festofatIon of ancIent
monuments and the constfuctIon of new buIIdIngs. The pafaIIeI between hIs gIofIous
feIgn and that of TuthmosIs I must have been obvIous and It Is not sufpfIsIng that
Hatchepsut, evef pfone to hefo-wofshIp TuthmosIs I, heId hef 'fathef Mentuhotep II'
specIaI fegafd.
Iig. 6.S Plun of Djesef-Djesefu
Mentuhotep had modeIIed hIs funefafy monument, 'GIofIous afe the Seats of
Nebhepetfe', on the OId KIngdom pyfamId compIexes, and hIs was the fIfst tempIe In
Egypt to utIIIze teffaces so that dIffefent pafts of the buIIdIng wefe constfucted at
dIffefent IeveIs wIth the most sacfed paft of the tempIe cut dIfectIy Into the Theban
mountaIn. UnfoftunateIy, the tempIe was fuIned In antIquIty and Its ofIgInaI pIan Is
now unceftaIn, aIthough It seems that the sequence of teffaces fose to a soIId mastaba-
of pyfamId-IIke cofe. It was these teffaces whIch fIfst InspIfed the afchItects of
TuthmosIs II, the InItIaI 18th Dynasty deveIopef of the sIte, and the ofIgInaI pIans fof
the New KIngdom tempIe adhefed faIfIy faIthfuIIy to the MIddIe KIngdom modeI.
Howevef, wIth the untImeIy death of TuthmosIs II, the buIIdIng wofks wefe haIted, the
pIans wefe fedfawn on a faf mofe ambItIous scaIe, and Ðjeser-Ðjeseru became vefy
much Hatchepsut's own monument, an afchItectufaI mastefpIece pfovIdIng a supefb
exampIe of a manmade object desIgned to fIt peffectIy Into Its natufaI settIng. The
beautIes of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru have InspIfed many egyptoIogIsts to fIIghts of pufpIe pfose:
It Is buIIt at the base of the fugged Theban cIIffs, and commands the pIaIn In magnIfIcent fashIon, Its whIte coIonnades
fIsIng, tefface above tefface, untII It Is backed by the goIden IIvIng fock. The Ivofy whIte waIIs of coufts, sIde chambefs
and coIonnades, have poIIshed suffaces whIch gIve an aIabastef-IIke effect. They afe cafved wIth a fIne aft, fIgufes and
hIefogIyphs beIng fIIIed In wIth fIch yeIIow coIouf, the gIow of whIch agaInst the whIte gIves an effect of wafmth and
beauty quIte IndescfIbabIe.
Few who have enjoyed the pfIvIIege of vIsItIng DeIf eI-BahfI wouId afgue wIth thIs
assessment, and today Ðjeser-Ðjeseru femaIns beyond doubt one of the most beautIfuI
buIIdIngs In the wofId. It ceftaInIy occupIes a unIque pIace In the hIstofy of EgyptIan
afchItectufe, and Indeed the coIumned poftIcoes whIch pfovIde a stfIkIng contfast of
IIght and shade acfoss the ffont of the buIIdIng appeaf to many modefn eyes mofe
Gfeek than EgyptIan In styIe, pfovokIng anachfonIstIc but fIattefIng compafIsons wIth
cIassIcaI tempIe afchItectufe In Its most pufe fofm. OnIy WInIock, the Iong-tefm
excavatof of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru, has gone on fecofd as expfessIng hIs doubts about the
magnIfIcence of the edIfIce, and even he fesefves hIs cfItIcIsm fof Its constfuctIon fathef
than Its desIgn:
UnquestIonabIy, when It was compIeted the buIIdIng was faf mofe ImposIng than Its eIeventh dynasty modeI, and Its pIan
had been adapted to fIt Its magnIfIcent suffoundIngs In a whoIIy masteffuI way. But whenevef we have had occasIon to
examIne Its shoddy, jeffy-buIIt foundatIons, we have had an unpIeasant feeIIng of sham behInd aII thIs ImpfessIveness
whIch up to that tIme had not been especIaIIy chafactefIstIc of EgyptIan afchItects. PossIbIy Senenmut was a vIctIm of
necessIty and speed was fequIfed of hIm ÷ of pefhaps thefe Is some mofe venaI expIanatIon.
The afchItect of thIs mastefpIece Is genefaIIy assumed to be Hatchepsut's favoufIte
Senenmut, who numbefs amongst hIs tItIes 'ContfoIIef of Wofks In Ðjeser-Ðjeseru'.
Howevef Senenmut nevef specIfIcaIIy cIaIms the tItIe of afchItect, a stfange omIssIon fof
one not nofmaIIy shy of IIstIng hIs own accompIIshments, and It seems that the ChIef
Tfeasufef Djehuty, who '. acted as chIef, gIvIng dIfectIons, I Ied the cfaftsman to wofk
In the wofks of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru', may weII have pIayed a majof paft In Its deveIopment.
Othef hIgh-fankIng couftIefs, IncIudIng the VIzIef (unnamed, but aImost ceftaInIy
Hapuseneb who Is cfedIted wIth the buIIdIng of Hatchepsut's tomb) and the Second
Pfophet of Amen, Puyemfe, aIso had some InvoIvement In Its constfuctIon, aII of these
offIcIaIs afe known to have been the fecIpIents of so-caIIed 'name stones', buIIdIng
bIocks donated to the constfuctIon pfoject by the ofdInafy cItIzens of Thebes. These
foughIy cut stones, fecovefed ffom the foundatIons of the VaIIey tempIe, aII beaf the
caftouche of Maatkafe pIus an addItIonaI hIefatIc InscfIptIon detaIIIng the date that they
wefe sent to the buIIdIng sIte, the name of the sendef and the name of the fecIpIent.
Fufthef bfIcks fecovefed ffom the VaIIey tempIe afe stamped wIth the caftouches of
Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs I, whIch appeaf sIde by sIde.
The name of TuthmosIs I Is aIso to be found amongst the engfaved scafabs whIch
fofmed a paft of the tempIe foundatIon deposIts. These deposIts ÷ offefIngs Intended to
pfesefve the name of the buIIdef and to ensufe good Iuck In the foundIng of the tempIe ÷
wefe bufIed wIth cefemony In smaII mud-bfIck-IIned pIts at evefy Impoftant poInt
afound the boundafIes of the tempIe and Its gfounds.
They IncIuded a mIxtufe of
amuIets, scafabs, foods, peffumes and mInIatufe modeIs of the tooIs whIch wouId be
used In the buIIdIng of the tempIe. The InscfIptIons aII make It cIeaf that Hatchepsut
aIone was to be fegafded as the tempIe's foundef:
She made It as a monument to hef fathef Amen on the occasIon of stfetchIng the cofd ovef Ðjeser Ðjeseru, ]the fItuaI IayIng
out of the tempIe gfound-pIan| may she IIve fofevef, IIke Re!
Hatchepsut Intended hef new tempIe to house both hef own moftuafy chapeI and, on a
sIIghtIy smaIIef scaIe, that of hef fathef, TuthmosIs I. The moftuafy chapeI In Its most
sImpIe fofm, as pfovIded fof a pfIvate IndIvIduaI, was the pIace whefe the IIvIng couId
go to make the offefIngs of food, dfInk and Incense whIch wouId sustaIn the Ka of souI
of the deceased In the AftefIIfe. The cuIt-statue, a fepfesentatIon of the dead pefson
whIch stood wIthIn the chapeI, became the focus fof these daIIy offefIngs as It was
undefstood that the souI couId actuaIIy take up fesIdence wIthIn the statue. A foyaI
moftuafy chapeI, howevef, was not sImpIy a cafetefIa fof the deceased. The dIvIne kIng,
once dead, couId become assocIated wIth a numbef of Impoftant deItIes, paftIcuIafIy
OsIfIs and Re, both of whom fepfesented a potentIaI AftefIIfe, the kIng couId choose
whethef to spend etefnIty saIIIng daIIy acfoss the sky In the soIaf boat wIth Re, of
feIaxIng In the FIeId of Reeds wIth OsIfIs. The foyaI moftuafy chapeIs fefIected these
assocIatIons, pfovIdIng a dafk and gIoomy shfIne fof the wofshIp of OsIfIs and a IIght
open-aIf couft fof the wofshIp of Re. DufIng the New KIngdom they aIso fefIected the
gfowIng powef of Amen. Amen now stafted to pIay a pfomInent foIe In the scenes
whIch decofate the waIIs, and hIs shfIne now fofmed the focus of the moftuafy chapeI.
AII these eIements wefe to be found at Ðjeser-Ðjeseru, whIch was desIgned as a muItI-
functIonaI tempIe wIth a compIex of shfInes devoted to the wofshIp of vafIous deItIes. In
addItIon to the moftuafy tempIes of Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs I, thefe wefe twIn
chapeIs dedIcated to the IocaI goddess Hathof and to AnubIs, smaIIef shfInes consecfated
to the memofy of Hatchepsut's ancestofs, and even a soIaf tempIe, Its foof open to the
cIoudIess Theban sky, dedIcated to the wofshIp of the sun god Re-Hafakte. The maIn
shfIne was, howevef, devoted to the cuIt of Amen HoIIest of the HoIy, a vafIant of Amen
wIth whom Hatchepsut wouId become one aftef death. It was as the focus of the Amen-
based 'Feast of the VaIIey', an annuaI festIvaI of death and fenewaI, that Ðjeser-Ðjeseru
pIayed an Impoftant paft In Theban feIIgIous IIfe.
The Feast of the VaIIey was ceIebfated at new moon dufIng the second month of S/emu
of summef. Amen nofmaIIy dweIt In spIendId IsoIatIon In the sanctuafy of hIs own gfeat
tempIe at the heaft of the Kafnak compIex. Hefe he spent the days and nIghts In hIs
dafk and IoneIy shfIne, vIsIted onIy by the pfIests fesponsIbIe fof peffofmIng the fItuaIs
of washIng and dfessIng the cuIt-statue, and by those who tempted hIm daIIy wIth
copIous offefIngs of meat, bfead, wIne and beef. Howevef, on the appoInted day he
wouId abandon the gIoom of hIs tofchIIt home and, accompanIed by the statues of Mut
and Khonsu, wouId cfoss the fIvef to spend the nIght wIth Hathof at Ðjeser-Ðjeseru.
WIth an escoft of pfIests, musIcIans, Incense-beafefs, dancefs and acfobats and
doubtIess an excIted cfowd of Thebans, and wIth hIs own goIden bafque caffIed hIgh on
the shouIdefs of hIs sefvants, Amen made hIs way In the bfIght sunIIght aIong the
pfocessIonaI avenue to the canaI. Hefe he embafked on hIs bafge, saIIed In state acfoss
the NIIe and navIgated hIs way thfough the netwofk of canaIs whIch IInked the
moftuafy tempIes of the West Bank. He dIsembafked at the smaII VaIIey TempIe sItuated
on the deseft edge (now entIfeIy destfoyed) and, aftef the peffofmance of a feIIgIous
fIte, pfoceeded aIong the gentIy sIopIng causeway whIch, aIIgned exactIy on Kafnak,
was IIned wIth paIfs of paInted sphInxes. AIong the foute thefe was a smaII bafque
shfIne whefe hIs beafefs couId pause If necessafy befofe passIng Into the pfecIncts of the
tempIe pfopef. That same evenIng many Theban famIIIes wouId set off In pfocessIon fof
the West Bank whefe they too wefe to spend the nIght, not In a tempIe, but In the
pfIvate tomb-chapeIs of theIf feIatIons and ancestofs. The houfs of dafkness wefe spent
dfInkIng and feastIng by tofchIIght as the IIvIng ceIebfated theIf feunIon wIth the dead.
Aftef the cIImax of the Feast, a feIIgIous fIte peffofmed at sunfIse, Amen saIIed back to
hIs tempIe, and the bIeafy-eyed townsfoIk fetufned home to bed.
The Ðjeser-Ðjeseru was suffounded by a thIck IImestone encIosufe waII. Once thfough
the gate, Amen passed ImmedIateIy Into a peacefuI, pIeasantIy shaded gafden afea
whefe T-shaped pooIs gIInted In the sunIIght and tfees ÷ aImost ceftaInIy the famous
ffagfant tfees ffom Punt ÷ offefed a temptIng fespIte ffom the fIefce deseft sun. IookIng
upwafds, Amen wouId have seen the tempIe In aII Its gIofy, a softIy gIeamIng whIte
IImestone buIIdIng occupyIng thfee ascendIng teffaces set back agaInst the cIIff, Its
tIefed poftIcoes IInked by a Iong, open-aIf staIfway fIsIng thfough the centfe of the
tempIe towafds the sanctuafy. Amen's foute Iay upwafds. PassIng ovef the Iowef poftIco
he feached the fIat second tefface whefe hIs path was mafked out by paIfs of coIossaI,
paInted fed-gfanIte sphInxes, each wIth Hatchepsut's head, InscfIbed to 'The KIng of
Uppef and Iowef Egypt Maatkafe, BeIoved of Amen who Is In the mIdst of Ðjeser-
Ðjeseru, and gIven IIfe fofevef'.
The second ImposIng staIfway contInued upwafds so that Amen entefed the body of
the tempIe on Its uppef and most Impoftant IeveI. Amen passed ffom the bfIght deseft
IIght to the cooI shade and, makIng hIs way between the ImposIng paIfs of kneeIIng
coIossaI statues whIch IIned the path to the sanctuafy, he feached hIs joufney's end, the
haven of hIs own dafk shfIne cut deep Into the IIvIng fock of the Theban mountaIn. Hefe
the secfet, sacfed fItes wouId be peffofmed by tofchIIght, and magnIfIcent offefIngs
wouId fIfst be pfesented to the god and then shafed out between hIs pfIests.
It Is possIbIe that Hathof too onIy spent a IImIted amount of tIme at Ðjeser-Ðjeseru. A
much-damaged scene on the nofthefn waII of the outefmost foom of the shfIne depIcts
the affIvaI of the bafque of Amen at the VaIIey tempIe. Hathof's bafque Is aIso shown, as
Indeed afe thfee empty foyaI bafges whIch seem to beIong to the two kIngs Hatchepsut
and TuthmosIs III and to theIf 'queen', the PfIncess Nefefufe. These thfee have
pfesumabIy Ieft theIf boats to joIn the festIvItIes. The accompanyIng text suggests
Hathof's vIsItof status:
ShoutIng by the cfews of the foyaI boats, the youths of Thebes, the faIf Iads of the afmy of the entIfe Iand, of pfaIses In
gfeetIng thIs god, Amen, Iofd of Kafnak, In hIs pfocessIon of the 'Head of the Yeaf'. at the tIme of causIng thIs gfeat
goddess ]Hathof| to pfoceed to fest In hef tempIe In Ðjeser-Ðjeseru-Amen so that they ]Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs III|
mIght achIeve IIfe fofevef.
Hathof, 'Iady of the Sycamofes', 'MIstfess of MusIc' and patfon of Iove, mothefhood,
and dfunkenness, couId take sevefaI fofms. She couId appeaf as the nuftufIng cow-
goddess who suckIed amongst othefs the
Iig. 6.4 Hutc/epsut being suc/leJ by t/e goJJess Hut/or in t/e form of u cow
Infant Hatchepsut, as the sefpent goddess, the 'IIvIng ufaeus of Re' who symboIIzed
EgyptIan kIngshIp, as a beautIfuI young woman of as a bIoodthIfsty IIon-headed
avengef. She couId even, In hef mofe sInIstef foIe as the 'Seven Hathofs', become a
goddess of death. Hatchepsut seems to have feIt a paftIcuIaf devotIon fof Hathof, a
devotIon whIch may weII have stemmed ffom hef pefIod as queen-consoft. Thfoughout
the dynastIc pefIod successIve queens of Egypt wefe each cIoseIy IdentIfIed wIth Hathof,
and Indeed dufIng the OId KIngdom sevefaI queens had Ieft the secIusIon of the hafem to
sefve as pfIestesses In hef tempIe. ThIs tfadItIon had faded somewhat dufIng the MIddIe
KIngdom, but the stfong queens of the Iate 17th and eafIy 18 th DynastIes had fevIved
It, becomIng fIfmIy assocIated wIth the goddess In hef duaI foIe as dIvIne consoft and
mothef of a kIng. Ouf best-known exampIe of a queen assocIated wIth Hathof comes
ffom the smaIIef tempIe at Abu SImbeI, Southefn Egypt, whose coIossaI statues of Queen
NefeftafI, wIfe of Ramesses II, show hef fepfesented as the goddess. Contempofafy
depIctIons of Hathof show hef weafIng the customafy queen's fegaIIa so that the IInk
between the queen and the goddess Is made obvIous to aII.
Hatchepsut dedIcated a numbef of shfInes to Hathof In hef vafIous manIfestatIons,
these often took the fofm of a fock-cut sanctuafy ffonted by a coIonnade of vestIbuIe.
The Speos AftemIdos wIth Its unfInIshed Hathof-headed pIIIafs may be IncIuded amongst
these, as Pakhet was a IocaI vefsIon of Hathof's fIefce IIon-headed fofm. It Is thefefofe
not too sufpfIsIng that Hatchepsut's moftuafy tempIe, estabIIshed on the sIte of a
tfadItIonaI shfIne and home to a chapeI dedIcated to Hathof, IncIudes many
fepfesentatIons of thIs goddess. Hefe she Is not onIy shown as a cow feedIng the baby
Hatchepsut, she pIays an Impoftant foIe dufIng Hatchepsut's bIfth and she even, In hef
foIe as 'MIstfess of Punt', manages to gaIn a mentIon In the taIe of Hatchepsut's epIc
mIssIon. ThIs IInk between Hatchepsut and a poweffuI, femaIe-ofIentated mothef-
goddess Is hIghIy sIgnIfIcant, suggestIng as It does that Hatchepsut pfIncIpaIIy known
fof hef assocIatIon wIth the maIe god Amen may not have been avefse to havIng hef
name IInked wIth a pfedomInantIy femInIne cuIt.
Iig. 6.5 Hut/or in /er unt/ropoiJ form
AImost aII New KIngdom cuIt tempIes wefe decofated wIth scenes Intended to
demonstfate the good feIatIonshIp whIch exIsted between the kIng and hIs gods. The
outef, mofe pubIIc pafts of the tempIes (the pyIon and couftyafd) usuaIIy depIcted the
phafaoh In hIs most obvIous foIe, that of the waffIof-kIng defendIng hIs Iand agaInst the
tfadItIonaI enemIes of Egypt, whIIe the Innef, mofe pfIvate afeas showed mofe IntImate
scenes: hefe the kIng couId be seen actIng as hIgh pfIest, of makIng an offefIng befofe
the cuIt statue. Ðjeser-Ðjeseru cannot be cIassed as a typIcaI New KIngdom tempIe. Not
onIy dId the buIIdIng have an unpfecedented thfee-tIefed desIgn, Its ownef aIso had hef
own unIque pfopaganda message whIch she was detefmIned to put acfoss vIa the waIIs
of hef tempIe. NeveftheIess, and beafIng these two Impoftant dIffefences In mInd, the
scenes found on the two Iowef poftIcoes do seem to contaIn the same mIxtufe of pubIIc
and mofe pfIvate scenes that we mIght expect to fInd at a mofe conventIonaI tempIe
The two bfoad staIfways connectIng the teffaces effectIveIy cut the tempIe In two, so
that the two Iowef poftIcoes whIch ffont the tempIe afe dIvIded Into fouf dIstInct
sectIons. Hefe we fInd scenes depIctIng sIgnIfIcant events ffom Hatchepsut's IIfe and
feIgn, aII chosen to emphasIze hef fIIIaI devotIon to Amen. AIong the bottom south (of
Ieft hand as we face the tempIe) poftIco we see scenes of the fefufbIshment of the Gfeat
TempIe of Amen at Kafnak, IncIudIng the efectIon of the famous obeIIsks, whIIe on the
opposIte sIde of the same poftIco, whIch Is now unfoftunateIy much destfoyed, we afe
shown Hatchepsut In hef foIe as the tfadItIonaI 18th Dynasty huntIn', shootIn' and fIshIn'
phafaoh, she takes the fofm of an awesome sphInx to tfampIe the enemIes of Egypt, and
appeafs as a kIng fowIIng and fIshIng In the mafshes. The mIddIe poftIco teIIs the taIe of
Hatchepsut's dIvIne bIfth and cofonatIon (nofthefn sIde) and the stofy of the expedItIon
to Punt (southefn sIde). At each end of thIs poftIco Is a chapeI, the nofthefn chapeI
beIng dedIcated to AnubIs, the jackaI-headed god of embaImIng, and the southefn
chapeI, possIbIy the sIte of hef ofIgInaI DeIf eI-BahfI shfIne, beIng dedIcated to Hathof.
The uppefmost IeveI, the most Impoftant paft of the tempIe, took the fofm of a
hypostyIe haII ffonted by an OsIfIde poftIco wIth each of Its twenty-fouf squafe-cut
pIIIafs faced by an ImposIng, twIce IIfe-sIzed, paInted IImestone OsIfIfofm statue of
Hatchepsut stafIng ImpassIveIy outwafds ovef the NIIe VaIIey towafds Kafnak. These
statues wefe matched by the ten OsIfIde statues whIch stood In the nIches at the feaf of
the uppef couft, by the fouf OsIfIde statues In the cofnefs of the sanctuafy and by the
enofmous OsIfIde statues ÷ each neafIy 8 m (26 ft) taII ÷ whIch stood at each end of the
Iowef and mIddIe poftIcoes. AII these statues showed the kIng wIth a whIte mummIfofm
body and cfossed afms hoIdIng the embIems of OsIfIs, the ankh of IIfe sIgn and the wus-
sceptfe, symboI of domInIon, combIned wIth the tfadItIonaI embIems of kIngshIp, the
cfook and fIaII. Hef beafded face was paInted eIthef fed of pInk, hef eyes wefe whIte
and bIack and hef eyebfows a fathef unnatufaI bIue, whIIe on hef head
OsIfIs,Hatchepsut wofe eIthef the WhIte cfown of Uppef Egypt of the doubIe cfown.
On the southefn sIde of the uppef poftIco was the moftuafy chapeI of Hatchepsut, a
fectanguIaf vauIted chambef wIth an enofmous faIse-doof steIa of fed gfanIte occupyIng
aImost the entIfe west waII. The cuIt-statue of Hatchepsut wouId have stood dIfectIy In
ffont of thIs steIa. Next doof was the much smaIIef chapeI aIIocated to the cuIt of
TuthmosIs I, the west waII of hIs chambef has been demoIIshed and hIs faIse-doof steIa Is
now housed In the Iouvfe Museum, PafIs. It Is possIbIe that thefe was ofIgInaIIy an even
smaIIef chapeI dedIcated to the cuIt of TuthmosIs II, aIthough aII tface of thIs has now
been Iost. On the opposIte sIde of the uppef poftIco was an open-aIf soIaf tempIe wIth a
faIsed aItaf of fIne whIte IImestone dedIcated to the sun god Re-Hafakhte. Thefe was
aIso a smaII chapeI dedIcated to AnubIs and to Hatchepsut's famIIy, hefe hef pafents
TuthmosIs I and Ahmose and hef non-foyaI gfandmothef SenIsenb aII appeaf on the
waIIs. The sanctuafy ItseIf, two dafk, naffow Intefconnected fooms desIgned to hoId the
bafque of Amen and the statue whIch fepfesented the god hImseIf, was cafved wIth
Images of the ceIebfatIon of the beautIfuI Feast of the VaIIey, Hatchepsut, Nefefufe,
TuthmosIs I, Ahmose and Hatchepsut's dead sIstef NefefubIty aII appeaf on the waIIs to
offef befofe the bafque.
Hatchepsut's moftuafy cuIt was abandoned soon aftef hef death, and Ðjeser-A//et took
ovef as the sIte fof the ceIebfatIon of the Feast of the VaIIey. It Is thefefofe hIghIy IIkeIy
that Senenu, HIgh PfIest of both Amen and Hathof at Ðjeser-Ðjeseru dufIng Hatchepsut's
IIfetIme, was both the fIfst and Iast to hoId thIs exaIted post. Howevef, the cuIt of Amen
and, to a Iessef extent, the cuIt of Hathof contInued to be ceIebfated at Ðjeser-Ðjeseru
untII the end of the 20th Dynasty. By thIs tIme the TuthmosIs III tempIe Ðjeser-A//et and
the Mentuhotep II moftuafy tempIe had been abandoned and both Iay In fuIns. The
Hatchepsut tempIe, Its uppef IeveI now badIy damaged, contInued to fIoufIsh as a focus
fof bufIaIs untII, dufIng the PtoIemaIc pefIod, It became the cuIt centfe fof the wofshIp
of two deIfIed EgyptIans, Imhotep the buIIdef of the step-pyfamId, and the 18th Dynasty
sage and afchItect Amenhotep, son of Hapu. The Amen sanctuafy was cIeafed of Its
fubbIe, extended and fefufbIshed fof theIf wofshIp. The sIte then feII agaIn Into dIsuse
untII the fIfth centufy BC when It was taken ovef by a CoptIc monastefy who aIso used
the Amen sanctuafy as a focus fof theIf wofshIp. The sIte was fInaIIy abandoned some
tIme dufIng the eIghth centufy AD, appafentIy because focksIIdes had fendefed the uppef
IeveIs dangefous.
Senenmut: Greatest of the Great
I wus t/e greutest of t/e greut in t/e w/ole lunJ. I wus t/e guurJiun of t/e secrets of t/e King in ull /is pluces, u privy
councillor on t/e Sovereign's rig/t /unJ, secure in fuvour unJ given uuJience ulone. I wus one upon w/ose utterunces /is
LorJ relieJ, wit/ w/ose uJvice t/e Mistress of t/e Two LunJs wus sutisfieJ, unJ t/e /eurt of t/e Ðivine Consort wus
completely filleJ.
Amongst Hatchepsut's IoyaI suppoftefs thefe Is one who stands out wIth femafkabIe
cIafIty. Senenmut, Stewafd of the Estates of Amen, Ovefseef of aII RoyaI Wofks and
Tutof to the RoyaI HeIfess Nefefufe, pIayed a majof bufeaucfatIc foIe thfoughout the
fIfst thfee-quaftefs of Hatchepsut's feIgn. As one of the most actIve and abIe fIgufes of
hIs tIme, Senenmut occupIed a posItIon of unpfecedented powef wIthIn the foyaI
admInIstfatIon, hIs was the ofganIzatIonaI bfaIn behInd Hatchepsut's ImpfessIve pubIIc
buIIdIng pfogfamme, and to hIm has gone the cfedIt of desIgnIng Ðjeser-Ðjeseru, one of
the most ofIgInaI and endufIng monuments of the ancIent wofId. And yet, In spIte of a
compfehensIve IIst of cIvIc dutIes successfuIIy accompIIshed, It has aImost InvafIabIy
been Senenmut's pfIvate IIfe whIch has attfacted the attentIon of schoIafs and pubIIc
aIIke. In effect, Senenmut's consIdefabIe achIevements have not mefeIy been bIuffed as
we mIght expect by the passage of tIme, they have been dIstofted and aImost effaced by
a host of pfeconceptIons and specuIatIons concefnIng Senenmut's chafactef, hIs
motIvatIon and even hIs sex IIfe.
The tfadItIonaI taIe of Senenmut, a cIassIc fags-to-
fIches fomance wIth a mofaI endIng wafnIng the feadef agaInst the twIn foIIIes of ovef-
ambItIon and gfeed, Is genefaIIy toId as foIIows:
Senenmut, the hIghIy taIented and fIefceIy ambItIous son of humbIe pafents, stafted
hIs cafeef In the afmy whefe hIs natufaI abIIItIes soon became appafent. DfIven by a
bufnIng desIfe to shake off hIs IowIy ofIgIns, he fose fapIdIy thfough the fanks befofe
quIttIng the afmy to joIn the paIace bufeaucfacy. Hefe, once agaIn, hIs femafkabIe skIIIs
soon became appafent and Senenmut enjoyed acceIefated pfomotIon to become a hIgh-
gfade cIvII sefvant. As It became obvIous that thefe was no ImmedIate heIf to the
thfone, the foyaI couft stafted to buzz wIth IntfIgues and pIottIng. Senenmut now took
the caIcuIated decIsIon to IInk hIs futufe totaIIy wIth that of Hatchepsut. He became the
femaIe kIng's most IoyaI suppoftef wIthIn the paIace as he wofked futhIessIy and
effIcIentIy to ensufe that, agaInst aII the odds, hef feIgn wouId succeed. When hIs
gambIe paId off, and Hatchepsut fInaIIy secufed hef cfown, Senenmut was ampIy
fewafded fof hIs IoyaIty. He was showefed wIth a vafIety of secuIaf and feIIgIous tItIes
IncIudIng the pfestIgIous StewafdshIp of the Estates of Amen, a posItIon whIch aIIowed
hIm ffee access to the vast weaIth of the Kafnak tempIe. HIs most pubIIcIzed foIe was,
howevef, that of tutof to the young pfIncess Nefefufe.
Ouf hefo's goIden futufe seemed assufed. He had amassed gfeat pefsonaI weaIth, and
had stafted to buIId hImseIf a suItabIy spIendId tomb In the Theban necfopoIIs. HIs
posItIon at couft appeafed unassaIIabIe. Not onIy dId he have effectIve contfoI ovef the
state fInances, he was a cIose pefsonaI ffIend of the foyaI famIIy and a majof InfIuence
In the IIfe of the heIfess-pfesumptIve to the EgyptIan thfone. Most Impoftant of aII, he
was Hatchepsut's Iovef, domInatIng the passIve queen to the extent that she, dazzIed by
hIs chafm and Ignofant of hIs tfue natufe, became totaIIy dependent upon hIs
judgement. Ffom hIs unpfecedented posItIon of powef, Senenmut was abIe to exeft
gfeat InfIuence ovef the Iand. EffectIveIy, Senenmut was fuIef of Egypt.
UnfoftunateIy, In best stofy-book tfadItIon, Senenmut dId not femaIn content wIth hIs
Iot. Caught In the gfIp of an uncontfoIIabIe avafIce and coffupted by a faIse sense of hIs
own Impoftance, he stafted to take advantage of hIs exaIted posItIon, pIundefIng the
foyaI coffefs fof hIs own ends and pefmIttIng hImseIf pfIvIIeges hIthefto fesefved fof the
phafaoh. ShowIng gfeat dafIng he abandoned hIs tfadItIonaI T-shaped Theban tomb
and, dIveftIng the foyaI wofkmen away ffom theIf offIcIaI task, stafted to excavate, In
secfet, a new tomb wIthIn the pfecIncts of Hatchepsut's own moftuafy tempIe.
EventuaIIy Senenmut commItted hIs most heInous cfIme of aII: he ofdefed that hIs own
name and Image be hIdden behInd the Innef doofs of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru.
InevItabIy NemesIs stfuck and the betfayaI of tfust came to IIght. Hatchepsut's fevenge
was swIft and fufIous, as befIts a voIatIIe woman deceIved. Senenmut was InstantIy
stfIpped of aII hIs pfIvIIeges and dIsappeafed In mystefIous cIfcumstances. HIs unused
tombs wefe desecfated, hIs monuments wefe vandaIIzed and hIs feIIefs and statues wefe
defaced In a detefmIned attempt to efase both the name and memofy of Senenmut ffom
the hIstofy of Egypt. Howevef, In hef ImpuIsIve destfuctIon of hef Iovef, Hatchepsut
effectIveIy destfoyed hefseIf. Befeft of Senenmut's guIdance and unabIe to functIon
aIone, she fapIdIy Iost hef gfIp on the cfown, and wIthIn two yeafs of Senenmut's faII,
TuthmosIs III was soIe Phafaoh of Egypt.
Iig. 7.1 T/e JumugeJ figure of Senenmut from Tomb S5S
So much fof the popuIafIy accepted bIogfaphy of Senenmut whIch, wIth InnumefabIe
vafIatIons, was fof a Iong tIme accepted as a tfue account of the spectacuIaf fIse and
sudden faII of Hatchepsut's gfeatest suppoftef.
Any feadef couId choose whethef to
beIIeve In Supefman-Senenmut, the dashIng hefo and devoted Iovef, of SvengaII-
Senenmut, the cunnIng manIpuIatof and maIevoIent powef behInd the thfone, eIthef
way, It was aIways Senenmut's domInant feIatIonshIp wIth the queen that was
Impoftant, hIs actuaI achIevements wefe a feIatIveIy InsIgnIfIcant paft of theIf joInt
stofy. RecentIy, howevef, thefe has been a gfowIng awafeness that the cIoud of
supposItIons whIch has aImost InvafIabIy hovefed afound any dIscussIon of Hatchepsut
and hef couft has spfead to enguIf Senenmut, obscufIng hIm ffom the coId IIght of
objectIve assessment. A fevIew of the known facts about Senenmut, uncoIoufed as faf as
possIbIe by pfejudgements and assumptIons, pfesents us wIth a Iess dfamatIc but equaIIy
fascInatIng poftfaIt of an atypIcaI 18th Dynasty man.
AfchaeoIogIcaI evIdence confIfms that Senenmut haIIed ffom Afmant (ancIent luny), a
medIum-sIzed town IyIng appfoxImateIy fIfteen mIIes to the south of Thebes. Afmant
had ofIgInaIIy been the capItaI town of the Theban pfovInce, It was Iatef to become weII
known fof Its PtoIemaIc buIIdIngs and Its Bucheum, the necfopoIIs of the sacfed BuchIs
buIIs. The dIscovefy of the shafed tomb of Ramose and Hatnofef, Senenmut's pafents,
confIfms that Senenmut was not of paftIcuIafIy hIgh bIfth. WIthIn hIs tomb Ramose,
Senenmut's fathef, was gIven the non-specIfIc epIthet 'The Wofthy', a poIIte but
somewhat meanIngIess appeIIatIon InvafIabIy used fof the fespected dead. HIs mothef,
Hatnofef, daughtef of a woman named SItdjehuty, was sImpIy IdentIfIed as 'MIstfess of
the House', a vefy genefaI tItIe awafded to maffIed women. The ancIent EgyptIans dId
not suffef ffom any sense of faIse modesty. They feIt that theIf offIcIaI tItIes wefe an
Impoftant paft of the pefsonaIIty, and It was customafy fof aII fanks and decofatIons,
no mattef how tfIvIaI, to be fecofded fof postefIty. An EgyptIan wouId onIy have
consIdefed omIttIng a IowIy of unImpoftant tItIe ffom hIs pafent's tomb If It had been
supefseded by a mofe pfestIgIous accoIade. We must thefefofe assume that Ramose and
Hatnofef, wIth theIf fathef modest epIthets and undIstInguIshed tomb, dId not pIay a
pfomInent foIe In pubIIc IIfe.
