To what extent are rhetorical concepts used to assess the relationship between

Hatshepsut and her stepson Thutmose III?

Hatshepsut was the most powerful female Pharaoh of Egypt, who co-ruled with her step-son

Thutmose III for 22 years (Creasman, 2014, p.594). There have been many debates between

early and modern historians about Hatshepsut and her relationship with her step-son Thutmose

III. Early historians believe that Hatshepsut usurped Thutmose III throne. However, their belief

is based on three incomplete pieces of evidence (Nims,1966, p.97). Later historians use

complete evidence and a logical appeal to argue that both Thutmose III and Hatshepsut a good

relationship and ruled Egypt equally (Dorman,2001, p.6). Due to historians having different

theories on the relationship between Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, there has been a debate

between historians, in this essay the rhetorical concepts used by the historian to prove their

points to the audience will be analysed.

Historians use different rhetorical concepts to show their views on the inscriptions and images

of Thutmose III in the monuments of Hatshepsut and what it suggests about the relationship.

In Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple Djeser-Djeseru, objects inscribed with the name of Thutmose

III when he was young were placed in the temple at the early stages of construction (Lipińska,

1967, p.33). The small objects inscribed with Thutmose III name that was found in the Djeser-

Djeseru temple of Hatshepsut would suggest that Hatshepsut respected Thutmose III, enough

to include him in her temple. However, Lipińska (1967) does not believe that a good

relationship existed and used his title as a historian expert to persuade the readers that

Hatshepsut did not respect Thutmose III as he says due to objects "placed in the deposits when

he was still young…. It is therefore extremely improbable that the foundation deposits of

Djeser-menu bearing his name were destined for any part of the temple" (Lipińska, 1967, p.33).

Lipinska (1967) also used a rhetorical situation to persuade the audience of his view. During

1
the time Lipinska (1967) wrote the book about Hatshepsut, men were seen as superior to

women, and men did not believe that a woman could rule a vast empire, without being evil.

Therefore, Lipinska (1967) persuaded the readers that the only way for Hatshepsut to rule as

an empire was to steal the throne from Thutmose III. Although many historians such as

Winlock (1932), believe that the objects found in the temple were not going to be used, they

do not have enough evidence to support their theory. Historian Nims (1966) uses a logical

appeal and argues Lipińska (1967) and Winlock (1932) and asks if these objects were not part

of the temple, why would they be placed in the temple (Nims,1966, p.99)? Later scholars use

archaeological evidence such as the depictions of Thutmose III in the temple of Dier el Bahri

"shown playing a ceremonial game called "to Strike the ball to Hathor protectress of Thebes",

(Uphill, 1961, p. 250), to form a logical argument to prove that Hatshepsut did treat her step-

son with respect and love. They argue and say if Hatshepsut did hate Thutmose III, she would

not have included images of him or inscription in any of her temples (Wilson, 2006, p.4)

Another piece of evidence that early and late historians interpret differently is the destruction

of Hatshepsut monuments.

The deliberate destruction of Hatshepsut’s monuments after her death by Thutmose III, led to

early and late historians using rhetorical concepts to persuade their readers what they think the

reason behind the destruction was. Twenty years after the death of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III

ordered her inscriptions of her being depicted as a pharaoh and her monuments to be destroyed

(Nims,1966, p.96). Early historians believe the reason behind the destruction, was due to

Hatshepsut treating Thutmose III poorly, and this was his way of getting his revenge

"Thutmose III did as thorough a job smiting the iconography of King Hatshepsut as he had

whacking the Canaanies at Megiddo" (Brown, 2009, p.7). Historian Bradley (1999) believes

that Hatshepsut and Thutmose III hated each other. He states that Thutmose III knew that when

2
he ordered her monuments and inscription to be destroyed, Hatshepsut was going to be denied

entry to the afterlife. (Bradley, 1999, p.322). As the ancient Egyptians believed that if pharaohs

monuments were deliberately destroyed they would be denied entry to the afterlife (Bradley,

1999, p.322). Although Bradley (1999) uses evidence to form his logical appeal, he only gave

part of the evidence and not all. Bradley (1999), uses Texas sharpshooter fallacy to build his

logical appeal to the readers, as he did not state the period in which the destruction happened,

and which inscription of Hatshepsut were destroyed because if he did his belief would not be

supported. Modern historians such as Nims (1966), go against early historians, they use the

full evidence to form a logical appeal. Modern historians believe that Thutmose III, only

destroyed her monuments, to make sure that his son Amenhotep II, was not compared to her,

as she was a successful pharaoh (Brown, 2009, p.7). The evidence they use to support their

logical appeal is, only images of her being depicted as a pharaoh were destroyed and not the

ones of her as Queen (Nims,1966, p.97). This supports the theory that Thutmose III was doing

it for political reasons and not for personal reasons (Roehrig, Dreyfus & Keller, 2005, p.269).

Further evidence that supports that Thutmose III acted for political motives and not out of

hatred is the time in which the destruction occurred. Late historians pointed out that the

destruction only occurred 20 years after her death (Nims,1966, p.98). If the motive of the

destruction is hatred, Thutmose III would not have waited 20 years to destroy the monuments

(Dorman, 2001, p.6). The date of the destruction is believed by many as there is written

archaeological evidence, which early historians failed to talk about. The last piece of evidence

that historians look at differently is how and why Hatshepsut became pharaoh.

