Talk:Hatshepsut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Hatshepsut was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 24, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 7, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 16, 2005 Good article nominee Listed May 15, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: The name "Hatshepsut" could also be read "The Sign of the Sheba of the South". The name, according to this thesis, comprises three syllables: Hat-Shep-Sut. "Hat" means the prophets in ancient Egyptian (Haa)but as they give signs we could also consider the Hebrew "H'at" which means "The Sign". The reason for doing this is that if we can read the hieroglyphs this way, this is the fabled Queen Sheba who visited Solomon. Although "fabled" she is well documented in the Bible where several verses are given to Sheba's visit to Solomon. She is called the Queen of the South in the New Testament, thus Sheba was of the Sut or South. Today "The Sudan" echoes the "Suten" of the ancient "Sut-en-bat" of the Egyptians, a term used to cover the whole Nile river system - North and South. Josephus Flavius said Sheba was queen of Egypt and Ethiopia. Only Hatshepsut of the 18th Dynasty was Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia because this was one of the few dynasties that actually did rule both lands. Few debate that. In his Memphis excavations, William Flinders Petrie found a reference to the "Ra Shepses" in the time of Ramesses II. Apparently this office was re-instated by Ramesses many years after the original office had declined. Clearly, the Egyptian king or queen had to maintain the official records and had to be familiar with hieroglyphs which were the main form of communication between king and subjects or between government and people. Solomon had this role as well but he was also well-versed in the 'Word of God'. And it is this 'Word' that Sheba came to hear. We can well imagine Hatshepsut, especially if she was a gifted linguist and scholar like England's Elizabeth I, would have a great desire to listen to Solomon. As the Biblical record shows, she responded to "One Sign" (New Testament) or "One Word" (Old Testament). Thus it is entirely possible that the hieroglyphs for her name read "The Sign of the The Sheba of The South (Egypt and Ethiopia)" and this explains her sudden demise. From an Egyptian point of view she became an Apostate like Akhenaten because she converted to the worship of a different god (God) i.e., Jehovah of Israel. Ramesses's scribes seem to have deleted Hatshepsut and Akhenaten from the official record - basically for a similar reason, Apostasy. Faced with her imminent demise she built a temple at Deir el-Bahari to reflect the famous words of Solomon in his Song of Solomon: "O my dove, you are in the cleft of the rock in the secret places of the stairs". Only Sheba-Hatshepsut could have known those words after her many meetings with Solomon. Her temple sits under the clefts of a rock-face, stairs leading to a holy shrine with secret tunnels bored into the cliff on either side. The stairs and the causeway are a copy of those used to construct Solomon's temple. The frontage would be what Solomon's looked like. Deir el-Bahari is in fact a copy of Solomon's temple although unfinished because Thutmose III then had enough power to overthrow her and stop the Temple Project. The Land of Punt recorded on the walls of the temple is Israel-Lebanon (Pun = Pun-icea, or Phoenicia). Israel was the bridge land where Africa met Asia and God met Man in Jerusalem. It is the Bridge or Punt of the World. The trouble is that Hatshepsut and her dynasty pre-dated Solomon by 500 years according to official Egyptian chronology. This thesis counters by saying the chronology of ancient Egypt therefore has to be reconstructed. That cannot be done here but recent apparent discoveries of Hatshepsut's mummy and missing molar would seriously challenge the hypothesis here because it would seem the mummy of one who is to be resurrected with the Saints of Old, according to Jesus in the New Testament, would remain in peace and undisturbed until that resurrection. That is the test of this hypothesis that enables the hypothesis to be falsified. A very important and neccessary requirement of any hypothesis. If this mummy that has been found is indeed Hatshepsut's, then all the circumstances outlined above, and much more information which cannot be discussed here, would then suggest that a very clever set of circumstances has been established regarding the archaeology of Hatshepsut that gives a very strong impression that she was the Queen of Sheba. But who would want to fake something like that and how or when was this done? The search for Hatshepsut's mummy is a very important task. But there is a double-edged sword here for a lot of reasons. Don StewartTtdonaldstewart 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC) (edit) WikiProject Egypt     (Rated A-Class) Egypt Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale. After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. WikiProject Ancient Egypt      (Rated A-Class) Ancient Egypt Portal This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. A This article has been rated as A-class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) The name "Hatshepsut" could also be read "The Sign of the Sheba of the South". The name, according to this thesis, comprises three syllables: Hat-Shep-Sut. "Hat" means the prophets in ancient Egyptian (Haa)but as they give signs we could also consider the Hebrew "H'at" which means "The Sign". The reason for doing this is that if we can read the hieroglyphs this way, this is the fabled Queen Sheba who visited Solomon. Although "fabled" she is well documented in the Bible where several verses are