Assessment Task Part B
Assess Hatshepsut’s relationship with the Priesthood of Amun, Sennenmut and Thutmose III.
Assess: make a judgement as to the value, worth, importance, significance of
Starting point: a student textbook
Callender, Gae
The Eye Of Horus
Longman Chesire, 1993
Chapter: 6: The Domination of Thebes
p.185: Queen Hatshepsut (c. 1503 – 1483)
from Callender
p.185-186
quote: Hatshepsut thus linked her claim to the
throne with the cult of Amen…. She herself held the
titles of ‘God’s Wife’, ‘God’s Hand’, and ‘Adoratrice
of the God’. Perhaps her high religious posts and
contact with the priest were the reasons for the
support they gave her during her reign.
p.186
Neferure – upon H’s succession received title of
‘God’s Wife’.
p. 186
 erection of obelisks: certainly, soon after her
accession she commissioned two obelisks
to be erected at Karnak.
p.186-187
 Yr 9 – the expedition to Punt, under the
command of Nehesy.
p. 187 – Hatshesput’s military campaigns
What do I do with it?
Paraphrase: Callendar speculates (perhaps)
that the religious positions she held in the cult
of Amun as a queen and regent for Thutmose
III, brought her into contact with the priests of
Amun, and contributed to the political support
they gave her during her kingship (coregency).
I wonder what other historians say about this?
Is it a common view?
Neferure – seems of no significance, but made
relevant p.189 – see statue: Senenmut
protecting Princess Neferure – relationship?
Tutor – significance?
I am always asking myself, ‘Can I make a
relevant connection to the question? What is
the relevance of obelisks & expedition to Punt
to question.’ Let me think!
The chief recipient of Hatshepsut’s building
program and the precious imports from Punt
was Amun: the myrrh trees were planted in the
forecourt of Deir el-Bahari ‘so that Amen might
walk in the garden she made for him there’
The political logic of mutual self interest would
suggest that the priesthood of Amun would
support Hatshepsut’s devotion of obelisks and
precious imports to the temples of Amun, even
to the extent of supporting her irregular
position as king/coregent.
relevant to a dot point – better know this! Good
reference to ancient sources
p.187 – 188:
The Sed Festival: Yr 16
 shared with Thutmose III : ‘Although both, are
wished ‘millions of years’ by the gods, it is
Hatshepsut who takes first place in the reliefs’
 2 further obelisks erected at Karnak dedicated
to Amun.
What is Heb-sed festival?
I would check out the inscriptions on these
obelisks – focus on Thutmose I & Amun
(sound familiar in legitimizing/justifiying her
reign?)
p188
Hatshepsut’s building activities:
-
mortuary temple – Deir el-Bahari
Building program is a dot point. Gee, this
-
-
much work at Karnak: repairs to MK temple,
Red Chapel, 4 obelisks, barque sanctuary,
pylon (8)
rock cut temple at Beni Hasan, dedicated to
Pakhet, important for Speos Artemidos
inscription
-
section would be a good starting point for my
notes!
Speos Artemidos inscription: Why does
Callendar believe it to be so important?
I would have notes from p189
What inscription contains: connect to variety of
dot points
p.189
Hatshepsut’s officials
-
-
‘The backbone of her administration lay in
the powerful priesthood of Amun.’
Hapuseneb: high priest of Amun, involved
in building of Deir el-Bahari, building
program at Karnak plus: likely he was her
vizier too
Nehesy: leader of expedition to Punt,
involved in construction of mortuary temple
Now that’s a quote!
Note the overlap of various areas of
administration (religious & civil) ie priesthood
of Amun not only restricted to temple
administration. Vizier = pm – internal admin of
Egypt – including judicial
pp.189-190
Treasurer Senenmut
-
-
-
-
Most famous of officials – tutor of Neferure
Commoner
Long list of roles / positions / titles during
H’s reign:
o Royal admin: treasurer / tutor of
young Neferure; steward of property
of H & N (at least to Yr 7); overseer
of all the works of the king –
supervised temple construction at
Karnak
o Religious admin: steward of god
Amun
Eminence & privileges – speculation of
sexual relationship –
Interesting issue: end ? fate? : statues,
tomb vandalized: damnation – fallen into
disgrace? Thutmose III, later Akhenaten?
Hatshpesut herself? Dorman thinks unlikely
2nd tomb under forecourt of Deir el-Bahari –
one assumes he had permission from H?
never finished or occupied
Death: Yr 18/19; or even in sole reign of
Thutmose III
What is Callender’s assessment?
How important was he to Hatshepsut’s reign?
What do other historians across time write?
What attitude to Senenmut is conveyed by
word choice of historians?
Callendar believes unlikely - only evidence is
graffito of uncertain date
p. 190
Death and burial of Hatshepsut
-
-
21yrs 9 mths
Died presumably of natural causes
Tomb KV 20 – earliest constructed in KV –
from Yr 7 (date of accession); directly
behind mort. temple; Thut I buried there
(moved later by Thut III)
Mummy of Hatshepsut not identified
Some time later: H’s name removed from
monuments including Deir el Bahari
(replaced by Thut I, II, III) – probably not
until Yr 42 of Thut III’s reign: reason for this
persecution is unknown
- note importance of new discoveries: 2007 –
Hawass – indentified H’s mummy (tooth!)
- What was Thutmose III’s role & motivation in
this?
Thutmose III
-
9 Yrs old on succession
Oracle from Amun at Karnak legitimises
reign: ie divine coronation
- Coregency: played an active part in the
government of Egypt
o Yr 2 – issued orders to Viceroy of
Kush
o Yr 5 appointed a new vizier
o Active in Sinai – graffiti – alone &
with Hatshepsut (see p.192)
o Led 2 military expeditions into
Nubia, at least one campaign into
Palestine (Gaza?)
o Appears in H’s coronation scene
o Inscriptions feature him as king
without presence of Hatshepsut
o Donations and buildings dedicated
to gods
‘Thus there is a considerable body of material
attesting to his active participation in government
during his coregency with Hatshepsut’
Important to read beyond just Hatshepsut!
Gives some good sources for assessing
relationship during regency and coregency
Callender’s view is clearly stated. How does
this compare with other historians?