Howevef, It wouId be entIfeIy Incoffect to assume that Senenmut spfang ffom IowIy
peasant stock. We know that Senenmut was an abIe and weII-educated admInIstfatof,
and ffom thIs we may deduce that hIs fathef and gfandfathefs befofe hIm wefe membefs
of the IItefate uppef-mIddIe cIasses. EducatIon was aIways the key to pfofessIonaI
advancement In ancIent Egypt, and nevef was It mofe Impoftant than dufIng the 18th
Dynasty when the expandIng empIfe cfeated a constant demand fof bufeaucfats to
maIntaIn the vast cIvII sefvIce. The fathef vague tItIe of 'scfIbe', whIch couId be appIIed
to any IItefate EgyptIan fegafdIess of occupatIon, was a pfestIgIous accoIade to be
accepted wIth pfIde. IItefacy was, howevef, by no means wIdespfead, and onIy the
mofe pfIvIIeged of mIddIe- and uppef-cIass boys ÷ possIbIy fIve pef cent of the totaI
popuIatIon wefe educated. Most peopIe femaIned IIIItefate and unabIe to gaIn the
foothoId In the pfofessIons whIch wouId aIIow them to advance up the socIaI pyfamId.
TheIf Iack of mobIIIty was feInfofced by custom whIch demanded that sons shouId foIIow
the tfade of pfofessIon of theIf fathef, and by the tfadItIon of maffIage wIthIn the same
famIIy. To modefn westefn eyes, accustomed to the Idea of advancement thfough
educatIon, thIs acceptance of a statIc socIety may appeaf stfange. Howevef, In the
ancIent wofId, It was genefaIIy accepted that one had to be content wIth one's Iot. As St
PauI wfote, 'Iet each man abIde In the same caIIIng whefeIn he was caIIed.¨
Senenmut must, thefefofe, have beIonged to the top ten pef cent of the popuIatIon.
He was pfobabIy the scIon of one of the famIIIes whIch fofmed the IItefate pfovIncIaI
cIasses and ffom whIch a taIented son couId fIse to natIonaI pfomInence. Such meteofIc
fIses wefe by no means common In Egypt, but they wefe ceftaInIy not unknown. The
Phafaoh Ay, successof to Tutankhamen, who fuIed Egypt 250 yeafs aftef Hatchepsut,
seems to have come ffom a famIIy who fIfst became pfomInent In the southefn cIty of
AkhmIm, whIIe thIfty yeafs aftef Ay's feIgn the famIIy of the gfeat KIng Ramesses II had
theIf ofIgIns In a compafatIve backwatef of the Eastefn NIIe DeIta.
We know that Senenmut came ffom a typIcaIIy Iafge EgyptIan famIIy, he had at Ieast
thfee bfothefs named Amenemhat, MInhotep and PaIfy and at Ieast two sIstefs, Ahhotep
and Noffet-Hof. Fof a Iong tIme It was assumed, on the basIs of a mIstfansIatIon, that
Senenmut aIso had a foufth bfothef named SenImen. SenImen's exIstence Is not open to
doubt, he was a contempofafy couft offIcIaI who fose to succeed Senenmut as tutof to
PfIncess Nefefufe, who was depIcted In Senenmut's Tomb 71 (but not In Tomb 353
whefe Senenmut's tfue sIbIIngs wefe shown togethef wIth theIf pafents), and who was
bufIed In Theban Tomb 252 whIch makes no mentIon of any famIIy IInk wIth Senenmut.
Howevef, we now know that SenImen was the son of a woman named SenIemyah, not
Hatnofef and, whIIe It Is possIbIe that the two wefe haIf-bfothefs, thefe Is no evIdence to
show that thIs was actuaIIy the case.
Nof Is thefe any evIdence to suggest that Senenmut evef maffIed, thefe Is no mentIon
of a wIfe of chIIdfen In eIthef of hIs tombs. If he dId femaIn sIngIe, he must have been
an oddIty, one of the few bacheIofs IIvIng unwed In a countfy whefe maffIed IIfe and
the fathefIng of many chIIdfen was vIewed as the IdeaI. GIven the constant emphasIs
pIaced on famIIy IIfe, and the paftIcuIaf need fof a son to peffofm the funefaI fItes of
hIs dead pafents, we mIght expect Senenmut to have maffIed at the staft of hIs cafeef,
and thefefofe to have been eIthef dIvofced of wIdowed befofe he came to natIonaI
pfomInence as a sIngIe man. Howevef, had Senenmut evef been wIdowed, we wouId
expect to fInd a fefefence to hIs dead wIfe wIthIn hIs tomb. DId hIs Iatef InvoIvement
wIth the queen pfevent hIm ffom fefeffIng to the fact that he had evef been maffIed, no
mattef how bfIefIy? It ceftaInIy Is temptIng to dfaw a pafaIIeI wIth the couft of the
EngIIsh Queen EIIzabeth I, aIbeIt ovef 3,000 yeafs Iatef and In a dIffefent Iand, whefe,
In tufn, the EafI of IeIcestef and hIs stepson the EafI of Essex, both favoufItes of the
queen, found It pfudent to keep theIf InconvenIent wIves hIdden In the countfy, away
ffom the queen's unfofgIvIng gaze.
Ouf meagfe InfofmatIon about Senenmut's eafIy IIfe comes ffom the joInt tomb of
Ramose and Hatnofef. CafefuI excavatIon has shown that Ramose, aged about sIxty,
pfedeceased hIs wIfe and was bufIed In a feIatIveIy humbIe gfave. ThIs suggests that hIs
chIIdfen dId not at the tIme of hIs death have the means to gIve theIf fathef a mofe
spIendId Intefment, as tfadItIon decfeed that It was a son's duty to bufy hIs fathef In the
best mannef possIbIe. When Hatnofef dIed of oId age, dufIng Yeaf 6 of 7 of Hatchepsut's
feIgn, Senenmut was In a faf bettef posItIon to pfovIde fof hIs mothef's funefaI. He had
aIfeady chosen the sIte fof hIs own fInaI festIng pIace and he decIded to bufy hIs mothef
on the same hIIIsIde, just beIow hIs own tomb. Hefe a feIatIveIy sImpIe chambef was cut
Into the fock, and the expensIveIy mummIfIed body of Hatnofef was Inteffed In a
wooden anthfopoId coffIn togethef wIth a gIIded mask, canopIc jafs and a seIectIon of
tfadItIonaI gfave-goods suItabIe fof a woman. Ramose was then fesuffected ffom hIs
mofe IowIy festIng pIace, hastIIy fe-bandaged, pIaced In a paInted anthfopoId coffIn
and fe-unIted wIth hIs wIfe.
Hatnofef's tomb was aIso home to two fufthef coffIns housIng the badIy mummIfIed
femaIns of thfee anonymous women and thfee unknown chIIdfen. The dIscovefefs of the
tomb saw these sIx bodIes as the gfIsIy evIdence that Senenmut' ImmedIate famIIy had
been stfuck by sudden catastfophe:
... that eIght pefsons of the same famIIy of gfoup shouId have dIed so neafIy at the same tIme that they couId be bufIed
togethef on one occasIon Is ceftaInIy extfaofdInafy, but seems, neveftheIess, to be what actuaIIy happened.
It actuaIIy seems faf mofe IIkeIy that these bodIes fepfesent membefs of Senenmut's
ImmedIate famIIy who had pfevIousIy been bufIed neafby, theIf decayed wfappIngs and
dIsaftIcuIated skeIetons encfusted wIth mud suggest that they too had been fetfIeved
ffom Iess ImpfessIve cemetefIes. The fe-bufIaI of pfIvate IndIvIduaIs, whIIe not common,
was ceftaInIy not unknown at thIs tIme, and Senenmut's fIIIaI devotIon wouId have met
wIth genefaI appfovaI. CIeafIy, the pafents of the few upwafdIy mobIIe chIIdfen wefe
abIe to enjoy the posthumous benefIts of theIf offspfIngs' success.
Thefe wefe thfee majof cafeef paths open to the educated and ambItIous 18th Dynasty
maIe: the afmy, the pfIesthood and the cIvII sefvIce. It Is aIways possIbIe that Senenmut
chose to joIn the afmy, and a badIy damaged ffagment of what appeafs to be
autobIogfaphIcaI text wIthIn hIs tomb (Tomb 71) Iends some cfedence to thIs Idea. The
text, whIch IncIudes the wofds 'captufe' and 'NubIa', Is posItIoned next to Images of
funnIng soIdIefs. Howevef, the femaIndef of the InscfIptIon Is vIftuaIIy unfeadabIe and
Is thefefofe open to a vafIety of IntefpfetatIons. HIs Iack of mIIItafy tItIes In Iatef IIfe,
and hIs fathef's Iack of any mIIItafy tItIes, pefhaps IndIcates that Senenmut seIected a
vocatIon mofe obvIousIy suIted to hIs ofganIzatIonaI skIIIs. The pfIesthood and the
bufeaucfacy wefe vefy cIoseIy IInked at thIs tIme, and It seems sensIbIe to deduce that
Senenmut fose to pfomInence as a IocaI admInIstfatof wofkIng eIthef fof the foyaI
bufeaucfacy of the tempIe, befofe beIng seconded to state admInIstfatIon at Thebes.
GIven Senenmut's subsequent pIethofa of Amen-based tItIes (fof exampIe, Ovefseef of
Amen's GfanafIes, Stofehouses, FIeIds, Gafdens, CattIe and SIaves, ContfoIIef of the HaII
of Amen, Ovefseef of the Wofks of Amen, etc.), the suggestIon that he began hIs cafeef
as an admInIstfatof In the tempIe of Amen at Kafnak appeafs entIfeIy feasonabIe.
Ouf fIfst concfete sIghtIng of Senenmut, datIng to the pefIod befofe Hatchepsut's
accessIon, fInds hIm aIfeady busy at the paIace wIth a vafIety of pfestIgIous
appoIntments IncIudIng stewafd of the pfopefty of Hatchepsut and Nefefufe and tutof
to the young pfIncess. UnfoftunateIy, we have no means of knowIng when Senenmut
had stafted hIs IIIustfIous foyaI cafeef. Ouf onIy cIue Is pfovIded by a shfIne buIIt at the
GebeI SIIsIIa, thIs Infofms us that Senenmut was aIfeady 'Stewafd of the God's WIfe and
Stewafd of the KIng's Daughtef' at the tIme of constfuctIon. These two tantaIIzIngIy
anonymous IadIes have been tentatIveIy IdentIfIed as Queen Ahmose and PfIncess
Hatchepsut, IndIcatIng that Senenmut was In foyaI sefvIce dufIng the feIgn of TuthmosIs
I, but It Is pefhaps mofe IIkeIy that the two women afe Queen Hatchepsut and PfIncess
Nefefufe, and thefefofe that Senenmut was InItIaIIy appoInted eIthef by TuthmosIs II of
dufIng the eafIy paft of Hatchepsut's fegency foIIowIng the death of TuthmosIs II.
GebeI SIIsIIa, fofty mIIes to the nofth of Aswan, was both the IocatIon of sandstone
quaffIes and a cuIt centfe fof the wofshIp of the NIIe In fIood. Senenmut's shfIne, whIch
Is of unceftaIn use and whIch has been vafIousIy descfIbed as a gfotto, cenotaph, tempIe
and tomb, Is one of a numbef of such edIfIces buIIt on the West Bank by the hIghest-
fankIng cIvII sefvants of the 18th Dynasty, IncIudIng Hapuseneb, the fIfst Pfophet of
Amen and afchItect of Hatchepsut's bufIaI chambef, and NeshI, the Ieadef of
Hatchepsut's ceIebfated expedItIon to Punt. The monument thefefofe sefves to
emphasIze Senenmut's pfomInent foIe amongst the gfeat and the good (and the
InfIuentIaI) of hIs tIme.
Senenmut's shfIne (ShfIne 16) Is sItuated hIgh on the cIIff and faces east, towafds the
NIIe. It was aImost ceftaInIy desIgned to be feached ffom the fIvef at the tIme of hIgh
watef. The shfIne consIsts of a ffamed doofway, cut Into the sandstone cIIff, IeadIng Into
a squafe foom housIng a seated statue of Senenmut, cut ffom the IIvIng fock. The waIIs
ofIgInaIIy dIspIayed a sefIes of sunk feIIef scenes and InscfIptIons. These afe now badIy
damaged, aIthough the fIat ceIIIng stIII shows tfaces of Its ofIgInaI coIouffuI pattefn.
AIthough most of the GebeI SIIsIIa shfInes Incofpofate a faIfIy consIstent funefafy
emphasIs In theIf texts and scenes, Senenmut'S shfIne omIts the customafy eafthIy and
funefafy feasts and IncIudes Instead a depIctIon of Hatchepsut beIng embfaced by the
cfocodIIe-headed god Sobek and Nekhbet, the vuItufe goddess of Uppef Egypt, shown as
a woman weafIng a feathefed vuItufe headdfess. As othef commentatofs have obsefved,
'the pecuIIaf status of Senenmut and the feIatIonshIp between hIm and hIs monafch no
doubt account fof these unusuaI featufes'.
. I was pfomoted befofe the companIons, knowIng that I was dIstInguIshed wIth hef, they set me to be chIef of hef
house, the paIace, may It IIve, be pfospefous and be heaIthy, beIng undef my supefvIsIon, beIng judge In the whoIe Iand,
Ovefseef of the GfanafIes of Amen, Senenmut.
FoIIowIng Hatchepsut's fIse to powef, Senenmut dfopped a numbef of hIs Iessef tItIes,
IncIudIng that of tutof to Nefefufe, acquIfed a cIutch of mofe pfestIgIous accoIades (such
as Ovefseef of the GfanafIes of Amen and Ovefseef of aII the Wofks of the KIng
]Hatchepsut| at Kafnak), and settIed Into hIs pfIncIpaI post as Stewafd of Amen.
AIthough, as faf as we afe awafe, he nevef heId the tItIe of FIfst Pfophet of Amen,
afguabIy the most poweffuI posItIon that a non-foyaI EgyptIan couId aspIfe to, the
stefeotypIcaI and seIf-congfatuIatofy pfopaganda text quoted above confIfms the wIde
fange of hIs offIcIaI dutIes. TItIes In ancIent Egypt wefe not necessafIIy IndIcatIve of
actuaI empIoyment, but fathef sefved to pIace a man In the socIaI hIefafchy, fof
exampIe, the exact dutIes of the 'SandaI-beafef of the KIng' of the 'RoyaI Washefman'
afe unknown, but It Is hIghIy unIIkeIy that they InvoIved the peffofmance of undIgnIfIed
pefsonaI sefvIces fof the monafch, as both posts wefe heId by men of fank and
bfeedIng. WInIock's IntfIguIng suggestIon that, In addItIon to hIs obvIous pubIIc dutIes,
Senenmut had 'heId mofe IntImate ones IIke those of the gfeat nobIes of Ffance who
wefe honoufed In beIng aIIowed to assIst In the most IntImate detaIIs of the foyaI toIIet
at the kIng's Ievees'
appeafs vefy unIIkeIy. WInIock based thIs femafkabIe concIusIon
on the fact that Senenmut bofe what we now assume to be the pufeIy honofafy tItIes of
'SupefIntendent of the PfIvate Apaftments', 'SupefIntendent of the Bathfoom', and
'SupefIntendent of the RoyaI Bedfoom'.
Senenmut's pIethofa of epIthets shouId, thefefofe, be taken as an IndIcatIon of hIs
genefaI Impoftance fathef than a pfecIse IIstIng of hIs actuaI dutIes, and the exact
amount of tIme that he was actuaIIy fequIfed to devote to hIs offIcIaI posts femaIns
uncIeaf. HIs fange of tItIes does, howevef, suggest that he mIght by now have been a
feIatIveIy eIdefIy man. As the avefage IIfe expectancy fof a hIgh-fankIng couft offIcIaI
was between thIfty and fofty-fIve yeafs, any offIcIaI who IIved past fofty yeafs couId
feasonabIy expect to become a much venefated and much decofated eIdef statesman, If
onIy because death had femoved aImost aII hIs contempofafy competItofs. The Iongef
that Senenmut IIved, and of coufse the Iongef that he contInued In the queen's favouf,
the mofe tItIes he couId expect to acquIfe. Thus we fInd InenI, an equaIIy Iong-sefvIng
statesman, fejoIcIng In the tItIes of:
HefedItafy PfInce, Count, ChIef of aII Wofks In Kafnak, the doubIe sIIvef-house was In hIs chafge, the doubIe goId house
was on hIs seaI, SeaIef of aII contfacts In the House of Amen, ExceIIency, Ovefseef of the DoubIe Gfanafy of Amen.
UnoffIcIaIIy, Senenmut seems to have acted as the queen's fIght-hand-man and
genefaI factotum. The fapId Incfease In hIs pefsonaI weaIth at thIs tIme Is obvIous. Not
onIy was Senenmut now fIch enough to bufy hIs mothef wIth appfopfIate pomp, he was
aIso abIe to staft constfuctIng hIs own magnIfIcent tomb, acquIfe a quaftzIte
safcophagus and buIId hIs SIIsIIa shfIne.
In the absence of any contempofafy wfItten descfIptIon of Senenmut, we must tufn to
hIs sufvIvIng Images In an attempt to fInd cIues to hIs chafactef. What dId the queen see
when she tufned to Iook at hef faIthfuI sefvant? PossIbIy not what modefn obsefvefs
have seen when studyIng Senenmut's somewhat unpfepossessIng physIognomy:
Whatevef fIfst attfacted Gfeat RoyaI WIfe Hatchepsut to Senenmut, It ceftaInIy was not hIs good Iooks.. poftfaIts show a
pInch-featufed man wIth a poInted hIgh-bfIdge nose and fIeshy IIps that seem pufsed, wIth a weak chIn tendIng to
jowIIness and eyes that mIght be judged a bIt shIfty, and wIth deep cfeases of wfInkIes about the cheeks, nose and mouth,
and undef the jaw.
WInIock was aIso stfuck by Senenmut's 'aquIIIne nose and nefvousIy expfessIve,
wfInkIed face. As fof the wfInkIes, they sufeIy wefe the featufe by whIch Senmut was
Howevef beauty, of In thIs case a shIfty eye, wfInkIes and a tendency towafds
'jowIIness', IIes as aIways In the eye of the behoIdef, and othefs have been pfepafed to
take a kIndef vIew of hIs featufes:
The pfofIIe has the ImpefIous outIIne of the TuthmosIde famIIy. A sIIght fuIIness of the thfoat, wIth two stfokes of the
bfush suggestIng foIds, the spafIngIy executed IInes afound the eyes, and a fevefsed cufve ffom the eyes past nose and
mouth IndIcate In masteffuI fashIon the saggIng pIump featufes of the agIng man of affaIfs.
Each of these descfIptIons has been based on ouf fouf sufvIvIng Ink sketches of
Senenmut's face. Thfee of these poftfaIts afe on ostfaca now housed In the MetfopoIItan
Museum of Aft, New Yofk, whIIe the foufth has sufvIved undamaged on the waII of
Tomb 353. AII fouf show Senenmut In pfofIIe, wIth a sIngIe eye and eyebfow facIng
fofwafds In the conventIonaI EgyptIan styIe. HIs fathef founded face and doubIe chIn
ceftaInIy suggest a man used to enjoyIng the fInef thIngs In IIfe, whIIe hIs cfows' feet
and wfInkIes confIfm that he was no Iongef In the fIfst fIush of youth when the sketches
wefe made. The stfIkIng sImIIafIty between these Iess-than-fIattefIng sketches suggests
that aII fouf may be actuaI depIctIons of Senenmut, dfawn by peopIe who actuaIIy knew
hIm. In contfast, ouf othef mofe fofmaI Images of Senenmut, hIs statues and hIs tomb
IIIustfatIons, afe mefeIy conventIonaI fepfesentatIons of a 'gfeat EgyptIan man' wIth
IIttIe of no attempt at accufate poftfayaI.
. Gfant that thefe may be. made fof me many statues ffom evefy kInd of pfecIous hafd stone fof the tempIe of Amen at
Kafnak and fof evefy pIace whefeIn the majesty of thIs god pfoceeds.
At Ieast twenty-fIve hafd stone statues of Senenmut have sufvIved the favages of tIme.
ThIs Is an extfaofdInafIIy Iafge numbef of statues fof a
Iig. 7.2 S/etc/-portruit of Senenmut from t/e wull of Tomb S5S
pfIvate IndIvIduaI, no othef New KIngdom offIcIaI has Ieft us so many cIeaf IndIcatIons
of hIs exaIted fank and, as we must assume that most, If not aII, wefe the gIft of the
queen, hIs hIghIy favoufed status. In ancIent Egypt, statues wefe not sImpIy desIgned to
be objets J'urt, Intended to enhance fooms of beautIfy gafdens. AII Images wefe
automatIcaIIy Invested wIth magIcaI of feIIgIous powefs, and they wefe commIssIoned
so that they couId fepIace eIthef IIvIng peopIe of gods wIthIn the tempIe and the tomb.
It seems IIkeIy, gIven hIs IInks wIth Amen, that the majofIty of Senenmut's statues wouId
have been pIaced In the couftyafd of the gfeat tempIe of Amen at Kafnak, aIthough
Senenmut appeafs to have dedIcated statues of hImseIf In most of the majof tempIes
afound Thebes. WIthIn the tempIe the statues wouId have been posItIoned In fanks
facIng the sanctuafy, ensufIng that the IIvIng Senenmut feceIved the benefIts of theIf
pfoxImIty to the god.
The aftIstIc InventIveness of the Senenmut fIgufes confIfms the InnovatIve natufe and
genefaI technIcaI exceIIence of smaII-scaIe scuIptufe thfoughout Hatchepsut's feIgn. They
depIct Senenmut In hIs vafIous foIes, most typIcaIIy hoIdIng the Infant Nefefufe In hIs
afms, a pose desIgned to stfess Senenmut's Impoftance fathef than hIs tendef feeIIngs
towafds hIs young chafge. Some show hIm squattIng wIth the chIId's body wfapped In,
and aImost obscufed by, hIs cIoak, whIIe one shows Senenmut sIttIng wIth Nefefufe ÷
stIff and unchIId-IIke ÷ heId at fIght angIes In hIs Iap, a posItIon hIthefto fesefved fof
women nufsIng chIIdfen. The majofIty of the femaInIng statues show Senenmut kneeIIng
to pfesent a feIIgIous symboI such as a sIstfum of a shfIne. At Ieast one statue, a 1.55 m
(5 ft 1 In) hIgh gfanIte fepfesentatIon of Senenmut pfesentIng a sIstfum to the goddess
Mut, ofIgInaIIy housed In the tempIe of Mut at Kafnak, was so admIfed by Its subject
that It was fepfoduced In bIack dIofIte on a smaIIef scaIe, pfesumabIy so that It couId be
pIaced In a Iess pubIIc shfIne and used fof pfIvate wofshIp.
Not aII contempofafy fepfesentatIons of Senenmut wefe Intended to fIattef, as cfude
gfaffItI ffom an unfInIshed MIddIe KIngdom tomb show. ThIs chambef, sItuated In the
cIIffs above DeIf eI-BahfI, was used as a festIng pIace by the gangs of wofkmen engaged
In buIIdIng Hatchepsut's moftuafy tempIe. Hefe the buIIdefs IdIed away theIf fest bfeaks
by doodIIng and scfIbbIIng on the waIIs. IncIuded amongst the doodIes afe a numbef of
mIIdIy pofnogfaphIc scenes IncIudIng depIctIons of naked, weII-endowed young men.
One sketch shows a taII, fuIIy cIothed, unnamed maIe who has vafIousIy been IdentIfIed
as both Senenmut and Hatchepsut, and who Is appafentIy beIng appfoached by a
smaIIef naked maIe wIth an ImpfobabIy Iafge efectIon. AIthough It Is possIbIe that the
two fIgufes fepfesent entIfeIy sepafate and unconnected doodIes, they afe cIose enough
togethef fof us to specuIate whethef Senenmut,Hatchepsut Is about to become the
subject of a homosexuaI encountef.
HomosexuaI Intefcoufse fof pIeasufe In ancIent Egypt Is not weII attested. Instead,
homosexuaIIty was genefaIIy fegafded as a means of gaInIng fevenge on a defeated
enemy. By ImpIantIng hIs semen the aggfessof not onIy humIIIated hIs vIctIm by fofcIng
hIm to take the paft of a woman, but aIso gaIned a degfee of powef ovef hIm. If
Senenmut Is feaIIy beIng appfoached In thIs way, he Is about to be thofoughIy degfaded.
No dIsgface evef attached to the aggfessof peffofmIng the homosexuaI fape, the shame
beIonged entIfeIy to the vIctIm. Thus, In the New KIngdom stofy whIch teIIs of the
seductIon of the young god Hofus by hIs uncIe Seth, It Is Hofus who feeIs the shame of a
woman. Seth Is mefeIy actIng IIke any fed-bIooded maIe:
Now when evenIng had come a bed was pfepafed fof them and they Iay down togethef. At nIght Seth Iet hIs membef
become stIff, and he Insefted It between the thIghs of Hofus. And Hofus pIaced hIs hand between hIs thIghs, and caught
the semen of Seth.
By catchIng the semen befofe It entefs hIs body and subsequentIy thfowIng It Into the
mafsh, Hofus has effectIveIy thwafted hIs uncIe's evII pIan to dIscfedIt hIm In the eyes of
othef maIes. Iatef, wIth the heIp of hIs mothef, he Is abIe to tufn the tabIes on Seth. He
spfInkIes hIs own semen ovef the Iettuces gfowIng In the paIace gafden whIch he knows
that Seth wIII eat. When the two gods afe caIIed to gIve an account of theIf deeds,
aIthough Seth cIaIms to have done 'a man's deed' to Hofus, the semen of Hofus Is
dIscovefed wIthIn Seth's own body and Seth Is totaIIy humIIIated.
Neafby on the tomb waII (FIg. 7.3) afe shown a coupIe, naked but fof theIf
IdIosyncfatIc headgeaf, who afe InduIgIng In a fofm of sexuaI
Iig. 7.S Hutc/epsut unJ Senenmut? CruJe gruffito from u Ðeir el-Bu/ri tomb
Intefcoufse whIch has modestIy been descfIbed as 'a method of appfoach ffom the
As MannIche has noted:
Intefcoufse ffom behInd ('dog fashIon'). seems to have been fathef popuIaf In Egypt, to judge ffom the numbef of extant
fepfesentatIons of the posItIon, the man most ffequentIy standIng, wIth the woman bendIng ovef. Whethef any of these
exampIes IndIcate anaI Intefcoufse cannot be detefmIned ffom the fepfesentatIons aIone, but It seems fathef unIIkeIy In
that no pfactIcaI pufpose wouId have been sefved.
The mofe domInant maIe fIgufe spofts what has been descfIbed as an ovefseef's Ieathef
cap, but whIch may actuaIIy be a bad haIfcut, whIIe hIs Iafgef and cufIousIy
andfogynous companIon has a dafk femaIe pubIc tfIangIe but no bfeasts. She Is weafIng
what has been IdentIfIed as a foyaI headdfess wIthout the ufaeus, and Is genefaIIy
acknowIedged to fepfesent Hatchepsut. The whoIe scene has been Intefpfeted, some
mIght say ovef-Intefpfeted, as a contempofafy poIItIcaI pafody Intended to hIghIIght the
one way In whIch Hatchepsut couId nevef be a tfue kIng ÷ she couId nevef domInate a
man In the way that she Is now beIng domInated.
Senenmut Is shown quIte IItefaIIy
takIng hIs queen fof a fIde.
Hatchepsut Is by no means the fIfst woman In a posItIon of authofIty to be InsuIted by
thIs type of gfaffItI. The deep-footed feeIIng that any femaIe who fejects hef tfadItIonaI
submIssIve foIe Is both unfemInIne and unnatufaI has often Ied to wIId chafges of
wanton behavIouf fIfed at domInant women. AccusatIons of sexuaI Iust and ImpfopfIety
afe pefhaps the onIy way In whIch Iess poweffuI and thefefofe, It has been afgued,
emascuIated and ffustfated men can attack theIf mofe poweffuI mIstfesses. Nof Is thIs
type of assauIt the pfefogatIve of men. Women who have not themseIves bfeached
socIaI boundafIes afe often the fIfst to condemn those who have and, as women weII
know, an attack on a woman's feputatIon Is the most damagIng attack of aII. CeftaInIy
the InfIuentIaI femaIes of hIstofy ÷ women who have domInated In a man's wofId ÷ have
consIstentIy attfacted pfufIent specuIatIon concefnIng theIf sexuaI behavIouf. These
women, who fange ffom CIeopatfa of Egypt vIa SemIfamIs of AssyfIa and IIvIa of Rome
to CathefIne the Gfeat of RussIa, wefe foutIneIy accused of sexuaI pfomIscuIty of the
gfossest and most vIvId kInd.
It seems that onIy by makIng a deIIbefate featufe of hef vIftue and chastIty, often
maIntaIned undef the most dIffIcuIt of condItIons, can a poweffuI woman hope to avoId
taIes of hef sexuaI depfavIty becomIng hef maIn contfIbutIon to hef countfy's hIstofy.
Thus Odysseus's faIthfuI PeneIope, Shakespeafe's 'most unspotted IIIy' EIIzabeth I and
Joan of Afc, 'the MaId of OfIeans', aII stfong women, deIIbefateIy made pufIty one of
theIf maIn attfIbutes. We shouId thefefofe not be sufpfIsed to fInd that Hatchepsut's
subjects, unused to the Idea of a stfong femaIe fuIef, wefe pfepafed to specuIate on the
feIatIonshIp between the femaIe kIng and Senenmut, hef sefvant and theIf ImmedIate
boss. Humouf wouId have been the onIy weapon that the wofkmen couId use to attack
theIf supefIofs, and It wouId pefhaps be attachIng too much Impoftance to what appeafs
to be a casuaI scfIbbIe, wefe we to assume that It sIgnIfIes anythIng othef than a cfude
attempt to depIct Hatchepsut In hef fIghtfuI femaIe pIace: beIng domInated by a man.
Iig. 7.4 Senenmut wors/ipping ut Djesef-Djesefu
NeveftheIess, the suggestIon that Senenmut and Hatchepsut wefe mofe than just good
ffIends Is wofthy of sefIous consIdefatIon. An IntImate feIatIonshIp wIth the queen
wouId account fof the fapId fIse In Senenmut's foftunes and wouId expIaIn why
Senenmut chose to defy tfadItIon and femaIn unmaffIed. It Is ceftaInIy temptIng to see
Senenmut's unpfecedented pfIvIIeges, such as bufIaI wIthIn the confInes of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru
and the IInkIng of theIf two names wIthIn Tomb 353, as Hatchepsut's tacIt
acknowIedgement of Senenmut's foIe as hef mofganatIc paftnef, If not hef consoft.
Queens, howevef gfeat, afe not Immune ffom nofmaI human feeIIngs, and at tImes
Hatchepsut may have found hef posItIon to be an IntoIefabIy IoneIy one. A tfusted
companIon may have heIped to ease the bufden of state.
In theofy, Hatchepsut and Senenmut, both unattached IndIvIduaIs, wouId have been
ffee to enjoy an open sexuaI feIatIonshIp wIthout pubIIc censufe. DynastIc Egypt was
not an unduIy pfudIsh socIety and Hatchepsut, as kIng, wouId have been at IIbefty to
choose hef own paftnefs just as othef New KIngdom monafchs wefe ffee to fIII theIf
hafems wIth the women of theIf choIce. And yet Hatchepsut, fIfstIy as a woman and
secondIy as a kIng wIth a fathef tenuous cIaIm to the thfone, was In a vefy dIffIcuIt
posItIon. Thfoughout hef feIgn she en-deavoufed to emphasIze hef unIque foyaI posItIon
as the daughtef, wIfe and sIstef of a kIng. The enofmous guIf whIch sepafated the dIvIne
phafaoh ffom the peopIe Is hafd fof us to undefstand but wouId have been vefy feaI to
Hatchepsut. MaffIage of a pefmanent aIIIance wIth a commonef wouId have
compfomIsed and damaged hef posItIon, makIng the aufa of dIvInIty wIth whIch she
chose to cIoak hefseIf appeaf mofe tfanspafent to those afound hef.
Senenmut Is genefaIIy cfedIted wIth beIng the poIItIcaI fofce behInd Hatchepsut's assumptIon and exefcIse of kIngshIp.
WhIIe thIs assessment cannot be pfoved, It Is pfobabIy coffect.
If Hatchepsut and Senenmut wefe not Iovefs, dId they enjoy anythIng othef than a
pufeIy pfofessIonaI feIatIonshIp? DId Senenmut contfoI Hatchepsut by the powef of hIs
pefsonaIIty? And If so, was he dIfectIy fesponsIbIe fof Hatchepsut's unpfecedented
decIsIon to seIze powef? As GafdInef has noted: 'It Is not to be ImagIned. that even a
woman of the most vIfIIe chafactef couId have attaIned such a pInnacIe of powef
wIthout mascuIIne suppoft.'
Senenmut was one of Hatchepsut's most IoyaI sefvants at
thIs tIme, and It Is cIeaf that he must have appfoved of hef cIaIm to the thfone sInce he
contInued to wofk fof the new fegIme. The suggestIon that he mastefmInded the
accessIon Is faf Iess feasIbIe, It Is an Idea based Iess on the avaIIabIe afchaeo-hIstofIcaI
evIdence (nII) than on the twIn assumptIons that Senenmut was a manIpuIatIve pefson
and that Hatchepsut, possIbIy due to hef femInInIty, was IncapabIe of contfoIIIng hef
own destIny. It Is ceftaInIy dIffIcuIt to equate the stfong and matufe Hatchepsut of the
DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe wIth the tImId and passIve TfIIby of the chIIdIsh Iady Jane Gfey,
and It seems ImpossIbIe that any InteIIIgent woman couId have been pefsuaded to take
such a momentous step agaInst hef wIII. WInIock, beIIevIng Senenmut and Hatchepsut to
have been kIndfed souIs and acknowIedgIng that Hatchepsut's gendef dId not necessafIIy
pfecIude InteIIIgence, has summafIzed the sItuatIon:
. the onIy questIon Is whethef It was thfough InfatuatIon fof hef ]Hatchepsut| that Sen-Mut foIIowed hef In a coufse of
hef own desIgnIng, of whethef thfough ambItIon fof hImseIf he was encoufagIng hef to bfeak wIth the customs of hef
It Is cIeaf that Senenmut's maIn stfengths Iay In hIs abIIItIes as an ofganIzef,
admInIstfatof and accountant. In modefn tImes thefe Is a tendency to Iaugh at desk-
bound cIvII sefvants, theIf wofk Is seen as duII, fepetItIve and unnecessafy, and those
unfoftunate enough to be empIoyed as cIefks of accountants afe often pefceIved as
bofIng, faceIess nonentItIes. In ancIent Egypt nothIng couId be fufthef ffom the tfuth.
The scfIbe enjoyed the most envIabIe of empIoyments as, exempt ffom the need to
peffofm degfadIng manuaI Iabouf In the hot sun, he feveIIed In hIs exaIted posItIon. The
Impoftance of the effIcIent cIvII sefvant In a deveIopIng state shouId nevef be
undefestImated. ConstfuctIon wofk In Egypt, wIthout the benefIts of modefn machInefy,
was a Iengthy and Iabouf-IntensIve busIness fequIfIng the coofdInatIon of vast numbefs
of wofkmen and theIf assocIated back-up facIIItIes such as food, watef, accommodatIon
and equIpment, and a tfIed and tested admInIstfatof wouId have been of gfeat vaIue to
the queen.
