Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Sankiewicz, Co Regency

Sankiewicz, Co Regency

|Views: 29|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Древен Изток on Oct 13, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





The ‘co-regency’ of Hatshepsut andThutmose III in the light of iconographyin the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari
 Marta Sankiewicz
The principal reason for preparing this paper was the existing confusion as to the questionof how often and in what manner Hatshepsut depicted her nephew Thutmose III on the wallsof her monuments. It is of course crucial in the interpretation of their mutual relationship.Besides the obvious factor of the quantity of the representations, the quality is also important:in which location, position, orientation and with which attributes Thutmose III is represented,and moreover, where he is present, and where is he absent. The way in which both rulers are
represented expresses their ofcial mutual relationship which is most often described as a co-
regency (Murnane 1977, 43–44).The present study was made to settle this debate, at least in the case of the relief decorationin the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari. As a member of the Polish Mission working atDeir el-Bahari I had the opportunity to study this subject as part of my PhD dissertation. Directand unlimited access to the temple allowed me to collect the documentation which was necessaryfrom the methodological perspective. A proper approach must mean analysing the material whichis as complete as possible, and as completely as possible. First, only the complete evidence (or atleast close to completeness), can give statistically important results. Second, not only the number, but all the features that can be considered diagnostic, must be collected and analysed.The crucial matter of the mutual relationship between Hatshepsut and Thutmose III andtheir depictions on the walls of the temple may be falsely perceived. Contemporary publicationsconcerning Deir el-Bahari deal either with separate parts of the temple (Karkowski 2003) or with
separate topics (Ćwiek 2008; Sankiewicz 2008). Even the six volumes of Naville’s monograph(Naville 1895–1908) do not cover the complete decoration of the temple, but give illustrationsof random scenes. Moreover Naville’s artists documented only the last phase of the decorationof the temple. In many cases, gures of Thutmose II instead of those of Hatshepsut appear on
the plates of this publication (
Naville 1895, pl. II). This false image inuenced some recent
 publications (Davies 2004).The problem of the co-regency indicated in the title of this paper will not be considered indetail here. The quotation marks underline the atypical character of this co-regency. The term
‘co-regency’ was used to describe a specic relation between the two rulers –Hatshepsutand
 –HatshepsutandHatshepsut andThutmose III. It seems however, that in this case we are not dealing with a traditional co-regency,although the purpose was somewhat similar (apart from the personal ambitions of Hatshepsut)
 – the younger partner was learning how to govern. According to the common Egyptological
 Marta Sankiewicz
denition of ‘co-regency’ (Shaw and Nicholson 2003, 72), the older king appoints and chooses
his son as a co-ruler and heir. For some time they rule together with the purpose of teachingthe younger and of averting any unrest during the transfer of power after the death of the oldking. In the case of Thutmose III and Hatshepsut, however, he already was a legal king whenshe decided to join him. As it was just at the beginning of Thutmose’s rule, there was no need toworry about his heir. Moreover, he was much younger than Hatshepsut, so he was junior and she
senior. And nally, it was Hatshepsut’s decision to opt for a joint rule, not his. Hatshepsut andThutmose III were ruling together but not according to the dictionary denition of co-regency
(Callender 2002, 32–33).
Thus, the background of our discussion is the rst part of the reign of Thutmose III, whichcovers the time of Hatshepsut’s regency and formal kingship (Bryan 2000, 218–245). The personof Hatshepsut is well known since Jean-François Champollion restored her to life in 1828, whenhe read her names on the walls of the temple of Deir el-Bahari. He was the rst to becomeaware of her female titles set against kingly cartouches (Keller 2005b).Hatshepsut ruled over the Two Lands from 1479 BC until 1458 BC. During the rst sevenyears she was a regent to the young Thutmose III (Dorman 2005a; 2006, 41–49). For the nextfteen years Hatshepsut was his co-ruler (Keller 2005a; Dorman 2006, 49–58). After her death,
Thutmose III ruled alone for another thirty-three years.
Hatshepsut descended from the royal family (Roth 2005a). She was a daughter of Thutmose I,the third king of 18th dynasty, and Queen ‘Ahmose. Thutmose I was included in the royal
line by his marriage to ‘Ahmose. ‘Ahmose was a sister of Amenhotep I and a daughter of the
great ‘Ahmose, the conqueror of Hyksos, and ‘Ahmose-Nefertari (Dodson and Hilton 2004,
122–133). Among the ‘Ahmosid family there were many powerful and important women of 
whom Hatshepsut was the successor (Tyldesley 2006, 79–93).
Hatshepsut married her half-brother, Thutmose II and for about three years she played therole of the King’s Great Wife. After the death of her husband, Hatshepsut became a regent toher stepson, Thutmose III. He was a son of Thutmose II and his secondary wife Isis. During
their marriage, Hatshepsut gave birth to only one daughter, Neferure‘.In this early period “Hatshepsut ruled Egypt in all but name” (Murnane 1977, 33); she did
