The Woman Who Would Be King (52 page)

37.
Edouard Naville and Howard Carter,
The Tomb of Haâtshopsîtû
(London: A. Constable, 1906). Her anthropoid wooden coffin was also found in KV 4, the tomb of Ramses XI, which was used as a workshop when the royal mummies were being stripped of valuables and moved, indicating that her body remained untouched until the end of the New Kingdom. Other funerary objects of hers were found in the royal cache at Deir el-Bahri (Theban Tomb 320), including a canopic chest, a senet board, and the remains of a chair. For the movement of the royal mummies in the later New Kingdom, see Nicholas Reeves,
Valley of the Kings: The Decline of a Royal Necropolis
(London: Kegan Paul International, 1990).

38.
For more on the shroud of Thutmose III, see Troy, “Religion and Cult,” 154.

39.
S. W. Cross, “The Hydrology of the Valley of the Kings,”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
94 (2008): 303–12.

40.
But see Nicholas Reeves and Richard H. Wilkinson,
The Complete Valley of the Kings: Tombs and Treasures of Egypt’s Greatest Pharaoh’s
. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1996), 94–95. Many of Hatshepsut’s funerary objects were preserved, which suggests that her mummy is also preserved to us—we just haven’t definitively identified it.

41.
Akhenaten’s mummy may have been destroyed after the failure of his radical religious changes. Or maybe it was moved back to Thebes as a corrective. For more on the aftermath of Akhenaten’s reign, see Dodson,
Amarna Sunset
.

42.
Thutmose I’s tomb was likely also looted in antiquity; his coffin was reused by the priest-king Panedjem I in the Theban royal cache. But since the identification of the mummy of Thutmose I has recently been disproved, Hatshepsut’s father is still out there somewhere, waiting for discovery. The mummy of her mother, Ahmes, is still missing, too, and maybe Hatshepsut’s mummy is with them.

1.
The story of this campaign comes from Thutmose III’s annals, inscribed in the heart of Karnak Temple. I have adapted it from Lichtheim,
Ancient Egyptian Literature
, 2:29–35.

2.
The Great Green Sea is how the Egyptians referred to the Mediterranean Sea.

3.
Redford, “Northern Wars of Thutmose III,” 330–31.

4.
A stela from Armant indicates that Thutmose III led at least two campaigns in Syria-Palestine during the coregency with Hatshepsut. According to O’Connor, his victories imply extensive military campaign experience (“Thutmose III: An Enigmatic Pharaoh,” 28).

5.
Because ancient armies were self-sufficient, living off the land with spoils taken from the conquered, campaigns usually took place in late spring and summer. See Redford, “Northern Wars of Thutmose III,” 328–29.

6.
P. T. Nicholson and J. A. Henderson, “Glass,” in
Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology
, ed. P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

7.
Laboury, “Royal Portrait and Ideology,” 271.

8.
Laboury argues that “this policy—personal assertion, deep respect for the predecessors and great devotion toward Amun, the god who gives rightful kingship—suggest(s) that the ruler was in need of legitimation after a long partition of his power with Hatshepsut, since they precisely constitute ways to justify claims to the throne” (ibid., 271).

9.
See Christian E. Loeben,
Beobachtungen zu Kontext und Funktion königlicher Statuen im Amun-Tempel von Karnak
(Leipzig: Wodtke und Stegbauer, 2001). Also see the page on the colossal statues at the eighth pylon on Leser, “Maat-ka-Ra Hatshepsut,” website at
http://​maat-​ka-​ra.​de/
.

10.
Blyth,
Karnak
, 68–77.

11.
The Akhmenu temple was begun soon after Thutmose’s sole reign started. In “Royal Portrait and Ideology,” 268–70, Laboury argues that the statues there are very similar to late portraits of Hatshepsut, but with slight differences, including a more masculine body, a deeper depression under the eye, lower cheekbones, a nose with a rounded point, and a chin with a different shape from the side. Laboury sees the Akhmenu statues of Thutmose III, especially CG 42053, as the real face of Thutmose III and most similar to how the young monarch appeared.

12.
Two-dimensional images of sixty-two seated statues are shown, and it is possible that a real, three-dimensional statue group was present in Thutmose I’s hypostyle hall between the fourth and fifth pylons, where Thutmose III would have made offerings to his ancestor kings as a respectful heir should. The temple would also have kept portable versions of these statues to bring into the Akhmenu on feast days. See O’Connor, “Thutmose III: An Enigmatic Pharaoh,” 19–20, and Redford, “Northern Wars of Thutmose III,” 341.