The extent of hIs cfeatIve taIents Is pefhaps mofe open to questIon. Senenmut Is often
cfedIted wIth buIIdIng aII of Hatchepsut's monuments, aIthough thefe Is no evIdence that
he was actuaIIy an afchItect, and he hImseIf Is often fathef vague when fefeffIng to hIs
pfecIse foIe In these opefatIons. NeveftheIess, he appeafs to have had a hand In vafIous
constfuctIon pfojects In and afound Thebes. HIs maIn afchItectufaI achIevements must
femaIn the ovefseeIng of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru and the efectIng of the obeIIsks at Kafnak.
Howevef, the unIque astfonomIcaI ceIIIng In hIs Tomb 353 (dIscussed In fufthef detaII
beIow), and the ecIectIc vafIety of texts and ostfaca IncIuded In Tomb 71 (fangIng ffom
pIans of the tomb ItseIf thfough vafIous caIcuIatIons to the Story of Sinu/e), ceftaInIy
suggests that Senenmut was a cuItufed and weII-founded man wIth a wIde fange of
Intefests extendIng faf beyond hIs offIcIaI dutIes.
Thanks to hIs foIe as Ovefseef of Wofks at DeIf eI-BahfI, Senenmut was abIe to ensufe
that hIs connectIon wIth the queen and hef monument was pfesefved fof etefnIty. Ovef
sIxty smaII fepfesentatIons of Senenmut, eIthef kneeIIng of standIng wIth outstfetched
afms, have been dIscovefed conceaIed wIthIn the tempIe. These Images had been cafved
on waIIs nofmaIIy covefed by the wooden doofs of shfInes and statue nIches, so that
they wouId have been compIeteIy hIdden ffom pubIIc gaze whIIe the doofs wefe opened
fof wofshIp. The accompanyIng shoft InscfIptIons make It cIeaf that Senenmut Is
engaged In wofshIppIng both the god Amen and hIs mIstfess Hatchepsut 'on behaIf of
the IIfe, pfospefIty and heaIth of the KIng of Uppef and Iowef Egypt, Maatkafe IIvIng
In EgyptIan aft, the Image couId aIways sefve as a substItute fof the pefson of thIng
beIng fepfesented. Thefefofe, by pIacIng hIs Image neaf the god's sanctuafy, Senenmut
was actuaIIy pIacIng hImseIf In cIose pfoxImIty to the god, and was feceIvIng
unspecIfIed benefIts ffom thIs cIose assocIatIon. Howevef, beIng neaf to the gods was
pufeIy a foyaI pfefogatIve, a pfIvIIege aIIowed onIy to the kIng who sefved as hIgh
pfIest of evefy EgyptIan deIty. Because he appeafed to be usufpIng foyaI pfIvIIeges, and
because It was hIthefto unheafd of fof a non-foyaI pefson to be IncIuded In any foyaI
tempIe, many egyptoIogIsts deduced that Senenmut had commIssIoned the cafvIng
wIthout obtaInIng the pefmIssIon of the queen. ThIs theofy fItted wIth the then-cuffent
vIew of Senenmut as a devIous and schemIng manIpuIatof, and has femaIned
sufpfIsIngIy popuIaf despIte the tfansIatIon of a badIy damaged text, aIso ffom the DeIf
eI-BahfI moftuafy tempIe, In whIch Senenmut states that he had foyaI pefmIssIon to
cafve hIs Image wIthIn the sacfed pfecIncts and Indeed wIthIn evefy EgyptIan tempIe.
ThIs text Is wofth quotIng at Iength:
GIvIng pfaIse to Amen and smeIIIng the gfound to the Iofd of the gods on behaIf of the IIfe, pfospefIty and heaIth of the
KIng ]I.e. Hatchepsut| of Uppef and Iowef Egypt, Maatkafe, may he IIve fofevef, by the HefedItafy PfInce and Count, the
Stewafd of Amen, Senenmut, In accofdance wIth a favouf of the KIng's bounty whIch was extended to thIs sefvant In
IettIng hIs name be estabIIshed on evefy waII, In the foIIowIng of the KIng, In Ðjeser-Ðjeseru ]DeIf eI-BahfI|, and IIkewIse In
the tempIes of the gods of Uppef and Iowef Egypt. Thus spoke the KIng.
ThIs boId pfocIamatIon of foyaI authofIty was cafved on the feveaIs of the doofway
IeadIng Into the nofth-west offefIng haII of the tempIe, and was avaIIabIe fof aII who
wefe exaIted enough to entef the tempIe pfecIncts to fead. It confIfms what common
sense suggests, that the queen must have known about the 'secfet' Images. Senenmut
wouId have expefIenced a gfeat deaI of dIffIcuIty In keepIng scofes of IIIIcIt cafvIngs
hIdden and, gIven that a poweffuI man IIke Senenmut must have had many enemIes, It
seems InconceIvabIe that no wofd of thIs tfeachefy wouId have feached Hatchepsut's
eafs. An aItefnatIve theofy, that Senenmut not onIy cafved hIs Images In secfet, but aIso
IIed about feceIvIng foyaI appfovaI fof hIs actIon, Is mofe convoIuted and pefhaps Iess
easy to accept. We now know that Senenmut was not the onIy 18th Dynasty offIcIaI to
IncIude hIs own Image wIthIn a foyaI monument. NeshI, VIcefoy of Kush undef
TuthmosIs III, had hImseIf depIcted In the act of pfayIng on the feveaIs of some of the
doofways In the tempIes of Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs III at Buhen. AIthough Buhen,
IyIng beyond the southefn bofdef of Egypt, was faf enough away ffom the couft to
aIIow a ceftaIn amount of vafIatIon ffom standafd EgyptIan pfactIces, It Is IntefestIng
that NeshI dId not suffef In any way fof hIs ImpeftInence.
May the kIng gIve an offefIng: a thousand of bfead, beef, cattIe and fowI. that they may gfant abundance and he may be
pufIfIed, fof the Ka of the Stewafd of Amen, Senenmut the justIfIed.
Senenmut was weaIthy enough to pfovIde hImseIf wIth two funefafy monuments on
the West Bank at Thebes, Tomb 71, the 'fIfst tomb', conspIcuousIy sIted on top of the
SheIkh Abd eI-Gufna hIII, and Tomb 353, the 'second tomb', hIdden beneath the pfecIncts
of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru. HIstofIans have consIstentIy pIaced gfeat emphasIs on these two
tombs, concIudIng that It was hIs pfesumptIon In buIIdIng secfetIy wIthIn the pfecIncts
of the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe whIch fInaIIy tufned Hatchepsut agaInst Senenmut. It Is
thefefofe wofth consIdefIng the aft and afchItectufe of these two vefy dIffefent
monuments In some detaII.
Senenmut seIected a (then) IIttIe used afea of the Theban necfopoIIs fof hIs fIfst tomb,
secufIng a hIghIy desIfabIe, and hIghIy vIsIbIe, IocatIon on the bfow of the hIII now
known as the SheIkh Abd eI-Gufna. HIs choIce of sIte was to pfove weII judged. He was
soon joIned by two of hIs IIIustfIous contempofafIes, the stewafd Amenhotep (Tomb 73)
and the foyaI tutof SenImen (Tomb 252), and sevefaI Iessef-fankIng offIcIaIs quIckIy
foIIowed suIt, makIng Gufna one of the most popuIaf pfIvate cemetefIes on the West
Bank dufIng the feIgns of Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs III. Senenmut's own tomb
uItImateIy sefved as a focaI poInt fof a numbef of Iess Impoftant bufIaIs, and cIeafance
of the hIIIsIde beIow Tomb 71 In the 1930s feveaIed a scattefIng of subsIdIafy
InhumatIons, an unknown woman In a cheap wooden coffIn weafIng a scafab InscfIbed
fof the 'God's WIfe Nefefufe', an unknown maIe wfapped In feed mattIng, a boy named
Amenhotep who may have been Senenmut's much youngef bfothef, a maIe sIngef named
Hofmose who was bufIed wIth hIs Iute besIde hIm, two anonymous human bodIes In
anthfopoId coffIns and the bodIes of a hofse and an ape, each mummIfIed and In Its own
Iig. 7.5 Plun unJ reconstruction of t/e fuçuJe of Tomb 71
An ostfacon foftuItousIy fecovefed ffom the fofecouft of Tomb 71 fIxes the exact date
that wofk on the sIte commenced to 'Yeaf 7 ]of Hatchepsut's feIgn|, spfIng, day 2: the
begInnIng of wofk In the tomb on thIs day'. The steep sIope at the summIt of the hIII
pfesented Senenmut's afchItect wIth an ImmedIate technIcaI pfobIem. The ffont waII of
the tomb couId be cut dIfectIy Into the fock face, but In ofdef to pfovIde the tomb wIth
the tfadItIonaI fofecouft It was necessafy to constfuct an aftIfIcIaI tefface, thIs pfobIem
was soIved by wofkIng on the tefface and the tomb sImuItaneousIy, fecycIIng the debfIs
beIng excavated wIthIn the tomb and usIng It to buIId a buttfessed tefface extendIng
eastwafd ovef the descendIng sIope of the hIII. A Iong but naffow fofecouft was then
sIted on top of the tefface, and two deep pIts of unknown pufpose wefe excavated, one
on each edge of the fofecouft. When the coIIapsed tefface was InvestIgated In 1935÷6
the Intact bufIaI chambef of Ramose and Hatnofef was dIscovefed. WIne IabeIs dated to
Yeaf 7 wIthIn thIs tomb confIfm the date that constfuctIon stafted on Tomb 71 as, gIven
Its posItIon beneath the aftIfIcIaI tefface, thIs chambef must have been excavated befofe
the majof buIIdIng wofk commenced.
The pIan of Tomb 71 Is that of a sImpIe Invefted T-shape extendIng Into the SheIkh
Abd eI-Gufna, topped by a fock-cut shfIne whIch was ofIgInaIIy Intended to house a
statue of Senenmut hoIdIng the PfIncess Nefefufe. The ImposIng façade, cut ffom the
sIopIng fock and extended by the use of stone waIIs so that the tomb fose above the
natufaI sIope of the hIII, has a centfaI doofway and eIght aImost squafe wIndows whIch
admIt IIght Into the tfansvefse entfance haII. ThIs haII, wIth Its eIght faceted coIumns, Its
fow of statue-nIches set Into the westefn waII and Its dIstInctIve decofated ceIIIng,
makes a suItabIy ImpfessIve entfance fof vIsItofs to the tomb.
A taII but naffow axIaI coffIdof extends at fIght-angIes out of the haII, funnIng
westwafds Into the cIIff fof aImost 24 m (78 ft) and endIng In a waII whIch ofIgInaIIy
housed a fed quaftzIte faIse-doof steIa InscfIbed wIth sectIons of Chaptef 148 of the Boo/
of t/e ÐeuJ '. may you gIve to the stewafd Senenmut IIfe, pfospefIty, joy and
endufance'. Above the faIse doof was a smaII stone-IIned statue nIche desIgned to hoId a
statue of the deceased.
The waIIs and ceIIIng of the haII and coffIdof wefe ofIgInaIIy coated wIth fIne pIastef
and IavIshIy decofated wIth coIouffuI mufaIs and paInted hIefogIyphIc texts.
UnfoftunateIy, vefy IIttIe of the ofIgInaI aftwofk now sufvIves, aIthough the coIouffuI
Hathof-headed ffIeze In the haII Is stIII cIeafIy vIsIbIe. One paftIcuIaf scene, depIctIng
the pfesentatIon of a tfIbute by sIx Aegean men (now sadIy feduced to thfee) caffyIng a
vafIety of dIstInctIve vesseIs, Is justIy famous as a contempofafy documentatIon of the
IInks between Egypt and MInoan Cfete dufIng Hatchepsut's feIgn.
The cIeafance of the tomb In 1930 Ied to the dIscovefy of Senenmut's once magnIfIcent
fed-bfown quaftzIte safcophagus, now smashed Into ovef a thousand pIeces and spfead
aII ovef the IntefIof of the tomb and the suffoundIng hIIIsIde. Two ffagments wefe
fecovefed ffom the tomb of the 11th Dynasty VIzIef DagI, mofe than 100 m (328 ft) to
the nofth of Senenmut's tomb, whIIe some of the mofe substantIaI pIeces wefe found to
have been fe-cycIed Into gfIndIng stones and othef usefuI objects by entefpfIsIng IocaIs.
Iafgef ffagments of the safcophagus had aIfeady been coIIected and soId by antIquItIes
tfadefs, and some had even made theIf way Into pfIvate Eufopean coIIectIons. It Is
pefhaps not sufpfIsIng, gIven these cIfcumstances, that Iess than haIf of the safcophagus
and IId have yet been fecovefed.
PaInstakIng feconstfuctIon has shown that the safcophagus was ofIgInaIIy an obIong
box wIth founded cofnefs gIvIng It a caftouche-shaped pIan-fofm. It measufed 236 X 88
× 89 cm (7 ft 9 In x 2 ft 10 In × 2 ft 10 In). The kneeIIng fIgufes of the goddesses IsIs
and Nephthys wefe cafved on the head and foot ends, whIIe the fouf sons of Hofus and
two manIfestatIons of AnubIs decofated the sIdes. InsIde the safcophagus was cafved the
standIng fIgufe of Nut, hef afms stfetched wIde and extendIng up the sIdes of the box.
Funefafy texts taken ffom the Boo/ of t/e ÐeuJ wefe InscfIbed on both the InsIde and the
outsIde waIIs. The extefIof waIIs wefe ofIgInaIIy poIIshed and paInted a dafk fed In an
attempt to enhance the natufaI coIouf of the stone, and touches of yeIIow and bIue paInt
wefe added to hIghIIght detaIIs such as wIgs, bfaceIets and coIIafs. In mafked contfast,
the IId was Ieft pIaIn and unfInIshed.
The undamaged safcophagus must have appeafed hIghIy sImIIaf to the safcophagus
pfepafed fof Hatchepsut In hef foIe as kIng (see Chaptef 4). Many of the measufements
afe IdentIcaI, aIthough Senenmut's safcophagus Is sIIghtIy shoftef and has two founded
ends fathef than a founded head end and a fIat foot end. ThIs sImIIafIty In pIan-fofm Is
pefhaps not sufpfIsIng, gIven that Senenmut was fesponsIbIe fof commIssIonIng and
pefhaps even desIgnIng Hatchepsut's funefafy equIpment, and gIven that thefe afe onIy
a IImIted numbef of pfactIcaI vafIatIons on the basIc safcophagus theme. What Is
sufpfIsIng Is that Senenmut was abIe to acquIfe any fofm of hafd stone safcophagus.
DufIng the 18th Dynasty, bufIaI fof most weaIthy pfIvate EgyptIans InvoIved pIacIng
the mummIfIed body InsIde an anthfopoId wooden coffIn whIch was In tufn pIaced
wIthIn a Iafge shfIne-shaped wooden coffIn. MuItIpIe coffIns wefe occasIonaIIy used In
mofe eIabofate Intefments, but even the muItIpIe coffIns of Yuya and Thuyu, the non-
foyaI pafents of Queen TIy, wefe onIy of gIIded wood. As has aIfeady been noted,
Queens Ahhotep and Ahmose NefeftafI wefe Inteffed In wooden safcophagI, and It Is
possIbIe that the body of TuthmosIs I was aIso ofIgInaIIy housed In a wooden shfIne. A
quaftzIte safcophagus wouId have been a vefy vaIuabIe asset and, In theofy at Ieast,
must have been the gIft of the queen. It may even be that a fejected pfototype foyaI
safcophagus was adapted fof Senenmut's pfIvate use, wIth of wIthout the pefmIssIon of
Its offIcIaI ownef, thIs wouId expIaIn why a few wofd-endIngs In the cafved text have a
femInIne fathef than a mascuIIne fofm, suggestIng that the text had ofIgInaIIy been
Intended fof a woman.
QuaftzIte, a compacted sandstone whIch was both faf mofe pfecIous and faf hafdef to
wofk than gfanIte, occufs natufaIIy at sevefaI sItes In Egypt: at GebeI Ahmaf, just
outsIde modefn CaIfo, between CaIfo and Suez, In the WadI Natfun, In SInaI, at
GebeIeIn, Edfu and Aswan. UnfoftunateIy, It Is not possIbIe to pInpoInt the exact soufce
of the quaftzIte used In Senenmut's safcophagus, but It Is IIkeIy to have come ffom the
GebeI Ahmaf as thIs was the majof quaftzIte quaffy, and we know that bIocks ffom thIs
sIte wefe tfanspofted to Thebes dufIng the 18th Dynasty. The phafaoh had a monopoIy
ovef the quaffyIng of aII hafd stone and, In the cashIess economy of ancIent Egypt, It
was sImpIy not possIbIe ÷ In theofy at Ieast ÷ fof a pfIvate IndIvIduaI to tufn up at the
quaffy and pufchase a bIock of stone fof hIs own use. AII stone was quaffIed on the
ofdef of the monafch and aII the quaffIed stone beIonged to the monafch, aIthough
Senenmut, In hIs foIe as ovefseef, wouId have been In a bettef posItIon than most to
commIssIon hIs own wofk. Howevef, It Is hafd to see how the commIssIonIng and
tfanspoftIng of such a costIy, heavy and Iabouf-IntensIve object couId evef have been
kept secfet ffom the queen. The safcophagus must have been foughed out at the quaffy
befofe beIng tfanspofted up fIvef by bafge to Thebes, a faf mofe dIffIcuIt task than the
tfanspoft of gfanIte down fIvef ffom Aswan as, If the quaftzIte ofIgInated at GebeI
Ahmaf, It had to be moved agaInst the fIow of the fIvef. On affIvaI at Thebes the
safcophagus must have been dfagged ovefIand to SheIkh Abd eI-Gufna and hoIsted up
the steep sIope to the tomb whefe, the unfInIshed state of the IId suggests, the fInaI
cafvIng was peffofmed.
Beneath the pubIIc fooms of Tomb 71, two uneven passageways fun at an obIIque
angIe, eventuaIIy unItIng to fofm a chambef whIch In tufn Ieads Into the tomb of Anen
(Tomb 120). Anen, Second Pfophet of Amen and bfothef of Queen TIy, buIIt hIs tomb to
the nofth of Tomb 71 appfoxImateIy one centufy aftef aII wofk had stopped on
Senenmut's tomb. It was ofIgInaIIy accepted that these subteffanean passageways must
fepfesent the coffIdofs IeadIng to Senenmut's bufIaI chambef, an IntefpfetatIon whIch
was based mofe upon the cuffent beIIef that Senenmut had fuIIy Intended to be bufIed
wIthIn hIs tomb ÷ but whefe? ÷ than on stfIct afchaeoIogIcaI evIdence. Thefe Is now
consIdefabIe doubt that these coffIdofs wefe evef deIIbefateIy IInked to Tomb 71, the
possIbIIIty that they fepfesent tunneIIIng ffom the tomb of Anen whIch has weakened
the fIoof of the oIdef tomb, causIng It to coIIapse, Is wofthy of sefIous consIdefatIon. It Is
ceftaInIy dIffIcuIt to see how the passageways couId have been entefed ffom Tomb 71,
and thefe Is now no tface of an entfance of veftIcaI pIt In the sufvIvIng fIoof of the
axIaI coffIdof. UnfoftunateIy, the passages cannot now be fuIIy expIofed as they have
been compIeteIy bIocked wIth debfIs.
If the subteffanean coffIdofs afe to be excIuded ffom ouf consIdefatIon, whefe then
shouId we Iook fof the bufIaI chambef? The fact that Senenmut was pfepafed to go to a
gfeat deaI of tfoubIe to have hIs pfecIous safcophagus deIIvefed to Tomb 71 IndIcates
that he was, at the tIme the safcophagus was commIssIoned, fuIIy IntendIng to be
Inteffed thefe. Thefefofe we may concIude that he must have pIanned a bufIaI chambef
wIthIn the tomb. The two deep pIts excavated Into the tomb fofecouft may possIbIy
fepfesent unfInIshed bufIaI shafts but, gIven theIf sIze and posItIon, thIs seems unIIkeIy.
The nofthefn pIt Is now InaccessIbIe and the southefn pIt, whIch Is 7 m (22 ft 11 In)
deep, shows no tface of a bufIaI chambef. A pIt cut Into the south-east cofnef of the
tfansvefse haII Is, howevef, wofthy of fufthef consIdefatIon.
The pIt descends fof 1.9 m
(6 ft 2 In) and then opens Into a smaII foom measufIng 3.5 x 1 x 1.05 m (11 ft 5 In x 3 ft
3 In x 3 ft 5 In). At fIfst sIght It may be feIt that the cfamped sIze of thIs chambef makes
It a vefy unIIkeIy fInaI festIng pIace fof the gfeat Senenmut, and mofe IIkeIy that It was
Intended fof the subsIdIafy bufIaI of a membef of hIs famIIy. Howevef, It was not
customafy to Intef 18th Dynasty pfIvate IndIvIduaIs wIth Iafge numbefs of gfave goods,
and a bufIaI chambef onIy needed to be Iafge enough to house the deceased's
safcophagus of coffIn pIus hIs canopIc jafs. TfadItIonaIIy It was the uppef, pubIIc, paft
of the tomb whIch needed to be both spacIous and ImposIng, the actuaI bufIaI chambef
was feIatIveIy unImpoftant and couId be as smaII as was pfactIcaIIy possIbIe. In the
absence of any mofe obvIous bufIaI shafts, we must concIude that thIs smaII chambef
was Senenmut's Intended fInaI festIng pIace.
Senenmut's tomb was substantIaIIy compIete when aII buIIdIng wofk ceased, onIy the
bufIaI chambef and the fock-cut shfIne above the tomb wefe obvIousIy unfInIshed, and
the Iattef may weII aIfeady have been abandoned due to fIaws In the natufaI fock. At
some poInt foIIowIng Its compIetIon, howevef, Tomb 71 suffefed a gfeat deaI of
damage. Some of thIs, such as the coIIapse of the ceIIIng In the tfansvefse haII and the
extensIve damage to the paInted pIastef waIIs, Is a natufaI fesuIt of the poof quaIIty of
the fock on the SheIkh Abd eI-Gufna. Othef damage appeafs to have been entIfeIy
deIIbefate ÷ a detefmIned If somewhat IneffectIve attempt to physIcaIIy femove the
name and Image of Senenmut ffom the tomb. Fof a Iong tIme It was accepted that thIs
desecfatIon had occuffed soon aftef Senenmut's death, InstIgated by eIthef Hatchepsut of
TuthmosIs III. Howevef, the afchaeoIogIcaI evIdence Is not entIfeIy consIstent wIth thIs
theofy. WhIIe It Is tfue that a deIIbefate attempt has been made to efase the names of
both Senenmut and Hatchepsut, the names 'Amen', 'Mut' and 'gods' have aIso been
excIsed ffom sectIons of the ceIIIng, ImpIyIng that at Ieast some of the damage may have
occuffed dufIng the Amafna pefIod. Fufthef odd spots of fandom vandaIIsm ÷ such as
attacks on the face of Hathof IncIuded In the waII ffIeze ÷ femaIn undated, but pfobabIy
occuffed dufIng the ChfIstIan efa.
As news affIved of the end of the Gfeat Stewafd, ofdefs wefe gIven to cIose up hIs pfesumptuous new tomb. The job was
done as quIckIy as possIbIe. HastIIy gathefIng togethef bfIcks and stones at the mouth of the tomb, they stafted to waII It
up, but the wofk dId not go fast enough, and befofe they had fInIshed theIf waII they gave It up and faked down dIft just
enough to covef ovef the doofway.
Senenmut's second tomb, Tomb 353, was a faf mofe secfetIve affaIf wIth a conceaIed
entfance sunk Into the fIoof of the Iafge quaffy whIch was then beIng used to pfovIde
matefIaI fof the constfuctIon of the Ðjeser-Ðjeseru causeway. ThIs agaIn pfoved to be a
sIte weII chosen fof Its pufpose. Aftef Its abandonment the tomb, Its unImposIng
entfance now bIocked by mud-bfIcks and covefed by Iayefs of debfIs and deseft sand,
vanIshed ffom the hIstofIcaI fecofd, onIy to be fedIscovefed by chance In 1927.
UnfoftunateIy, the newIy dIscovefed tomb was compIeteIy empty.
In pIan, the tomb consIsts of thfee subteffanean chambefs IInked togethef by thfee
descendIng stepped passageways. The uppef chambef (Chambef A) Is the most
compIete, wIth the waIIs smoothed and pfeIImInafy desIgns sketched on the waIIs and
ceIIIng. Chambef B, a fectanguIaf foom wIth a fIat ceIIIng, was Ieft wIth fough waIIs,
whIIe Chambef C, a vauIted chambef, has waIIs whIch have been dfessed but not
decofated. The noftheast cofnef of Chambef C contaIns a veftIcaI shaft 1.5 m (4 ft 11
In) deep, wIth two nIches openIng off the shaft. The nofthefn nIche, whIch has a vauIted
ceIIIng, measufes 0.9 m (2 ft 11 In) hIgh, whIIe the eastefn nIche had a fIat ceIIIng and
measufes onIy 0.7 m (2 ft 3 In) In heIght.
The unfInIshed natufe of the decofatIon, pIus the pfesence of buIIdefs' fubbIe In
Chambefs A and B, ImpIIes that the afchItects empIoyed at Ieast two majof buIIdIng
phases, and that Chambef A had been constfucted and aImost compIeted befofe It was
decIded to extend the tomb by buIIdIng Chambefs B and C. It wouId othefwIse be
dIffIcuIt to expIaIn why Chambef A was the mofe hIghIy decofated foom, as It wouId
sufeIy have been mofe sensIbIe fof the aftIsts to wofk backwafds towafds the entfance,
fIfst decofatIng Chambef C, fetfeatIng to Chambef B and then fInaIIy to Chambef A. We
have no date fof the commencement of wofk at Tomb 353, but the stfatIgfaphy of
Iig. 7.6 Plun of Tomb S5S
the quaffy IndIcates that the fIfst buIIdIng phase was weII undefway by Yeaf 16.
UnIIke Tomb 71, Tomb 353 has suffefed mInImaI dIstufbance ovef the centufIes. Thefe
has been some sIIght natufaI damage caused by the extfusIon of saIt ffom the waIIs and
ceIIIngs, some ancIent accIdentaI damage whIch the ofIgInaI wofkmen have fepaIfed
wIth pIastef, and some fathef fandom attacks on faces on the waIIs of Chambef A.
Howevef, thefe has been no attempt to efase eIthef text of the names of Senenmut of
Hatchepsut, and Senenmut's Image Is stIII pfesent In hIs tomb. The waIIs of Chambef A
afe decofated wIth coIumns of IncIsed hIefogIyphs fecofdIng a vafIety of speIIs and
funefaI IItufgIes desIgned to ease Senenmut's joufney to the FIeId of Reeds: 'O you who
afe IIvIng In the two Iands, you scfIbes and Iectof pfIests, you who afe wIse and who
adofe god, fecIte the tfansfIgufatIon speIIs fof the stewafd Senenmut. Thefe afe aIso
sevefaI fepfesentatIons of Senenmut, hIs bfothef Amenemhat and KIng Hatchepsut, and
a faIse-doof steIa facIng the entfance ffom the quaffy. Howevef, It Is the decofated foof
whIch has excIted the attentIon of schoIafs, as thIs fepfesents the eafIIest known
astfonomIcaI ceIIIng In Egypt. It IncIudes a caIendaf fecofdIng Iunaf months,
fepfesentatIons of the nofthefn consteIIatIons and IIIustfatIons of the pIanets Mafs,
Venus, JupItef and Satufn.
The cIeafIy dIffefIng natufe of the two 'tombs' descfIbed above makes It unIIkeIy that
they wefe evef Intended fof the same pufpose. Instead, It seems that Senenmut,
aIthough ofIgInaIIy IntendIng to be bufIed In Tomb 71 - to the extent that he ofdefed hIs
pfecIous safcophagus to be deIIvefed thefe ÷ had fInaIIy eIected to buIId hImseIf a hIghIy
vIsIbIe funefafy chapeI and a sepafate, hIdden, bufIaI chambef. The two monuments
shouId thefefofe be pfopefIy fegafded as fofmIng the two haIves of one whoIe. The
typIcaI 18th Dynasty pfIvate Theban tomb consIsted of a T-shaped supefstfuctufe and a
smaII bufIaI chambef feached vIa a shaft whIch couId be sIted anywhefe wIthIn eIthef
the funefafy chapeI of the chapeI couftyafd. The funefafy chapeI was the pubIIc paft of
the tomb whefe vIsItofs couId offef to the deceased, the bufIaI chambef was compIeteIy
pfIvate. ThIs desIgn had fIfst been used by the ubIquItous afchItect InenI, who had fe-
deveIoped an oId MIddIe KIngdom pfIvate tomb wIth a poftIcoed ffont, fIIIIng In the
gaps between the pIIIafs to make the desIfed T-shape.
Senenmut was ceftaInIy not the onIy offIcIaI to expefIment wIth a vafIatIon on InenI's
theme. The eafIy 18th Dynasty was a pefIod of InnovatIon In pfIvate tomb afchItectufe
and, fof exampIe, hIs contempofafy Amenemope aIso decIded to sepafate the two
dIstInct eIements of hIs tomb, buIIdIng a funefafy chapeI In the Theban hIIIs and a
sepafate bufIaI chambef In the VaIIey of the KIngs. IIke Amenemope, Senenmut wouId
have dIscovefed cIeaf advantages to the bI-paftIte tomb. Tomb 71 was buIIt In a hIghIy
pfestIgIous IocatIon wIth an exceIIent vIew ovef the necfopoIIs, but not founded on good
fock, tunneIIIng undef the pubIIc fooms wouId have been both dIffIcuIt and dangefous,
and IntfIcate waII cafvIng was ImpossIbIe. In dIfect contfast, Tomb 353 was buIIt ffom
fIfm fock, aIIowIng safe tunneIIIng and detaIIed cafvIng and wIth the addItIonaI benefIt
of beIng compafatIveIy InconspIcuous and thefefofe faf mofe secufe ffom the unwanted
attentIons of tomb fobbefs.
GIven that Senenmut was not the onIy 18th Dynasty offIcIaI to buIId hImseIf an
atypIcaI tomb, It wouId appeaf unIIkeIy that he couId evef have been cfItIcIzed fof
usufpIng a foyaI pfefogatIve, paftIcuIafIy as It Is now feaIIzed that the façade of Tomb
71 was by no means a stfaIght copy of the façade of the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe. He couId
ceftaInIy be cfItIcIzed fof tunneIIIng undef the pfecIncts of the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe, and
thefeby IInkIng hIs tomb wIth that of the queen, If anyone had feaIIzed that thIs was
whefe hIs undefgfound passages wefe tendIng. Howevef, It Is by no means ceftaIn that
thIs was Senenmut's pfIncIpaI IntentIon, as the passages foIIow a foute whIch seem
desIgned sImpIy to expIoIt the IocaI fock to best advantage. It must thefefofe be
questIoned whethef Senenmut evef Intended hIs pIans fof Tomb 353 to be kept secfet
ffom the queen. It wouId ceftaInIy have been vefy dIffIcuIt, If not ImpossIbIe, to
undeftake such a massIve pfoject wIthout some wofd of IIIIcIt excavatIons feachIng the
paIace and It seems faf mofe IogIcaI to assume, In the face of any evIdence to the
contfafy, that Hatchepsut both knew and appfoved of Senenmut's funefafy
The hIstofIcaI fecofd Is tantaIIzIngIy sIIent ovef the mattef of Senenmut's death. AII we
know Is that he fetIfed abfuptIy ffom pubIIc IIfe at some poInt between Hatchepsut's
fegnaI Yeafs 16 and 20, and was nevef Inteffed In eIthef of hIs cafefuIIy pfepafed
tombs. What couId have happened to hIm? The enIgma of Senenmut's sudden
dIsappeafance Is one whIch has teased egyptoIogIsts fof decades, the Iack of soIId
afchaeoIogIcaI and textuaI evIdence aIIowIng the vIvId ImagInatIons of Senenmut-
schoIafs to fun wIId, and fesuItIng In a vafIety of fefventIy heId soIutIons, some of whIch
wouId do cfedIt to any fIctIonaI mufdef, mystefy pIot.
As the most sImpIe expIanatIon, no mattef how duII, Is often the coffect one, we
mIght expect to fInd that Senenmut pfe-deceased Hatchepsut, eIthef dyIng of natufaI
causes of, In a mofe meIodfamatIc tufn of pIot, beIng kIIIed by the agents of TuthmosIs
III. If, as seems IIkeIy, he had stafted hIs foyaI cafeef dufIng the feIgn of TuthmosIs I,
Senenmut wouId have been an eIdefIy man of between fIfty and seventy yeafs of age by
Yeaf 16, and hIs death wouId not have been unexpected. Why then was he not bufIed In
hIs Intended tomb? CouId Senenmut feaIIy have met hIs death abfoad, of have been
dfowned In the NIIe, of even been bufned to death? Any of these unIIkeIy tfagedIes
wouId expIaIn the Iack of a body fof bufIaI, but wouId such a catastfophe feaIIy have
passed unfecofded on any contempofafy monument? DId Senenmut dIe befofe hIs bufIaI
chambef was compIeted, and was he thefefofe Inteffed In a makeshIft gfave? Is It even
possIbIe that Senenmut had a thIfd, even mofe secfet tomb, stIII waItIng to be
SpecuIatIon that the unexpected death of PfIncess Nefefufe caused Senenmut to Iose
aII InfIuence wIth the queen, IeadIng to hIs gfaduaI fetIfement ffom pubIIc IIfe, appeafs
Iess convIncIng, not Ieast because thefe Is no pfoof that Nefefufe pfedeceased hef tutof.
In any case, wouId anythIng as mIId as eafIy fetIfement ffom couft have pfevented
Senenmut ffom beIng bufIed In hIs Intended tomb?
Mofe dfamatIc accounts of Senenmut's dIsappeafance wefe popuIaf dufIng the Iate
nIneteenth and eafIy twentIeth centufIes. These pIaced gfeat feIIance upon the fact that
many of Senenmut's monuments wefe vandaIIzed foIIowIng hIs death, IndIcatIng that
someone hafboufed a pefsonaI gfudge agaInst the poweffuI stewafd of Amen. ThIs, set
agaInst the vIvId backgfound of a feudIng foyaI couft IffetfIevabIy spIIt Into
IffeconcIIabIe factIons, suggested that hIs faII ffom gface may have been the fesuIt of a
majof dIsagfeement wIth the queen. If Senenmut was dIsmIssed by Hatchepsut, It was
afgued, It was aImost ceftaInIy due to hIs affogant assumptIon of pfIvIIeges hIthefto
fesefved fof foyaIty. CeftaInIy the queen had the powef to dIspose of hef advIsefs as she
wIshed but, as thIs chaptef has shown, thefe Is faf Iess evIdence fof the usufpatIon of
foyaI pfefogatIves than has pfevIousIy been supposed. CouId they have quaffeIIed ovef
somethIng mofe sefIous? SuggestIons fof such a quaffeI have fanged ffom a Iovefs' tIff
to Senenmut's defectIon to the fIvaI poIItIcaI pafty of TuthmosIs III.