Rhetorical concepts are used by early and late historians to persuade the readers to their view

of Hatshepsut claiming the throne and what it implies on the relationship between Hatshepsut

and Thutmose III. After the death of Thutmose I, Thutmose III was crowned the Pharaoh of

3
Egypt. Thutmose III was too young to rule, and Hatshepsut took place as a temporary ruler of

Egypt till Thutmose III was of age to rule. Early historians believe Hatshepsut usurped

Thutmose III throne, which led him to be bitter and angry towards her. Callender (1988)

believes Thutmose III hated Hatshepsut for taking his throne. He does not use any evidence

but his authority as a historian to prove his view. He says that for a female to rule the kingdom,

the pharaoh must choose and approve of the female, although there is no evidence to support

his claim, many people choose to believe it (Callender, 1988, p.24). Callender (1988) also says

that Hatshepsut took the opportunity of Thutmose III being too young to know what was

happening and forcefully took the throne (Callender, 1988, p.25). Historian Robins (1999)

believes that Hatshepsut was planning to take the throne for a while. He uses images and

inscriptions to form his logical appeal. He points out that during her reign statutes and images

of Hatshepsut gradually changed from a being a Queen to a pharaoh (Robin, 1999, p.116).

Robin (1999) believes that Hatshepsut taking the throne led to Thutmose III and her having a

bitter relationship. However modern historians do not believe that Hatshepsut stole the throne

from Thutmose III. Aldred (2001) argues Callender (1988) and Robins (1999) and says that

Hatshepsut had no other choice other than to become pharaoh as Thutmose III biological

mother was not of royal blood and was not permitted to rule the kingdom (Aldred, 2001, p.169).

Aldred (2001) uses inscription to form a logical appeal to the readers as she states, that if

Hatshepsut did steal the throne and did Thutmose III, she would have no included him in

images and inscriptions, where they are both shown as pharaohs (Aldred, 2001, p.168).

Historian Teeter (2006) supports Aldred (2001) and uses her authority as an Egyptian historian

to convince the readers that Thutmose III would not have hated Hatshepsut for taking the throne

because she was extremely successful and gave him his throne as he was of age (Teeter, 2006,

p.649). She also argues that once Thutmose III was of age to become pharaoh, he would have

4
been more powerful than her and would have been able to take the throne from her, but he

chose to rule with her (Teeter, 2006, p.653).

Through the use of rhetorical concepts, it was possible to see the views of modern and ancient

historians, on the relationship of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. Early used relied on rhetorical

situations and fallacy to support their perspective on the relationship, as they did not to believe

that a woman could be successful as a pharaoh and just wanted to prove she was a bad person.

They also used their authority as historians to convince the reader that Hatshepsut and

Thutmose III had a bad relationship. Modern historians had a much stronger argument than the

early historians, as they used logical appeals to support that Hatshepsut and Thutmose III did

not have a bad relationship as “Logical appeals are regarded superior to others” (Bizzel &

Herzberg, 2009). Overall modern historian views are supported more than early historians, as

they rely on only evidence.

5
References:

Aldred, C. (2001). Akhenaten. London: Thames et Hudson.

Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (1990). The rhetorical tradition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Bradley, P. (1999). Ancient Egypt. Camridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, C. (2017). Hatshepsut — National Geographic
Magazine. Ngm.nationalgeographic.com. Retrieved 3 October 2017, from
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/04/hatshepsut/brown-text
Creasman, P. (2014). Hatshepsut and the Politics of Punt. African Archaeological Review,
31(3), 395-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10437-014-9160-9
Dorman, P. (2001). Hatshepsut: Wicked Stepmother or Joan of Arc?. The Oriental Institute
News and Notes, (168), 1-6.
Callender, G. (1988). A Critical Examination of the Reign of Hatshepsut. Macquarie ancient
history association.
Lipinska, J. (1967). Names and History of the Sanctuaries Built by Tuthmosis III at Deir el-
Bahri. The Journal Of Egyptian Archaeology, 53, 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3855569
NIMS, C. (1966). The date of the dishonoring of Hatshepsut. Zeitschrift Für Ägyptische
Sprache Und Altertumskunde, 93(1), 97-100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1524/zaes.1966.93.1.97
Redford, D. (1967). History and chronology of the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Robins, G. (1999). The Names of Hatshepsut as King. The Journal Of Egyptian
Archaeology, 85, 103-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3822429
Roehrig, C., Dreyfus, R., & Keller, C. (2005). Hatshepsut. New York: The Metropolitan
Museum of Art.
Teeter, E. (2006). Hatshepsut and Her World. American Journal Of Archaeology, 110(4),
649-653. http://dx.doi.org/10.3764/aja.110.4.649
Tyldesley, J. (2017). BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis: a
royal feud?. Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 23 August 2017, from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/hatshepsut_01.shtml
Uphill, E. (1961). A Joint Sed-Festival of Thutmose III and Queen Hatshepsut. Journal Of
Near Eastern Studies, 20(4), 248-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/371649
Wilson, E. (2017). The Queen Who Would Be King. Smithsonian. Retrieved 15 September
2017, from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-queen-who-would-be-king-
130328511/
Winlock, H. (1942). Excavations at Deir el-Bahri, 1911-1931 (1st ed.). London: The
Macmillan Company.