not use “titles more exalted than those customarily assigned to a royal consort of the purest
royal blood”
(Murnane 1977, 32). It seems that at rst Hatshepsut wanted to avoid any unrest
during the rule of the child-king. It is unclear for how many years this state of regency lasted.
For unknown reasons the role of the regent, based principally on her authority as the God’s
Wife, became insufcient for Hatshepsut. The date of her coronation is disputed. Moreover,
it seems, as already stated by Murnane (1977, 32), that the process during which Hatshepsut became king was gradual.It is undisputed that Hatshepsut was crowned between year 2 and year 7 (Tefnin 1973), whenthe execution of Senenmut’s tomb TT 71 was started. This is the
terminus post quem
for thedate of her coronation: the debris from TT 71 covered the tomb of Senenmut’s parents (Dorman
2005b) in which vessels with sealings bearing Hatshepsut’s kingly titles were deposited (Hayes1957, 78–80;Dorman2006,48–49).Dorman(2006,53)statesthattheexactdateofcoronation –80;Dorman2006,48–49).Dorman(2006,53)statesthattheexactdateofcoronation80; Dorman 2006, 48–49).Dorman(2006,53)statesthattheexactdateofcoronation –49).Dorman(2006,53)statesthattheexactdateofcoronation49). Dorman (2006, 53) states that the exact date of coronation
is not important in the case of Hatshepsut. He described this event as the moment “on whichher 
de jure
iconography caught up with her 
de facto
Hatshepsut based her rights to the throne on the fact that she was the eldest living descendantof Thutmose I. Later she claimed to have shared a co-regency with her father but in the lightof the evidence this is highly doubtful. She omitted the fact of the reign of her husband and did
The ‘co-regency’ of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III 
not try to legitimize her rule on this basis (Dorman 2006, 54–55). She created the myth of thedivine birth as a daughter of Amun-Re who, moreover, legitimized her rule through an oracular  proceeding (Murnane 1980, 95–96).
Before Hatshepsut the only female rulers were regents who wielded power in the name of 
their young sons (Roth 2005b). They bore queenly titles and were especially honoured after death. Hatshepsut followed the example of the only female pharaoh, Nefrusobkofthe12th Nefrusobk of the 12thdynasty (Callender 2000, 170–171).Nefrusobkalsoclaimedthatshewasaco-regentwithhe –171).Nefrusobkalsoclaimedthatshewasaco-regentwithher 171). Nefrusobk also claimed that she was a co-regent with her father, Amenemhet III. She used thetitlesofFemaleHorusandDaughterofRe.Nefrusobkrsttitles of Female Horus and Daughter of Re. Nefrusobkrst Nefrusobk rstdepicted herself in this specic manner: her sculptures show her with a mixture of female and
male attributes. ItseemsthatHatshepsutwasconsciousofherpredecessor’sideasandreferredIt seems that Hatshepsut was conscious of her predecessor’s ideas and referredto them in her own model of kingship. Hatshepsut also used kingly titles in the feminine formand stressed her sex in part of her iconography.
Hatshepsut expanded her building activityintheareaextendingfromNubiatoSinai.Sheactivity in the area extending from Nubia to Sinai. She
 put particular emphasis on the city of Amun-Re, who played such an important role in the process during which Hatshepsut became a king. Besides temples dedicated to him Hatshepsut
emphasized the building project of herMansionofMillionsofearsher Mansion of Millions of �ears
Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el-Bahari was indisputably her most important monument along
with the Karnak temple andthemostsplendidone(Arnold2005;Roth2005c).Evenmorethan –andthemostsplendidone(Arnold2005;Roth2005c).Evenmorethanand the most splendid one (Arnold 2005; Roth 2005c). Even more thanher other buildings, the temple at Deir el-Bahari reects the unusual situation of Hatshepsut’sreign. The relief decoration (Karkowski 2001a) especially reveals the specic circumstances
of her co-rule with Thutmose III. Although the temple at Deir el-Bahari had been dedicatedto the cult of Amun-Re as well as to Hatshepsut’s own mortuary cult, this did not result in theexclusion of Thutmose III from the decoration programme. On the contrary, she never hid the
signicance of Thutmose III during her kingship: “Except for the tomb itself [Hatshepsut’s tomb
in the Valley of the Kings], Thutmose III was excluded from none of these religious monuments
[Hatshepsut’s temples]” (Dorman 2006, 57).
Hatshepsut’s temple is built on three levels and consists of many rooms, grouped in larger units.
is in a surprisingly good state of preservation, which allowed the studyof the relief decoration in the inner chambers which are preserved almost untouched from
oor to vault. The outer units of this temple are also relatively well preserved. Many years of  precise reconstruction and conservation have been undertaken since 1961 by the Polish Mission(Szafrański 2001).
The study of the relief decoration of the temple of Deir el-Bahari made it possible torecord all the depictions of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. Besides Thutmose III, Hatshepsutcommemorated in the relief decoration other members of their family. Hatshepsut ordered thather husband, Thutmose II, her father, Thutmose I, and also royal women such as her mother 
‘Ahmose, her sister Neferubiti, her daughter Neferure‘ and her grandmother Seniseneb should be depicted. These representations were made only in specic parts of the temple and are related
to the cult of the royal family. On the contrary, Thutmose III appears at her side in almost all
the chambers and other units of the temple, according what Dorman (2006, 53) refers to as the“etiquette of co-regency”.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->