13.
For the names preserved, see the website of Peter Lundström, “Karnak King List,”
http://​xorpid.​com/​karnak-​king-​list
. For a formal publication of the list, see A. C. Prisse d’Avennes,
Monuments égyptiens
(Paris, 1847), plate 1.

14.
For the timing of the Red Chapel dismantling and subsequent defacing, see Dorman,
Monuments of Senenmut
.

15.
The granite sanctuary of Thutmose III exists only in fragments, but Philip Arrhidaeus’s sanctuary is a copy in dimension and subject matter. See Blyth,
Karnak
, 78–83.

16.
Sethe,
Urkunden der 18. Dynastie
, Band 1, 155–76. For more on this important text, see Anthony Spalinger, “Drama in History: Exemplars from Mid Dynasty XVIII,”
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur
24 (1997): 269–300. Spalinger argues that the stress on divine nomination indicates some weakness to the claim to the throne by Thutmose III. Those behind the decision to crown Thutmose III thus used an older Middle Kingdom text legitimizing the young Senwosret I (preserved on the Berlin Leather Roll, Berlin 3029, a leather sheet with a copy of Senwosret I’s building program, probably copied from one of his own temples, either in the Middle Kingdom or during the early Eighteenth Dynasty) as a source for Thutmose’s innovative oracle text. Senwosret I was also said to be chosen by the gods as king and was likewise called a puppy, in reference to his youth. Spalinger maintains that in the reign of Thutmose III we see a new and real self-consciousness of kingship and succession that was not there before: only the king-to-be can understand the gods’ revelation and what it means, and the king had to be chosen by the gods, rather than being god incarnate, himself. For further discussion, see also Laskowski, “Monumental Architecture and the Royal Building Program of Thutmose III,” 183–237, 219–20.

17.
For example, Laboury argues that the building program of Thutmose III “reveals a certain animosity between the former coregents” (“Royal Portrait and Ideology,” 271).

18.
The dating of the death of Nefrure to a time before year 16 is based entirely, if indirectly, on an ostracon from Senenmut’s tomb at Deir el-Bahri, but scholars now recognize evidence that Nefrure lived beyond her mother. See Dorman,
Monuments of Senenmut
, 77–78. Some evidence indicates that Nefrure lived many years past regnal year 16 and perhaps even past her mother’s death in year 22: (1) a previously mentioned stela from the Ptah temple at Karnak (CG 34013) showing Thutmose III with the God’s Wife of Amen Nefrure recut as Satiah; (2) a stela from the funerary temple of Thutmose III (CG 34105) showing the king offering to Amen with his queen, likely originally Nefrure but recut as Thutmose III’s mother, Isis, who is called Great King’s Wife and Mistress of Upper and Lower Egypt. The tomb of Nefrure was probably located at Wadi Sikkat Taka ez-Zeida, where Hatshepsut’s tomb had been prepared when she was queen, because Nefrure’s name is carved into one of the boulders at the site. Howard Carter, “A Tomb Prepared for Queen Hatshepsuit and Other Recent Discoveries at Thebes,”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
4, no. 2/3 (1917): 107–18.

19.
Given the reoccurring problems of succession, kings increased their harem throughout the New Kingdom. See Bryan, “In Women Good and Bad Fortune Are on Earth,” 38–39.

20.
Robins wonders what the king did with all these women, particularly the dozens of women who accompanied the foreign princesses as part of their entourage. She suspects that many of the wives living at the palace never saw the king; they were kept busy producing high-quality goods like fine linen cloth. In many ways, the harem was actually a workshop for high-status goods. See Robins,
Women in Ancient Egypt
, 39–41, and Roth, “Harem,”
UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology
.

21.
O’Connor, “Thutmose III: An Enigmatic Pharaoh,” 27.

22.
Bryan, “Eighteenth Dynasty Before the Amarna Period,” 248.

23.
An outer wall of Thutmose III’s Akhmenu at Karnak bears an inscription dating to year 23 that records the installation of the eldest King’s Son, Amenemhat, as Overseer of Cattle. There is no other evidence of this prince’s existence. Dorman suggests Nefrure was alive in year 23 as God’s Wife of Amen and King’s Great Wife, and was likely the mother of this eldest King’s Son. See Dorman,
Monuments of Senenmut
, 78–79.

