In the year 1479 bc, following the death of Thutmose II, his son of the same name came to power. Born as the son of a royal concubine, he was only a few years old when he assumed control of the government. For this reason his stepmother Hatshepsut was named regent. From the first regnal year of her step-son, Hatshepsut became the most important decision-maker in the court, since Thutmose was still far too young to lead the decision-making process (Dorman 2006: 53). Around the seventh year of ‘‘his’’ reign Hatshepsut crowned herself king (on the chronology see Dorman 2006). It is unclear what compelled her to take this radical step, and various attempts at a psychological explanation remain nothing more than conjectures. According to the opinio communis, from this moment Hatshepsut eclipsed her young co-regent. The main iconographical argument for this thesis, namely that Thutmose is depicted behind Hatshepsut in ritual acts, is by no means conclusive. Not a single figurative representation of a co-regency is known from the Middle Kingdom in which both rulers appear together acting in one scene. Thus there was no appropriate convention available at the beginning of the New Kingdom (cf. Murnane 1977: 200). It must be remembered that Thutmose both in dress, titles, and proportions appears as an equal beside Hatshepsut.
With her accession to the throne Hatshepsut lost her authority as the widow of Thutmose II and as the God’s Wife. To award herself the status of a legitimately crowned ruler, she could invoke two principles: legitimacy as a ruler chosen by a god or parentage by a king. Hatshepsut employed and updated both options. In the temple of Deir el-Bahri she propagated the notion of her divine parentage and employed an older legend, which is known to us in literary form in P. Westcar. In her version she was declared a daughter of the state god Amun-Re. Selection by Amun-Re features in the myth of her birth, and the god again identifies her as king when she is an adult by means of an oracle. An element of legitimacy through inheritance was also added to this. Another text from Deir el-Bahri reports how Hatshepsut was raised to the throne by her father ( Urk. IV 241, 10-265,5), a claim in which she may have re-used a model taken from the Middle Kingdom (Berl. Inscr. I 138 and 268).
An explanation for Hatshepsut’s need for legitimization (apart from the fact that Thutmose was already the legitimate ruler) may have been her gender. In the Egyptian world order only men could be kings. In the early years of her rule Hatshepsut attempted to find a compromise between male and female dress, between the dress of the wife of a god and that of a contemporary king. Later on she abandoned this mode of representation and appeared simply as a king. In texts, on the other hand, she continued to be described as a woman, and she was referred to with female pronouns. Her titulary also reflected her gender. Thus one must ask if the ‘‘male’’ iconography should not simply be understood as normal royal iconography. Hatshepsut is an interesting case of gender-crossing in the context of a clash between biological body and what society requires that body to be in terms of gender. Hatshepsut is famous for her expedition to the land of Punt from which she imported incense and myrrh as well as other exotica that were necessary for the Egyptian cult. She attempted to grow some incense trees in her mortuary temple, where a report of the Punt expedition was also inscribed, but it seems that the trees could not tolerate the Egyptian climate and dried up within a short time.
Just as speculative as the reason for Hatshepsut’s assumption of the throne is the relationship between her and Thutmose III. The young king does not seem to have been pushed into the background, and even before the death of Hatshepsut he appears as a general, and large architectural projects were conducted in the names of both rulers. Moreover, Thutmose took part in religious ceremonies. Differences between the two are not detectable. The apparent hatred that was supposed to have motivated the destruction Hatshepsut’s monuments after her death is a modern fiction and rests on Sethe’s long outdated reconstruction of the history of this period (Sethe 1896). The persecution of her memory began towards the end of the reign of Thutmose III and remains a matter of debate. Labouri (1998: 483-512; 2006: 265f.) explains it as a means of promoting the legitimacy of the late-born Amenhotep II as the successor to the throne by discrediting Hatshepsut and her offspring, but, since he is unable to name any offspring ofHatshepsut, this explanation remains a matter of speculation.
World History
