The Relationship between Hatshepsut and Thutmose III through Conflicting Perspectives

Hatshepsut was the most powerful female Pharaoh of Egypt, who co-ruled with her step-son Thutmose III for 22 years. Hatshepsut’s reign and relationship with Thutmose III were controversial and historians have varied in their interpretations. Early perspectives suggest that Hatshepsut usurped Thutmose III’s throne, however, modern perspectives argue that the pair had ruled the throne equally without malice or vengeance. Through analysing a diverse range of sources and conflicting perspectives, judgements on the relationship between mother and step-son can be revealed.

During the 1950s to 1970s the climate of opinion began to change at the hands of J.A Wilson, G, Steindorff and K. Selle, W.C Hayes and A.H Gardiner suggest that Hatshepsut ‘was a high-handed woman who kept her co-ruler (Thutmose III) on the sidelines and thwarted his ambitions,’ The conservative approach to these interpretations were based off the archaeological finds and judged Hatshepsut’s motives with suspicion. Steindorff and Seele assumed that Hatshepsut’s rise must have been against the will of the younger pharaoh, and passionately described how Thutmose III ‘wreaked with full fury his vengeance on the departed ones who in life had thwarted his ambitions’. Evidently shown as Hatshepsut became co-regent for Thutmose III stated by Ineni, a nobleman of her court, “His sister the Divine Consort Hatshepsut, settled the affairs of the Two Lands by reason of her plan. Egypt was made to labor with bowed head for her,” however, several pieces of evidence seem to point to her future ambitions to king whilst she was regent, claimed by an oracle “a very great oracle in the presence of this good god, proclaiming for me the kingship of the Two Lands Upper and Lower Egypt being under the fear of me,” Subsequently, out of ‘vengeance’ for claiming the throne Thutmose III had destroyed her monuments or ‘damnatio memoriae’ emphasised by Gardiner, “Much of these scenes has been erased by the later malic of Thutmose III… How she met her death is unknown, but it was not long before Thutmose III began to expunge her name where it could be found…” It is important to note that the scholars of the generation were predominantly white, male historians, and were based on incomplete set of sources such as the Red Chapel which was over half a century from being rebuilt and Djeser Djeser had yet to be fully restored.

Unlike early scholars, completed sources and a change in how gender roles influenced modern historians such as J. Tyldesley, D. Redford, C.F Nims and P.F Dorman. Unlike Steindorff’s interpretation ‘was a high-handed woman who kept her co-ruler on the sidelines and thwarted his ambitions,’ Doorman argues that Thutmose III and Hatshepsut shared a good relationship, sharing the throne equally, “Except for the tomb itself [Hatshepsut’s tomb in the Valley of the Kings], Thutmose III was excluded from none of these religious monuments,” Archaeological evidence found in the Red Chapel depicts Thutmose III and Hatshepsut both participating in the Opet Festival where they escort the barque on its journey suggesting duality and a indicates that Hatshepsut was not ‘usurping’ Thutmose III from the throne, but rather sharing it’s duties. Additionally, a ring inscribed with the cartouches of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III further emphasised the co-regency between the pair. Another source found in Southern Chamber of Amun depicts Hatshepsut wearing the white crown whereas Thutmose III wears the Red Crown representing the reunification of Egypt. This symbolises the shared regency, highlighting that the relationship was rather unified, unlike older historians perspective.

Early scholars argue that Thutmose III resented his step-mother for taking the throne and therefore erasing her from memory or “damnatio memoriae” which is an act that a person is to be excluded from official accounts. Gardiner states that “...Much of these scenes has been erased by the later malic of Thutmose III… How she met her death is unknown, but it was not long before Thutmose III began to expunge her name where it could be found…” Early scholars base this information on their archaeological sources at the time, for example, Hatshepsut was replaced by the pile of offering from the western wall in the Southern Chamber of Amun. It has been suggested that Thutmose III started to erase her figures in and filled in the gaps with a pile of offerings and replaced her name with Thutmose II’s, this happened mostly in those places where Thutmose III figure stood behind her. This may imply an act of ‘vengeance’ as this type of destruction is considered severe punishment to be inflicted on a dead pharaoh as if their name was kept alive through inscriptions or images, they were guaranteed afterlife. Narev states “As the initial legitimate pharaoh, Thutmose's kingly obligation to maintain ma’at Hatshepsut’s gender, therefore, may have reflected poorly on him, if he was seen to have failed to secure order by allowing a female to share his throne.” To further examine this perspective, Egyptians believed in ma’at or divine order, such disorder might lead to chaos such as drought or famine and with Hatshepsut on the throne instead of Thutmose III, it challenges legality. Due to Hatshepsut’s reign and gender, it reflected poorly on Thutmose III as he had failed to secure order by allowing a female to share the throne, therefore reflects on the ‘vengeance’ and ‘malice’ of erasing her from memory.

The re-examination of archaeological sources in regards to Hatshepsut argues against early scholars perspective that the damnatio memoriae of Hatshepsut was instead Thutmose’s III way of keeping the male lineage and strengthening his own rule. Redford argues that “His own legitimacy stood in need of demonstration and his own links with his illustrious grandfather Thutmose I had to be emphasized. To leave the glories of Hatshepsut’s reign open to view would, in any case, invite invidious comparison with his own accomplishments,” This new perspective was due to Nims findings “This damnatio memoriae procedure was not started immediately after Hatshepsut’s death, as was believed for a long time, but some time later, around year 42 of the reign of Thutmose III” suggesting that if Thutmose resented his mother it would have been done immediately after her death, however re-examination of sources showcases that it was done later.