A vafIant on the vengeance theme has Senenmut sufvIvIng Hatchepsut, onIy to be
kIIIed by the suppoftefs of TuthmosIs III. Iess dfamatIc, and equaIIy IackIng In pfoof, Is
the suggestIon that Senenmut outIIved Hatchepsut and pefhaps even contInued to sefve
undef TuthmosIs III befofe dyIng a natufaI death. The Image of a vengefuI TuthmosIs
futhIessIy houndIng hIs fofmef co-fegent's suppoftefs has often featufed In
feconstfuctIons of Senenmut's IIfe. We now know that thIs thIfst fof vengeance may
have been consIdefabIy ovefstated. At Ieast some of Hatchepsut's pfIncIpaI advIsefs
contInued to sefve undef TuthmosIs III, IncIudIng the afchItect Puyemfe, the chIef
tfeasufefs TIy and Sennefef, and the chIef stewafd Wadjet-Renpet. The fecovefy of a
headIess statue of Senenmut, engfaved wIth the caftouche of TuthmosIs III and
appafentIy housed fof a tIme In Ðjeser-A//et, the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe of TuthmosIs III,
IndIcates that the new kIng may not have wIshed to entIfeIy obIItefate the memofy of
an outstandIng bufeaucfat who sefved hIs countfy weII.
Many of Senenmut's monuments wefe attacked foIIowIng hIs death, when an attempt
was made to deIete hIs memofy by efasIng both hIs name and hIs Image. It was
ofIgInaIIy assumed that these defacements wefe caffIed out soon aftef Senenmut's
demIse eIthef by Hatchepsut ÷ the unbaIanced and IffatIonaI actIons of a woman
scofned ÷ of by TuthmosIs III ÷ the cooI fevenge of the dIspIaced monafch. FoIIowIng
thIs IIne of feasonIng, the vandaIIsm must fepfesent a ffenzIed pefsonaI attack aImed
specIfIcaIIy agaInst Senenmut. If thIs Is the case, It Is feasonabIe to assume that those
fesponsIbIe fof the defacements may aIso have been fesponsIbIe fof Senenmut's sudden
faII ffom powef. Howevef, feaIIzatIon Is gfowIng that the attacks on Senenmut's
monuments may have been a mInof paft of a wIdef pIan of defacement, aImed eIthef at
the memofy of Hatchepsut of at the god Amen who was paftIcuIafIy IInked wIth
Senenmut. The assauIts on Senenmut's name and Image may thefefofe not be
specIfIcaIIy IInked to Senenmut's pefsonaI stofy, and may not have been pefpetfated by
those who schemed to bfIng about hIs death. Fof thIs feason, It Is not possIbIe to dIscuss
the defacement of Senenmut's monuments wIthout aIso consIdefIng the attacks agaInst
Hatchepsut's name and monuments whIch occuffed at some tIme foIIowIng the death of
the queen.
The End and the Aftermath
Now my /eurt turns t/is wuy unJ t/ut, us I t/in/ w/ut t/e people will suy. T/ose w/o s/ull see my monuments in yeurs to
come, unJ w/o s/ull speu/ of w/ut I /uve Jone.
Aftef mofe than twenty yeafs as fuIef of Egypt Hatchepsut, by now an 'eIdefIy' woman
between thIfty-fIve and fIfty-fIve yeafs of age, pfepafed to dIe and IIve fof evef In the
FIeId of Reeds. Hef funefafy pfepafatIons wefe weII undefway, hef moftuafy tempIe
was aIfeady estabIIshed, and Hatchepsut was ffee to set hef wofIdIy affaIfs In ofdef.
TuthmosIs III was hef Intended successof, and we staft to see an obvIous shIft In the
baIance of powef as the fuIIy matufe kIng emefges ffom feIatIve obscufIty and stafts to
assume a mofe pfomInent foIe In mattefs of state. We now fInd TuthmosIs standIng
besIde fathef than behInd hIs stepmothef, actIng In aII ways as a tfue kIng of Egypt.
TuthmosIs, as commandef-In-chIef of the afmy, assumed the onefous fesponsIbIIIty of
defendIng Egypt's bofdefs. Egypt was aIfeady beIng tfoubIed by spofadIc outbfeaks of
unfest amongst hef cIIent states to the east, these mInof InsuffectIons wefe to cuImInate
In the open febeIIIons whIch domInated much of TuthmosIs' subsequent feIgn. TuthmosIs
now found hImseIf fofced to commIt hIs tfoops to the fIfst of the sefIes of mIIItafy
campaIgns whIch wouId pfove necessafy to fe-Impose fIfm contfoI on both NubIa and
the Ievant.
UnfoftunateIy, we have no InenI to pfesefve a detaIIed fecofd of the passIng of the
femaIe phafaoh but, In the absence of any evIdence to the contfafy, we must assume
that Hatchepsut dIed a natufaI death, fIyIng to heaven on the 10th day of the 6th month
of Yeaf 22 (eafIy Febfuafy 1482 BC). The once popuIaf Idea that TuthmosIs, aftef mofe
than twenty yeafs of joInt fuIe, mIght fInaIIy have snapped and eIthef kIIIed of
othefwIse ousted hIs ageIng co-fuIef seems unnecessafIIy meIodfamatIc, TuthmosIs must
have feaIIzed that he had onIy to waIt and aIIow natufe to take hef coufse. Hatchepsut
had aIfeady IIved faf Iongef than mIght have been expected, and tIme was on the young
kIng's sIde.
To TuthmosIs, as successof, feII the duty of bufyIng the oId kIng In ofdef to feInfofce
hIs own cIaIm to fuIe as the IIvIng Hofus. We may thefefofe assume that Hatchepsut was
pfopefIy mummIfIed and aIIowed to fest wIth dIgnIty, IyIng aIongsIde hef fathef In
Tomb KV20. SuggestIons that TuthmosIs mIght have been vIndIctIve enough to deny
Hatchepsut hef kIngIy bufIaI have often been made, but agaIn these theofIes have
genefaIIy been based on the assumptIon of TuthmosIs' hatfed fof hIs co-fuIef whIch, as
we shaII see beIow, has been shown to be an ovefsImpIIfIcatIon of events foIIowIng
Hatchepsut's death.
OnIy one pIece of matefIaI evIdence has been put fofwafd to
suggest that Hatchepsut's safcophagus may nevef have been occupIed. When, In 1904,
Howafd Caftef managed to fofce hIs way past the fubbIe whIch bIocked the entfance to
the bufIaI chambef of KV20, he found that the tomb had aIfeady been fansacked. The
two safcophagI and the matchIng canopIc chest wefe IyIng empty and the femaInIng
gfave goods had been feduced to wofthIess pIIes of smashed shefds and paftIaIIy bufned
ffagments of wood. The body of TuthmosIs I had, In fact, been femoved pfIof to the
fobbefy by wofkmen actIng on the ofdefs of TuthmosIs III, and had been tfans-feffed to
the new tomb, KV38, whIch was ItseIf In tufn to be fobbed In antIquIty. InsIde KV20 the
IId of TuthmosIs' safcophagus was Ieft pfopped agaInst the waII whefe the necfopoIIs
offIcIaIs had pIaced It In ofdef to aIIow them suffIcIent foom to manoeuvfe the body
ffom the tomb. The IId of Hatchepsut's safcophagus, supposedIy dIsIodged by the tomb
fobbefs, was fepoftedIy found IyIng Intact and face upwafds ovef 5 m (16 ft 5 In) away
ffom Its base. ThIs posItIon Is
Iig. S.1 T/e curtouc/e of King Tut/mosis III
somewhat unexpected, too heavy to sImpIy IIft, we mIght have expected to fInd evIdence
that the thIeves used bafs and wedges to pfIse up the IId, aIIowIng It to faII face
downwafds ImmedIateIy by the sIde of the safcophagus.
CouId It be that the IId had nevef been pIaced on the safcophagus, and that Caftef had
In fact found It IyIng whefe the ofIgInaI 18th Dynasty cfaftsmen had abandoned It? By
extensIon, thIs wouId IndIcate that Hatchepsut's body was nevef Inteffed wIthIn KV 20.
Howevef, thIs Is a vefy sIIght and dubIous pIece of evIdence on whIch to base a
feconstfuctIon of events at Hatchepsut's death. We have no photogfaph of pIan of the
tomb at the moment of fe-entfy, but examInatIon of Caftef's paIntIng of the IntefIof of
the bufIaI chambef pIaInIy shows both the safcophagus and Its IId, whIch Is not IyIng
neatIy on the fIoof but Is foughIy dIspIaced on top of what seem to be heaps of debfIs
and smashed gfave goods.
Caftef hImseIf teIIs us that when he entefed the tomb 'the
safcophagus of the queen was open, wIth the IId IyIng at the head on the fIoof. neIthef
of the safcophagI appeafed to be in situ, but showed sIgns of handIIng'. It wouId
thefefofe appeaf most IIkeIy that It was Caftef of hIs wofkmen who moved the IId to Its
fInaI festIng pIace whIIe cIeafIng out the chambef.
Ffagments of Hatchepsut's anthfopoId wooden coffIn ÷ a sufe IndIcatIon that she had
Indeed been accofded a decent bufIaI ÷ wefe eventuaIIy fecovefed ffom KV4, the tomb
of Ramesses XI, whIch had yIeIded bfoken aftIfacts ffom the bufIaIs of sevefaI eafIIef
phafaohs IncIudIng, as the excavatofs noted, 'numefous pIeces of wood ffom the funefaI
fufnItufe of some of the kIngs of the EIghteenth Dynasty. fendefed Into smaII sIIvefs
that fesembIed kIndIIng'.
It wouId appeaf that, dufIng the ThIfd IntefmedIate PefIod,
the tomb of Ramesses XI had been used as a tempofafy wofkshop whefe the necfopoIIs
offIcIaIs couId festofe of fe-wfap damaged mummIes and pfocess the aftIfacts fecovefed
ffom eafIIef bufIaIs, In paftIcuIaf those of Hatchepsut and TuthmosIs III. StfIpped of
theIf most vaIuabIe fecycIabIe aspects (fof exampIe, the gIIded-gesso sufface of the
coffIn of TuthmosIs III was adzed cIean, the goId was pfesumabIy meIted down and fe-
used, the coffIn was stIII functIonaI aIthough Iess decofatIve and was ceftaInIy Iess IIkeIy
to attfact the attentIon of tomb fobbefs) the gfave goods wefe sent togethef wIth the
bodIes of theIf ownefs to the cache at DeIf eI-BahfI fof pefmanent stofage.
The femaIndef of Hatchepsut's funefafy equIpment Is now Iost, aIthough a dfaughts-
boafd and a 'thfone' (actuaIIy the base and Iegs of a couch of bed), saId to have been
fecovefed ffom the DeIf eI-BahfI cache and pfesented to the BfItIsh Museum by the
MancunIan egypto-IogIcaI benefactof Jesse Howafth In 1887, have been IdentIfIed as
beIongIng to Hatchepsut on the basIs of a wooden caftouche-shaped IId saId to have
been found wIth them. Howevef, thIs IdentIfIcatIon Is by no means ceftaIn, the Revefend
GfevIIIe Chestef, who obtaIned the aftIfacts on behaIf of Mf Howafth, had hImseIf
acquIfed them ffom an Afab who had supposedIy fecovefed them '. hIdden away In
one of the sIde chambefs of the tomb of Ramesses IX ]KV6|, undef the Ioose stones
whIch encumbef the pIace'.
Hatchepsut's body has nevef been IdentIfIed. Howevef, the DeIf eI-BahfI cache whIch
pfotected most of the 18th Dynasty foyaI mummIes IncIudIng TuthmosIs I(?), II and III,
aIso IncIuded an anonymous and coffIn-Iess New KIngdom femaIe body togethef wIth at
Ieast one empty femaIe coffIn and a decofated wooden box beafIng the name and tItIes
of Hatchepsut and contaInIng a mummIfIed IIvef of spIeen. We afe thefefofe faced wIth
the possIbIIIty that these femaIe femaIns may IncIude eIthef aII of paft of the mIssIng
kIng. Fufthef anonymous 18th Dynasty femaIe femaIns have been fecovefed ffom the
tomb of Amenhotep II (KV 35), whIch was used as a stofage depot fof a coIIectIon of
dIspossessed New KIngdom mummIes. ThIs tomb yIeIded sIxteen bodIes IncIudIng two
unIdentIfIed women, eIthef of them potentIaI Hatchepsuts, who afe now known as the
'EIdef Iady' and the 'Youngef Iady'. The Youngef Iady Is aImost ceftaInIy too young to
be Hatchepsut whIIe the EIdef Iady, thought to be a woman In hef foftIes, was fof a
Iong tIme IdentIfIed as the Iatef 18th Dynasty Queen TIy. Howevef, fecent X-fay
anaIysIs suggests that thIs Iady may In fact have been Iess eIdefIy than had been
supposed, she appeafs to have dIed when somewhefe between twenty-fIve and thIfty-
fIve yeafs of age. It must be stfessed that mummy-ages obtaIned by X-fay anaIysIs do
need to be tfeated wIth a degfee of cautIon. The suggested X-fay age of thIfty-fIve to
fofty yeafs fof the body of TuthmosIs III Is, fof exampIe, pIaInIy IncompatIbIe wIth the
hIstofIcaI fecofds whIch IndIcate that he feIgned as kIng fof ovef fIfty yeafs. Howevef, If
the anaIysIs of the 'EIdef Iady' Is coffect, It wouId appeaf that she too may have dIed
too young to be Hatchepsut.
Mofe IntfIguIng Is the suggestIon that Hatchepsut may be IdentIfIed wIth the body of
the anonymous Iady dIscovefed In KV60, the tomb of the foyaI nufse SItfe. When It was
dIscovefed by Caftef In 1903, thIs tomb stIII housed Its two badIy damaged femaIe
mummIes, that of SItfe hefseIf, and that of a paftIaIIy unwfapped, obese mIddIe-aged
woman wIth wofn teeth and fed-goId haIf. ThIs Iady had been appfoxImateIy 1.55 m (5
ft 1 In) taII and had been mummIfIed wIth hef Ieft afm acfoss hef chest In the typIcaI
18th Dynasty foyaI bufIaI posItIon. Hef obesIty had appafentIy made It ImpossIbIe fof
the embaImefs to foIIow the usuaI custom of femovIng the entfaIIs vIa a cut In the sIde,
and she had Instead been evIscefated thfough the peIvIc fIoof. Caftef had not been
paftIcuIafIy Intefested In the tomb ÷ he was IookIng fof an Intact foyaI bufIaI whIch
wouId pIease hIs sponsof, Iofd Cafnafvon ÷ and, IeavIng thIngs pfetty much as he had
found them, seaIed It up agaIn and depafted. The EngIIsh afchaeoIogIst Edwafd Ayfton
had fe-entefed the tomb In 1906 and femoved the Iady SItfe and hef wooden coffIn to
CaIfo Museum, but the unknown Iady had been Ieft IyIng In a fathef undIgnIfIed
posItIon fIat on hef back In the mIddIe of the bufIaI chambef. The tomb entfance was
subsequentIy feseaIed, and fofgotten. When the AmefIcan egyptoIogIst DonaId P. Ryan
fe-dIscovefed the tomb In 1989, he pfovIded the Iady wIth a wooden coffIn, and
subsequentIy the bufIaI was pfotected by fIttIng a doof to the tomb. SevefaI authofItIes
have tentatIveIy suggested that thIs unIdentIfIed Iady mIght be none othef than
Hatchepsut who mIght have been femoved ffom the neafby KV 20 foIIowIng a fobbefy
and hIdden fof safety In KV 60. Iess IIkeIy Is the theofy that TuthmosIs III denIed hIs
stepmothef an offIcIaI bufIaI and Instead Inteffed hef aIongsIde hef oId nufse.
The funefaI ovef, TuthmosIs III embafked upon thIfty-thfee yeafs of soIo fuIe. He was
ImmedIateIy faced wIth fevoIt amongst a coaIItIon of hIs PaIestInIan and SyfIan vassaIs
unIted undef the bannef of the PfInce of Kadesh (a poweffuI cIty state on the RIvef
Ofontes) and backed by the KIng of MItannI, and he stafted a Iengthy sefIes of mIIItafy
campaIgns desIgned to stfengthen Egypt's posItIon In the Neaf East. HIs aIm, as he teIIs
us, was to 'ovefthfow that vIIe enemy and to extend the boundafIes of Egypt In
accofdance wIth the command of hIs fathef Amen-Re'. By Yeaf 33 the weakef cIIent
states had aII been subdued, and TuthmosIs was abIe to emuIate hIs esteemed
gfandfathef by cfossIng the RIvef Euphfates, defeatIng the afmy of the KIng of MItannI
and then fetufnIng to Egypt vIa SyfIa whefe, In estabIIshed TuthmosIde tfadItIon, he
enjoyed a magnIfIcent eIephant hunt. By Yeaf 42, aftef twenty-one yeafs of IntefmIttent
fIghtIng, the boundafIes of the empIfe wefe at Iast secufe and TuthmosIs was abIe to
feIax Into oId age. HIs tfIumphs, howevef, wefe not to be fofgotten. TuthmosIs shafed
Hatchepsut's Iove of seIf-pfomotIon, and hIs campaIgns wefe fecofded fof postefIty and
fof the gIofy of Amen on the waIIs of the newIy-buIIt 'HaII of AnnaIs' at Kafnak, whefe:
HIs majesty commanded to fecofd the ]vIctofIes hIs fathef Amen had gIven hIm| by an InscfIptIon In the tempIe whIch hIs
majesty had made fof ]hIs fathef Amen so as to fecofd| each campaIgn, togethef wIth the booty whIch ]hIs majesty| had
bfought ]ffom It and the tfIbute of evefy fofeIgn Iand| that hIs fathef Re had gIven hIm.
Towafds the end of hIs feIgn, hIs fofeIgn pfobIems now settIed, TuthmosIs foIIowed
Hatchepsut In InstIgatIng an ImpfessIve constfuctIon pfogfamme, thefe was yet anothef
phase of buIIdIng at the Kafnak tempIe compIex whIIe aII the majof EgyptIan towns
ffom Kom Ombo to HeIIopoIIs pIus sevefaI sItes In the NIIe DeIta and NubIa benefIted
ffom hIs attentIons. In pfIvate, TuthmosIs appeafs to have been a weII-educated man of
gfeat enefgy ÷ a feaI cfedIt to hIs stepmothef's upbfIngIng. Not onIy was he an actIon
man, a feafIess waffIof, skIIIed hofseman and supefb athIete, he was aIso a famIIy man
bIessed wIth at Ieast two pfIncIpaI wIves, sevefaI secondafy wIves and a bfood of
chIIdfen. In hIs spafe tIme he composed IItefafy wofks and hIs Intefests fanged ffom
botany to feadIng, hIstofy, feIIgIon and even IntefIof desIgn.
TuthmosIs eventuaIIy
appoInted hIs son as co-fegent, and some two yeafs Iatef It was It Amenhotep II, son of
MefItfe-Hatchepsut, who bufIed Egypt's gfeatest waffIof kIng In Tomb KV34 In the
VaIIey of the KIngs. TuthmosIs III had feIgned fof 53 yeafs, 10 months and 26 days.
The mummy of TuthmosIs III, supeffIcIaIIy Intact and IyIng In Its ofIgInaI Innef coffIn,
was fecovefed ffom the DeIf eI-BahfI cache. The mummy was unwfapped and examIned
by EmIIe Bfugsch In 1881, subsequentIy fe-bandaged, and feopened by Maspefo In 1886,
who found that the body was covefed In an unpIeasant 'Iayef of whItIsh natfon chafged
wIth human fat, gfeasy to the touch, foetId and stfongIy caustIc'.
The mummy had, In
fact, been badIy damaged by tomb fobbefs, the head, feet and aII fouf IImbs had become
detached and Maspefo found that the body was actuaIIy heId togethef by fouf wooden
oafs conceaIed beneath the IInen bandages. The face was, howevef, undamaged, and
TuthmosIs was feveaIed to have dIed In hIs fIftIes, aImost compIeteIy baId, wIth a Iow
fofehead, naffow face, deIIcate eafs and the buck teeth so often found In TuthmosIde
famIIy membefs.
At some poInt foIIowIng Hatchepsut's death a sefIous attempt was made to deny hef
exIstence by physIcaIIy femovIng hef pfesence ffom the hIstofIcaI fecofd. Gangs of
wofkmen wefe set to wofk at the vafIous monuments, and soon the name and fIgufes of
Hatchepsut had vanI-Ished, they had been compIeteIy hacked out ÷ often IeavIng a vefy
obvIous Hatchepsut-shaped gap In the mIddIe of a scene ÷ as a pfeIImInafy to
fepIacement by a dIffefent Image of a new foyaI caftouche. At Kafnak hef obeIIsks wefe
waIIed up and Incofpofated Into the vestIbuIe In ffont of pyIon V, whIIe at Ðjeser-Ðjeseru
hef statues and sphInxes wefe tofn down, smashed and fIung Into fubbIsh pIts. ThIs was
not mefeIy a symboIIc gestufe of hatfed, by femovIng evefy tface of the femaIe kIng It
was actuaIIy possIbIe to fewfIte EgyptIan hIstofy, thIs tIme wIthout Hatchepsut. If
Hatchepsut's name was compIeteIy efased she wouId nevef have been, and the
successIon couId now fun ffom TuthmosIs I to TuthmosIs III wIthout any femaIe
The femovaI of the name and Image of a dead pefson, occasIonaIIy caIIed a Jumnutio
memoriue, sefved a duaI pufpose. Not onIy dId It aIIow the fewfItIng of hIstofy, It was
aIso a dIfect assauIt upon the spIfIt of the deceased. TheoIogy dIctated that, In ofdef fof
the spIfIt of souI to IIve fofevef In the FIeId of Reeds, the body, the Image of at Ieast the
name of the deceased must sufvIve on Eafth. If aII memofy of a dead pefson was Iost of
destfoyed, the spIfIt too wouId pefIsh, and thefe wouId come the much dfeaded 'Second
Death', totaI obIItefatIon ffom whIch thefe couId be no fetufn. The effects of the
pfoscfIptIon on the dead Hatchepsut hefseIf wouId thefefofe have been dfastIc. Evefy
Image and caftouche sefved as a fe-affIfmatIon of hef feIgn, not mefeIy a means of
pfesefvIng hef memofy amongst hef contempofafIes and hef futufe subjects, but a
guafantee that she wouId IIve fof evef In the AftefIIfe.
UntII feIatIveIy fecentIy the authof of thIs pfoscfIptIon, and hIs motIves, seemed
obvIous. TuthmosIs III had spent ovef twenty yeafs seethIng wIth hatfed and fesentment
agaInst hIs co-fuIef, what couId be mofe natufaI than to InduIge In one vIndIctIve but
emInentIy satIsfyIng act of defIance agaInst both Hatchepsut and those who had
suppofted hef In hef wofk? Howevef juvenIIe, hIs actIons wefe entIfeIy undefstandabIe:
Two mofe facts of whIch we may be peffectIy ceftaIn afe: 1) that TuthmosIs III obtaIned supfeme contfoI ovef Egypt onIy
aftef many yeafs of humIIIatIng subofdInatIon to Hatchepsut and onIy as the fesuIt of a Iong and bIttef stfuggIe agaInst hIs
aunt and agaInst the capabIe membefs of hef pafty, and 2) that, as a fesuIt of thIs, he came to Independent powef wIth a
IoathIng fof Hatchepsut, hef paftIsans, hef monuments, hef name and hef vefy memofy whIch pfactIcaIIy beggafs
The shattefIng of Hatchepsut's monuments wouId pfesumabIy have bfought about a
cathaftIc feIease, and wouId have made TuthmosIs feeI much, much bettef. Even to those
who champIoned Hatchepsut and hef actIons, TuthmosIs' vandaIIsm couId not be
He had gfown up a shoft, stocky young man fuII of a fIefy NapoIeonIc enefgy, suppfessed up to now but soon to cause the
whoIe known wofId to smaft. Iong sInce he shouId have been soIe fuIef of Egypt but fof Hatchepsut and we hafdIy have to
stfetch ouf ImagInatIons unduIy to pIctufe the bIttefness of such a man agaInst those who had depfIved hIm of hIs
Nof Is thIs actIon entIfeIy fofeIgn to modefn ways of thInkIng. Indeed WInIock
(wfItIng In the 1920s) has compafed the seemIngIy poIntIess destfuctIon of Hatchepsut's
monuments to the IntenseIy patfIotIc pefIod dufIng the FIfst WofId Waf when:
. the names of evefythIng ffom Hambufgef steaks to foyaI famIIIes wefe aItefed In a fefvent desIfe to suppfess memofIes
of the enemy. Pefhaps we afe gettIng a IIttIe tamef than TuthmosIs III ÷ but we can hafdIy pfetend yet that hIs actIons
afe entIfeIy IncompfehensIbIe to us, when we fInd hIm destfoyIng the statues of hIs mothef-In-Iaw.
A mofe modefn pafaIIeI may be dfawn wIth the destfuctIon of the statues of IenIn and
othef natIonaI Ieadefs wItnessed on the wofId's teIevIsIon foIIowIng the coIIapse of the
CommunIst fegImes In the oId Eastefn-bIoc countfIes.
But, howevef pIausIbIe, thIs theofy of the bfoodIng, vengefuI
Iig. S.2 Tut/mosis III being suc/leJ by t/e tree-goJJess Isis
TuthmosIs III Is not entIfeIy consIstent wIth the Image of the nobIe schoIaf, hIstofIan and
soIdIef suggested by the kIng's othef monuments. NavIIIe, wfItIng at the tufn of the
centufy, had aIfeady suggested that TuthmosIs may not have stafted hIs feIgn wIth an
ImmedIate pefsecutIon of Hatchepsut's memofy:
. aII the fecentIy dIscovefed documents tend to pfove that If TuthmosIs III was the authof of a few of these efasufes, he
dId not begIn by makIng them, and they do not beIong to the eafIy yeafs of hIs feIgn. The feIatIons between aunt and
nephew wefe bettef than mIght be beIIeved, and that excIudes the Idea that TuthmosIs III was guIIty of the death of
Hatchepsut. the efa of what has been caIIed the pefsecutIon, made not agaInst the pefson of hIs aunt, but agaInst hef
memofy, must be pIaced at the end of hef feIgn.
NavIIIe based thIs suggestIon on hIs own IntefpfetatIon of a scene dIscovefed on the
femaIns of the dIsmantIed ChapeIIe Rouge. Hefe a kIng, IdentIfIed by NavIIIe as
TuthmosIs III, Is shown offefIng Incense befofe two (ofIgInaIIy thfee) pavIIIons, each of
whIch hoIds a sacfed bafque and shfIne. Hatchepsut hefseIf appeafs In the fofm of two
(ofIgInaIIy sIx) OsIfIde statues standIng one on each sIde of the thfee shfInes, an
unmIstakabIe IndIcatIon to NavIIIe that she Is now dead. The IIvIng TuthmosIs III then
steefs hIs own bafque, possIbIy contaInIng the sacfed embIems of Hatchepsut, towafds
DeIf eI-BahfI. NavIIIe beIIeved that these tabIeaux wefe Intended to fepfesent TuthmosIs
III offIcIatIng at Hatchepsut's apotheosIs as she became unIted wIth the god Amen. He
used thIs IntefpfetatIon to afgue that, If TuthmosIs was pfepafed to compIete the
unfInIshed ChapeIIe Rouge wIth a scene showIng the new kIng effectIveIy wofshIppIng
the oId ÷ fof by Its natufe thIs scene couId onIy have been cafved aftef Hatchepsut's
death ÷ It Is unIIkeIy that he was sImuItaneousIy efasIng hef name ffom othef
UnfoftunateIy, NavIIIe's IngenIous IntefpfetatIon Is now known to be Incoffect. The
ChapeIIe Rouge scene does Indeed show a kIng offefIng Incense befofe the bafque of
Amen, but that kIng Is Intended to be Hatchepsut. AIthough entIfeIy maIe In appeafance
she Is cIeafIy named as 'The Good God, Iady of the Two Iands, Daughtef of Re,
Hatchepsut' and the text makes It cIeaf that the offefIng Is beIng made to Amen and not
Hatchepsut. The whoIe scene Is, In fact, a fepfesentatIon of Hatchepsut offefIng Incense
befofe the ChapeIIe Rouge ItseIf, and we must assume that befofe thIs buIIdIng was
dIsmantIed thefe wefe Indeed two coIossaI mummIfofm statues standIng one on eIthef
sIde of the shfIne. These wouId ceftaInIy not be the onIy OsIfIde statues of Hatchepsut to
be cafved dufIng hef IIfetIme and Indeed, as we have aIfeady seen, Ðjeser-Ðjeseru was
ofIgInaIIy decofated wIth ovef fofty sImIIaf statues.
Howevef, It appeafs that NavIIIe may have been cIose to the tfuth when he suggested
that the ChapeIIe Rouge mIght hoId the key to the date of Hatchepsut's pfoscfIptIon.
Mofe fecent anaIysIs of the 18th Dynasty afchItectufe of the Kafnak tempIe, the so-
caIIed 'Hatchepsut suIte' In paftIcuIaf, has shown that whIIe the effacement of
Hatchepsut's name dId Indeed occuf dufIng the feIgn of TuthmosIs III, It couId not have
occuffed untII feIatIveIy Iate In that feIgn, possIbIy not befofe Yeaf 42.
NavIIIe was
coffect In hIs assumptIon that the ChapeIIe Rouge, faf ffom beIng ImmedIateIy defaced,
was compIeted by TuthmosIs III, who added the topmost fegIstef of decofatIons In hIs
own name and who then cIaImed the shfIne as hIs own, an unIIkeIy actIon fof one who
supposedIy hated Hatchepsut's memofy.
At about thIs tIme TuthmosIs was pIannIng the constfuctIon of hIs own tempIe of
Amen, Ðjeser-A//et, whIch was to be buIIt at DeIf eI-BahfI dIfectIy to the south of Ðjeser-
Ðjeseru, at fIfst sIght, a fathef pefvefse choIce of sIte fof one who couId hafdIy beaf the
sIght of Hatchepsut's name, aIthough It Is possIbIe that the tempIe was buIIt wIth the
specIfIc IntentIon of feducIng the Impoftance of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru.
If so, the pIan was
successfuI, because once Ðjeser-A//et was compIete It took ovef as the focus fof the
ceIebfatIon of the annuaI Feast of the VaIIey. Ðjeser-A//et Is now In a much damaged
state, but It wouId appeaf that It was ofIgInaIIy sImIIaf In desIgn to Ðjeser-Ðjeseru. It too
was buIIt on a faIsed tefface and was appfoached by a bfoad causeway and famp,
aIthough Its geogfaphy dIctated that It couId have no fock-cut sanctuafy. As It was buIIt
on hIghef gfound, Ðjeser-A//et must have domInated Ðjeser-Ðjeseru as Its afchItects
Some yeafs Iatef, TuthmosIs' own buIIdIng pfojects at Kafnak, IncIudIng the
constfuctIon of the HaII of AnnaIs whIch ffom Its texts can have occuffed no eafIIef than
Yeaf 42, InadveftentIy conceaIed a few InscfIptIons and IIIustfatIons feIatIng to
Hatchepsut whIch shouId, had the pfoscfIptIon been In fofce by that tIme, aIfeady have
been efased. Those pafts of the scenes whIch wefe not pfotected by TuthmosIs' buIIdIngs
wefe subsequentIy attacked, whIIe the ChapeIIe Rouge was compIeteIy dIsmantIed, Its
bIocks put In stofage fof subsequent fe-use and Its gfanIte doofways fe-used In the HaII
of AnnaIs. The bIocks of the ChapeIIe Rouge do show some fathef fandom and
IncompIete efasufes, eIthef thIs destfuctIve wofk was haIted befofe It was fuIIy
undefway of, mofe feaIIstIcaIIy, the attacks agaInst the stIII-vIsIbIe Images of Hatchepsut
occuffed aftef the ChapeIIe had been dIsmantIed and Its bIocks had been stacked
÷ It
seems that the fathef sIapdash wofkmen dId not take the tfoubIe to examIne evefy
sufface of evefy bIock, but sImpIy efased aII vIsIbIe fefefences to Hatchepsut. It Is
thefefofe a moot poInt whethef the destfuctIon of the ChapeIIe Rouge shouId actuaIIy be
seen as a paft of the pefsecutIon of Hatchepsut's memofy, common sense wouId suggest
that the buIIdIng was sImpIy demoIIshed to make foom fof the even mofe magnIfIcent
gfanIte shfIne whIch TuthmosIs III Intended to buIId In Its pIace. As we have aIfeady
seen, thIs fathef dfastIc type of 'festofatIon' occuffed wIth feIatIve ffequency at Kafnak,
the bafque shfIne of TuthmosIs III was ItseIf Iatef to be fepIaced by the bafque shfIne of
PhIIIp AffhIdaeus, the haIf-bfothef of AIexandef the Gfeat, who fuIed Egypt as kIng but
who nevef vIsIted hIs adopted countfy.
SImIIafIy, It Is extfemeIy doubtfuI whethef the waIIIng up of Hatchepsut's obeIIsks can
be consIdefed a sefIous attempt at conceaIIng them ffom vIew. It Is, aftef aII, a vefy
dIffIcuIt task to hIde successfuIIy a 29.5 m (97 ft) taII paIf of obeIIsks wIthout IowefIng
them to the gfound. The bases of the obeIIsks, now shfouded In theIf masonfy boxes,
wefe destIned to be Incofpofated In the new vestIbuIe that TuthmosIs was aIfeady
constfuctIng In ffont of pyIon V, and It seems that they, IIke the ChapeIIe Rouge, wefe
sImpIy beIng adapted to fIt In wIth TuthmosIs' buIIdIng pIans. Howevef, If some of the
Hatchepsut 'desecfatIons' afe now open to questIon, thefe can be no doubt about the
thofoughness of othefs. Thfoughout hIs seasons of wofk at DeIf eI-BahfI, H. E. WInIock
was foftunate enough to fInd the femaIns of scofes of statue ffagments, aII of whIch had
been tofn ffom theIf sItes In and afound the tempIe and dumped In the convenIent pIts
and hoIIows Ieft by the contempofafy buIIdIng wofks at the sIte. WInIock was Iatef to
caIcuIate that the tempIe and Its pfocessIonaI way must ofIgInaIIy have been home to
some two hundfed bfIghtIy coIoufed statues and sphInxes, each one a IIkeness of
Hatchepsut hefseIf. The 'Hatchepsut HoIe' dIscovefed by accIdent dufIng the 1922÷3
season beneath the dump of a Iate nIneteenth-centufy excavatIon yIeIded dozens of
IImestone and gfanIte statues and occupIed the wofkfofce of 450 wofkmen fof haIf the
season. Iatef, dufIng the 1926÷7 and 1927÷8 seasons, mofe statue ffagments tufned up
In the neafby 'Senenmut Quaffy' whefe, as theIf excavatof fepofted:
. we found a jumbIe of pIeces of scuIptufe ffom the sIze of a fIngef-tIp to othefs weIghIng a ton of mofe. Thefe wefe
Iafge sectIons of the IImestone coIossI ffom the uppef pofch, bfIIIIantIy coIoufed pIeces ffom the fanks of sandstone
sphInxes whIch had IIned the avenue. and ffagments of at Ieast fouf of fIve kneeIIng statues of the queen In fed and bIack
gfanIte, ovef sIx feet hIgh.
