sankiewicz, co regency

7/31/2019 Sankiewicz, Co Regency

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sankiewicz-co-regency 1/14

The ‘co-regency’ of Hatshepsut andThutmose III in the light of iconography

in the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari

Marta Sankiewicz

Introduction

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 arerepresented expresses their ofcial 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 and

their 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 withseparate 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 onthe plates of this publication (e.g. Naville 1895, pl. II). This false image inuenced some recent

publications (Davies 2004).The problem of the co-regency indicated in the title of this paper will not be considered in

detail here. The quotation marks underline the atypical character of this co-regency. The term‘co-regency’ was used to describe a specic relation between the two rulers – Hatshepsut and – Hatshepsut andHatshepsut 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



132 Marta Sankiewicz

denition of ‘co-regency’ (Shaw and Nicholson 2003, 72), the older king appoints and chooseshis 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 when

she 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 shesenior. 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 denition 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 nextfteen 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 royalline by his marriage to ‘Ahmose. ‘Ahmose was a sister of Amenhotep I and a daughter of thegreat ‘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. Duringtheir marriage, Hatshepsut gave birth to only one daughter, Neferure‘.

In this early period “Hatshepsut ruled Egypt in all but name” (Murnane 1977, 33); she didnot use “titles more exalted than those customarily assigned to a royal consort of the purestroyal blood” (Murnane 1977, 32). It seems that at rst Hatshepsut wanted to avoid any unrestduring 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’sWife, became insufcient 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), when

the 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 (Dorman2005b) in which vessels with sealings bearing Hatshepsut’s kingly titles were deposited (Hayes1957, 78–80; Dorman 2006, 48–49). Dorman (2006, 53) states that the exact date of coronation –80; Dorman 2006, 48–49). Dorman (2006, 53) states that the exact date of coronation80; Dorman 2006, 48–49). Dorman (2006, 53) states that the exact date of coronation –49). Dorman (2006, 53) states that the exact date of coronation49). Dorman (2006, 53) states that the exact date of coronationis 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 authority”.

Hatshepsut based her rights to the throne on the fact that she was the eldest living descendant

of 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 133

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, Nefrusobk of the 12th Nefrusobk of the 12thdynasty (Callender 2000, 170–171). Nefrusobk also claimed that she was a co-regent with her –171). Nefrusobk also claimed that she was a co-regent with her 171). Nefrusobk also claimed that she was a co-regent with her father, Amenemhet III. She used the titles of Female Horus and Daughter of Re. Nefrusobk rsttitles of Female Horus and Daughter of Re. Nefrusobk rst Nefrusobk rstdepicted herself in this specic manner: her sculptures show her with a mixture of female andmale attributes. It seems that Hatshepsut was conscious of her predecessor’s ideas and referredIt 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 activity in the area extending from Nubia to Sinai. 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 Hatshepsutemphasized the building project of her Mansion of Millions of �earsher Mansion of Millions of �ears.

Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el-Bahari was indisputably her most important monument alongwith the Karnak temple – and the most splendid one (Arnold 2005; Roth 2005c). Even more than – and the most splendid one (Arnold 2005; Roth 2005c). Even more thanand the most splendid one (Arnold 2005; Roth 2005c). Even more thanher other buildings, the temple at Deir el-Bahari reects the unusual situation of Hatshepsut’sreign. The relief decoration (Karkowski 2001a) especially reveals the specic circumstancesof 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 thesignicance 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. Djeser-Djeseru is in a surprisingly good state of preservation, which allowed the studyof the relief decoration in the inner chambers which are preserved almost untouched fromoor 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, Hatshepsut

commemorated 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 specic parts of the temple and are relatedto the cult of the royal family. On the contrary, Thutmose III appears at her side in almost allthe chambers and other units of the temple, according what Dorman (2006, 53) refers to as the“etiquette of co-regency”.




Decoration of the Deir el-Bahari temple

It is possible to distinguish several phases in the decoration programme of the temple of Deir el-Bahari (cf. Wysocki 1992).

