Hatshepsut Dbq Analysis

Archaeological images that convey Hatshepsut and Thutmose III effectively co-ruling and delegating Pharaonic responsibilities are indicative of their mutually supportive relationship. Hatshepsut acted as a co-regent to her stepson/nephew for at least fifteen years, and it is believed that they shared a peaceful and harmonious relationship. Thutmose III’s mother was of an unacceptably low status, hence allowing him to become a young King under the supervision of his stepmother, Queen Hatshepsut. The Kings eventually shared administrative, religious and military responsibilities, demonstrating that their relationship was cooperative and interdependent. Hence, the desecration and concealment of Hatshepsut’s building activities is not indicative

While it is viewed by some as an act of damnatio memoriae, it is most widely believed that the act was executed out of political expediency, as Source A reveals, with the concealment of Hatshepsut’s monuments not occurring until twenty years after her death. This is far too long if the destruction were motivated by hatred and revenge, which Robins expresses as being very unlikely. The destruction of Hatshepsut’s monuments was highly selective, with many of her inscriptions remaining visible or intact. If the true purpose of the erasures were to achieve revenge by denying Hatshepsut an afterlife, then significant aspects of Hatshepsut’s legacy would not have been left untouched. Hatshepsut’s image was replaced with those of Thutmose I and Thutmose II, as conveyed in Source C, possibly to boost Thutmose III’s relative’s reputation throughout history. This may have been an attempt to more directly link Thutmose III with his male ancestors or to “emphasise his own links with his illustrious grandfather Thutmose I”. Where Hatshepsut is depicted as a queen, her name was untouched, and only depictions of her as a King were desecrated, indicating that the purpose behind the destruction is associated only with Hatshepsut’s role as a female Pharaoh. Robins believes that the removal of Hatshepsut’s titles may have been an attempt to re-establish ma’at, or to discourage other females from seeking the throne. The desecrations ceased as soon as Amenhotep had secured his position on the throne, suggesting that the erasures were performed for the purpose of solidifying dynastic succession, rather than as an act of personal retribution. Hence, this should not be interpreted as evidence of a hostile or antagonistic relationship between the rulers, merely as an act of political