Her Royal Androgyny

Hatshepsut in proper context

Tristan Samuels








TA: Rob Martin
NMC 344H
February 4 2014
Samuels 1

Hatshepsut is an ancient Egyptian pharaoh that stands out in Egyptological
historiography because of her unique succession the throne. Hatshepsut was a queen, then a co-
regent, and then she became pharaoh. Consequently, she is noted for being the first female to
rule as pharaoh. This discussion will survey and critique discussions on Hatshepsut and, after, a
different perspective on her reign will be discussed. This paper argues that Egyptologists often
assess Hatshepsut within a Eurocentric framework of gender relations which is problematic when
discussing an Ancient African civilization. Rather, placing Hatshepsut in an African context
provides a more accurate understanding of the significance of her gender.
Peter Clayton highlights key details of her reign, but makes unwarranted assumptions
about her activities. First, he frames Hathshepsuts role as pharaoh as a narrative of the strong-
willed woman (Clayton 1994: 104). In addition, Clayton does not provide any evidence to
suggest that Hatshepsut was any less powerful as a co-regent or queen than she was as pharaoh.
Also, Clayton provides no evidence that a female ruler was not acceptable in the ancient
Egyptian worldview he assumes that it was a problem. Hatshepsut could have likely shown
leadership qualities as a queen and co-regent. Moreover, Clayton never considers the possibility
that Hatshepsut became pharaoh for practical purposes, such as Tuthmosis III being too young
rule. Furthermore, Claytons characterization of Hatshepsut as strong-willed woman denies her
complexity as a human being.
Clayton, overlooking the records of Hatshepsuts military campaigns (1994: 107),
assumes that Hatshepsut was a pacifist. Claytons analysis seems to imply that a female pharaoh
could not have had serious military prowess. Moreover, he assumes that Tuthmosis III
contributed to Hatshepsuts death because he removed her name from monuments (Clayton and
assumes that Hatshepsuts reign was too disgraceful to be recorded (1994: 170). However, it is
Samuels 2

possible it that Tuthmosis III re-established maat (cosmic harmony) now as the sole ruler. This
seems more likely considering the fact that the erasures were minor (Robbins 1993: 52). Overall,
Claytons discussion on Hatshepsut reads like a sensationalist narrative rather than critical
analysis of evidence.
Allan Gardiner makes similar generalizations. He refers to Hatshepsuts position as queen
or co-regent as mere queenly status (1961: 183). Gardiner also insists that Hatshepsut literally
carried herself as a man, but considers her womanly images as evidence of hesitation on her
identity simply based on visual depictions (1961: 183). Gardiner also characterizes Hatshepsut
as a dictator (1961: 182) and a woman of the most virile character (1961: 184), but like
Clayton, he provides no evidence supports this. The biography of Ineni which Gardiner cites
(1961: 181) suggests that Hatshepsut faced no major barriers in ascending the throne. Gardiner
critically engages Thutmosis IIIs military campaigns, but dismisses those of Hatshepsut (1961:
188-89). Gardiners analysis is clearly based on stereotypes of non-European women in political
power as a threat to social order (Haley 1993: 30).
Redford gives attention to inscriptions that show Hatshepsuts involvement in military
affairs. For example, the inscriptions of Tiy and Djehuty mention Hatshepsut leading Nubian
expeditions (Redford 1967: 57-61). Redford argues that scholars assume a pacified Hatshepsut
because based on argument of silence (1967: 63). However, Hatshepsuts gender clearly plays a
role in this assumption. In fact, Redford reinforces this sexist assumption as he argues that it
would be inconvenient for her to lead an army of men simply because she is a woman (1967:
64).
Redford assumes that the Eighteenth dynasty was on a matriarchal streak pushed by the
stubbornness and driving ambition of the queens (1967: 65) which is reminiscent of Clayton
Samuels 3