The rst phase of the decoration belongs to the original project of Hatshepsut. She designedDeir el-Bahari as her Mansion of Millions of �ears and dedicated this building to the cult of Amun-Re, as well as to other gods such as Hathor, Re-Horakhty and Anubis. She depictedimportant events (Fig. 1) and myths of her reign on the walls, never hiding the fact that sheruled together with Thutmose III.

During his sole rule after Hatshepsut’s death, Thutmose III started a programme of erasingher gures and names from all her monuments (Roth 2005d), including the temple of Deir el-Bahari (Fig. 2).

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 ThutmoseIII (Nims 1966; Dorman 2005c, 268).

Figure 1. Punt expedition from the south wall of the Southern Middle Portico (Portico of Punt). (After Naville 1898 III, pl. LXIX).




Figure 2. Hatshepsut erased from thenorthern half of the eastern lunette in the Bark Hall in the Main Sanctuary of Amun(Photograph: M. Jawornicki).

Figure 3. Hatshepsut replaced by the pile of offerings from the western wall in the Southern Chamber of Amun (After Naville 1906 V, pl. CXXXII).

Figure 4. Hatshepsut replaced by the gure and titles of Thutmose II on the

western doorway in the Complex of the

Sun Cult (Photograph: M. Jawornicki).

At rst Thutmose III started to erase her guresand lled the gaps with piles of offerings (Fig. 3) or standards. This happened mostly in those places wherehis own gure stood behind her. Thutmose III startedto erase Hatshepsut’s gure from the inner parts of thetemple outwards.After a while Thutmose III developed a plan tochange Hatshepsut’s temple into a mortuary templefor his father, Thutmose II. He ordered the re-carvingof the gures of a king in places where Hatshepsuthad already been erased. These new gures bear thenames of Thutmose II (Fig. 4). On the walls where thegures of Hatshepsut were still untouched ThutmoseIII ordered that only the cartouches be changed. Other gures of Hatshepsut received the names of ThutmoseI and of Thutmose III himself.




Figure 5. Plan of the Deir el-Bahari temple with the names of all its units (M. Sankiewicz, after drawing of T. Kaczor).1. Southern Lower Portico, 2. Northern Lower Portico, 3. Hathor Shrine (from east: First and Second Hypostyle Hall, Vestibule, Bark Hall and Sanctuary), 4. Southern Middle Portico, 5. Northern Middle Portico, 6. Lower Anubis Shrine (from east: Hypostyle Hall, Vestibule, Sanctuary), 7. Upper Portico, 8.Upper Courtyard, 9. Complex of the Royal Mortuary Cult (from east: Courtyard, Vestibules, Chapel of Hatshepsut, Chapel of Thutmose I), 10. Southern Chamber of Amun, 11. Main Sanctuary of Amun (from

east: Bark Hall, Statue Room), 12. Northern Chamber of Amun, 13. Complex of the Sun Cult (from east:Chapel of the Night Sun, Altar Courtyard), 14. Upper Anubis Shrine.




Distribution of gures of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III in Deir el-Bahari

The topic of this paper concerns the rst phase of the decoration programme and proposes thereconstruction of the original distribution of the kings’ gures according to Hatshepsut’s ideas.The two-dimensional decoration will be analysed in terms of quantity: how often are Hatshepsutand Thutmose III depicted? The analysis in terms of quality will show how they are represented:in which location, position, orientation, and in what manner. Moreover it will be possible towhich location, position, orientation, and in what manner. Moreover it will be possible tolocation, position, orientation, and in what manner. Moreover it will be possible to position, orientation, and in what manner. Moreover it will be possible to, orientation, and in what manner. Moreover it will be possible tostate in which rooms Thutmose III is depicted and in which he is absent.

The discussion of the depiction of the co-rulers will start from the far end of the temple – from the Lower Terrace (g. 5).

In the Southern Lower Portico, i.e. the so-called Portico of Obelisks (Naville 1908, pls.CLII–CLIX; Karkowski 2001a, 105–106), Hatshepsut is depicted ve times, once as a sphinx. –106), Hatshepsut is depicted ve times, once as a sphinx.106), Hatshepsut is depicted ve times, once as a sphinx.Thutmose III appears only once.