Had these statues been mefeIy thfown out of the tempIe, It wouId seem possIbIe that
they had been femoved dufIng a fofm of ancIent spfIng cIean so that TuthmosIs III,
fepIacIng them wIth statues of hImseIf, couId cIaIm Ðjeser-Ðjeseru as hIs own. The
efasufe of the cafved waII-Images of Hatchepsut mIght then aIso be Intefpfeted as a
pfeIImInafy stage In TuthmosIs' pIan to usufp Hatchepsut's foIe as foundef and patfon of
the tempIe. Howevef, as WInIock noted, the statues showed aII the sIgns of a vIcIous
pefsonaI attack:
They couId onIy have been dfagged out to theIf bufIaI pIace sIowIy and IabofIousIy and the wofkmen had pIenty of
oppoftunIty to vent theIf spIte on the bfIIIIantIy chIseIIed, smIIIng featufes. On the face of an exquIsIteIy cafved fed gfanIte
statue a fIfe had been kIndIed to dIsIntegfate the stone, and the featufes of the statue bfought to the museum have been
battefed entIfeIy away and the ufaeus on the fofehead, the symboI of foyaIty, compIeteIy obIItefated. TuthmosIs III couId
have had no compIaInt to make on the executIon of hIs ofdefs, fof evefy conceIvabIe IndIgnIty had been heaped on the
IIkenesses of the faIIen queen.
Othef statues had undefgone at Ieast two dIstInct stages of vandaIIsm. FIfst the
ufaeus, symboI of kIngshIp, had been knocked off the foyaI headdfess, and then the face
had been dIsfIgufed, the nose beIng bfoken and the eyes beIng cafefuIIy pIcked out wIth
a chIseI, befofe the statue was fInaIIy dfagged ffom Its base and smashed. Some of the
Iafgef ffagments had Iatef been convefted by entefpfIsIng IocaIs Into quefns and
The attempted obIItefatIon of Hatchepsut's memofy has InvafIabIy been IInked wIth the
attacks agaInst Senenmut's name and monuments. Undef the oId theofy, that of Instant
fevenge agaInst Hatchepsut and hef acoIytes, thIs was InevItabIe. The actuaI damage
caused to the monuments of Senenmut Is not, howevef, entIfeIy consIstent wIth thIs
afgument. Indeed, Senenmut's name and Image seem to have suffefed ffom sevefaI
dIffefent types of damage wIthout appeafIng to fIt Into any pfe-ofganIzed pIan.
OccasIonaIIy It was onIy hIs name that was attacked whIIe hIs Image femaIned Intact. At
the othef extfeme some of hIs statues wefe smashed and physIcaIIy thfown out of the
tempIes. He seems, In fact, to have been unfoftunate enough to attfact the attentIons of
sevefaI dIvefse gfoups of campaIgnefs: those who objected to hIm pefsonaIIy, pefhaps
because of hIs feIatIonshIp wIth Hatchepsut, and who thefefofe dIsfIgufed both hIs entIfe
name and hIs Image, those who wefe devoted to the wofshIp of the Aten and who took
exceptIon to ceftaIn eIements of hIs name (whIch contaIns the name of the goddess Mut,
wIfe of Amen), those eafIy ChfIstIan and IsIamIc IconocIasts who foutIneIy objected to
aII pagan Images. Othefs of hIs monuments have mefeIy suffefed the unavoIdabIe
favages of tIme and have, fof exampIe, been feused dufIng Iatef pefIods. Thefe was, as
faf as we can teII, no Intense, systematIc campaIgn agaInst the monuments of Senenmut
as thefe was agaInst the monuments of Hatchepsut. Thefefofe, aIthough a study of the
defacement of the monuments of Senenmut may teII us a gfeat deaI about the attItude of
Iatef genefatIons to theIf hefItage, It teIIs us Iess than we mIght hope about the
pefsecutIon of Hatchepsut's memofy.
One stfIkIng aspect of the campaIgn agaInst Hatchepsut's memofy, and one whIch wIII
pfobabIy have aIfeady become appafent, Is the fact that It was both feIatIveIy shoft-
IIved and somewhat effatIc In executIon. Thfoughout the 18th Dynasty, the femovaI of
an oId name of Image and the fenewaI of a waII In pfepafatIon fof the cafvIng of the
new scene foIIowed thfee weII-estabIIshed stages. FIfst, the oId scene was hacked out
wIth a bfoad chIseI. Next, a fIne ImpIement was used to smooth the fough sufface and
femove the faIsed fIdges and, fInaIIy, the waII was poIIshed and fe-cafved.
In many
cases, howevef, we fInd that Hatchepsut's caftouche and fIgufe wefe mefeIy femoved
and not fepIaced, whIIe hef name was spofadIcaIIy pfesefved at Afmant, on the bIocks
of the ChapeIIe Rouge, at the Speos AftemIdos whefe thefe Is no sIgn of TuthmosIde
efasufes aIthough thefe Is some damage caused by the 'festofatIons' of SetI I, and In
Tomb KV20 whefe the wofkmen who femoved the body of TuthmosIs I seem to have
made no attempt to deface Hatchepsut's own InscfIbed safcophagus, aIthough It Is, of
coufse, possIbIe that the body of TuthmosIs I was femoved befofe the pfoscfIptIon took
effect. At Ðjeser-Ðjeseru It was even possIbIe to fead some of the 'efased' InscfIptIons
whIch had supposedIy been hacked off the tempIe waIIs.
AII thIs evIdence Ieaves the vefy stfong ImpfessIon that the vIndIctIve campaIgn,
whatevef Its ofIgInaI pufpose, was nevef caffIed out to Its IogIcaI concIusIon. EIthef the
desIfed fesuIts had been achIeved befofe the obIItefatIon had been compIeted, of the
Impetus behInd the campaIgn had been femoved. It Is pefhaps not too fancIfuI a Ieap of
the ImagInatIon to suggest that TuthmosIs III, havIng stafted the pefsecutIon feIatIveIy
Iate In hIs feIgn, may have dIed befofe It was concIuded. HIs son and successof
Amenhotep II, wIth no pefsonaI InvoIvement In the campaIgn, may have been content
to aIIow the vendetta to Iapse. It may thefefofe be that Hatchepsut's subsequent
omIssIon ffom the 19th Dynasty kIng IIsts of SetI I and Ramesses II does not necessafIIy
have a sInIstef motIve, pefhaps those who compIIed the IIsts genuIneIy beIIeved hef to
have been a queen-consoft of queen-fegent fathef than a fuII kIng. IfonIcaIIy, It Is
uItImateIy that fact that Hatchepsut had been content to shafe hef feIgn wIth TuthmosIs
III whIch aIIowed futufe genefatIons to fofget hef name. Had she fuIed aIone ÷ havIng
dIscfeetIy femoved hef young co-fegent ÷ hef name must have been pfesefved of eIse
thefe wouId have been an unaccountabIe gap In the kIng IIsts. As she aIways, In theofy,
fuIed aIongsIde TuthmosIs III It was a sImpIe mattef to dfop hef name ffom the
hIstofIcaI fecofd.
ThIs casts a whoIe new IIght on the feasons undefIyIng the pfoscfIptIon of Hatchepsut,
whIIe It Is possIbIe to ImagIne and even empathIze wIth TuthmosIs InduIgIng In a sudden
whIm of hatfed agaInst hIs
Iig. S.S Tut/mosis III unJ /is mot/er Isis, bouting t/roug/ t/e UnJerworlJ
stepmothef ImmedIateIy aftef hef death, It Is faf hafdef to ImagIne hIm ovefcome by
such a whIm some twenty yeafs Iatef. Indeed, If we can no Iongef be ceftaIn that
TuthmosIs hated hIs stepmothef as she Iay on hef deathbed, can we be ceftaIn that he
evef hated hef dufIng hef IIfetIme? Thefe Is ceftaInIy no othef evIdence to suppoft the
assumptIon that he dId. SImIIafIy, we must questIon whethef TuthmosIs' pfImafy motIve
In efasIng the name of Hatchepsut was the pefsecutIon of hef memofy IeadIng to the
death of hef souI, of whethef thIs was mefeIy an unfoftunate sIde-effect of hIs wIsh to
fewfIte hIstofy by makIng hImseIf soIe fuIef. In ofdef to be fuIIy effectIve, a Jumnutio
memoriue fequIfed the compIete obIItefatIon of aII caftouches and aII Images Intended to
fepfesent the deceased. The spIfIt of the dead pefson couId IIngef on If even one name
was Ieft Intact, and TuthmosIs wouId have been weII awafe of thIs. Yet, as we have
seen, the attacks agaInst Hatchepsut's name and Images wefe IackadaIsIcaI, to say the
Ieast. Of coufse, thIs begs the obvIous questIon ÷ If hatfed was not the pfIme motIvatIon
behInd the attacks on Hatchepsut's monuments, what was? What had Hatchepsut done
to desefve thIs IntensIve pefsecutIon?
TuthmosIs III was cIeafIy an InteIIIgent and fatIonaI monafch. AII that we know of hIs
chafactef suggests that he was not gIven to fash, Impetuous acts and It seems IogIcaI to
assume that thfoughout hIs IIfe TuthmosIs was motIvated Iess by uncontfoIIabIe ufges
than by caIcuIated poIItIcaI expedIency. We must thefefofe dIvofce hIs pfIvate emotIons
ffom hIs poIItIcaI actIons, just as we must sepafate the pefson of Hatchepsut the woman
ffom hef foIe as Egypt's femaIe phafaoh. Whatevef hIs pefsonaI feeIIngs towafds hIs
stepmothef, TuthmosIs may weII have found It advIsabIe to femove aII tfaces of the
unconventIonaI femaIe kIng whose feIgn mIght possIbIy be Intefpfeted by futufe
genefatIons as a gfave offence agaInst muut, and whose unofthodox co-fegency mIght
weII cast sefIous doubt upon the IegItImacy of hIs own fIght to fuIe. Hatchepsut's cfIme
need be nothIng mofe than the fact that she was a woman. Wounded maIe pfIde may
aIso have pIayed a paft In hIs decIsIon to act, the mIghty waffIof kIng may have baIked
at beIng fecofded fof postefIty as the man who fuIed fof twenty yeafs undef the thumb
of a mefe woman.
Fufthefmofe, TuthmosIs had aIways to consIdef the possIbIIIty that the fIfst successfuI
femaIe kIng mIght estabIIsh a dangefous pfecedent. UntII now thIs had not been a
dangef. AdmIttedIy thefe had aIfeady been one dynastIc queen-fegnant, but hef feIgn
was genefaIIy acknowIedged to be a bfave faIIufe, a faIIufe whIch had sefved to
undefIIne the tfadItIonaI vIew that a woman was basIcaIIy IncapabIe of hoIdIng the
thfone In hef own fIght. Queen Sobeknoffu had fuIed at the vefy end of a fadIng
Dynasty, and ffom the vefy staft of hef feIgn the odds had been stacked agaInst hef. She
was thefefofe acceptabIe to the consefvatIve EgyptIans as a patfIotIc 'WaffIof Queen'
who had faIIed, and few wouId have seen feason to fepeat the expefIment of a femaIe
Hatchepsut, howevef, was a vefy dIffefent case. By estabIIshIng a Iengthy and
successfuI feIgn In the mIddIe of a fIoufIshIng dynasty she had managed to demonstfate
that a woman couId Indeed become a successfuI kIng, and thefefofe she posed mofe than
a tempofafy thfeat to both estabIIshed custom and to the consefvatIve IntefpfetatIon of
muut. It shouId not be assumed that Hatchepsut was the onIy stfong-wIIIed Iady at the
TuthmosIde couft ÷ Indeed, TuthmosIs' fefusaI to feInstate the posItIon of 'God's WIfe of
Amen' suggests that he may have been wafy of gfantIng hIs womenfoIk addItIonaI
powef ÷ and wIth the end of hIs IIfe fapIdIy appfoachIng TuthmosIs may have feIt It
necessafy to feInfofce the tfadItIon of maIe successIon befofe he dIed. By femovIng the
most obvIous sIgns of Hatchepsut's feIgn he couId effectIveIy deIete the memofy of the
co-fegency, and TuthmosIs hImseIf wouId emefge as soIe successof to TuthmosIs II.
WIthout an obvIous foIe-modeI, futufe genefatIons of potentIaIIy stfong femaIe kIngs
mIght femaIn content wIth theIf tfadItIonaI Iot as wIfe, sIstef and eventuaI mothef of a
kIng. It thefefofe becomes hIghIy sIgnIfIcant that It Is onIy the Images of Hatchepsut as
kIng whIch have been defaced. Hatchepsut as queen consoft ÷ the coffect pIace fof a
femaIe foyaI ÷ Is stIII pfesent fof aII the wofId to see. Whethef TuthmosIs deIIbefateIy
Ieft a few hIdden and undamaged Images of hIs stepmothef and mentof, gfantIng hef
the pfIceIess gIft of etefnaI IIfe, we wIII nevef know.
But, In spIte of aII TuthmosIs' effofts, Hatchepsut was not destIned to be Egypt's fInaI
femaIe kIng, nof Indeed hef onIy conspIcuous queen. AIthough hIs own queen, MefItfe-
Hatchepsut, was nowhefe neaf as pfomInent as hef IIIustfIous pfedecessofs, the
subsequent queens of the 18th Dynasty contInued to pIay an Impoftant and hIghIy
vIsIbIe foIe In pubIIc IIfe. Queen TIy, the commonef wIfe of Amenhotep III, was
poIItIcaIIy actIve dufIng the feIgn of both hef husband and hef son, Akhenaten, whIIe
Queen NefeftItI, Akhenaten's consoft, appeafed fof a tIme to be aImost as poweffuI as
the kIng hImseIf. TheIf daughtef Ankhesenamen, wIdow of Tutankhamen, was
Independent enough to attempt to affange hef own maffIage wIth the son of a fofeIgn
fuIef. WIth the end of the 18th Dynasty the Impoftance of the queens dImInIshed sIIghtIy
aIthough NefeftafI, chIef wIfe of Ramesses II, appeafs In a pfomInent foIe on many
monuments. Two hundfed and fIfty yeafs aftef the death of Hatchepsut, at a tIme of
wIdespfead cIvII unfest when Egypt was movIng pefIIousIy cIose to a totaI bfeakdown of
Iaw and ofdef, the fInaI EgyptIan queen-fegnant, Twosfet, came to powef.
UnfoftunateIy, such dIstufbed and muut-Iess pefIods tend to be vefy badIy documented,
and we have IIttIe afchaeoIogIcaI of hIstofIcaI evIdence wIth whIch to fIesh out the bafe
bones of Twosfet's feIgn.
Iig. S.4 T/e Hig/ Priestess of Amen-Re, Hutc/epsut
Twosfet had been the pfIncIpaI wIfe of the 19th Dynasty KIng SetI II and, whIIe not a
membef of the ImmedIate foyaI famIIy, Is IIkeIy to have been of foyaI bIood. She bofe
hef husband no IIvIng son and, aftef a bfIef feIgn of no mofe than sIx yeafs, SetI dIed
and was succeeded on the thfone by Ramesses SIptah (Iatef known as Mefenptah
SIptah), hIs natufaI son by a SyfIan secondafy wIfe named SutaIIja. HIstofy was staftIng
to fepeat ItseIf as Twosfet found hefseIf fequIfed to act as fegent to a young kIng who
was not hef own fIesh and bIood and whose physIcaI weakness, the Iegacy of the
chIIdhood poIIo whIch had wIthefed one of hIs Iegs, made hIm an IneffectuaI fuIef. Once
agaIn the InevItabIe happened. GfaduaIIy the aIfeady poweffuI dowagef queen stafted
to take contfoI, easIng hefseIf Into the posItIon of consoft and co-fuIef. Whethef of not
she actuaIIy maffIed hef wafd In ofdef to consoIIdate hef posItIon Is uncIeaf, on the waII
of hef tomb she Is depIcted standIng behInd SIptah In a typIcaI wIfeIy pose, but the
young kIng's name has been efased and that of hef actuaI husband SetI II has been
FoIIowIng SIptah's eafIy death a wave of dIscontent spfead ovef the countfy and
Twosfet saw hef oppoftunIty. WIth no obvIous successof to chaIIenge hef authofIty she
cIung on to hef foIe as co-fegent, feInfofcIng hef posItIon by adoptIng the fuII tItuIafy of
a maIe kIng of Egypt. She undeftook the now tfadItIonaI expedItIons to SInaI and
PaIestIne and commenced buIIdIng wofks at HeIIopoIIs and Thebes, but hef soIo fuIe was
destIned to be bfIef, possIbIy Iess than two yeafs. She dIsappeafed Into obscufIty, to be
fepIaced by the fathef nondescfIpt phafaoh Sethnakht, foundef of the 20th Dynasty,
who Iatef cIaImed to have 'dfIven out the usufpef'. Manetho pfesefved the name of a
KIng ThuofIs as the fInaI kIng of the 19th Dynasty.
At fIfst sIght thefe afe many obvIous poInts of sImIIafIty between the stofIes of these
two femaIe kIngs. Both wefe maffIed to feIatIveIy shoft-IIved and somewhat IneffectuaI
kIngs, both faIIed to pfoduce a maIe heIf to the thfone, both wefe fequIfed to act as
fegent to an unfeIated mInof and, whIIe neIthef had a IIvIng husband, both came undef
the InfIuence of a domInant couft offIcIaI (Hatchepsut was suppofted by Senenmut,
Twosfet had a Iess ceftaIn feIatIonshIp wIth a mystefIous IndIvIduaI known as the Gfeat
ChanceIIof Bay). Both must aIso have been stfong-mInded and fofcefuI women capabIe
of fIghtIng agaInst weII-estabIIshed tfadItIons and hoIdIng theIf own agaInst the maIe-
domInated estabIIshment. Howevef, thefe afe aIso some Impoftant dIssImIIafItIes
between the two feIgns. Twosfet, IIke Sobeknoffu befofe hef, came to powef as the Iast
fesoft of a decayIng dynasty IackIng any mofe suItabIe (that Is, maIe) monafch. In spIte
of Sethnakht's cIaIm she was nevef, as faf as we know, wIdeIy pefceIved as a usufpef,
and couId even be congfatuIated on hef vaIIant attempt to pfoIong a dyIng IIne.
Fufthefmofe, Twosfet's feIgn was not a spectacuIaf success. It was bfIef,
undIstInguIshed, and Ieft Egypt In a wofse poIItIcaI state than It had been befofe she
came to powef. It thefefofe posed no thfeat to subsequent maIe fuIefs. ThIs seems to
have made hef In many ways faf mofe acceptabIe as a monafch and, aIthough
Sethnakht usufped hef tomb and attempted to femove hef name and Image ffom Its
waIIs, It seems that Twosfet was nevef subjected to the pefsecutIon InfIIcted on
Hatchepsut's memofy.
Queen, of KIng, Twosfet was the Iast natIve-bofn EgyptIan queen fegnant. Howevef,
ovef one thousand yeafs Iatef Egypt was agaIn to be fuIed by a handfuI of domInant
and shoft-IIved women, thIs tIme the Gfeek queens of the PtoIemaIc foyaI famIIy. The
Iast of these, CIeopatfa VII, has entefed the pubIIc ImagInatIon not onIy as the
afchetypaI EgyptIan queen but as one of the most wIdeIy fecognIzed women of aII
tImes. Hef stofy, an IntfIguIng cocktaII of Incest, passIon, and tfagedy pIayed out
agaInst a Iouche ofIentaI settIng, was fascInatIng to hef mofe stfaIt-Iaced Roman
contempofafIes, whIIe the fact that hef actIons had a dIfect effect on the deveIopment of
the Roman EmpIfe ensufed that hef hIstofy wouId be fecofded fof postefIty. PIutafch,
wfItIng a good many yeafs aftef hef death, was cIeafIy IntfIgued by fepofts of the
queen's physIcaI chafms:
The contact of hef pfesence, If you IIved wIth hef, was IffesIstIbIe, the attfactIon of hef pefson, joInIng wIth the chafm of
hef convefsatIon, and the chafactef that attended aII she saId of dId, was somethIng bewItchIng. It was a pIeasufe mefeIy to
heaf the sound of hef voIce, wIth whIch, IIke an Instfument of many stfIngs, she couId pass ffom one Ianguage to
The stofy of Hatchepsut, a faf mofe successfuI fuIef but one who was Iess weII
documented, who was Iess IntefestIngIy 'wanton' In hef behavIouf, and who pIayed IIttIe
of no paft In the deveIopment of westefn socIety, has nevef had the powef to compete
wIth the myths and Iegends whIch have gfown up afound CIeopatfa, beautIfuI 'Sefpent
of the NIIe'.
CIeopatfa was, In spIte of the Iegend, a fathef pIaIn woman, a dIfect descendant of
PtoIemy I, the MacedonIan genefaI who had been made KIng of Egypt foIIowIng the
death of AIexandef the Gfeat. She fuIed ovef one of the most feftIIe countfIes In the
MedIteffanean wofId, but It was a dIssatIsfIed Egypt once agaIn tofn by cIvII unfest,
chafIng undef Gfeek fuIe and dIfectIy InfIuenced by the poIItIcaI InfIghtIng endemIc In
Roman poIItIcs. The foyaI famIIy, heavIIy In debt, was In a constant state of vIoIent
feud, and CIeopatfa onIy became queen foIIowIng the untImeIy deaths of hef fathef
PtoIemy XII, hef sIstef CIeopatfa VI and a second sIstef BefenIke. Hef thIfd sIstef
AfsInoe febeIIed agaInst hef fuIe and was eventuaIIy kIIIed, hef bfothef and co-fegent
PtoIemy XIII dfowned, and hef second bfothef÷husband dIed In mystefIous
cIfcumstances soon aftef theIf maffIage. CIeopatfa, the famIIy sufvIvof, pfocIaImed hef
Infant son CaesafIon (aIIegedIy the chIId of JuIIus Caesaf) co-fegent, effectIveIy makIng
hefseIf soIe fuIef of Egypt. Hef feIgn bfought a bfIef pefIod of IntefnaI peace and
economIc stabIIIty. Howevef, hef decIsIon to suppoft Mafk Anthony, the fathef of thfee
of hef chIIdfen, In hIs powef stfuggIe wIth OctavIan speIt dIsastef fof Egypt. When
OctavIan's tfoops feached AIexandfIa In 30 BC CIeopatfa and Anthony commItted
suIcIde, and Egypt was absofbed Into the Roman EmpIfe.
Iong befofe CIeopatfa's III-fated feIgn, Hatchepsut had been aII but fofgotten by hef
peopIe. AIthough Ðjeser-Ðjeseru contInued to be fecognIzed as a potent feIIgIous centfe
the name of Its foundef was now a dIstant memofy, and Hatchepsut had been omItted
ffom the kIng IIsts of Abydos and Sakkafa whefe the successIon was fecofded as passIng
ffom TuthmosIs I to TuthmosIs II and then dIfectIy to TuthmosIs III. SImIIafIy, she was
excIuded ffom the ceIebfatIon of the festIvaI of MIn depIcted on the waII of the
Ramesseum, whefe agaIn the pfocessIon of foyaI ancestofs shows TuthmosIs I, II and III
In sequence. ThIs was not soIeIy a foyaI vendetta, Hatchepsut was aIso mIssIng ffom the
non-foyaI tombs datIng to the tIme of TuthmosIs III whIch mIght feasonabIy have been
expected to IncIude hef name, and she Is not even to be found amongst the 19th and
20th Dynasty pfIvate monuments of DeIf eI-MedIna whIch fecofded a host of faf mofe
ephemefaI TuthmosIde pfInces and pfIncesses. Howevef, hef memofy must have
IIngefed somewhefe ÷ possIbIy IncIuded on kIng IIsts whIch have not sufvIved ÷ as
Manetho, wfItIng hIs hIstofy of the kIngs of Egypt In appfoxImateIy 300 BC, was abIe to
IncIude a femaIe fuIef named Amense of AmensIs, sIstef of Hebfon and mothef of
MIshfagmouthosIs (TuthmosIs III) as the fIfth fuIef of the 18th Dynasty. He accofded thIs
femaIe fuIef a feIgn of eIthef 21 yeafs 9 months (Josephus vefsIon) of 22 yeafs
As the centufIes passed and aII knowIedge of hIefogIyphIc wfItIng faded, Hatchepsut
sank even deepef Into obscufIty. Hef name was to be Iost fof aImost two thousand
yeafs, dufIng whIch tIme hef monuments wIth theIf unfeadabIe caftouches stood In mute
testImony to theIf foundef. EventuaIIy, howevef, Ðjeser-Ðjeseru, now fuIned and to a
Iafge extent bufIed undef dunes of wInd-bIown sand and pIIes of focks faIIen ffom the
cIIff above, stafted to attfact the attentIon of the westefn toufIsts who wefe becomIng
IncfeasIngIy fascInated by Egypt's ancIent past.
By the mIddIe of the eIghteenth
centufy, DeIf eI-BahfI had been pfoved to be a pfoIIfIc soufce of mummIes, papyfI and
othef exotIc ofIentaI desIfabIes, and tfade In the stoIen antIquItIes was both bfIsk and
IucfatIve. A steady tfIckIe of dIstInguIshed vIsItofs now stafted to affIve at the sIte, and
Ðjeser-Ðjeseru was fecofded by the BfItIsh cIefIc RIchafd Pococke (1737), by the
NapoIeonIc ExpedItIon (1798÷1802) and by WIIIIam Beechey and the ex-cIfcus
stfongman tufned antIquafIan GIovannI BattIsta BeIzonI (1817). WIth the decIphefment
of hIefogIyphIcs In 1822 came the fIfst bfeakthfough In attempts to feconstfuct the
hIstofy of the tempIe. In 1828, the dIstInguIshed phIIoIogIst and pfIncIpaI decodef of
hIefogIyphIcs, Jean FfançoIs ChampoIIIon, paId a vIsIt to DeIf eI-BahfI. ChampoIIIon
was abIe to fecognIze the caftouche of TuthmosIs III, whom he caIIed MoefIs, and he
feaIIzed that thIs kIng's caftouche usufped that of an eafIIef kIng whose paftIaIIy efased
name he mIsfead as Amenenthe of Amonemhe.
ChampoIIIon fIfmIy beIIeved that hIs Amenenthe was a man. ThIs caused hIm endIess
puzzIement as he noted that the name of the supposedIy maIe kIng was consIstentIy
accompanIed by femInIne tItIes and fofms. HIs wofds on thIs subject ÷ fascInatIng to
those of us bIessed wIth hIndsIght ÷ afe wofth quotIng at Iength as they pfovIde a good
IIIustfatIon of how a subconscIous assumptIon of pfejudIce on the paft of the excavatof
of tfansIatof may have a dfastIc effect on the IntefpfetatIon of afchaeoIogIcaI evIdence:
If I feIt somewhat sufpfIsed at seeIng hefe, as eIsewhefe thfoughout the tempIe, the fenowned MoefIs, adofned wIth aII the
InsIgnIa of foyaIty, gIvIng pIace to thIs Amenenthe, fof whose name we may seafch the foyaI IIsts In vaIn, stIII mofe
astonIshed was I to fInd on feadIng the InscfIptIons that whefevef they fefeffed to thIs beafded kIng In the usuaI dfess of
the Phafaohs, nouns and vefbs wefe In the femInIne, as though a queen wefe In questIon. I found the same pecuIIafIty
evefywhefe. Not onIy was thefe the pfenomen of Amenenthe pfeceded by the tItIe of sovefeIgn fuIef of the wofId, wit/ t/e
feminine uffix, but aIso hIs own name ImmedIateIy foIIowIng on the tItIe of 'Daughtef of the Sun'. FInaIIy, In aII the bas-
feIIefs fepfesentIng the gods speakIng to thIs kIng, he Is addfessed as a queen, as In the foIIowIng fofmuIa: 'BehoId, thus
saIth Amen-Re, Iofd of the Thfones of the WofId, to hIs daughtef whom he Ioves, sun devoted to the tfuth: the buIIdIng
whIch thou hast made Is IIke to the dIvIne dweIIIng.'
In ofdef to expIaIn thIs extfaofdInafy sItuatIon, ChampoIIIon pfoposed the exIstence of
an 18th Dynasty heIfess-queen Amense, a sIstef of TuthmosIs II, who had fIfst maffIed a
man named TuthmosIs and then, aftef hIs death, maffIed the mystefIous Amenenthe.
Both these men fuIed Egypt In Queen Amense's name. FoIIowIng the death of Amense,
Amenenthe fetaIned hIs cfown, becomIng co-fegent wIth the young TuthmosIs III, who
tufned out to be a somewhat ungfatefuI wafd who was to spend much of hIs subsequent
soIo feIgn attemptIng to efface the name of hIs co-fuIef ffom the waIIs of the DeIf eI-
BahfI tempIe.
NIccoIo RoseIIInI, Pfofessof of OfIentaI Ianguages at the UnIvefsIty of PIsa and a
cIose pefsonaI ffIend of ChampoIIIon, pubIIshed a descfIptIon of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru In 1844.
RoseIIInI put fofwafd a vafIant on ChampoIIIon's theme, hIs successIon passed ffom
TuthmosIs I to TuthmosIs II, then to hIs wIfe Queen AmoutmaI, hef sIstef Queen Amense,
and fInaIIy to TuthmosIs III. At the same tIme John GafdInef WIIkInson, anothef
dIstInguIshed IInguIst and the fIfst to cIassIfy and numbef the tombs In the VaIIey of the
KIngs, took up fesIdence on the West Bank of Thebes whefe he had pIenty of tIme to
fead the hIefogIyphs fof hImseIf. WIIkInson tentatIveIy suggested that the mystefIous
kIng shouId be fe-named AmenneItgofI of Amun-Noo-Het and shouId be fe-cIassIfIed not
as a man but as a woman 'not In the IIst, a queen?'
It was Ieft to KafI RIchafd IepsIus,
Ieadef of the PfussIan expedItIon of 1842÷5, to make some sense of the muddIe by
confIfmIng that the cIue to the kIng's IdentIty was not to be found In hef appeafance,
whIch as aII agfeed was entIfeIy mascuIIne, but In hef InscfIptIons:
In the outefmost angIe of thIs fock-cove ]DeIf eI-BahfI, caIIed eI-AsasIf by IepsIus| Is sItuated the most ancIent tempIe-
buIIdIng of Westefn Thebes, whIch beIongs to the pefIod of the New EgyptIan Monafchy, at the commencement of Its
gIofy. It was queen Numt-Amen, the eIdef sIstef of TuthmosIs III, who accompIIshed thIs boId pIan. She nevef appeafs
on hef monuments as a woman, but In maIe attIfe, we onIy fInd out hef sex by the InscfIptIons. No doubt at that pefIod It
was IIIegaI fof a woman to govefn, fof that feason, aIso, hef bfothef, pfobabIy stIII a mInof, appeafs at a Iatef pefIod as
fuIef aIong wIth hef. Aftef hef death hef ShIeIds ]caftouches| wefe evefywhefe convefted Into TuthmosIs ShIeIds, the
femInIne fofms of speech In the InscfIptIon wefe changed, and hef names wefe nevef adopted In the Iatef IIsts aIong wIth
the IegItImate kIngs.
IepsIus was the fIfst to pubIIsh the name of 'Hat. u Numt-Amen' aIthough he assIgned
hef to the 17th Dynasty.
Howevef, the sItuatIon was stIII faf ffom cIeaf, and SamueI Shafpe, wfItIng In 1859
and feIyIng on secondafy soufces IncIudIng Manetho, Hefodotus and Efatosthenes fof
hIs InfofmatIon, was faIfIy typIcaI of many of hIs feIIow authofs In hIs confusIon. He
knew of the exIstence of the femaIe EgyptIan kIng, and he even knew many of the
saIIent facts of hef feIgn, but he had hef dates and even hef name hopeIessIy jumbIed:
. TuthmosIs II foIIowed the fIfst of that name on the thfone of Thebes, but he Is vefy much thfown Into the shade by
Amun-NItocfIs, hIs stfong-mInded and ambItIous wIfe. She was the Iast of the face of MemphIte sovefeIgns, the tweIfth of
eIeventh In successIon ffom the buIIdefs of the gfeat pyfamIds, and by hef maffIage wIth TuthmosIs, Uppef and Iowef
Egypt wefe bfought undef one sceptfe. She was handsome among women, and bfave among men, and she govefned the
kIngdom fof hef bfothef wIth gfeat spIendouf. TuthmosIs III, on comIng to the thfone was a mInof: queen NItocfIs, who
had befofe govefned fof hef husband, now govefned fof hIs successof, and even when the young TuthmosIs came of age,
he was hafdIy kIng of the whoIe countfy tIII aftef the death of NItocfIs. In hef scuIptufes she Is aIways dfessed In men's
cIothes to IndIcate that she was a queen In hef own fIght, and not a queen consoft.
Shafpe coffectIy cfedIts Hatchepsut wIth buIIdIng wofks at Kafnak, the efectIon of a
paIf of obeIIsks and the constfuctIon of the DeIf eI-BahfI tempIe, but he aIso beIIeved
that she had buIIt the thIfd pyfamId at GIza, mIsfeadIng hef name Maatkafe and
confusIng hef wIth both KIng Menkaufe of the 4th Dynasty and Queen Menkafe-
NItocfIs, the 6th Dynasty femaIe fuIef of Egypt whose stofy has become entangIed wIth
a host of myths and Iegends and whose beautIfuI naked ghost ÷ thIs tIme confused wIth
the fIctIonaI couftesan and queen, RhodoIphIs ÷ Is saId to haunt the pyfamIds.
A mefe twenty-fIve yeafs Iatef, wIth a gfeatef undefstandIng of the hIefogIyphIc
Ianguage, much of the confusIon had been cIeafed away. Hatchepsut's name, tItIes and
pfIncIpaI monuments wefe now known, and she even had hef own entfy In a dIctIonafy
of EgyptIan afchaeoIogy pubIIshed In 1875:
Hatsou. queen of the 18th Dynasty. Hef prenomen is Ru-mu-/u ]Maatkafe fead backwafds|. Hef fathef, Thouthmes I,
pfocIaImed hef queen In pfefefence to hef two bfothefs, who feIgned Iatef undef the names of Thouthmes II and
Thouthmes III. Howevef she shafed powef wIth Thouthmes II, who dIed a shoft tIme aftef. AgaIn Hatchepsut feIgned
aIone. Next she assocIated hefseIf wIth hef second bfothef Thouthmes III, and It was not untII the fIfteenth yeaf of hIs
feIgn that she eventuaIIy decIded to gIve up the thfone. She Is fepfesented on the monuments as a kIng, wIth a beafded
Ffom thIs tIme on It was the wofk of the afchaeoIogIsts patIentIy excavatIng In and
afound Iuxof and on the West Bank at Thebes whIch was to add factuaI fIesh to the bafe
bones of Hatchepsut's hIstofy. MafIette, NavIIIe, Caftef, WInIock, IancIng, Hayes and
the PoIIsh MIssIon, to name but a few, have aII made substantIaI contfIbutIons to ouf
IncfeasIng undefstandIng of hef unusuaI feIgn, an undefstandIng whIch Is, thfough
necessIty, based aImost entIfeIy on Hatchepsut's own sufvIvIng monuments and
monumentaI InscfIptIons ÷ hef own pfopaganda In stone. Hatchepsut had aIways
Intended that hef monuments shouId be fead as etefnaI testImonIes to hef own
gfandeuf. It Is pefhaps onIy fIttIng that they shouId now, some thfee thousand yeafs
aftef theIf conceptIon, staft to sIowIy feveaI the stofy of hef fuIe as the kIng hefseIf
wIshed It to be toId. Hatchepsut's mummIfIed body may be Iost to us but hef name,
tempofafIIy fofgotten but now fofevef IInked wIth the beautIfuI Ðjeser-Ðjeseru, Is once
agaIn spoken In Egypt.
