Hatshepsut And Thutmose Iii 4x1u3a

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 DjeserDjeseru 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 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 stepson 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 ed. 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 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 s 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 s 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 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) s 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 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 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 ed 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 elBahri. 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 t 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-king130328511/ Winlock, H. (1942). Excavations at Deir el-Bahri, 1911-1931 (1st ed.). London: The Macmillan Company.

6