and Gardiners commentary. Redford associates this matriarchal tendency, referring to the
political agency of women in a society, with possible Nubian influence in the seventeenth and
eighteenth dynasties (1967: 66-69). However being that both shared such matriarchal
tendencies it seems more likely that ancient Egypt was more receptive to female leadership than
Redford realizes. Redford assumes that Hatshepsut only dealt with internal affairs and that
Thutmose III lead her military campaigns when became of age to do so (1967:76-81) because a
woman could not accomplish all this; a matriarchate could not meet Egypts imperial needs
(1967: 81, emphasis added) which is clearly sexist and contradicts his matriarchal streak
argument. He further contends that she was acting as patriarch by assuming kingly attributes
(1967: 85) which ignores the fact that she referred to herself as a woman. Redford, like
Clayton and Gardiner, downplays Hatshepsuts agency because of his views of women in power
not ancient Egyptian attitudes.
Gay Robins discussion avoids the sexism of the previous authors, but she assumes
sexism in ancient Egyptian politics. Robins acknowledges the co-regency policy, but she still
assumes that Hatshepsut had a strong character and needed male support (Robins 1993: 47).
Robins acknowledges that other women ruled Egypt, but dismisses them as last resorts (1993:
50). Moreover, she insists that there was a tension between the kingship ideology and
Hatshepsuts biological gender based on Hatshepsuts representations (1993: 50-51). However,
the presence of prior female rulers, rarity or not, and influential women in the eighteenth dynasty
shows that female leadership was acceptable in Egypt. In addition, Hatshepsuts masculine guise
is probably symbolic not literal. Furthermore, Robbins assumption of tension between
Thutmose III and Hatshepsut (1993: 51-52) is unsubstantiated.
Samuels 4

After a review of the scholarship, it is clear that the alleged issue of Hatshepsuts
gender is framed, by the authors discussed above, in a Eurocentric framework. Troy Allen
observes that women were prominent in ancient Egyptian politics as early as the Early Dynastic
and Old Kingdom periods. Allen argues that the matrilineal practices of the seventeenth and
eighteenth dynasties mark a reestablishment of ancient Egyptian culture prior to Hyksos rule
not the streak that Redford claims (2007: 819-20). Allen further contends that women wielding
a high degree of political power, such as Hatshepsut, could not happen if ancient Egyptian
society was patriarchal (2007: 822-23). Shelley Haley argues that the several occurrences of
female rulers in co-regency and sole kingship, that leadership show that the ancient Egyptians
valued androgyny, the feminine principle and motherhood. In this way, leadership functioned as
a partnership between the genders (1993: 32-33). This approach to gender parallels other
matrifocal (mother-centered) African cultures, like the Yoruba and Igbo, where gender roles are
based on societal needs (Haley 1993: 34-35).
An Afrocentric perspective on Hatshepsut leads to several observations. First, it is
unlikely that Hatshepsut needed to have a strong or virile character her leadership was
culturally acceptable. Consequently, Inenis account of the lack of tension in Hatshesputs
accession to the throne should be taken seriously. Moreover, her divine birth scenes should not
be seen as an attempt for legitimization as often assumed (i.e. Clayton 1994: 105-06, Gardiner
1961: 186). In fact, Thutmose made similar claims to divinity (Redford 1965: 75), but he is not
considered illegitimate. Evidently, divine birth scenes and associations were part of the kingship
tradition and Amun-Re was the central deity in the eighteenth dynasty. In addition, her
expedition to Punt served a legacy marker which was not a rare goal among pharaohs. The
assumption of Hatshepsuts illegitimacy is clearly based on her gender.
Samuels 5

Also, her military activity should not be downplayed as exaggerations (i.e. Gardiner
1961: 88) nor should we assume Thutmose III was the real military leader (i.e. Redford 1965:
81). It was not unusual for a woman to lead an army the eighteenth dynasty is clear evidence
of it. For example, Ahotep was a key contributor in wars against the Hyksos and is credited as
doing such (Bryan 2000: 226-227). There is clearly nothing odd about a woman leading an
army in ancient Egypt, especially in the eighteenth dynasty.
Third, it is probable that the various gendered depictions of Hatshepsut are meant to
symbolically illustrate the androgyny of her kingship not her acting as a patriarch as Redford
claims. Considering value of androgyny in ancient Egyptian kingship, it is not surprising that
Hatshepsut can take on masculine attributes of kingship without denying her womanhood. Thus,
we should not see Hatshepsuts reign as abnormal or defiance of tradition, but as one of several
examples of the gender inclusivity in ancient Egyptian leadership.











Samuels 6

Bibliography

Allen, T. Cheikh Anta Diops Two Cradle Theory: Revisited. Journal of Black Studies 38
(2008): 813-29

Bryan, B. The Eighteenth Dynasty Before the Amarna Period (c. 1550-1352 BC), in The
Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Ed. Ian Shaw (Oxford, 2000): 218-271

Clayton, P. Chronicle of the Pharaohs (London, 1994)

Gardiner, A. Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford, 1961)

Haley, S. Black Feminist Thought and Classics: Re-membering, Re-claiming, Re-empowering,
in Feminist Theory and the Classics. Eds. Nancy Sorkin Rabinowitz and Amy Richlin
(Routledge, 1993): 23-43.

Redford, D. The reign of Hatshepsut, in History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of
Egypt (Toronto, 1967): 180-91

Robins, G. Women in Ancient Egypt (Cambridge, 1993)