Historica! Events
Yeafs Befofe
AfchaIc PefIod (DynastIes 1÷2) UnIfIcatIon of Egypt
Djosef step-pyfamId at
OId KIngdom (DynastIes 3÷6)
Gfeat PyfamId of Khufu at
FIfst IntefmedIate PefIod (DynastIes 7÷
MIddIe KIngdom (DynastIes 11÷13)
Theban kIngs fe-unIfy
Queen Sobeknoffu
Second IntefmedIate PefIod (DynastIes
Hyksos kIngs In Nofthefn
New KIngdom (DynastIes 18÷20)
Ramesses II
Queen Twosfet
ThIfd IntefmedIate PefIod (DynastIes
KIngs at TanIs
NubIan kIngs
Iate PefIod (DynastIes 26÷31)
PtoIemaIc PefIod
Egypt paft of Roman
1. The TempIe of Amen at Kafnak.
2. The VaIIey of the KIngs.
3. Hatchepsut as kIng offefIng befofe the bafque of Amen.
4. The God Amen.
5. Seated statue of Hatchepsut ffom Ðjeser-Ðjeseru showIng the kIng wIth a femaIe body
and maIe accessofIes.
6. The neaf-IdentIcaI fIgufes fof KIng Hatchepsut and KIng TuthmosIs III, Hatchepsut In
7. Scene showIng the gods cfownIng KIng Hatchepsut, whIch had been attacked In
8. Head of Hatchepsut.
9. GfanIte statue of Hatchepsut.
10. Red gfanIte sphInx of Hatchepsut.
11. The standIng obeIIsk of Hatchepsut at the heaft of the TempIe of Amen, Kafnak.
12. a and b. (above and beIow) Ðjeser-Ðjeseru.
13. Senenmut and the PfIncess Nefefufe.
14. Senenmut and Nefefufe.
15. OsIfIde head of Hatchepsut.
16. The cafefuIIy efased Image of Hatchepsut.
17. TuthmosIs III.
1 Extfact ffom the Speos AftemIdos InscfIptIon of KIng Hatchepsut, tfansIatIon gIven by
GafdInef, A. (1946), The Gfeat Speos AftemIdos InscfIptIon, Journul of Lgyptiun
Arc/ueology 32: 43÷56.
2 Budge, E. A. W. (1902), Lgypt unJ Her Asiutic Lmpire, Iondon: 1.
3 NavIIIe, E. (1894), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri. its plun, its founJers unJ its first
explorers. IntroJuctory Memoir, 12th MemoIf of the Egypt ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon:
4 Budge, E. A. W. (1902), Lgypt unJ Her Asiutic Lmpire, Iondon: 4.
5 NavIIIe, E. (1906), Queen HatshopsItu, hef IIfe and Monuments, In T. M. DavIs (ed.),
T/e Tomb of Huts/opsitu, Iondon: 1.
6 GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 184.
7 Hayes, W. C. (1973), Egypt: IntefnaI AffaIfs ffom TuthmosIs I to the Death of
AmenophIs III, In I. E. S. Edwafds et ul., (eds), CumbriJge Ancient History, 3fd edItIon,
CambfIdge, 2.1: 317.
8 DfIoton, E. and VandIef, J. (1938), L'Lgypte. Les Peuples Je l'orient meJiter-runeen II,
PafIs: 398.
9 O'Connof, D. (1983), In TfIggef, B. G. et aI., (eds), Ancient Lgypt. u sociul /istory,
CambfIdge: 196. The abstfact concept of muut was pefsonIfIed In the fofm of an
anthfopoId goddess, the daughtef of the sun god, Re. ThIs Iady was aIways depIcted
as a sIendef young woman weafIng a sIngIe taII ostfIch feathef tIed on hef head by a
10 ConsuIt IIchtheIm, M. (1973), Ancient Lgyptiun Literuture I. t/e OlJ unJ MiJJle
KingJoms, Ios AngeIes: 149÷63, fof a fuII tfansIatIon and dIscussIon of thIs text.
11 NavIIIe, E. (1894), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri. its plun, its founJers unJ its first
explorers. IntroJuctory Memoir, 12th MemoIf of the Egypt ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 9.
Chapter 1 Egypt in the Ear!y Eighteenth Dynasty
1 Extfact ffom the Speos AftemIdos InscfIptIon of KIng Hatchepsut, tfansIatIon gIven by
GafdInef, A. (1946), The Gfeat Speos AftemIdos InscfIptIon, Journul of Lgyptiun
Arc/ueology 32:47÷8.
2 In a tfadItIon whIch stafted dufIng the OId KIngdom, many EgyptIan men of fank
made pefmanent fecofds of theIf achIevements In the fofm of styIIzed
autobIogfaphIes whIch wefe pfesefved on the waIIs of theIf tombs.
3 Fof these, and many othef MIddIe KIngdom texts In tfansIatIon, pIus a dIscussIon of
the deveIopment of OId and MIddIe KIngdom IItefatufe, consuIt IIchtheIm, M. (1973),
Ancient Lgyptiun Literuture I. t/e OlJ unJ MiJJle KingJoms, Ios AngeIes. See aIso
PafkInson, R. B. (1991), Voices from Ancient Lgypt. un unt/ology of MiJJle KingJom
writings, Iondon.
4 Quoted In GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 155. Josephus cIaIms to
be quotIng dIfectIy ffom Manetho hImseIf. HIs expIanatIon of the name 'Hyksos' Is
now known to be Incoffect, Hyksos Is actuaIIy the coffupted Gfeek vefsIon of an
EgyptIan phfase meanIng 'The ChIefs of FofeIgn Iands'. We have no knowIedge of
the pfecIse ofIgIns of the Hyksos peopIes.
5 The 13th Dynasty BfookIyn Papyfus 35.1446 gIves some IndIcatIon of the numbefs of
these mIgfants when It fecofds that 45 out of a totaI of 79 fecofded domestIc sefvants
wefe 'AsIatIc' In ofIgIn.
6 As the dynastIes fepfesent IInes of fuIIng famIIIes of feIated IndIvIduaIs fathef than
successIve chfonoIogIcaI pefIods It was possIbIe fof Egypt, at tImes of dIsunIty, to be
fuIed by two of mofe dynastIes at the same tIme. Thus, the 14th Dynasty appeafs to
have been contempofafy wIth the 13th Dynasty, and DynastIes 15, 16 and 17 wefe
aIso contempofafy, each dynasty fuIIng ovef Its own, excIusIve, teffItofy.
7 GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 167÷8.
8 GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 155÷6.
9 Extfact ffom The QuaffeI of ApophIs and Seknenfe, tfansIated In SImpson, W. K., ed.
(1973), T/e Literuture of Ancient Lgypt. un unt/ology of stories, instructions unJ poetry,
New Haven: 77÷80.
10 SmIth, G. E. (1912), T/e Royul Mummies, CaIfo.
11 GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 167.
12 Fof a fuII dIscussIon of thIs steIa, see HabachI, I. (1972), T/e SeconJ Stelu of Kumose
unJ /is Struggle uguinst t/e Hy/sos Ruler unJ /is Cupitul, GIuckstadt.
13 AII extfacts ffom the autobIogfaphy of Ahmose, son of Ibana, afe tfansIated by S. R.
Snape. Fof a pubIIshed tfansIatIon of thIs wofk, consuIt IIchtheIm, M. (1976), Ancient
Lgyptiun Literuture II. t/e New KingJom, Ios AngeIes: 12÷15.
14 Fof a basIc descfIptIon of EgyptIan afmy IIfe, consuIt Shaw, I. (1991), Lgyptiun
Wurfure unJ Weupons, RIsbofough. Shaw pfovIdes a mofe specIaIIzed feadIng IIst.
15 Extfact ffom the obeIIsk InscfIptIon of KIng Hatchepsut, Kafnak.
16 Wosfet was a feIatIveIy obscufe Uppef EgyptIan goddess.
17 Homef, IliuJ, Book IX. Homef fefefs to the EgyptIan Thebes as 'hundfed-gated' to
dIstInguIsh It ffom the Gfeek 'seven-gated' cIty of Thebes.
18 Keen, M. (1990), Lnglis/ Society in t/e MiJJle Ages 1S4S÷1500, Iondon: 161. Keen
cItes as an exampIe the househoId of EafI GIIbeft of CIafe who moved on avefage
evefy two to thfee weeks.
19 The EngIIsh Queen EIIzabeth I undeftook sImIIaf toufs of hef countfy as a deIIbefate
cost-cuttIng exefcIse, stayIng wIth IocaI dIgnItafIes In ofdef to save the expense of
maIntaInIng a pefmanent couft In Iondon. A vIsIt ffom the queen and hef entoufage
couId pfove to be a fuInousIy expensIve honouf fof a IoyaI subject.
20 Quoted In KItchen, K. (1982), P/uruo/ Triump/unt. t/e life unJ times of Rumesses II,
WafmInstef: 122.
21 Hefodotus, Histories, II: 14.
22 Bfeasted, J. H. (1905), A History of Lgypt, New Yofk: 334
23 Fof a fuII tfansIatIon, consuIt IIchtheIm, M. (1976), Ancient Lgyptiun Literuture II. t/e
New KingJom, Ios AngeIes: 168.
24 Stevenson SmIth, W., T/e Art unJ Arc/itecture of Ancient Lgypt, fevIsed and edIted by
W. K. SImpson (1981), New Haven: 225.
25 Hefodotus, Histories, II: 164.
Chapter 2 A Strong Fami!y
1 Extfact ffom the steIa of KIng Ahmose, tfansIated by S. R. Snape.
2 Some sIIght doubt has been cast ovef the foyaI pafentage of Queen Ahmose NefeftafI
by an InscfIptIon fecovefed ffom Kafnak whIch appeafs to fead, 'He ]the kIng|
cIothed me ]Ahmose NefeftafI| when I was a nobody.' Howevef, the pfecIse
tfansIatIon, and exact meanIng of the tfansIatIon, Is by no means ceftaIn, and It Is
entIfeIy possIbIe that 'nobody' shouId be fead as 'ofphan'. ThIs mattef Is dIscussed In
fufthef detaII In Redfofd, D. B. (1967), History unJ C/ronology of t/e Lig/teent/ Ðynusty
of Lgypt. seven stuJies, Tofonto: 30÷31.
3 Thefe Is no dIfect pfoof that Mefyt-NeIth evef fuIed Egypt as an Independent kIng,
but thefe Is a stfong body of cIfcumstantIaI evIdence whIch ceftaInIy poInts that way.
ThIs evIdence Is fevIewed In detaII In TyIdesIey, J. A. (1994), Ðuug/ters of Isis. Women
of Ancient Lgypt, Iondon: Chaptefs 6 and 7.
4 A dIvIsIon of Iabouf whIch became fofmaIIzed In the aftIstIc conventIon whIch,
despIte the fact that Egypt was a facIaIIy weII-mIxed AffIcan countfy, decfeed that
men shouId aIways be depIcted wIth a tanned bfown skIn, women wIth an Indoof
5 Evef sInce the nIneteenth-centufy ScottIsh Iawyef McIennan pubIIshed hIs Primitive
Societies, In whIch he outIIned a theofy that aII kInshIp and maffIage pattefns passed
thfough the same fouf evoIutIonafy stages ÷ omIscuIty, matfIafchy, patfIafchy and
cognatIc monogamy. The pubIIcatIon of J. G. Ffazef's T/e GolJen Boug/ (1914),
Iondon, aIso had a deep InfIuence on hIs contempofafIes wofkIng In the fIeIds of
afchaeoIogy and egyptoIogy.
6 Fof a fuII expIanatIon of aII these tefms, consuIt Fox, R. (1967), Kins/ip unJ Murriuge,
7 Extfact ffom the Instructions of King Amenem/ut I, fof a fuII tfansIatIon of thIs text, see
IIchtheIm, M. (1973), Ancient Lgyptiun Literuture I. t/e OlJ unJ MiJJle KingJoms, Ios
AngeIes: 135÷9.
8 Extfact ffom the New KIngdom InscfIptIon of ScfIbe Any. Fof a fuII tfansIatIon of thIs
text, consuIt IIchtheIm, M. (1976), Ancient Lgyptiun Literuture II. t/e New KingJom, Ios
AngeIes: 135÷46.
9 TyIof, J. J. and GfIffIth, F. I. (1894), T/e Tomb of Pu/eri ut el-Kub, 11th MemoIf of the
Egypt ExpIofatIon SocIety, Iondon: 25.
10 Redfofd, D. B. (1967), History unJ C/ronology of t/e Lig/teent/ Ðynusty of Lgypt. seven
stuJies, Tofonto: 65.
11 ConsuIt Iefnef, G. (1986), T/e Creution of Putriurc/y, Oxfofd: 93. The same pafaIIeI Is
cIted In RobIns, G. (1993), Women in Ancient Lgypt, Iondon: 28.
12 Ffom the maffIage scafab of Amenhotep III.
13 Quoted In RobIns, G. (1993), Women in Ancient Lgypt, Iondon: 30.
14 Iane, E. B. (1836), Munners unJ Customs of t/e Ancient Lgyptiuns, Iondon.
15 ThIs Image ceftaInIy affected those Iate nIneteenth-centufy egyptoIogIsts who went
to Egypt detefmIned to uncovef a muItItude of concubInes and Ottoman-styIe hafems,
fInd them they dId, mIstakenIy cIassIfyIng many Innocent sefvant gIfIs, housekeepefs
and secondafy queens In theIf quest fof the eIusIve, efotIc, ancIent EgyptIan whofe of
theIf dfeams.
16 BIanch, I. (1959), T/e WilJer S/ores of Love, Iondon: 220.
17 See, fof exampIe, ShaafawI, H., tfansIated by M. Badfan (1986), Hurem Yeurs. t/e
memoirs of un Lgyptiun feminist (1S79÷1924), Iondon. Fof an account of a happy
chIIdhood spent In a tfadItIonaI IsIamIc hafem In Mofocco, fead MefnIssI, F. (1994),
T/e Hurem Wit/in, Iondon.
18 ThIs poInt Is dIscussed In fufthef detaII In Dodson, A. (1990), Cfown PfInce
Djhutmose and the foyaI sons of the EIghteenth Dynasty, Journul of Lgyptiun
Arc/ueology 76: 87÷96. An appendIx IIsts the few known foyaI pfInces of the 18th
19 James, T. G. H. (1973), Egypt: ffom the expuIsIon of the Hyksos to AmenophIs I, In I.
E. S. Edwafds et ul. (eds), T/e CumbriJge Ancient History, 3fd edItIon, CambfIdge, 2.1:
20 James, T. G. H. (1973), Egypt: ffom the expuIsIon of the Hyksos to AmenophIs I, In I.
E. S. Edwafds et ul. (eds), T/e CumbriJge Ancient History, 3fd edItIon, CambfIdge, 2.1:
21 GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 130.
22 Extfact ffom the autobIogfaphy of Ahmose, son of Ibana, tfansIated by S. R. Snape.
Fof a pubIIshed tfansIatIon of thIs wofk, consuIt IIchtheIm, M. (1976), Ancient
Lgyptiun Literuture II. t/e New KingJom, Ios AngeIes: 12÷15.
23 SevefaI hIstofIans cIaIm, wIthout cItIng any concfete evIdence, that TuthmosIs I
beIonged to a coIIatefaI bfanch of the foyaI famIIy, see fof exampIe GfImaI, N. (1992),
tfansIated by I. Shaw, A History of Ancient Lgypt, Oxfofd: 207.
24 GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 130.
25 Fof a detaIIed study of thIs subject, consuIt Mufnane, W.J. (1977), Ancient Lgyptiun
Coregencies, ChIcago.
26 TfansIatIon taken ffom Wattefson, B. (1991), Women in Ancient Lgypt, Stfoud: 56 and
60. Fof a fuII tfansIatIon of thIs stofy, consuIt IIchtheIm, M. (1980), Ancient Lgyptiun
Literuture III. t/e Lute PerioJ, Ios AngeIes: 127÷8.
27 TfansIatIon taken ffom Wattefson, B. (1991), Women in Ancient Lgypt, Stfoud: 56 and
60. Fof a fuII tfansIatIon of thIs stofy, consuIt IIchtheIm, M. (1980), Ancient Lgyptiun
Literuture III. t/e Lute PerioJ, Ios AngeIes: 127÷8.
28 WIIkInson, J. G. (1837), T/e Ancient Lgyptiuns. t/eir life unJ customs 2, Iondon: 224.
Chapter 3 Queen of Egypt
1 Extfacts ffom the bIogfaphy of InenI, tfansIated In Bfeasted, J. H. (1906), Ancient
RecorJs of Lgypt, voI. 2, ChIcago: 108, 116.
2 Extfact ffom the autobIogfaphy of Ahmose, son of Ibana, tfansIated by S. R. Snape.
Fof a pubIIshed tfansIatIon of thIs wofk, consuIt IIchtheIm, M. (1976), Ancient
Lgyptiun Literuture II. t/e New KingJom, Ios AngeIes: 12÷15.
3 Bfeasted, J. H., Ancient RecorJs of Lgypt, voI. 2, ChIcago: 106.
4 FIgufes suggested by HopkIns, K. B. (1983), Ðeut/ unJ Renewul. sociologicul stuJies in
Romun History, 2, CambfIdge.
5 See BaInes, J. and Eyfe, C. J. (1983), Fouf Notes on IItefacy, Goettinger Miszellen 61:
6 Fof a dIscussIon of PfInce Ramose, see Snape, S. R. (1985), Ramose Restofed: a foyaI
pfInce and hIs moftuafy cuIt, Journul of Lgyptiun Arc/ueology 71. 1S0÷SS. Thefe Is
vIftuaIIy no evIdence to suppoft the exIstence of a fufthef thfee sons (named BInpu,
NekenkhaI and Ahmose) who afe occasIonaIIy cIted as foyaI pfInces but who, wefe
they tfuIy the sons of TuthmosIs and Ahmose, must have dIed In eafIy chIIdhood
befofe they couId make any Impact on the hIstofIcaI fecofd.
7 EgyptoIogy Is by no means an exact scIence, and It femaIns a possIbIIIty that we may
be muddIIng up two Mutnoffets, one the concubIne of TuthmosIs I and mothef of
TuthmosIs II, and one a foyaI pfIncess, the daughtef of TuthmosIs I and sIstef of
TuthmosIs II and Hatchepsut.
8 Caftouche Is the name gIven to the fectanguIaf encIosufe, Intended to fepfesent a tIed
Ioop of fope, aIways dfawn afound the two pfIncIpaI names of the kIngs of Egypt.
9 Sethe, K. (1896), Ðie T/ronwirren unter Jen Nuc/folgern Konigs Tut/mosis I, i/r Verluuf
unJ i/re BeJeutung, IeIpzIg.
10 ThIs stofy Is toId mofe fuIIy In DavIes, W V. (1982), Thebes, In T. G. H. James (ed.),
Lxcuvuting in Lgypt. t/e Lgypt Lxplorution Society 1SS2÷1992, Iondon: 6. It was
evIdentIy Mme NavIIIe who posed the thfeat to the contInuatIon of the afchaeoIogIcaI
wofk, befeft of hef kItchen, she demanded that she and hef husband fetufn
ImmedIateIy to SwItzefIand. It Is temptIng to specuIate that It was NavIIIe's
feIatIonshIp wIth hIs fofcefuI wIfe whIch stImuIated hIs Intefest In Hatchepsut, anothef
fofcefuI woman.
11 Edgefton, W. F. (1933), T/e Tut/mosiJe Succession, ChIcago.
12 Hayes, W. C. (1935), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty, PfInceton.
13 WInIock, H. E. (1932), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1930÷31, Bulletin of t/e Metropolitun
Museum of Art New Yor/ 32.2: 5÷10.
14 Caftef hImseIf InItIaIIy beIIeved that the two women mIght be the nufses of
TuthmosIs IV.
15 GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 180.
16 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/ 23.2:47.
17 Hayes, W. C. (1973), Egypt: IntefnaI AffaIfs ffom TuthmosIs I to the death of
AmenophIs III, In I.E. S. Edwafds et ul. (eds), CumbriJge Ancient History, 3fd edItIon,
CambfIdge, 2.1: 316.
18 Budge, E. A. W. (1902), Lgypt unJ /er Asiutic Lmpire, Iondon: 4. Budge Is by no means
the onIy authof to assume that Hatchepsut fuIed on behaIf of hef weakef bfothef, see,
fof exampIe, Hayes, W. C. (1935), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty, PfInceton:
145. Hayes cItes sevefaI eafIIef fefefences.
19 Caftef, H. (1917), A Tomb Pfepafed fof Queen HatshepsuIt and othef fecent
dIscovefIes at Thebes, Journul of Lgyptiun Arc/ueology 4: 114.
20 Caftef, H. (1917), A Tomb Pfepafed fof Queen HatshepsuIt and othef fecent
dIscovefIes at Thebes, Journul of Lgyptiun Arc/ueology 4:118.
21 Hayes, W. C. (1935), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty, PfInceton: 67.
22 Sethe, K., HeIck W et ul. (1906÷58), Ur/unJen Jer 1S. Ðynustie, IeIpzIg and BefIIn:
23 DIscussed In RobIns, G. (1993), Women in Ancient Lgypt, Iondon: 49.
24 Hayes, W. C. (1973), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty, PfInceton: 316.
25 Maspefo, G. (1896), T/e Struggle of t/e Nutions, Iondon: 242÷3.
26 SmIth, G.E. (1912), T/e Royul Mummies, CaIfo: 29.
27 Caftef, H. and Newbeffy, P. E. (1904), T/e Tomb of T/outmosis IV, Iondon.
28 Fof a fevIew of the vafIous caches, consuIt Reeves, C. N. (1990), Vulley of t/e Kings.
t/e Jecline of u royul necropolis, Iondon: Chaptef 10.
29 Bfugsch's wofds quoted In WIIson, E. (1887), FIndIng Phafaoh, T/e Century Muguzine.
Bfugsch was appafentIy concefned that hIs candIe mIght cause a confIagfatIon In the
dfy and dusty chambef. John Romef, who aIso quotes ffom Bfugsch, devotes a chaptef
to the cIfcumstances suffoundIng the fIndIng of the DeIf eI-BahfI cache In Romef, J.
(1981), Vulley of t/e Kings, Iondon.
30 Dawson, W. R. (1947), Iettefs ffom Maspefo to AmeIIa Edwafds, Journul of Lgyptiun
Arc/ueology 33:70.
31 See, howevef, Reeves, C. N. (1990), Vulley of t/e Kings. t/e Jecline of u royul necropolis,
Iondon, Chaptef 10: 18÷19. Reeves beIIeves that TuthmosIs II was not Inteffed In the
VaIIey of the KIngs, but In a Iessef tomb at DeIf eI-BahfI.
32 See, fof exampIe, GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 181 '. ffom Its
negIect one mIght conjectufe that no one cafed vefy much what was hIs fate', Hayes,
W. C. (1935), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty, PfInceton: 144 '.one couId hafdIy
have expected hef to have had eIthef the IncIInatIon of the oppoftunIty to make
eIabofate pfepafatIons fof TuthmosIs II's bufIaI.'
33 Sethe, K., HeIck, W. et ul. (1906÷58), Ur/unJen Jer 1S. Ðynustie, IeIpzIg and BefIIn:
180, 8÷12.
34 ThIs Is dIscussed fufthef In Redfofd, D. B. (1967), History unJ C/ronology of t/e
Lig/teent/ Ðynusty of Lgypt. seven stuJies, Tofonto: 74÷6.
35 ConsuIt GaboIde, I. (1987), Ia chfonoIogIe du fegne de ThoutmosIs II, ses
consequences suf Ia datatIon des momIes foyaIes et Ieufs fepefcussIons suf I'hIstoIfe du
deveIoppement de Ia VaIIee des RoIs, StuJien zur Altugyp-tisc/en Kultur 14: 61÷81. The
pfobIem of Hatchepsut's age Is dIscussed In BIefbfIef, M. I. (1995), How oId was
Hatchepsut?, Goettinger Miszellen 144: 15÷19.
36 NavIIIe, E. (1894), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri. its plun, its founJers unJ its first
explorers. IntroJuctory Memoir, 12th MemoIf of the Egypt ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon:
Chapter 4 King of Egypt
1 Extfact ffom the bIogfaphy of InenI, tfansIated In Bfeasted, J. H. (1906), Ancient
RecorJs of Lgypt. /istoricul Jocuments, voI. 2, ChIcago: 341.
2 IIchtheIm, M. (1973), Ancient Lgyptiun Literuture I. t/e OlJ unJ MiJJle KingJoms, Ios
AngeIes: 220.
3 Sethe, K and HeIck, W. (1906÷58) Ur/unJen Jer 1S. Ðynustie, IeIpzIg and BefIIn,
4.219, 13÷220, 6. Bfeasted, J. H. (1988), Ancient RecorJs of Lgypt, 2nd edItIon, 2,
ChIcago: 187÷212.
4 NavIIIe, E. (1896), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri Purt 2, 14th MemoIf of the Egypt
ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 15.
5 NavIIIe, E. (1896), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri Purt 2, 14th MemoIf of the Egypt
ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 17.
6 NavIIIe, E. (1898), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri Purt S, 16th MemoIf of the Egypt
ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 5÷6.
7 The paftIaIIy efased InscfIptIon wIth a sImIIaf theme cafved on the uppef nofthefn
coIonnade at the DeIf eI-BahfI moftuafy tempIe and aIfeady dIscussed In Chaptef 3 Is
aIso best dIsfegafded as pufe fIctIon, and contfIbutes IIttIe to ouf seafch fof the date
of Hatchepsut's accessIon.
8 A donatIon steIa fecovefed ffom Nofth Kafnak, appafentIy efected by Senenmut In
Yeaf 4, seems at fIfst sIght to offef pfoof of a co-fegency by Yeaf 4 as It fefefs to
TuthmosIs III as kIng, descfIbes Hatchepsut as 'Maatkafe', and mentIons the moftuafy
tempIe of DeIf eI-BahfI whIch can onIy have been buIIt foIIowIng Hatchepsut's
accessIon. Howevef, thIs steIa was badIy damaged soon aftef It was cafved and,
aIthough It has undefgone extensIve festofatIon dufIng the 19th Dynasty, we cannot
now be ceftaIn that ouf feadIng of the yeaf date Is accufate. Refefences to
Senenmut's tomb suggest that the steIa was cafved some tIme aftef Yeaf 7.
9 Fof fufthef detaIIs concefnIng thIs cuIt, consuIt BeII, I. (1985), Iuxof TempIe and the
CuIt of the RoyaI Ku, Journul of Neur Lustern StuJies 44: 251÷94.
10 TfansIatIon gIven by Dofman, who examInes the evIdence fof the accessIon date of
Hatchepsut In mInute detaII, gIvIng vaIuabIe fefefences to eafIIef and mofe
specIaIIzed pubIIcatIons. ConsuIt Dofman, P. F. (1988), T/e Monuments of Senenmut.
problems in /istoricul met/oJology, Iondon, Chaptef 2: 22.
11 As McDoweII has poInted out: 'It Is at any fate suspIcIous that the god Amen's wIshes
so often coIncIded wIth the manIfest desIfe of the KIng of the HIgh PfIest. aIthough
thIs may have been the fesuIt of some subconscIous InfIuence on those who
Intefpfeted the god's wIII fathef than the mofe cfass manIpuIatIon of the pfoceedIngs.'
McDoweII, A. (1990), JurisJiction in t/e Wor/men's Community of Ðeir el-MeJinu,
IeIden: 107.
12 The ceIebfatIon of the /eb-seJ fofms the basIs of WIIIIam GoIdIng's ancIent EgyptIan
noveIIa T/e Scorpion GoJ (1971), Iondon.
13 See UphIII, E. P. (1961), A joInt seJ-festIvaI of Thutmose III and Queen Hatchepsut,
Journul of Neur Lustern StuJies 20: 248÷51.
14 Hayes, W. C. (1935), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty, PfInceton: 144.
15 Hayes, W C. (193 5), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty, PfInceton: 146.
16 Hafem pIots and paIace IntfIgues wefe fafeIy IncIuded In the offIcIaI EgyptIan
fecofds as they wefe cIassed as gfIevous offences agaInst muut and as such wefe
consIdefed best Ignofed, but they dId exIst.
17 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1927÷1928, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/ 23.2: 8.
18 Ffom the statue-base of Inebny, now housed In the BfItIsh Museum, quoted and
dIscussed In Mufnane, W.J. (1977), Ancient Lgyptiun Coregencies, ChIcago: 41.
19 It Is, of coufse, aIways possIbIe that he dId Indeed do so, but thIs begs the questIon
why waIt untII Hatchepsut was a feIatIveIy oId woman (aged between thIfty-fIve and
fIfty-fIve) befofe havIng hef kIIIed?
20 The whoIe questIon of the pfoscfIptIon of Hatchepsut's memofy Is consIdefed In detaII
In Chaptef 8.
21 GIbbon, E. (1896), J. B. Bufy (ed.), T/e History of t/e Ðecline unJ Iull of t/e Romun
Lmpire, Iondon, 1: 149.
22 Bfeasted, J. (1906), Ancient RecorJs of Lgypt. /istoricul Jocuments, voI. 2, ChIcago:
342, 343.
23 Ray, J. (1994), Hatchepsut the femaIe phafaoh, History ToJuy 44.5: 28.
24 The DeIf eI-BahfI moftuafy tempIe, Ðjeser-Ðjeseru, Is consIdefed In mofe detaII In
Chaptef 6.
25 ChfIstIe, A. (1945), Ðeut/ Comes us t/e LnJ, GIasgow. The IdentIfIcatIon of the path Is
made In Romef, J. (1981), Vulley of t/e Kings, Iondon: 135.
26 Romef, J. (1974), TuthmosIs I and the BIban eI-MoIuk, Journul of Lgyptiun Arc/ueology
60: 119÷33.
27 WInIock, H. E. (1929), Notes on the febufIaI of TuthmosIs I, Journul of Lgyptiun
Arc/ueology 15: 64.
28 DavIs, T. M. (ed.) (1906), T/e tomb of Huts/opsitu, Iondon: xIII.
29 Caftef, H., (1906), DescfIptIon of the fIndIng and excavatIon of the tomb, In DavIs,
T. M. (ed.) (1906), T/e tomb of Huts/opsitu, Iondon: 80.
30 Hayes, W. C. (1935), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty, PfInceton: 98.
31 See, fof exampIe, RobIns, G. (1983), NatufaI and canonIcaI pfopoftIons In ancIent
EgyptIans, Goettinger Miszellen 61:17÷25. RobIns's fIgufes afe based on pfe-New
KIngdom skeIetaI femaIns.
32 Hayes, W. C. (1935), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty, PfInceton: 139÷140. Hayes
beIIeved that TuthmosIs I had ofIgInaIIy been bufIed In KV 38, and that TuthmosIs III
was mefeIy festofIng hIs gfandfathef to hIs fIghtfuI tomb. It Is pefhaps somewhat
unfaIf to cfItIcIze Hatchepsut's meanness In pfovIdIng hef fathef wIth a second-hand
safcophagus, as such fafe a pIece of cfaftsmanshIp, even second-hand, wouId have
been ImmenseIy vaIuabIe.
33 WInIock, H. E. (1929), Notes on the febufIaI of TuthmosIs I, Journul of Lgyptiun
Arc/ueology 59.
34 Maspefo, G. (1896), T/e Struggle of t/e Nutions, Iondon: 582.
35 WhIIe It Is not entIfeIy ImpossIbIe that TuthmosIs I dIed young, and Indeed hIs hIghest
fecofded fegnaI yeaf Is onIy Yeaf 4, the hIstofIcaI evIdence wouId suggest that he
enjoyed a Iongef IIfe. Fof a dIscussIon of the feIgn Iengths of TuthmosIs I and
TuthmosIs II, consuIt Wente, E. F. and Van SIcIen, C. C. (1977), A ChfonoIogy of the
New KIngdom, StuJies in Honor of George R. Hug/es, ChIcago: 217÷61. The pfobIem of
usIng X-fay anaIysIs to age mummIes Is dIscussed In mofe detaII In RobIns, G. (1981),
The vaIue of the estImated ages of the foyaI mummIes at death as hIstofIcaI evIdence,
Goettinger Miszellen 45: 63÷8.
36 The fIfst moftuafy chapeI of TuthmosIs I Is consIdefed In fufthef detaII In QuIfke, S.
(1990), Kefem In the FItzwIIIIam Museum, Journul of Lgyptiun Arc/ueology 76: 170÷74.
Chapter 5 War and Peace
1 WInIock, H. E (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin of t/e Metropolitun
Museum of Art New Yor/ 23.2: 47. WInIock Is quotIng ffom Hatchepsut's own Iess than
modest descfIptIon of hefseIf.
2 ButtIes, J. R. (1908), T/e Queens of Lgypt, Iondon: 90. ButtIes Is agaIn quotIng
dIfectIy ffom Hatchepsut's monuments.
3 Benson, M. and GoufIay, J. (1899), T/e Temple of Mut in As/er, Iondon: 160.
4 Hayes, W. C. (1959), T/e Scepter of Lgypt, 2, New Yofk: 100.
5 Fof a fuII dIscussIon of Hatchepsut's statuafy and Its sIgnIfIcance consuIt TefnIn, R.
(1979), Lu Stutuuire J'Huts/epsout. portruit royul et politique sous lu 1Se Jynustie,
6 NavIIIe, E. (1898), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri Purt S, 16th MemoIf of the Egypt
ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 5.
7 See, fof exampIe, GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 183: 'TwIce
befofe In Egypt's eafIIef hIstofy a queen had usufped the kIngshIp, but It was a
whoIIy new depaftufe fof a femaIe to pose and dfess as a man.'
8 Mafgetts, E. I. (1951), The mascuIIne chafactef of Hatchepsut, Queen of Egypt,
Bulletin of t/e History of MeJicine 25: 559.
9 Mafgetts, E. I. (1951), The mascuIIne chafactef of Hatchepsut, Queen of Lgypt,
Bulletin of t/e History of MeJicine 25: 561.