24.
See Dodson and Hilton,
Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt
, 131–32.

25.
Most royal children left no record of their existence, but for evidence of Eighteenth Dynasty princesses recorded on Twenty-First Dynasty mummy labels after their removal from their original tombs and subsequent reburial, see A. Dodson and J. J. Janssen, “A Theban Tomb and Its Tenants,”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
75 (1989): 125–38.

26.
Laboury, “Royal Portrait and Ideology,” 261.

27.
Dorman,
Monuments of Senenmut
, 173–74.

28.
Ibid., 137, 177–78. The evidence that Senenmut lived into the sole reign of Thutmose III is based on a number of his monuments that can be dated after the death of Hatshepsut. One statue found by a Polish expedition in situ at Djeser Akhet (Cairo Museum statue CG 42117) names only Nefrure and Thutmose III. We also have evidence of another Chief Steward of Amen, a man named Roau, who was a contemporary of Senenmut, and it seems likely that Senenmut lost this influential position to this man. On one of his Djeser Akhet statues, the inscription states that the original location was a temple called Kha Akhet rather than Djeser Akhet, indicating that the statue was not originally placed in Thutmose III’s temple but somewhere else. No matter what, Senenmut did not die in year 18 or 19, as previously assumed. Also see Keller’s discussion of Senenmut’s statue with a Hathor emblem in Roehrig’s
Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh
, 126–27.

29.
Dorman,
Monuments of Senenmut
, 178–81.

30.
Ibid., 158–64. Dorman convincingly argues that it was petty rivalries and personal attacks that sealed the fate of Senenmut’s monuments.

31.
Translation from Karl Leser’s page on Senenmut:
http://​maat-​ka-​ra.​de/
.

32.
E. Dziobek, “Denkmäler des Vezirs User-Amun,”
Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens
18 (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1998), 144–48.

33.
Bryan, “Administration in the Reign of Thutmose III,” 70.

34.
In the later reign of Thutmose III and later in the Eighteenth Dynasty, other officials suffered the same fate as Senenmut, including the vizier Rekhmire, the scribe and royal physician Nebamen, the royal steward Surer, and the queen’s steward Kheruef.

35.
It is difficult to connect the destruction of Senenmut’s monuments directly to Hatshepsut and her aberrant rule. For example, Senenmut’s monuments weren’t defaced in the same way or for the same reason as Hatshepsut’s and vice versa. On only three of his statues were both Senenmut’s and Hatshepsut’s names chiseled away, and the removal is inconsistent in any case. On some of his statues, all of Senenmut’s names have been removed, while Hatshepsut’s remain. See Keller in Roehrig,
Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh
, 126.

Here is how Peter Dorman reconstructs the destruction of Senenmut’s names and images: When Senenmut died, his tomb chamber was sealed and the sarcophagus was left or deposited in the axial corridor of TT 71. A short time after, TT 353 was broken into and defaced. Before Hatshepsut’s proscription, Senenmut’s name was hacked out in TT 71. Around the same time, at least four of his statues, most of which were dedicated at Armant, were also attacked. Around this time, his sarcophagus was destroyed. When Thutmose III attacked the memory of Hatshepsut, Senenmut’s names and images were removed from Hatshepsut’s temple of Deir el-Bahri. However, many of Senenmut’s statues remained unharmed and on display, as later Ramesside restoration proves. Other Karnak statues show damage but were kept on display as late as Ptolemaic times, as their inclusion in the Karnak cachette suggests (
Monuments of Senenmut
, 178–81).

1.
Again, this is not to support the so-called heiress theory (see Robins, “Critical Examination,” 67–77), but just to stress that maternal bloodline was an important factor in the selection of the next king during the early Eighteenth Dynasty.

2.
This later date for the destruction of Hatshepsut’s monuments was first established by C. F. Nims, “The Date of the Dishonoring of Hatshepsut,”
Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
93 (1966): 97–100. Also see Blyth,
Karnak
, 51–52, and Dorman,
Monuments of Senenmut
.

3.
See Dorman,
Monuments of Senenmut
, plates 2–4.

4.
This part of Karnak is called the Palace of Ma’at. Much of the proscription in the heart of Karnak happened when Thutmose III erected his granite barque shrine in year 45. See the UCLA Digital Karnak website on the Ma’at suite at
http://​dlib.​etc.​ucla.​edu/​projects/​Karnak/​feature/​PalaceOfMaat
.