In the Northern part of the Lower Portico (Naville 1908, pls. CLX–CLXIII; Karkowski 2001a,107–109) – the so-called Fishing and Fowling Portico or Mythological Portico – there are nine –109) – the so-called Fishing and Fowling Portico or Mythological Portico – there are nine109) – the so-called Fishing and Fowling Portico or Mythological Portico – there are ninerepresentations of Hatshepsut, one in the form of a sphinx, while Thutmose III occurs twice.

On the Middle Terrace in the Hathor Shrine (Naville 1901, pls. LXXXVII–CVI; Karkowski2001a, 110–113) there are numerous representations of Thutmose III and Hatshepsut. In totalHatshepsut is represented forty-seven times in all of the outer and inner rooms of the Hathor Shrine, while Thutmose III is represented eleven times. He is even depicted in the sanctuaryof this chapel.

On the walls of the Southern Middle Portico (Naville 1898, pls. LXIX–LXXXVI; Karkowski2001a, 113–115) – the so-called Portico of Punt – Thutmose III is depicted only once, while hisco-ruler is represented four times.

The pillars of this portico – twenty-two in total, arranged in two rows – are decorated onfour sides by king’s gures. On every fourth pillar in both rows Thutmose III is depicted, whichmakes a total of sixteen representations. Consequently, Hatshepsut, who appears on the remaining

pillars is represented seventy-two times.In the Northern Middle Portico (Naville 1896, pls. XLVI–LV; 1898, pls. LVI–LXVII;

Karkowski 2001a, 115–118), i.e. the Portico of the Birth, where the most important scenes of Hatshepsut’s conceiving, birth and coronation are depicted, Thutmose III is absent. Hatshepsutis depicted eleven times as an adult king (other representations in this portico show her as anude child accompanied by her ka).

The decoration of the pillars is similar to the neighbouring Southern Middle Portico. Everyfourth pillar bears four gures of Thutmose III, while on the other eighteen pillars Hatshepsut

appears seventy-two times.The rooms of the Lower Anubis Shrine (Naville 1896, pls. XXXIII–XLV; Karkowski 2001a,

118–120) bear two depictions of Thutmose III. In the Hypostyle Hall of this chapel Hatshepsut’snephew is depicted on the northern wall and again in the sanctuary on the eastern wall. In bothcases he is turned leftwards. Figures of Hatshepsut are represented thirty-four times in all of the rooms.

In the Upper Portico (Karkowski 2001a, 121–124) which forms a facade of the Upper Terrace,Hatshepsut is represented seven times in the southern wing. Thutmose III appears once. In theopposite northern part he is depicted once, while Hatshepsut is represented three times.

The decoration of the Upper Courtyard (Naville 1906, pls. CXX–CXXVI, CXXXIV–

CXXXVII; 1908, pl. CLXIV; Karkowski 2001a, 126–140) covers the walls of the courtyard




and deep niches in the western wall. In these eight niches Hatshepsut’s gures appear seventeentimes. Thutmose III is represented four times. In this case, the criterion for the location of Hatshepsut’s gures on the lateral walls of the niches was the proximity of the sanctuary. Theremaining decoration of the western wall includes another eight gures of Hatshepsut, while

Thutmose III is depicted four times.On the southern wall of the Upper Courtyard Hatshepsut is depicted sixteen times, while

Thutmose III appears only six times.The eastern and northern walls bear scenes representing the two most important – and

depicted for the rst time – Theban feasts: the Festival of Opet and the Beautiful Festival of the Valley. In these two cycles Hatshepsut and Thutmose III are represented side by side andnumber of their representation are almost equal. Thus on the eastern wall there are ten guresof Hatshepsut and ten of Thutmose III, and on the northern wall she is depicted eleven times,he ten times.