10 Wafnef, M. (1981), Joun of Arc. t/e imuge of femule /eroism, Iondon, 145÷6.
11 Deutefonomy 22: 5. It Is IntefestIng that by the Iate twentIeth centufy, most socIetIes
wIII accept a woman weafIng tfadItIonaI men's cIothIng, but the sIght of a man In a
dfess Is stIII pefceIved as devIant sexuaI behavIouf.
12 ThIs Is dIscussed fufthef In TefnIn, R. (1979), Lu Stutuuire J'Huts/epsout. portruit royul
et politique sous lu 1Se Jynustie, BfusseIs.
13 Fof thIs, and othef exampIes of Imagefy In EIIzabethan aft, consuIt Stfong, R. (1977),
T/e Cult of Llizubet/, Iondon.
14 Extfact ffom the obeIIsk InscfIptIon of Hatchepsut, tfansIated by S. R. Snape.
15 GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 189. GafdInef Is by no means the
onIy egyptoIogIst to have fepfesented Hatchepsut's feIgn as an entIfeIy peacefuI one
wIthout offefIng much evIdence In suppoft of hIs assumptIon. DonaId Redfofd has
gIven a detaIIed examInatIon of aII the avaIIabIe evIdence fof Hatchepsut's wafs In
Redfofd, D. B. (1967), History unJ C/ronology of t/e Lig/teent/ Ðynusty. seven stuJies,
Tofonto: Chaptef 4. Redfofd concIudes that Hatchepsut's mIIItafy campaIgns have In
fact been sIgnIfIcantIy undefstated.
16 Budge, E. A. W. (1902), Lgypt unJ /er Asiutic Lmpire, Iondon: x.
17 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/ 23.2: 52.
18 Muffay, M. (1926), Queen Hatchepsut, In W. Bfunton, Kings unJ Queens of Ancient
Lgypt, Iondon: 63.
19 WIIson, J. (1951), T/e BurJen of Lgypt, ChIcago.
20 WoIf, N. (1990), T/e Beuuty Myt/, Iondon: 207.
21 DIo CassIus, tfansIated by E. Cafey, Ðio's Romun History Boo/ L, Iondon, 33.
22 Ffasef, A. (1988), T/e Wurrior Queens. BouJiceu's C/uriot, Iondon: 9.
23 NavIIIe, E. (1898), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri Purt S, 16th MemoIf of the Egypt
ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 11.
24 NavIIIe quoted and dIscussed In Redfofd, D. B. (1967), History unJ C/ronology of t/e
Lig/teent/ Ðynusty. seven stuJies, Tofonto: 59.
25 TfansIatIon gIven In HabachI, I. (1957), Two gfaffItI at SeheI ffom the feIgn of
Queen Hatchepsut, Journul of Neur Lustern StuJies 16: 99.
26 NavIIIe, a fefvent suppoftef of Hatchepsut, fIfst posed thIs questIon In 1906 (see
DavIs, T. M. (ed.), T/e tomb of Huts/opsitu, Iondon: 74). Howevef, those mofe cfItIcaI
of Hatchepsut have often taken the opposIte vIew, seeIng hef feIgn as a backwafds
step In the expansIon of the empIfe, and occasIonaIIy beIng hIghIy cfItIcaI of
Hatchepsut hefseIf fof denyIng TuthmosIs III an even Iongef and mofe gIofIous feIgn.
27 GafdInef, A. (1946), The Gfeat Speos AftemIdos InscfIptIon, Journul of Lgyptiun
Arc/ueology 32: 46.
28 Tomb InscfIptIon of the OId KIngdom Ovefseef Hafkhuf, who Is hImseIf quotIng ffom
a Iettef wfItten by the chIId-kIng PepI II. TfansIatIon based on that gIven by James, T.
G. H. (1984), P/uruo/'s People. scenes from life in imperiul Lgypt, Oxfofd: 29.
29 NavIIIe E. (1906), The IIfe and Monuments of the Queen, In T. M. DavIs (ed.), T/e
tomb of Huts/opsitu, Iondon: 28÷9.
30 NavIIIe, E. (1898), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri Purt S, 16th MemoIf of the Egypt
ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 14.
31 NavIIIe, E. (1906), In DavIs, T. M. (ed.) T/e tomb of Huts/opsitu, Iondon: 73÷4.
32 NavIIIe, E. (1898), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri Purt S, 16th MemoIf of the Egypt
ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 13.
33 NavIIIe, E. (1898), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri Purt S, 16th MemoIf of the Egypt
ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 14.
34 NavIIIe, E. (1898), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri Purt S, 16th MemoIf of the Egypt
ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 14.
35 Quoted In KItchen, K. A. (1971), Punt and how to get thefe, Orientuliu 40, 184÷
36 NavIIIe, E. (1898), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri Purt S, 16th MemoIf of the Egypt
ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 16÷17.
Chapter ô Propaganda in Stone
1 Extfact ffom the obeIIsk InscfIptIon of Hatchepsut, tfansIated by S. R. Snape.
2 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/ 23: 53.
3 Fof a fuII tfansIatIon of the IntefIof texts of the Speos AftemIdos, ffom whIch these
thfee extfacts afe taken, see FaIfman, H. W. and GfdseIoff, B. (1947), Texts of
Hatchepsut and Sethos I InsIde Speos AftemIdos, Journul of Lgyptiun Arc/ueology 33:15.
4 GafdInef, A. (1946), The Gfeat Speos AftemIdos InscfIptIon, Journul of Lgyptiun
Arc/ueology 32: 47÷8.
5 DIscussed In detaII In Bjofkman, G. (1971), Kings ut Kurnu/. u stuJy of t/e treutment of
t/e monuments of royul preJecessors in t/e Lurly New KingJom, Acta UnIvefsItatIs
UpsaIIensIs, UppsaIa.
6 Extfact ffom the obeIIsk InscfIptIon of Hatchepsut, tfansIated by S. R. Snape.
7 TfansIatIon aftef James, T. G. H. (1984), P/uruo/'s People. scenes from life in imperiul
Lgypt, Oxfofd: 34.
8 ThIs obeIIsk Is unInscfIbed and thefefofe cannot be defInIteIy attfIbuted to
Hatchepsut. Howevef, It Is known to date to the TuthmosIde pefIod, and Hatchepsut
seems to be the most IIkeIy ownef.
9 PIIny, Nuturul History, Book 36:14.
10 HabachI, I. (1957), Two GfaffItI at ScheI ffom the feIgn of Queen Hatshepsut, Journul
of Neur Lustern StuJies 16:90.
11 Extfact ffom the obeIIsk InscfIptIon of Hatchepsut, tfansIated by S. R. Snape.
12 HabachI, I. (1957), Two GfaffItI at ScheI ffom the feIgn of Queen Hatshepsut, Journul
of Neur Lustern StuJies 16: 99.
13 NavIIIe, E. (1894), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri. its plun, its founJers unJ its first
explorers. IntroJuctory Memoir, 12th MemoIf of the Egypt ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 1.
14 See Dodson, A. (1989), Hatshepsut and hef 'fathef' Mentuhotpe II, Journul of Lgyptiun
Arc/ueology 75: 224÷6.
15 ButtIes, J. R. (1908), T/e Queens of Lgypt, Iondon: 85.
16 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/ 23: 55÷6.
17 The foundatIon deposIts wefe Intended to ensufe that aII wouId go weII wIth the
buIIdIng, a pafaIIeI may be dfawn wIth the modefn pfactIce of fofmaIIy IayIng
foundatIon stones.
18 Ovef thfee hundfed engfaved seaIs have been fecovefed ffom the foundatIon deposIts
of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru, these afe mostIy InscfIbed wIth the fegaI name of Hatchepsut but
they aIso gIve the names of Hatchepsut the queen (35), TuthmosIs II (31), PfIncess
Nefefufe, 'KIng's Daughtef, KIng's SIstef and God's WIfe' (18), TuthmosIs 1 (2) and
Amen (18). Most of these scafabs can now be found In the coIIectIons of the
MetfopoIItan Museum of Aft, New Yofk.
19 Text Is quoted In BfovafskI, E. (1976), Senenu, HIgh PfIest of Amun, Journul of
Lgyptiun Arc/ueology 62: 70.
20 See, fof exampIe, Donohue, V. A. (1992), The goddess of the Theban MountaIn,
Antiquity 66: 881: '. the matefnaIIy genefatIve emphasIs In hef own ]I.e.
Hatchepsut's| mythIc pefsonaIIty that so Intense a ceIebfatIon of thIs goddess confIfms
goes faf to modIfy the pfevaIIIng vIew that It was In mascuIIne tefms aIone that
Hatchepsut sought to authentIcate hef supfemacy.' See aIso Robefts, A. (1995), Hut/or
Rising. t/e serpent power of Ancient Lgypt, Totnes. Robefts aIso stfesses what she sees as
the Impoftant IInk between Hathof and Hatchepsut.
21 To some obsefvefs, howevef, the tfIpaftIte natufe of the tempIe Is of gfeat
Impoftance. See, fof exampIe, Robefts, A. (1995), Hut/or Rising. t/e serpent power of
Ancient Lgypt, Totnes: Chaptef 116.
Chapter 7 Senenmut: Greatest of the Great
1 An extfact ffom Senenmut's fIctIonaI curriculum vitue, composed by WInIock and based
on vafIous ofIgInaI soufces. See WInIock, H. E. (1942), Lxcuvutions ut Ðeir el-Bu/ri,
1911÷19S4, New Yofk: 16.
2 Petef Dofman dIscusses eafIy appfoaches to Senenmut In some detaII befofe takIng a
ffesh Iook at the afchaeoIogIcaI and hIstofIcaI evIdence fof hIs IIfe and achIevements.
ConsuIt Dofman, P. F. (1988), T/e Monuments of Senenmut. problems in /istoricul
met/oJology, Iondon and New Yofk. Fof an eafIIef study of Senenmut, see Meyef, C.
(1982), Senenmut. eine prosopogru-p/isc/e Untersuc/ung, Hambufg.
3 Fof a fIctIonaIIzed account of the IIfe of Senenmut, fead Gedge, P. (1977), C/ilJ of t/e
Morning, New Yofk. ThIs hIstofIcaI fomance teIIs how the teenage pfIest Senmut
fescues the PfIncess Hatchepsut ffom an untImeIy death by dfownIng In the Sacfed
Iake of the Kafnak tempIe. ThIs Ieads to a IIfeIong bond between the paIf, whIch Is
onIy bfoken when the now poweffuI Senmut Is assassInated by the agents of the
dIspIaced KIng Thothmes. The gfIevIng Hatchepsut, settIng a pfecedent fof EgyptIan
queens, chooses to commIt suIcIde fathef than face IIfe wIthout hef Iovef.
4 ThIs mattef Is dIscussed fufthef In RoehfIg, C. H. and Dofman, P. F. (1987), SenImen
and Senenmut: a questIon of bfothefs, Vuriu Aegyptiucu, 3: 127÷34.
5 IansIng, A. and Hayes, W. (1937), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1935÷36, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/ 32.2: 31÷21.
6 CamInos, R. and James, T. G. H. (1963), Gebel Ls-Silsilu/ 1. T/e S/rines, Iondon: 5.
7 Extfact ffom the text cafved on the base of a bIock statue of Senenmut now housed In
the BfItIsh Museum. Aftef James, T. G. H. (1984), P/uruo/'s People. scenes from life in
imperiul Lgypt, Oxfofd: 32.
8 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/ 23.2: 36.
9 Extfact ffom the autobIogfaphy of InenI, Bfeasted, J. H. (1906), Ancient RecorJs of
Lgypt. /istoricul Jocuments, voI. 2, ChIcago: 43.
10 Fofbes, D. (1990), Queen's MInIon Senenmut, KMT 1: 1, 16. ThIs aftIcIe gIves a bfIef
but hIghIy feadabIe fevIew of the IIfe and majof wofks of Senenmut.
11 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/ 23.2:36.
12 Stevenson SmIth, W, T/e Art unJ Arc/itecture of Ancient Lgypt, fevIsed and edIted by
W. K. SImpson (1981), New Haven: 226.
13 Paft of an InscfIptIon fecofdIng Senenmut's appeaI to Hatchepsut fof pefmIssIon to
have hIs statue pIaced wIthIn the Kafnak tempIe, aftef Dofman, P. F. (1988), T/e
Monuments of Senenmut. problems in /istoricul met/oJology, Iondon and New Yofk: 125.
14 Fof a fuII tfansIatIon of the stofy consuIt IIchtheIm, M. (1976), Ancient Lgyptiun
Literuture II. t/e New KingJom, Ios AngeIes: 214÷23.
15 Wente, E. R. (1984), Some GfaffItI ffom the ReIgn of Hatchepsut, Journul of Neur
Lustern StuJies 43:47÷54.
16 MannIche, I. (1977), Some Aspects of AncIent EgyptIan SexuaI IIfe, Actu Orientuliu
17 The ancIent Romans took the vIew that man's desIfe fof sexuaI Intefcoufse made hIm
weak and effemInate, sex thefefofe gave women powef ovef men. The ancIent
EgyptIans took entIfeIy the opposIte vIew.
18 SImpson, W. K. (1984), Senenmut, Lexi/on Jer Ägyptologie, WIesbaden, 5:850.
19 GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd: 184.
20 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/ 23.2: 36.
21 Hayes, W. C. (1957), VafIa ffom the TIme of Hatchepsut, Mitteilungen Jes Ðeutsc/en
Arc/uologisc/en Instituts Abteilung Kuiro 15: 84.
22 Extfact ffom the IIst of funefafy offefIngs fecofded In Tomb 353, aftef Dofman, P. F.
(1991), T/e Tombs of Senenmut, New Yofk: 138.
23 Both Senenmut tombs wefe InvestIgated In the fIfst haIf of thIs centufy by H. E.
WInIock, wofkIng on behaIf of the MetfopoIItan Museum of Aft, New Yofk. The
pfevIousIy unknown Tomb 353 was dIscovefed In 1927, and thIs Ied to fenewed
Intefest In Tomb 71, whIch was cIeafed dufIng the 1930÷31 season.
24 The feconstfucted safcophagus has been pubIIshed In Hayes, W C. (1950), The
Safcophagus of Sennemut, Journul of Lgyptiun Arc/ueology 36: 19÷23.
25 Dofman, P. F. (1991), T/e Tombs of Senenmut, New Yofk: 29, notes that: 'Today these
coffIdofs have been fefIIIed wIth debfIs up to the IeveI of the fIoof of Tomb 71 and
cannot be feInvestIgated wIthout consIdefabIe cIeafance. The pfesent wfItef was
unabIe to entef the tomb of Aanen to InvestIgate the passage ffom the othef end.'
26 AIthough thefe Is aIways the possIbIIIty that thIs pIt fepfesents an unfeIated
secondafy bufIaI cut Into the fIoof of the haII some tIme aftef the tomb had faIIen Into
27 WInIock's IntefpfetatIon of the seaIIng of Tomb 353 foIIowIng the unexpected death
of Senenmut. See WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin
of t/e Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/ 23.2:58.
28 Fof a detaIIed dIscussIon of Senenmut's mystefIous dIsappeafance, pIus a usefuI IIst of
othef pubIIcatIons on thIs subject, consuIt SchuIman, A. R. (1969÷70), Some Remafks
on the AIIeged 'FaII' of Senmut, Journul of t/e Americun Reseurc/ Center in Lgypt 8: 29÷
Chapter 8 The End and the Aftermath
1 Extfact ffom the obeIIsk InscfIptIon of KIng Hatchepsut, tfansIated by S. R. Snape.
2 The steIa of Nakht ffom SInaI, fof exampIe, dated to Yeaf 20 of the joInt feIgn, shows
the two kIngs as equaIs, Hatchepsut on the fIght and TuthmosIs on the Ieft, makIng
pafaIIeI offefIngs to IocaI deItIes.
3 See, fof exampIe, Edgefton, W. F. (1933), T/e Tut/mosiJe Succession, ChIcago: 34: 'If I
wefe to hazafd my pefsonaI guess, I shouId say that Hatchepsut's body was pfobabIy
dIsposed of In the same mannef as the bodIes of Senta's chIIdfen In the demotIc taIe ÷
that the dogs and cats ate hef.'
4 See, fof exampIe, Hayes, W. C. (1935), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty,
PfInceton: 151.
5 PubIIshed In DavIs, T. M. (ed.) (1906), T/e tomb of Huts/opsitu, Iondon: un-numbefed
pIate opposIte page 78.
6 CIccafeIIo, M. and Romef, J. (1979), A Preliminury Report of t/e Recent Wor/ in t/e
Tombs of Rumesses X unJ XI in t/e Vulley of t/e Kings, San FfansIsco: 3.
7 Fof a dIscussIon of the tomb of Ramesses XI and Its contents see Reeves, N. (1990),
Vulley of t/e Kings. t/e Jecline of u Royul Necropolis, Iondon: 121÷3.
8 PetfIe, W. M. F. (1924), A History of Lgypt Juring t/e XVIIt/ unJ XVIIIt/ Ðynusties, 2,
Iondon: 92.
9 DonaId P. Ryan descfIbes the cIfcumstances behInd the fedIscovefy of thIs tomb, and
dIscusses the Hatchepsut hypothesIs, In Ryan, D. P. (1990), Who Is bufIed In KV60?,
KMT, 1:34÷63.
10 Extfact ffom the AnnaIs of TuthmosIs III. IIchtheIm, M. (1976), Ancient Lgyptiun
Literuture II. t/e New KingJom, Ios AngeIes: 30.
11 TuthmosIs III ÷ a Ieonafdo-IIke 'RenaIssance Man' ahead of hIs tIme ÷ Is supposed to
have desIgned the fufnIshIngs Intended fof the tempIe of Amen.
12 Maspefo, G. (1889), Les Momies Royules Je Ðeir el-Bu/uri, PafIs: 547÷8.
13 Hayes, W. C. (1935), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty, PfInceton: 138.
14 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/, 23.1: 58.
15 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1927÷28, Bulletin of t/e Metropolitun
Museum of Art New Yor/, 23.2:9.
16 NavIIIe, E. In T. M. DavIs (ed.) (1906), T/e tomb of Huts/opsitu, Iondon: 71, 72.
17 NIms, C. F. (1966), The Date of the DIshonoufIng of Hatchepsut, Zeitsc/rift fbr
Ägyptisc/e Spruc/e unJ Altertums/unJe, IeIpzIg: 97÷100. The whoIe questIon of the
defacement of Hatchepsut's monuments Is dIscussed In gfeat detaII, wIth aII feIevant
fefefences, In Dofman, P. F. (1988), T/e Monuments of Senenmut. problems in /istoricul
met/oJology, Iondon: Chaptef 3.
18 See IIpInska, J. (1967), Names and HIstofy of the SanctuafIes buIIt by TuthmosIs III
at DeIf eI-BahfI, Journul of Lgyptiun Arc/ueology 35: 25÷33.
19 See Van SIcIen, C. (1989), New data on the date of the defacement of Hatchepsut's
name and Image on the ChapeIIe Rouge, Goettinger Miszellen 107: 85÷6.
20 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/, 23.1: 46. Fufthef detaIIs of the fIndIng of statue-
ffagments at DeIf eI-BahfI afe IncIuded In the BuIIetIn VoIumes 18,23 and 24.
21 WInIock, H. E. (1928), The EgyptIan ExpedItIon 1925÷1927, Bulletin of t/e
Metropolitun Museum of Art New Yor/, 23.1: 46.
22 UnpubIIshed wofk by the Iate Ramadan Saad, quoted In Dofman, P. F. (1988),
Monuments of Senenmut. problems in /istoricul met/oJology, Iondon: Chaptef 3.
23 A questIon aIfeady posed by Redfofd, D. B. (1967), History unJ C/ronology of t/e 1St/
Ðynusty. seven stuJies, Tofonto: 87: 'StandIng aIone befofe the Image of the queen,
TuthmosIs feIented. She was, aftef aII, hIs own fIesh. In the dafkness of the cfypt, In
the stIIIness of the ceIIa, hef coId statues, whIch nevef vuIgaf eye wouId agaIn behoId,
stIII conveyed fof the kIng the wafmth and awe of a dIvIne pfesence.'
24 It couId, howevef, be afgued that, because of the bfIef and dIstufbed natufe of
Twosfet's feIgn, she was unabIe to buIId the InscfIbed monuments whIch wouId have
pfesefved the evIdence of such a pefsecutIon. Twosfet's monuments may not have
been defaced sImpIy because they dId not exIst.
25 PIutafch, T/e Lives of t/e Noble Greciuns unJ Romuns, tfansIated by SIf Thomas Nofth
(1927), Oxfofd.
26 The hIstofy of the tempIe, whIch Is InextfIcabIy bound up wIth Hatchepsut's own
hIstofy, has been fecofded by sevefaI authofs, see fof exampIe NavIIIe, E. (1894), T/e
Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri. its plun, its founJers unJ its first explorers. IntroJuctory Memoir,
12th MemoIf of the Egypt ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon, WysockI, Z. (1979), T/e Temple
of Queen Hutc/epsut. Results of t/e investigutions unJ conservution wor/s of t/e Polis/-
Lgyptiun urc/ueologicul Mission 196S÷72, Wafsaw.
27 NavIIIe, E. (1894), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri. its plun, its founJers unJ its first
explorers. IntroJuctory Memoir, 12th MemoIf of the Egypt ExpIofatIon Fund, Iondon: 3.
28 WIIkInson, J. G. (1835), Topogrup/y of T/ebes unJ Generul View of Lgypt, Iondon.
29 IepsIus, K. R., tfansIated by I. and J. R. Hofnef (1853), Letters from Lgypt, Lt/iopiu,
unJ t/e Peninsulu of Sinui, Iondon: 255÷6.
30 Shafpe, S. (1859), T/e History of Lgypt. from t/e eurliest times till t/e conquest by t/e
Arubs AD 640, Iondon.
31 PIeffet, P. (1875), Ðictionnuire J'Arc/eologie Égyptienne, PafIs: 248. TfansIatIon,
authof's own.
Further Reading
The fefefences IIsted beIow IncIude the mofe basIc and accessIbIe pubIIcatIons wIth
pfefefence gIven to those wfItten In EngIIsh, aII these wofks IncIude bIbIIogfaphIes
whIch wIII be of Intefest to those seekIng detaIIed fefefences on specIfIc subjects. Mofe
specIaIIzed fefefences to poInts faIsed In the text have been IncIuded In the notes.
AIdfed, C. (1980), Lgyptiun Art, Iondon.
BaInes, J. and MaIek, J. (1980), Atlus of Ancient Lgypt, Oxfofd.
Bfeasted, J. H. (1906), Ancient RecorJs of Lgypt. /istoricul Jocuments, 5 voIumes, ChIcago.
Dofman, P. F. (1988), T/e Monuments of Senenmut. problems in /istoricul met/oJology,
Dofman, P. F. (1991), T/e Tombs of Senenmut, New Yofk.
GafdInef, A. (1961), Lgypt of t/e P/uruo/s, Oxfofd.
GfImaI, N., A History of Ancient Lgypt, tfansIated by I. Shaw (1992), Oxfofd.
HaffIs, J. E. and Wente, E. F. (1980), An X-Ruy Anulysis of t/e Royul Mummies, ChIcago
and Iondon.
Hayes, W. C. (1935), Royul Surcop/ugi of t/e XVIII Ðynusty, PfInceton.
Hayes, W. C. (1959), T/e Scepter of Lgypt Vol II, CambfIdge, Mass.
Hayes, W. C. (1973), Egypt: IntefnaI affaIfs ffom TuthmosIs I to the death of AmenophIs
III, In I. E. S. Edwafds et ul. (eds), T/e CumbriJge Ancient History, 3fd edItIon,
CambfIdge, 2.1: 313÷416.
James, T. G. H. (1973), Egypt: ffom the expuIsIon of the Hyksos to AmenophIs I, In I. E.
S. Edwafds et ul. (eds), T/e CumbriJge Ancient History, 3fd edItIon, CambfIdge, 2.1:289÷
Kemp, B.J. (1989), Ancient Lgypt. unutomy of u civilizution, Iondon.
IIchtheIm, M. (1976), Ancient Lgyptiun Literuture II. t/e New KingJom, Ios AngeIes.
Manetho, tfansIated by W. G. WaddeII (1956), CambfIdge, Mass. and Iondon.
NavIIIe, E. (1895÷1908), T/e Temple of Ðeir el-Bu/uri, 7 voIumes, Iondon.
RatIe, S. (1979), Lu Reine Hutc/epsout, sources et problèmes, Ieyden.
Redfofd, D. B. (1967), History unJ C/ronology of t/e Lig/teent/ Ðynusty. seven stuJies,
Reeves, C. N. (1990), Vulley of t/e Kings. t/e Jecline of u royul necropolis, Iondon.
RobIns, G. (1993), Women in Ancient Lgypt, Iondon.
Shafef, B. E., ed. (1991), Religion in Ancient Lgypt. goJs, myt/s unJ personul pructices,
SmIth, G. E. (1912), T/e Royul Mummies, CaIfo.
Stevenson SmIth, W, T/e Art unJ Arc/itecture of Ancient Lgypt, fevIsed and edIted by W.
K. SImson (1981) New Haven.
TfIggef, B. G., Kemp, B. J., O'Connof, D. and IIoyd, A. B., eds (1983), Ancient Lgypt. u
sociul /istory, CambfIdge.
Tfoy, I. (1986), Putterns of Queens/ip in Ancient Lgyptiun Myt/ unJ History, Bofeas.
TyIdesIey, J. A. (1994), Ðuug/ters of Isis. women of uncient Lgypt, Iondon.
Wattefson, B. (1991), Women in Ancient Lgypt, Stfoud.
FIgufes In ItaIIc fefef to a pIctufe captIon on that page.