In total Hatshepsut is depicted sixty-two times and Thutmose III is depicted thirty-four times

on the walls of the courtyard and its niches.The Complex of the Royal Mortuary Cult (Naville 1901, pls. CVII–CXVIII; 1906, pls.

CXXVII–CXXIX; Karkowski 2001a, 146–153), which is situated in the southern part of the Upper Terrace, is one of the places where Thutmose III is absent (cf. Karkowski 2001b, 103–105).Hatshepsut is depicted ten times on the walls of the courtyard and the vestibules.

In the Chapel of Hatshepsut, the very place of her mortuary cult, Hatshepsut is depictedtwenty-nine times. She is also represented twice above the doorway leading to her chapel.

In the second chapel, which is dedicated to Hatshepsut’s father Thutmose I, she is depictedtwice acting as the Iunmutef-priest on the side walls and twice above the doorway.

In total, Hatshepsut is represented forty-ve times in the Complex of the Royal Mortuary

Cult.In the Southern Chamber of Amun (Naville 1906, pls. CXXX–CXXXIII; Karkowski 2001a,137) Hatshepsut is represented four times, while Thutmose III appears just once. Moreover,he is turned leftwards and wears the Red Crown, a minor one in comparison with the WhiteCrown worn there by Hatshepsut.

In the Main Sanctuary of Amun (Naville 1906, pls. CXXXVIII–CXLVII; Karkowski2001a, 140–145), the most important set of rooms in the Deir el-Bahari temple, the following –145), the most important set of rooms in the Deir el-Bahari temple, the following145), the most important set of rooms in the Deir el-Bahari temple, the followingdisposition occurs.

On the Granite Portal there are six gures of kings. Hatshepsut is represented on both jambsand twice in the middle of the lintel, while Thutmose III is represented twice on the outer part

of the lintel.On the sidewalls of the Bark Hall Thutmose is depicted twice, while Hatshepsut is representedve times. They are represented twice on both of the lunettes. In the six niches of the Bark HallHatshepsut again is dominant. She is represented twelve times, and Thutmose only twice.

On the side walls of the Statue Room they are depicted twice. Thutmose III is depictedon the northern wall, so he is turned leftwards. Hatshepsut’s gures on the opposite southernwall are turned rightwards. In the two niches Hatshepsut appears six times and Thutmose IIIappears twice.

In total Hatshepsut appears thirty-one times, and Thutmose III appears twelve times in theMain Sanctuary of Amun.

In the Northern Chamber of Amun (Naville 1895, pls. XVII–XXIV; Karkowski 2001a,145–146) gures of both kings are in the ratio of six to two in favour of Hatshepsut.




Figure 6. Summary.

In both parts of the Complex of the Sun Cult (Naville 1895, pls. II–VII; Karkowski 2001a,153–155; 2003), namely the Chapel of the Night Sun and the Altar Courtyard, Hatshepsutdominates. Thutmose III is depicted twice while Hatshepsut is represented seventeen times inthe chapel and niches. In one case Thutmose III is standing behind a gure of Hatshepsut, and

in one case he is turned leftwards.In the Upper Anubis Shrine (Naville I, pls. IX–XVI; Karkowski 2001a, 155) only Hatshepsut

is represented. On the side walls of this chapel there are nine depictions of her oriented towardsthe rear wall of the room. On the rear wall a single representation of Hatshepsut is situated in themiddle, facing towards the shrine with the Anubis fetish. In the niche of this chapel Hatshepsutis represented twice.

Altogether in this chapel there are twelve depictions of Hatshepsut, and none of Thutmose.

The above scheme showing the distribution of the gures of both co-rulers, Hatshepsut andThutmose III, forms part of the original decoration programme approved by Hatshepsut. It isimportant to remember that today (Roth 2005d) it is impossible to see all these depictions of Hatshepsut in situ. Some of them were chiseled out and never restored. Others were replaced by

the standards or offerings. A large group of her gures bears today names of various members of Thutmosid family such as Thutmose I, Thutmose II and Thutmose III. Moreover, part of thesescenes is reconstructed only theoretically on the basis of existing blocks in the lapidaria or onthe basis of the study of parallels in other temples.

Conclusion

At rst sight one is struck by the relative weighting of the depictions of each of the co-rulers(Fig. 7). Depictions of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III were originally in the ratio of 441 to 102in Hatshepsut’s favour.

Besides the number of the images of the co-rulers, the differences in their placement, contextand distribution of their images are also important.




Figure 8. Hatshepsut and Thutmose III depicted in symmetrical positions on the southern wall in theSouthern Chamber of Amun. Hatshepsut is orientated rightward on the left (eastern) half of the wall.

Thutmose III is orientated leftward on the right (western) half. She is wearing the White Crown, he wearsthe Red Crown (Photograph: M. Jawornicki).

Figure 7. Plan of the distribution of the royal gures: Hatshepsut (grey) and Thutmose III (black) (M.

Sankiewicz, after drawing of T. Kaczor).




There are some chambers and parts of the temple where Thutmose III is absent,namely the walls of the so-called Porticoof the Birth, all the rooms of the Complexof the Royal Mortuary Cult and theUpper Anubis Shrine. The function anddecoration of these parts of the temple are

connected respectively with Hatshepsut’s birth as a daughter of Amun-Re and her coronation as a legal king, the mortuarycult of Hatshepsut and her father, andthe cult of the royal family. It is easyto understand why Hatshepsut did notinclude the person of her co-ruler in sucha cycle of scenes.

It is commonly known that in caseswhere Hatshesput and Thutmose III are

represented together, Hatshepsut standsin front and Thutmose III follows her.This relation is best viewed on the twowalls of the Upper Courtyard, where twoofcial events are represented, namelythe processions of the Opet Festival andof the Beautiful Festival of the Valley.Hatshepsut and Thutmose III are depictedas ruling kings who take part in theseceremonies. Only the eastern and northern

walls of this courtyard bear almost equalnumber of representations of them.

Figure 9. Hatshepsut represented on the left (southern)wall in the Statue Room in the Main Sanctuaryof Amun (opposite to fig. 10) (Photograph: M. Jawornicki).

Figure 10. Thutmose III represented on the right (northern) wall in the Statue Room in the MainSanctuary of Amun (opposite to g. 9) (Photograph:

M. Jawornicki).

Figure 11. Thutmose III wearing White Crown and represented on the southern half of the eastern lunettein the Bark Hall in the Main Sanctuary of Amun but orientated leftwards (opposite to g. 2) (Photograph:

M. Jawornicki).




Although usually Hatshepsut and Thutmose III are represented side by side as on the above-mentioned walls, their mutual relationship is clearly indicated by their orientation, location,regalia or titles. Hatshepsut always underlines the secondary position of Thutmose III as shealways stands in front of him.

The preference for showing the gures of Thutmose III turned leftwards is striking. If Hatshepsut and Thutmose III are represented on one wall in a symmetrical scene facing thecenter of the wall, Hatshepsut is always depicted on the left, while Thutmose III is on the right(Fig. 8). Also when the royal gures are depicted in a symmetrical way on two opposite walls,Hatshepsut is represented on the left wall (Fig. 9) and Thutmose III on the right one (Fig. 10). Inconsequence she is oriented rightwards and he is oriented leftwards (Karkowski 2003, 59–60).This reects the rule of the rightward orientation of the person as dominant (also in symbolicterms) in Egyptian art (Fischer 1977, 6–8).

The geographical setting of the decoration of the walls inuenced the fact that Hatshepsut isusually represented on the southern and western walls, while Thutmose III is represented usually

on the northern and eastern walls (Figs. 9 and 10). This is a result of arranging the cardinal points in the decoration in two pairs: south and west, and north and east. The south was themost important direction rstly because of the historical impulse of the ‘unication’ comingtraditionally from this part of the country and secondly for geographical reasons, namely asreferring to the place where the sun is at its zenith and from where the Nile ows. The secondimportant direction, closely interrelated with the south, is west, which forms the right handside when facing towards the south. North and east create the second pair of cardinal points(Posener 1965).