Abd eI-RassuI famIIy of Gufna 92÷3
Abu SImbeI 172÷3
Abydos 27,230
AffIca, foyaI women of 48
AffIcanus 13, 230
AftefIIfe 35, 72, 169, 210, 216
Ahhotep I, queen 47, 57÷8, 92, 97÷8, 200
Ahhotep II, queen 127
Ahmose, phafaoh 24÷7, 34,
accessIon 24, 55,
and Ahhotep I 57÷8, 97÷8,
buIIdIng pfojects 61,
cuIt and ofacIe of 108,
honoufs gfandmothef, TetIshefI 43,44, 61,
and Hyksos 24÷5,26, 141,
mIIItafy campaIgns 24÷7, 141,
mummy 93
Ahmose, queen 65, 75÷7, 83,104, 175
Ahmose, son of Ibana 24÷6, 61÷2, 70÷71, 83, 141
Ahmose NefeftafI, queen 123, 133,
bufIaI 92,93,200,
cuIt 57, 62,
poIItIcaI foIe 57, 58÷62, 97÷8,
feIIgIous patfonage 61, 159
Ahmose-Pennekheb (soIdIef) 26, 82, 83, 88, 116
Ahwefe, PfIncess 66
Akhbetnefefu, PfIncess 75
Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV), phafaoh 33, 66, 110, 136, 144, 226÷7
Akhenkhefes, daughtef of Ofos 136
AkhmIm 181
Amafna, tombs at 53
Amafna pefIod 202, 223
Amazons 140
AmJuut (funefafy IItefatufe) 123
Amen (god) 13,S0, 169,
bafque of 106÷7, 108, 152, 153, 170,
defacIng of monuments 208, 223,
Ðjeser-Ðjeseru shfIne 169,
and Feast of the VaIIey 169÷71,
God's WIfe of 59÷60, 62, 83, 89,226,
Hatchepsut's devotIon to 9, 33, 102, 103, 105, 107, 146, 154, 156, 161, 174,
and Hofemheb 107,
Kafnak tempIe 23÷4, 30, 32,162, 16S, 174, 188,
kIngs and cuIt of 5, 30÷31, 32÷3,
(endofses kIngshIp) 95, 96, 107, 114,
and MIn 162,
and moftuafy tempIes 72, 169,
patfonage of afmy 29,
queens' connectIon 46, 59÷60, 62, 83, 89, 226,
and Re 30,
Senenmut as Stewafd of 153, 178, 185
Amenemhat I, phafaoh 15, 30, 47
Amenemhat II, phafaoh 145
Amenemhat III, phafaoh 17
Amenemhat IV, phafaoh 18
Amenemhat, bfothef of Senenmut 205
Amenemope, vIzIef 55, 206
Amenenthe (supposed phafaoh) 231÷2
Amenhotep I, phafaoh 61÷2,
accessIon 26,
Ahmose NefeftafI as fegent 61, 97÷8,
buIIdIng pfojects 62, 71, 159, 162, 164,
bufIaI 72,93,
caftouche 61,
cuIt and ofacIe of 57, 62, 108,
and DeIf eI-MedIna 35, 57, 62,
fofeIgn poIIcy 26, 61÷2,
maffIage 67,
successIon of TuthmosIs I 63,119
Amenhotep II, phafaoh 33, 91, 215, 224
Amenhotep III, phafaoh: buIIdIng pfojects 17, 102,
fofeIgn feIatIons 68, 144, 145,
maffIages 66, 67, 226, (see ulso TIy, queen),
and feIIgIon 33,
tomb 92, 213
Amenhotep IV, phafaoh see Akhenaten
Amenhotep (boy bufIed at Gufna) 196
Amenhotep, ChIef Stewafd 117, 161, 196
Amenhotep, son of Hapu (afchItect) 176
Amenmose, PfInce 75÷6,77
amphofa seaIs 99
Anath, Astafte (goddess) 20
Anen (bfothef of Queen TIy) 51, 201
ankh 103, 111
Ankhesenamen, queen 66, 68, 227
Ankhes÷MefIfe, queen 58
AnubIs (god) 169, 174, 175, 199
ape, cynocephaIous 151, 153
ApophIs, phafaoh 19÷20, 22÷3
afchaeoIogy, bIas 10÷11,35,141
AfchaIc PefIod 43, 44, 235
Afgo, IsIand of 70
Afmant 180, 223
afmy 27÷9,
booty 24÷5,
cafeef In 29, 41, 56, 183,
command stfuctufe 29,
equIpment 21,2S,
gods and vIctofy 29,
Hyksos Impfove 21,
kIng as head 7,29,
MemphIs headquaftefs 36, 70,
suppoft fof Hatchepsut's kIngshIp 115,
TuthmosIs III tfaIns In 113, 114,
woman as commandef 47, 57÷8, see ulso waffafe
aft, pIctofIaI 17, 40, 146,
depIctIon of sexes 133, 240, see ulso Image, powef of
afts 16÷17, 21, 40, 62, see ulso aft, pIctofIaI, Image, powef of, IItefatufe, scuIptufe
AssyfIa 39
Astafte (goddess) 20
astfonomy 194, 205
Aswan 142÷3, 159÷61, 200
Aten (sun dIsc), cuIt of 33, 223
Augustus, Roman Empefof 230
autobIogfaphIes 16, 24÷6
AvafIs (Hyksos capItaI) 19,25
Ay, phafaoh 53, 181
Ayfton, Edwafd 214
BabyIon 39,68
bafque, sacfed see unJer Amen
Bay, Gfeat ChanceIIof 228
Beechey, WIIIIam 231
BeIzonI, GIovannI BattIsta 122, 231
BenI Hassan 17, 155
Bhutto, BenazIf 118
BInothfIs, phafaoh 133
BoadIcea, queen of IcenI 140
bodyguafds, foyaI 27
Book of the Dead 198, 199
booty 24÷5
bow, composIte 76
BfItaIn 47, 48, 140, see ulso EIIzabeth I
bfonze wofkIng 21
Bfugsch, EmIIe 93, 215
Buhen 195÷6
buIIdIng: bfIck 10, 37,
destfuctIon of eafIIef buIIdIngs 158÷9, 221,
kIngs' foIe 7, 40,
ofganIzatIon 7,154, 177, 194,
paIaces 37,
pfopaganda vaIue 9, 154, 155, 158, 174,234,
stone 10, 31,35, 38÷9,
12th Dynasty 17,
wofkfofce 7, 38, see ulso the IndIvIduaI pIaces, obeIIsks, pyfamIds, tempIes, unJ unJer
the IndIvIduaI phafaohs
Bufton, James 122
caIendaf 12÷13
Caftef, Howafd 84, 122÷4,211÷12, 214, 234
caftouches 22, 24, 61, 6S, 7S, 211,
Hatchepsut 100, 230,231,233
CathefIne the Gfeat, TsafIna 191
ChampoIIIon, Jean FfançoIs 231÷2
ChapeIIe Rouge, Kafnak 106÷8, 164, 219÷21,
cafvIngs 89, 107÷8, 109, 160, 161,
dIsmantIed 107, 220÷21, 223
chafIots, hofse-dfawn 21, 76
Chestef, Revd GfevIIIe 213
chIIdfen: moftaIIty 73,
foyaI 54÷8,75÷7
ChIna: Han Dynasty 51
ChfIstIe, Agatha 121
chfonoIogy, tabIe of 235
cIvII sefvIce: buIIdIng supefvIsIon 154,
cafeefs In 56, 80, 183,
contInuIty 117,208,
deveIopment 15,21, 39, 41,
shfInes at GebeI SIIsIIa 184,
suppoft fof Hatchepsut's kIngshIp 115, 138,
tItIes 185÷6, see ulso Senenmut
CIeopatfa VII, queen 4, 140, 191, 229÷30
coffIns 126÷7, 212
concubInes, kIngs' 50÷54
conscfIptIon, Iabouf 7
contInuIty 5÷6, 8÷10, 42, 50, 117, 208
coppef 16, 39, 144
Coptos 30, 145, 152
co-fegency 63÷5, 95÷6, 101, 105÷6, 110, 114, 215
cosmetIc contaInef 129
Cfete, MInoan 190
Cusae: tempIe of Hathof 158
DagI, vIzIef 199
datIng system 12÷13, see ulso fegnaI yeafs
DavIs, Theodofe M. 123, 124
death 10,
Second, of souI 72, 216, see ulso AftefIIfe, mummIes, tombs
defacement of monuments 208, 228÷9, see ulso unJer Hatchepsut, Senenmut
DeIf eI-BahfI: cache of mummIes 91÷4, 126÷7, 212, 213,
Ðjeser-A//et 165, 175, 208, 220,
excavatIons 79,
ffagmentafy statues of Hatchepsut 221÷2,
gfaffItI, wofkmen's 188,189, 190÷91,
'Hatchepsut HoIe 221,
Hathof cuIt 165,
Mentuhotep II's moftuafy tempIe 165, 167, 175,
monastefy 165, 176,
pfocessIonaI way 159, 170,
Senenmut Quaffy 221,
tombs (InhapI) 92÷4,
( Senenmut, see unJer Ðjeser-Ðjeseru),
tunneIs to VaIIey of the KIngs 119, 121, see ulso Djesef-Djesefu
DeIf eI-MedIna 35÷6, 56÷7, 62, 108, 230
desecfatIon of monuments see defacement
Djehuty, ChIef Tfeasufef 143, 168
Ðjeser-A//et 165, 175, 208, 220
Ðjeser-Ðjeseru, DeIf eI-BahfI 1, 165, 166, 167÷71, 173÷6,
aftef Hatchepsut's death 230, 231,
Amen cuIt 169,
AnubIs, chapeI of 169, 174, 175,
cafvIngs of Hatchepsut's IIfe 101÷6, 109, 111, 131,141÷2, 143, 160÷61, 174,
(of mIssIon to Punt) 146÷7, 148, 150÷51, 152÷3, 174,
defacement 216, 221÷2, 223,
excavatIon 11,
Feast of the VaIIey 169÷71, 175, 220,
foundatIon deposIts 168÷9,
Hathof, chapeI of 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175,
Hatchepsut's moftuafy tempIe 84, 119, 169, 175,
Senenmut and 168, 177, 178, 194÷6,
(tomb) 196, 203, 204, 205÷6,
soIaf tempIe 169, 175,
statues 80÷81, 130, 221÷2,
TuthmosIs I commemofated 168, 175,
(moftuafy tempIe) 119, 127÷8, 169, 175,
TuthmosIs II's buIIdIng wofk 167,
TuthmosIs III InscfIptIon 95
Djosef, phafaoh 58, 235
dfaughts-boafd 213
dfess, Hatchepsut's 130÷34
dynastIes 12,
1st-2nd 44,
12th 5, 15÷18, 40,
13th 18,
15th-16th 19, (see ulso Hyksos),
17th 5, 19, 21÷4, 45÷50,
18th 5,
(hIstofIcaI backgfound) 24÷42,
(queens) 45÷50,
19th 37, see ulso the IndIvIduaI fuIefs
Eastefn Deseft: goId 16, 39
economy 21, 32, 38÷9, 112, 154
Edfu: quaffIes 200
Edgefton, WIIIIam 79
educatIon 39÷40, 88, 180
egyptoIogIsts 2÷3, 4, 66÷7, 77÷80, 138÷9, 231÷4, see ulso the IndIvIduaI names
EIIzabeth I, Queen of EngIand 118, 137, 139, 140, 182, 191
Lloquent Peusunt, Story of t/e 16
Essex, Robeft Devefeux, 2nd EafI of 182
eunuchs 53
Euphfates, fIvef 26, 70÷71, 214÷15
EusebIus 13
FaIyum 16
famIne 38
Feast of the VaIIey 169÷71, 175, 220
femInIst theofIsts 139
festIvaIs 102, 106, 107, see ulso Feast of the VaIIey
FIeId of Reeds 35, 169, 210, 216
fofeIgn poIIcy: dynastIc maffIages 50, 51÷2, 68÷9,
12th Dynasty 15÷16, see ulso unJer the IndIvIduaI phafaohs
Ffeud, Anna 118
Ffeud, SIgmund 118, 139
funefafy cuIts 27, 57, 62
GandhI, IndIfa 139
Gaza PaIestIne 143
Geb (god) 69
GebeI Ahmaf quaffIes 38, 200
GebeI SIIsIIa shfInes 183÷4, 186
GebeIeIn quaffIes 200
GIbbon, Edwafd 115÷16
GIza deseft 76, 233, 235
gods 29÷33,
ofacIes 108÷9,
see ulso feIIgIon unJ unJer the IndIvIduaI names
goId 16, 39, 145, 147, 151, 153
Gofdon, Ch. H. 122
gfaffItI 122, 188, 1S9, 190÷91
Gfeek IsIands 39, 190
Gufna: Abd eI-RassuI famIIy 92÷3,
cemetefy 196, 197, 198÷203,206
Han Dynasty, ChIna 51
Hapuseneb, HIgh PfIest of Amen 55, 116, 119, 168, 184
hafems, foyaI 36÷7, 50÷54
Hatchepsut, phafaoh: advIsefs 116÷17, (see ulso Senenmut),
age at maffIage 65,
age when wIdowed 96÷7,
and Amen 29, 33, 102,107, 146,154,156, 161, 174,
appeafance 126, 129÷37,
bIfth 65,
bIfth stofy 101÷6, 131, 174,
buIIdIng pfojects 1,4, 9, 112, 154,177, (see ulso Ðjeser-Ðjeseru unJ unJer Kafnak),
caftouches 100, 230,231,233,
chafactef 2÷4,
competence 112,
cofonatIon 106÷9,
death and bufIaI 179, 210÷14,
defacement of monuments 77÷8, 114÷15, 141, 155, 208,216÷26,
dIvInIty 101,192,
economy undef 112, 154,
fofeIgn poIIcy 112,
(defence and waffafe) 137÷44,210,
(tfade and expIofatIon) 144÷53, (see ulso Punt),
gendef 1÷2, 5,
(as man) 1, 105, 130÷37, 231÷3,
(as woman) 1,130,135÷6,227,
and Hathof 76, 105, 171÷3, 172, 174, 175,
justIfIcatIon of fuIe 101,146,154,
and Ka 103÷4, 131,
as kIng 87÷90, 98, 99÷119, 133,
(date of becomIng) 99÷100, 101, 106÷9, 111÷13,
and muut 9÷10, 89, 136, 146, 157, 158, 226,
memofy see pfoscfIptIon below,
mummy 213÷14,
names 13,99, 104,117,154,
and Nefefufe 4, 86, 87÷90,
pfopaganda 2, 4, 6, 101÷6, 146,
(monuments as) 9, 154, 155, 158,174, 234,
pfoscfIptIon of memofy 1,4, 77÷8, 80, 141, 155, 216÷26,233,
(date) 114÷15, 218÷19,
(omItted ffom kIng IIsts) 1, 224, 230, 233, (see ulso defacement ubove),
Punt expedItIon see unJer Punt,
as queen consoft 80, 81, 83÷6, 100, 106, 112,
as fegent 1, 97÷8, 113÷14,
fegnaI yeafs 100, 106, 224,
safcophagI 124, 126, 211÷12,223,
sed-festIvaI 109÷11, 161,
seIf-pfesentatIon 101, 118÷19, 130÷37, 231÷3,
and Senenmut 178, 179, 184, 1S9, 190÷93,205, 207÷8,
sexuaI behavIouf 189, 190÷93,
statuafy 11, 130, 174÷5, 184, 219,
tItIes 60, 83, 97÷8, 117,
tombs, (kIng's) 119, 120, 121÷8, 211÷12, 223,
(queen's) 84, S5, 86, 119, 126,
tfade mIssIons 1, 9, 144÷5, (see ulso Punt),
and TuthmosIs I 4, 117÷19, 122, 132, 161,
(aIIeged co-fegency) 101, 105÷6, 110,
(buIIds moftuafy tempIe fof) 119, 127÷8,169, 175,
and TuthmosIs II 1, 65, 66, 80, 81, 83÷6,96÷7,
(and memofy) 94, 117, 118÷19,
and TuthmosIs III 113÷15, 224,
(aIIeged feud) 80, 138, 216÷27,
(fegency) 1, 97÷8, 113÷14,
(shafed feIgn) 114, 136, 210,224,
(TuthmosIs bufIes) 211,214,
(TuthmosIs' pfoscfIptIon of memofy) 216÷26,
and waffafe 29, 137÷44,174
'Hatchepsut HoIe', DeIf eI-BahfI 221
'Hatchepsut PfobIem' 77÷80
Hathof (goddess) 172,17S,
Cusae tempIe 158,
cuIt at Ðjeser-Ðjeseru 165, 169, 171,172, 173, 174, 175,
Hatchepsut and cuIt of 76, 105, 171÷3, 174, 175,
queens' assocIatIon wIth 46, 172÷3,
wofshIp In DeIf eI-MedIna 57
Hatnofef (Senenmut's mothef) 99, 180, 182÷3, 198
Hatnub quaffIes 39
Hayes, WIIIIam C. 79, 99, 130,234
heIght, avefage 125
Heket (goddess) 101, 104
HeIIopoIIs 29,215,228
Hen/etun// (tempIe) 127
HefIt, pfIncess 19
Hef-NeIth, queen 44
hIefogIyphIc wfItIng 230, 231, 234
HIppoIyta (Amazon) 140
hIstofIcaI backgfound 15÷42
HIttItes 27, 36, 39, 68, 227
homosexuaIIty 189÷90
Hofemheb, phafaoh 92, 107
Hofmose (sIngef) 196
hofses 21
Hofus (god) 8, 5S, 60, 136, 190,
sons of 199
Howafth, Jesse 213
huntIng 76, 77, 215
Hyksos 15, 18÷21, 22÷5, 135,235,
Ahmose expeIs 24÷5, 26, 141,
Hatchepsut and memofy of 9, 157
Image, powef of, as substItute fof pefson of thIng fepfesented 137, 142, 188, 194÷5
Imhotep, vIzIef 116, 175÷6
Incense 145, 146, 147÷8, 151,
tfees 148, 14S, 152, 170÷71
InenI (couft offIcIaI) 71÷2, 83, 116, 117, 119, 185÷6,
afchItect 71÷2, 121, 159, 205
Inet see SItfe
InhapI, tomb of 92÷4
InhefItance Iaw 68
InscfIptIons, monumentaI 11, 12, see ulso defacement of monuments
Instructions in WisJom 16
IntefmedIate PefIods 6, 8, 235,
FIfst 34, 235,
Second 9, 15, 18÷21, 58, 235,
ThIfd 60, 212, 235
Ipuwer, AJmonitions of 9
IffIgatIon 7, 16
IsabeIIa, queen of SpaIn 140
IsIs (goddess) 46, 58, 69, 101, 199
IsIs, queen 94, 224
IsIam 223
IsoIatIon poIIcy 21,27
IstabI Antaf see Speos AftemIdos
Itj÷Tawy 15
ItfufI 75
Ivofy 145, 147, 151
jeweIIefy, Hatchepsut's 129
Joan of Afc 133÷4, 140, 191
Josephus 13,230
jubIIees 109÷11, 161
Ka, foyaI 102, 103÷4, 131
eI-Kab 24÷6, 49
Kadesh 36, 214÷15
Kamose, phafaoh 20, 23÷4, 55
Kafnak tempIe compIex 32, 34,
Ahmose NefeftafI and 61, 159,
Amen, gfeat tempIe of 23÷4, 30, 32, 162,16S, 174, 188,
Amenhotep I's embeIIIshment 71, 159, 162, 164,
Amenhotep III's buIIdIng at 17,
demoIItIon of eafIIef buIIdIngs 158÷9, 221,
ChapeIIe Rouge see unJer Its sepafate entfy,
HaII of AnnaIs 215, 220,
Hatchepsut's buIIdIng 158÷9, 162÷4,219,233, (see ulso obeIIsks below, unJ ChapeIIe
Hatchepsut's cofonatIon 109,
Hatchepsut SuIte 164, 219,
InscfIptIon on Mutnoffet 77,
Mut, tempIe of 164, 188,
obeIIsks 158÷9, 159÷62, 164, 174, 194, 216, 221, 233,
pfocessIonaI ways 107, 159, 162, 164, 170,
pyIons 71, 164,
Senenmut and 178, 188, 194,
steIa of Kamose 23÷4,
TuthmosIs I's wofks 71, 158÷9,161, 164,
TuthmosIs II's wofks 81, 158, 164,
TuthmosIs III's wofks 164, 215, 220÷21,
see ulso ChapeIIe Rouge
Kennedy famIIy 48
Kefma, kIngdom of 19÷20
Khabekhnet, tomb of, DeIf eI-MedIna 57
Khaemwaset, PfInce 76
K/enmetun// (moftuafy chapeI) 72÷3, 75, 76, 77, 128
Khnum (god) 101, 103, 104
Khonsu (god) 31, 162, 170
kIng IIsts 1, 12, 18, 224, 230, 233
kIngs and kIngshIp 6÷10, 41,
and Amen 3, 30÷31, 32÷3,
buIIdIng wofks 7, 40,
chIIdfen 54÷8,
contInuIty 6,
cofonatIon 106÷9, 135, 174,
dIspIay 41,
dIvInIty 7÷10, 20, 33, 47, 64, 101÷6, 134÷5, 192,
fofeIgn, adopt tfadItIonaI fegaIIa 135,
hafems 36÷7, 50÷54,
maffIages 50÷54, 65÷9, 75,
mIIItafy IeadefshIp 27, 29,
offIce,pefson dIstInctIon 6, 135,
pfesentatIon and appeafance 135÷7,
pfogfesses 36÷8,
quaffyIng monopoIy 200÷201,
and feIIgIon 7÷10, 17, 30, 33, 101÷6, 169,
successIon ffom outsIde ImmedIate famIIy 62, 135,
tombs 37,
women 6, 18, (see ulso Hatchepsut, Sobeknoffu, Twosfet), see ulso co-fegency, Ka,
fegaIIa, fegencIes
Kom Ombo 215
Kush 19÷20, 61, 117, 142
Iabouf fofce 7, 38
Iand ownefshIp 39, 45, 52, 54
IansIng, Ambfose 99, 2S4
Iaw: InhefItance 68,
sexuaI feIatIons 67
IeIcestef, Robeft DudIey, EafI of 182
IepsIus, KafI RIchafd 122,232÷3
Ievant 24, 26, 27, 36, 144, 210, 214÷15, see ulso PaIestIne
IIfe expectancy 73
IItefacy 88, 180
IItefatufe 16, 39÷40, 66, 123, 215
IIvIa, Roman Empfess 191
IIvIng condItIons 34÷5
Iowef cIasses 41, 42, 132
Iuxof 34, 102, 107, 162
Iuxufy goods 39, 144÷5
muut (contInuIty) 8÷10, 88, 162,
Hatchepsut as pfesefvef 9÷10, 89, 136, 146, 157, 158,
Hatchepsut as thfeat to 226
Maatkafe (Hatchepsut's thfone name) 13, 99, 104
Manetho (scfIbe) 1, 12÷13, 20, 133, 230
MafIanne of Ffance 140
MafIette, Auguste 11, 234
Mafk Anthony 230
maffIage: to cIose feIatIons 50, 65÷9, 181,
dynastIc 50, 51÷2, 68÷9,
poIygamous 50÷54, 75
Maspefo, Gaston 23, 90, 127, 215÷16
matfIafchy 46, 49, 67
medIcIne 73, 148
MedInet Habu 94
MeIf, GoIda 139
memofy, pfoscfIptIon of: and Second Death 216, see ulso unJer Hatchepsut, Senenmut
MemphIs 29, 31, 36, 37, 70
Menkafe-NItocfIs, queen 233
Mentuhotep II, phafaoh 165, 167, 175
Mentuhotep III, phafaoh 145
Mefenptah, phafaoh 53, 75
Mefenptah SIptah, phafaoh 227
MefItamen, queen 60,62
MefItfe-Hatchepsut, queen 86, 89, 215,226
Mer-Wer (hafem paIace) 54
Mery/ure, T/e Instruction for 158
Mefyt-NeIth, queen 44
Meskhenet (goddess) 101, 104÷5
metaIIufgy 21
Meyef, Eduafd 79
mIddIe cIasses 39, 41, 42, 80, 181
MIddIe KIngdom: chfonoIogy 235,
Images of phafaohs 133,
mIgfatIons 18,
queens 44÷5, see ulso unJer the IndIvIduaI phafaohs
mIgfatIons 18
MIn (god) 30, 46,107,230,
Amen-MIn 162
mInIng 16, 39, 144, 200
MItannI 36, 39, 70÷71, 214÷15
mobIIIty, socIaI 182÷3
MoefIs (TuthmosIs III) 231
Montu (od) 162
MoofIng PIaces of Phafaoh (paIaces) 36,37
moftaIIty, Infant and chIId 73
moftuafy tempIes 32, see ulso unJer Ðjeser-Ðjeseru, K/enmetun//, and the IndIvIduaI
TuthmosIde phafaohs
mummIes and mummIfIcatIon 72, 148,
DeIf eI-BahfI cache 91÷4, 126÷7, 212, 213,
Hatchepsut 213÷14,
pathoIogy 23, 53,
X-fay ageIng 213, see ulso TuthmosIs I, II and III
Mut (goddess) S1, 162, 164, 170, 188
Mutnoffet, queen 75, 76÷7
myffh 145, 147÷8, 151
NahafIn 70
names, pefsonaI 13, 154
NapoIeonIc ExpedItIon 122, 231
Nafmef, phafaoh 27, 65
NavIIIe, Edouafd 11,79, 97÷8,141, 234,
on Hatchepsut's memofy 218÷19, 220,
on Punt 147,150
NefefIfkafe, phafaoh 101
NefeftafI, queen 172÷3,227
NefeftItI, queen 5, 227
NefefubIty (Hatchepsut's sIstef) 175
Nefefufe, pfIncess 4, 60, 66, 86÷90, 171, 175,
tutofs 88, 181,
(Senenmut) 88, 177, 178, 183, 188, 207
NeIth-Hotep, queen 44, 65, 235
Nekhbet (goddess) 46
Nemaathep, queen 44, 58
Nenefefkaptah, PfInce (fIctIonaI chafactef) 66
Nephthys (goddess) 69, 101, 199
NeshI, ChanceIIof 116, 184, 195÷6,
expedItIon to Punt 147, 149, 150, 153
Neskhons, Iady 92
New KIngdom: chfonoIogy 235
New Yeaf's days 64, 106
NIIe, fIvef: Catafacts, (FIfst) 38,
(ThIfd) 70,
InundatIons 18, 38,
MoofIng PIaces of Phafaoh 36, 37
NItocfIs, queen 233
nobIIIty 41, 54÷8
NubIa: campaIgns 16, 23, 25÷6, 27, 61,
(TuthmosIs I) 26, 36, 70,
(TuthmosIs II) 82,
(Hatchepsut) 141÷3,210,
(TuthmosIs III) 210,
EgyptIan foftfesses 70,
goId 39,
and HIttItes 19÷20,
foyaI women 48,
Semna tempIe 97÷8,
TuthmosIs III's monuments 113, 215
nufses, foyaI 80÷81, 214
Nut (goddess) 69, 86, 199
obeIIsks: Hatchepsut's 101, 119, 158÷9, 159÷62, 174, 194, 233,
(waIIed up aftef death) 216, 221,
TuthmosIs I 110, 119, 159, 164
occupatIons 181, 183, see ulso afmy, cIvII sefvIce, wofkfofce
OctavIan 230
oII 39, 129÷30
OId KIngdom: chfonoIogy 235,
Images of phafaohs 133,
queens 44÷5, 172, see ulso the IndIvIduaI phafaohs
OId Testament 134
Opet (god) 107, 162
ofacIes of gods 108÷9
OsIfIs (god) 8, 58, 59, 69, 162, 169,
Hatchepsut's OsIfIde statues 174÷5, 219
ostfaca 11÷12, 108, 186÷7, 198
Ottoman suItans' hafem 52, 53÷4
PahefI (bufeaucfat, of eI-Kab) 49, 75
paIntIng see aft, pIctofIaI
Pakhet (goddess) 155÷8, 173
paIaces 36÷8, 52
PaIestIne 24, 26, 82, 143, 214÷15,228
papyfI 11,
HaffIs I 152,
IansIng 39÷40,
Westcaf 101
Pa-Ramesses 37
PauI, St 181
PeneIope (wIfe of Odysseus) 191
PenthesIIea (Amazon) 140
PepI II, phafaoh 58
peffumes 129÷30, 147, 153
PetfIe, FIIndefs 79
phafaoh: defIvatIon of wofd 6
PhIIIp AffhIdaeus 221
PhoenIcIa 144
PInedjem I, phafaoh 92, 126÷7
PIIny the EIdef 160
PIutafch 229
Pococke, Revd RIchafd 231
PoIIsh MIssIon 234
pottefy 20, 21
pfIesthood 33, 41, 56, 115, 138, 183
pfInces 55÷7, 58
pfIncesses, fofeIgn 50, 51÷2
pfopaganda 41,
expedItIon to Punt as 146,
Hatchepsut's 2, 4, 6, 101÷6, 146,
InscfIptIons 12,
mIIItafy 28, 157÷8,
monuments as 9, 154, 155, 158, 174, 234, see ulso unJer feIIgIon
pfoscfIptIon see unJer memofy
pfovInces: mIddIe cIasses 181
Ptah (god) 162
PtoIemaIc PefIod 135, 175÷6, 229÷30, 235
Punt 13, 16, 145,
Hatchepsut's expedItIon 116, 144, 145÷53, 170÷71, 173, 174
Puyemfe, Second Pfophet of Amen 168, 208
pygmIes, dancIng 145
PyrumiJ Texts 86
pyfamIds: and cuIt of Re 29, 30, 72,
GIza 233, 235,
Sakkafa 96, 235,
12th Dynasty 17, 30,
17th Dynasty 21÷2
quaffIes, stone 160, 200÷201
queens 43÷50, 57÷62, 135,
AfchaIc PefIod 43, 44,
OId KIngdom 44÷5, 172,
MIddIe KIngdom 44÷5,
17th and 18th DynastIes 45÷50, 57÷62,
In cfIsIs 47÷8,
dIvInIty 45÷6,
as 'God's WIfe of Amen' 59÷60, 62, 83, 89, 226,
Hatchepsut as conventIonaI queen consoft 80, 81, 83÷6, 100, 106, 112,
and Hathof 172÷3,
Iand ownefshIp 45, 52, 54,
fegaIIa 45÷6,
fegencIes 57÷8, 61,
tItIes 45, 59÷60
QuseIf 145, 151, 152
Ramesses II, phafaoh 181, 224, 235,
chIIdfen 50, 75, 76,
moftuafy tempIe 73,230
Ramesses III, phafaoh 92, 152
Ramesses IX, phafaoh 92,213
Ramesses XI, phafaoh: tomb 212
Ramesses SIptah, phafaoh 227
Ramesseum 73,230
Ramose (Senenmut's fathef) 99, 180, 182÷3, 198
Ramose, PfInce 75, 76, 77
Ramose, vIzIef 55
Re (god) 13, 29÷30, 33,
Amen-Re 30,
and pyfamIds 29, 30, 72,
and foyaIty 8, 17, 46, 101, 169
Red Sea 145, 151
Reddjedet, Iady 101
fegaIIa: kIngs' 130, 135,
queens' 45÷6
fegencIes 57÷8, 61
fegnaI yeafs 12, 64, 100, 106, 224
Re-Hafakte, tempIe of 169, 175
RekhmIfe, vIzIef 55
feIIgIon 29÷33,
Aten, cuIt of 33,
foIk-feIIgIon 31÷2,
funefafy cuIts 27, 57, 62,
kIngs and 7÷10, 17,20, 33, 101÷6,
pfopaganda use by Hatchepsut 6, 9, 101÷6, (see ulso Amen (Hatchepsut's devotIon
queens' offefIngs 61,
soufces 10,
state and IocaI gods dIstInct 31÷2, see ulso the IndIvIduaI gods, notabIy Amen, Hathof,
IsIs, OsIfIs, Re
RhodoIphIs (fIctIonaI chafactef) 233
Roman PefIod 68, 73, 160, 230, 235
RoseIIInI, NIccoIo 232
Ryan, DonaId P. 214
Sahufe, phafaoh 101
Sakkafa: kIng IIst 18, 230,
pyfamIds 96, 235
safcophagI see unJer Hatchepsut, Senenmut, TuthmosIs I
SatIoh, queen 90
Sutire of t/e TruJes, T/e 16
scfIbes 39, 180, see ulso cIvII sefvIce
scuIptufe 16÷17, 40,
of Hatchepsut 130, 184, 221÷2,
(OsIfIde) 174÷5, 219,
as pfopaganda 155,
of Senenmut 187÷8
sea tfaveI 145, 150÷52
seaIs, amphofa 99
seJ-festIvaIs 109÷11, 161
SeheI, IsIand of 142÷3, 161
Sekenenfe Tao II, phafaoh 22÷3, 22, 55,93
Sekhmet (god) 162
SemIfamIs of AssyfIa 191
SemItIc mIgfants 18
Semna tempIe, NubIa 97÷8, 100
Senenmut (Stewafd of the Estates of Amen) 177÷209,
appeafance 186÷8,187,
afmy cafeef 143, 177÷8, 183,
and buIIdIng pfogfamme 159, 160, 161, 177, 194, (see ulso Ðjeser-Ðjeseru below),
cafeef and tItIes 180÷86,
chafactef 177,
cuItufaI Intefests 194,
death 206÷8,
defacement of monuments 179, 188, 202, 207, 208÷9, 222÷3,
depIctIons 179, 1S7, 192,
dIsappeafance ffom pubIIc IIfe 179, 206÷8,
and Djesef-Djesefu 119, 168, 177, 178, 194÷6, (see ulso tombs (353) beIow),
famIIy and eafIy cafeef 116, 180÷83,
GebeI SIIsIIa shfIne 183÷4, 186,
and Hatchepsut 178, 179, 184, 1S9, 190÷93, 205, 207÷8,
Nefefufe's tutof 88, 177, 178, 183, 188, 207,
no evIdence of maffIage 181÷2,
and pafents' tomb 99, 182÷3, 186,
popuIafIy accepted bIogfaphy 177÷9,
pfoscfIptIon of memofy 179, 202, 222÷3,
safcophagus 186, 199÷201,
as Stewafd of Estates of Amen 153, 178, 185,
tombs, (71) 89, 90, 99, 143, 178, 181, 183, 186, 196,197, 198÷203,206, (353) 90,
178,179, 181, 186,1S7, 192, 194, 196, 203, 204, 205÷6,
TuthmosIs III and memofy of 208,
weaIth 182÷3, 186
Senenmut Quaffy, DeIf eI-BahfI 221
Senenu, HIgh PfIest of Amen and Hathof 175
SenI, VIcefoy of Kush 117
SenImen (tutof to Nefefufe) 88, 181, 196
SenIseb (mothef of TuthmosIs I) 62÷3, 175
Sennefef, Mayof of Thebes 55, 208
Senwosfet I, phafaoh 17, 30, 145
Senwosfet III, phafaoh 17, 30
SefabIt eI-KhadIm 61, 89, 144
SefagIIo, Gfand 52, 53÷4
Seth (god) 20, 22, 58, 69, 190
Sethe, Kuft 78÷80
Sethnakht, phafaoh 228
SetI I, phafaoh 223,224
SetI II, phafaoh 227
sexuaI behavIouf 67, 1S9, 190÷93
Shafpe, SamueI 233
Shafuhen 24, 25
SheIkh Abd eI-Gufna hIII 196, 197, 198÷203, 206
S/ipwrec/eJ Suilor, Tule of t/e 16
Shu (god) 60
sIIvef Impofts 39
SInaI: campaIgns 24, 113, 228,
mInefaI fesoufces 16, 39, 144, 200
Sinu/e, Story of 16
SIptah, phafaoh 133
SItamen, queen 66
SItfe, known as Inet (Hatchepsut's wet-nufse) 80÷81, 214
SmIth, G. EIIIot 23, 90÷91
Sobeknoffu, queen 18, 87, 136, 137, 226, 228, 235
socIaI ofdef 41, 180÷81, 182÷3, see ulso Iowef cIasses, mIddIe cIasses
SoIomon, kIng of IsfaeI 68÷9
souI, sufvIvaI of 72, 216
soufces 4÷5, 10÷12
Speos AftemIdos tempIe 144÷5, 155÷8, 156, 173, 223
Speos Batn eI-Bakafah tempIe 155
steIae: BefIIn 83, 100,
of Djehuty 143,
of Kamose 23÷4,
at SefabIt eI-KhadIm 89,
of TuthmosIs I 70, 71,
of TuthmosIs II 82
stone, buIIdIng 10, 31, 35, 38÷9, see ulso quaffIes
successIon 62, 64, 77÷80,95, 135
Sudan 70
sun, wofshIp of: soIaf tempIe at Ðjeser-Ðjeseru 169, 175, see ulso Aten, Re
SuppIIuIIuma, KIng of HIttItes 68
SynceIIus 13
SyfIa 26, 143, 214÷15
Tamafa, queen of GeofgIa 140
taxatIon 7, 38
Tefnut (god) 60
TeII eI-Daba see AvafIs
tempIes 31,
economIc Impoftance 32, 39,
foundatIon deposIts 168÷9,
moftuafy 32, 72,
as offefIng to gods 155,
pubIIc excIuded ffom 31, 102,
festofatIon, Hatchepsut's 157, 158, see ulso unJer the IndIvIduaI pIaces and gods
TetIshefI, Queen 43,44, 57, 61, 133
textIIe pfoductIon 39, 54
Thatchef, Mafgafet 118, 139
Thebes: as capItaI 19, 34÷6,
DeIf eI-MedIna, wofkmen's vIIIage 35÷6, 56÷7,62, 108, 230,
18th Dynasty febuIIdIng 31, 32, 34,
foyaI famIIy see TuthmosIde famIIy,
foyaI tombs 32, 34, 37, (see ulso VaIIey of the KIngs),
tempIes 31, 32, (see ulso DeIf eI-BakhfI, Kafnak, Iuxof),
Twosfet's buIIdIng 228
theogamy 102÷3
Thoth (god) 104
Thuyu (pafent of Queen TIy) 200
TI (offIcIaI) 142÷3
tItIes, offIcIaI 185÷6
TIy, queen 51, 66, 213, 226÷7
TIy, Tfeasufef 208
tombs: Amafna 53,
autobIogfaphIes 16, 24÷6,
BenI Hassan 17,
bI-paftIte 205÷6,
caches of mummIes In 91÷4, 126÷7, 212, 213,
InenI desIgns T-shaped 205,
eI-Kab 24÷6, 49,
paIntIngs 17, 40,
pfInces' 56,
febufIaI In gfandef 121, 182÷3,
fobbefs 72, 90, 91÷2, 126, 206, 211, 216,
sepafatIon of bufIaI chambef ffom moftuafy tempIe 72,
and sufvIvaI of souI 72,
TuthmosIde famIIy 119÷28, see ulso unJer the IndIvIduaI names
tfade 16, 21, 36, 39,
Hatchepsut's mIssIons 1, 9, 144÷5, (see ulso Punt)
tfanspoft of obeIIsks 160÷61
tfIbute 39
Tufa IImestone quaffy 61
tufquoIse mInIng 16, 144
Tushfata, kIng of MItannI 39
Tutankhamen, phafaoh 33, 66, 94, 235
TuthmosIde famIIy 5,21÷4,
appeafance 130,
deafth of chIIdfen 75,
feud, tfadItIon of 2, 3, 78, 79, 80, 112, 138, 207, 216÷17,
matfIafchy theofy 46, 49, 67,
tombs 119÷28, see ulso the IndIvIduaI membefs of famIIy
TuthmosIs I, phafaoh 70÷73,
accessIon 62,63,
buIIdIng wofks 35, 71÷3, 11, 119,
(at Kafnak) 158÷9, 161, 164,
caftouche 63,
chIIdfen 75÷7,
death 70,
and Ðjeser-Ðjeseru 168, 175,
domestIc poIIcy 71,
fofeIgn poIIcy 26, 36, 70÷71,
maffIage to Ahmose 65, 67,75÷7,
moftuafy chapeIs 127÷8,
(fIfst, K/enmetun//) 72÷3,75, 76,77, 128,
(Hatchepsut's, at Ðjeser-Ðjeseru) 119, 127÷8, 169, 175,
(TuthmosIs III's) 127,
mothef not foyaI 67,
mummy 93, 127,
safcophagus 124÷6,
steIae 71,
successIon to 77÷80,
tombs 71÷3, 119, 120, 121÷6, 200, 211, see ulso unJer Hatchepsut, TuthmosIs III
TuthmosIs II, phafaoh SS,
accessIon 70, 106,
buIIdIng wofks 81, 158, 164, 167,
and bufIaI of TuthmosIs I 123÷4,
caftouche 7S,
death 94, 99,
domestIc poIIcIes 81,
fofeIgn poIIcy 81÷3,
heaIth 90,
heIght 125,
moftuafy tempIe 94, 175,
mothef 67, 77,
mummy 90÷91, 93,
steIae 82,
tomb 94, see ulso unJer Hatchepsut, TuthmosIs III
TuthmosIs III, phafaoh: accessIon 94÷5,96,99,
Amenhotep II's co-fegency wIth 215,
appeafance 125÷6, 130,216,
buIIdIng wofks 128, 215, 220÷22,
(Ðjeser-A//et) 165, 175, 220,
caftouche 211,
chafactef 113÷14, 215, 217÷18, 225,
depIctIon 224,
descent 67, 94÷5,
and FestIvaI of the VaIIey 171,
fofeIgn poIIcy 143, 144, 210, 214÷5,
and God's WIfe of Amen 60, 226,
hafem-paIace 54,
jubIIees 111,
IItefafy composItIon 215,
maffIages 54, 67,
mIIItafy IeadefshIp 113, 114, 143, 144, 210, 214÷15,
mummy 53, 91, 93, 212, 215÷16,
and Nefefufe 66, 89,
offIcIaIs 117, 208,
ofacIe of Amen cIted to suppoft kIngshIp 95, 96, 114,
and Punt expedItIons 145, 152, 153,
feIgn 214÷15,
seIf-pfomotIon 215,
and Senenmut 208,
tItIes 117,
tomb 215,
and TuthmosIs I 119, 128,
(pfovIdes new tomb and moftuafy chapeI) 121, 126, 127, 211,
and TuthmosIs II: aIIeged co-fegency 95÷6, see ulso unJer Hatchepsut
TuthmosIs IV, phafaoh 33, 51, 60, 91
TuthmosIs, Tfeasufef 117
Tutu, tomb of, at Amafna 53
Twosfet, queen 92, 227÷9, 235
ufaeus 46, 77, 83, 222
Usefamen, vIzIef 117
User/ut-Amen see Amen (bafque of)
Usefkaf, phafaoh 101
VaIIey of the KIngs 32, 35, 56, 71÷3,
mummIes moved away fof pfesefvatIon 91÷4,
tombs (of SItfe) 80÷81, 214, (see ulso unJer the IndIvIduaI fuIefs),
tunneIs ffom DeIf eI-BahfI 119, 121
VaIIey of the Queens 35
vIfgInIty 191
WadI Hammamat quaffIes 39
WadI Maghafa 144
WadI Natfun quaffIes 200
WadI SIkkat Taka ez-ZeIda:
Hatchepsut's tomb 84, S5, 86, 119, 126,
Nefefufe's tomb 90
Wadjet-Renpet, chIef stewafd 208
Wadjmose, PfInce 72÷3, 75, 76, 77, 128
Wadjyt (goddess) 46
waffafe: InventIon of boffowIng of vIctofy 142, 157÷8,
Hatchepsut as waffIof kIng 137÷44, 174,
women and 47, 57÷8, 138÷41, see ulso afmy unJ unJer the IndIvIduaI fuIefs
Wafnef, MafIna 133÷4
Westcaf Papyfus 101
wet-nufses, foyaI 80÷81
WhIte ChapeI of Senwosfet I 17
WIIkInson, John Gafdnef 232
WInIock, Hefbeft E. 80÷81, 82, 154, 234,
and defaced statues of Hatchepsut 11, 79, 217, 221÷2,
on quaIIty of Ðjeser-Ðjeseru 167÷8,
on Senenmut 185, 193
WoIf, NaomI 139
women: conventIonaI depIctIon 133, 240,
In cfIsIs 47÷8,
IegaI status 45,
and mIIItafIsm 138÷41,
phafaohs 6, 18, (see ulso Hatchepsut, Sobeknoffu, Twosfet), see ulso hafems, queens
wofkfofce 7,38
WofId Wafs 47,217
wfItIng 11÷12, 230, 231, 234,
confefs feaIIty 9,142
Yuya (pafent of Queen TIy) 200
ZenobIa of PaImyfa 140