The distribution of the crowns and dresses is also geographically related. The crowns anddresses are not used at random, but are complementary. Hatshepsut usually wears the White

Crown of Upper Egypt while Thutmose III wears the Red Crown of Lower Egypt (Fig. 8). Butalso other sets were in use: the nemes and the khat , which expressed solar and lunar aspects, andtwo feather crowns henu and shuti which are ascribed to west and east are worn by Hatshepsutand Thutmose III respectively.

However, the direction in which the gures face or their placement on the minor walls of the rooms (i.e. on the northern and eastern ones) (Sankiewicz 2009) seems to be even moreimportant sometimes than its attributes (e.g. crowns) (Fig. 11).

Another important factor is the proximity of the sanctuary: of course Hatshepsut is representedcloser to the god than Thutmose III. Only Hatshepsut is shown embracing the gods in thesanctuaries, only she is represented on the Ebony Shrine (Naville 1896, pls. XXV–XXIX)

and on the walls of the main niche in the Main Sanctuary of Amun. Thutmose III fullls onlysecondary ritual activities.In summary: the mutual relationship of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, as reected in the decorationof Djeser-Djeseru, certainly does not prove any hostility between the co-rulers. Thutmose IIIis not excluded, but his place in Hatshepsut’s ideology of kingship and its practical realisationis clearly dened and consistently shown to be secondary. Contrary to recent suggestion, thereis no doubt that the dominant role of Hatshepsut is emphasised in the decoration programmeof the temple.

Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznan, Poland




Bibliography

Arnold, D. (2005) Djeser-Djeseru. The Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri. In C. H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfusand C. A. Keller (eds.) Hatshepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh, 135–140. New �ork, The MetropolitanMuseum of Art.

Bryan, B. M. (2000) The 18th Dynasty before the Amarna Period (c.1550–1352 BC). In I. Shaw (ed.) TheOxford History of Ancient Egypt , 218–271. New �ork, Oxford University Press.

Callender, V. G. (2000) The Middle Kingdom Renaissance (c.2055–1650 BC). In I. Shaw (ed.) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt , 148–183. New �ork, Oxford University Press.

Callender, V. G. (2002) The Innovations of Hatshepsut’s Reign. The Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 13, 29–46.

Ćwiek, A. (2008) Fate of Seth in the Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari. Études et Travaux XXII,37–60.

Davies, V. (2004) Hatshepsut’s Use of Tuthmosis III in Her Program of Legitimation. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 41, 55–66.

Dodson, A. and Hilton, D. (2004) The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. Cairo, American

University in Cairo Press.Dorman, P. F. (2005a) Hatshepsut: Princess to Queen to Co-ruler. In C. H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus and C.

A. Keller (eds.) Hatshepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh, 87–89. New �ork, The Metropolitan Museumof Art.

Dorman, P. F. (2005b) The Tomb of Ramose and Hatnefer. In C. H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus and C. A. Keller (eds.) Hatshepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh, 91–92. New �ork, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Dorman, P. F. (2005c) The Destruction of Hatshepsut’s Memory. The Proscription of Hatshepsut. In C.H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus and C. A. Keller (eds.) Hatshepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh, 267–269. New�ork, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Dorman, P. F. (2006) The Early Reign of Thutmose III: An Unorthodox Mantle of Coregency. In E. C.Cline and D. O’Connor (eds.) Thutmose III. A New Biography, 39–68. Ann Arbor, The University of

Michigan Press.Fischer, H. G. (1977) Egyptian Studies II. The Orientation of Hieroglyphs. Part I. Reversals. New �ork,

The Metropolitan Museum of Art.Hayes, W. C. (1957) Varia from the Time of Hatshepsut. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts für ägyptische

Altertumskunde in Kairo 15, 78–90.Karkowski, J. (2001a) Dekoracja Świątyni Hatszepsut w Deir El-Bahari/The Decoration of the Temple

of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari. In Z. E. Szafrański (ed.) Królowa Hatszepsut i jej świątynia 3500 lat

później/Queen Hatshepsut and her temple 3500 years later , 99–157. Warsaw, Agencja Reklamowo-Wydawnicza A. Grzegorczyk.

Karkowski, J. (2001b) Pharaoh in the Heb-Sed Robe in Hatshepsut’s Temple at Deir el-Bahari. Études et Travaux XIX, 81–112.

Karkowski, J. (2003) Deir el-Bahari VI. The Temple of Hatshepsut. The Solar Complex. Warsaw, Éditons Neriton.

Keller, C. A. (2005a) The Joint Reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. In C. H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfusand C. A. Keller (eds.) Hatshepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh, 96–98. New �ork, The MetropolitanMuseum of Art.

Keller, C. A. (2005b) Hatshepsut’s Reputation in History. In C. H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus and C. A. Keller (eds.) Hatshepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh, 294–297. New �ork, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Murnane, W. J. (1977) Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. Chicago, The Oriental Institute.Murnane, W. J. (1980) Unpublished Fragments of Hatshepsut’s Historical Inscription from Her Sanctuary

at Karnak. Serapis 6, 91–102. Naville, E. (1895–1908) The Temple of Deir el Bahari I–VI. London, Egypt Exploration Fund.




Nims, C. F. (1966) The date of the dishonoring of Hatshepsut. Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 93, 97–100.

Posener, G. (1965) Sur l’orientation et l’ordre des points cardinaux chez les Égyptiens. Nachrichten vonder Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 2 = Göttinger Vorträge, 69–78. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Roth, A. M. (2005a) Genealogy of Hatshepsut’s Family. In C. H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus and C. A. Keller (eds.) Hatshepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh, 7. New �ork, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Roth, A. M. (2005b) Models of Authority. Hatshepsut’s Predecessors in Power. In C. H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfusand C. A. Keller (eds.) Hatshepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh, 9–14. New �ork, The MetropolitanMuseum of Art.

Roth, A. M. (2005c) Hatshepsut’s Mortuary Temple at Deir el-Bahari Architecture as Political Statement.In C. H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus and C. A. Keller (eds.) Hatshepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh, 147–151. New �ork, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Roth, A. M. (2005d) Erasing a Reign. In C. H. Roehrig, R. Dreyfus and C. A. Keller (eds.) Hatshepsut. From Queen to Pharaoh, 277–281. New �ork, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Sankiewicz, M. (2008) Cryptogram Uraeus Frieze in the Hatshepsut Temple at Deir el-Bahari. Études et Travaux XXII, 199–214.Sankiewicz, M. (2009) Cosmological Frames on the Lunettes in the Temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-

Bahari. In J. Popielska-Grzybowska and J. Iwaszczuk (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Central EuropeanConference of Egyptologists. Egypt 2009: Perspectives of Research. Pułtusk 22–24 June 2009 , ActaArchaeologica Pultuskiensia, Vol. II, 171–177. Pułtusk, Akademia Humanistyczna im. A. Gieysztora.

Shaw, I. and Nicholson, P. (eds.) (2003) The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. New �ork, Harry N. Abrams,Inc.

Szafrański, Z. E. (2001) Niezwykła królowa, unikatowa świątynia: Polskie działania w Świątyni Hatszepsut/Exceptional Queen, Unique Temple: Polish Activity in the Temple of Hatshepsut. In Z. E. Szafrański(ed.) Królowa Hatszepsut i jej świątynia 3500 lat później/Queen Hatshepsut and her temple 3500 years

later , 57–79. Warsaw, Agencja Reklamowo-Wydawnicza A. Grzegorczyk.Tefnin, R. (1973) L’an 7 de Touthmosis III et d’Hatshepsout. Chronique d’Égypte XLVIII, No. 96,232–242.

Tyldesley, J. (2006) The Complete Queens of Egypt . Cairo, American University in Cairo Press.Wysocki, Z. (1992) The Temple of Queen Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari: The Raising of the Structure in

View of Architectural Studies. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts für ägyptische Altertumskunde in Kairo 48, 233–254.

sankiewicz, co regency

Documents