given to Sheba's visit to Solomon. She is called the Queen of the South in the New Testament, thus Sheba was of the Sut or South. Today "The Sudan" echoes the "Suten" of the ancient "Sut-en-bat" of the Egyptians, a term used to cover the whole Nile river system - North and South. Josephus Flavius said Sheba was queen of Egypt and Ethiopia. Only Hatshepsut of the 18th Dynasty was Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia because this was one of the few dynasties that actually did rule both lands. Few debate that. In his Memphis excavations, William Flinders Petrie found a reference to the "Ra Shepses" in the time of Ramesses II. Apparently this office was re-instated by Ramesses many years after the original office had declined. Clearly, the Egyptian king or queen had to maintain the official records and had to be familiar with hieroglyphs which were the main form of communication between king and subjects or between government and people. Solomon had this role as well but he was also well-versed in the 'Word of God'. And it is this 'Word' that Sheba came to hear. We can well imagine Hatshepsut, especially if she was a gifted linguist and scholar like England's Elizabeth I, would have a great desire to listen to Solomon. As the Biblical record shows, she responded to "One Sign" (New Testament) or "One Word" (Old Testament). Thus it is entirely possible that the hieroglyphs for her name read "The Sign of the The Sheba of The South (Egypt and Ethiopia)" and this explains her sudden demise. From an Egyptian point of view she became an Apostate like Akhenaten because she converted to the worship of a different god (God) i.e., Jehovah of Israel. Ramesses's scribes seem to have deleted Hatshepsut and Akhenaten from the official record - basically for a similar reason, Apostasy. Faced with her imminent demise she built a temple at Deir el-Bahari to reflect the famous words of Solomon in his Song of Solomon: "O my dove, you are in the cleft of the rock in the secret places of the stairs". Only Sheba-Hatshepsut could have known those words after her many meetings with Solomon. Her temple sits under the clefts of a rock-face, stairs leading to a holy shrine with secret tunnels bored into the cliff on either side. The stairs and the causeway are a copy of those used to construct Solomon's temple. The frontage would be what Solomon's looked like. Deir el-Bahari is in fact a copy of Solomon's temple although unfinished because Thutmose III then had enough power to overthrow her and stop the Temple Project. The Land of Punt recorded on the walls of the temple is Israel-Lebanon (Pun = Pun-icea, or Phoenicia). Israel was the bridge land where Africa met Asia and God met Man in Jerusalem. It is the Bridge or Punt of the World. The trouble is that Hatshepsut and her dynasty pre-dated Solomon by 500 years according to official Egyptian chronology. This thesis counters by saying the chronology of ancient Egypt therefore has to be reconstructed. That cannot be done here but recent apparent discoveries of Hatshepsut's mummy and missing molar would seriously challenge the hypothesis here because it would seem the mummy of one who is to be resurrected with the Saints of Old, according to Jesus in the New Testament, would remain in peace and undisturbed until that resurrection. That is the test of this hypothesis that enables the hypothesis to be falsified. A very important and neccessary requirement of any hypothesis. If this mummy that has been found is indeed Hatshepsut's, then all the circumstances outlined above, and much more information which cannot be discussed here, would then suggest that a very clever set of circumstances has been established regarding the archaeology of Hatshepsut that gives a very strong impression that she was the Queen of Sheba. But who would want to fake something like that and how or when was this done? The search for Hatshepsut's mummy is a very important task. But there is a double-edged sword here for a lot of reasons. Don StewartTtdonaldstewart 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Archaeology (Rated A-Class) Archaeology Portal This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. The following comments have been left for this page: The name "Hatshepsut" could also be read "The Sign of the Sheba of the South". The name, according to this thesis, comprises three syllables: Hat-Shep-Sut. "Hat" means the prophets in ancient Egyptian (Haa)but as they give signs we could also consider the Hebrew "H'at" which means "The Sign". The reason for doing this is that if we can read the hieroglyphs this way, this is the fabled Queen Sheba who visited Solomon. Although "fabled" she is well documented in the Bible where several verses are given to Sheba's visit to Solomon. She is called the Queen of the South in the New Testament, thus Sheba was of the Sut or South. Today "The Sudan" echoes the "Suten" of the ancient "Sut-en-bat" of the Egyptians, a term used to cover the whole Nile river system - North and South. Josephus Flavius said Sheba was queen of Egypt and Ethiopia. Only Hatshepsut of the 18th Dynasty was Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia because this was one of the few dynasties that actually did rule both lands. Few debate that. In his Memphis excavations, William Flinders Petrie found a reference to the "Ra Shepses" in the time of Ramesses II. Apparently this office was re-instated by Ramesses many years after the original office had declined. Clearly, the Egyptian king or queen had to maintain the official records and had to be familiar with hieroglyphs which were the main form of communication between king and subjects or between government and people. Solomon had this role as well but he was also well-versed in the 'Word of God'. And it is this 'Word' that Sheba came to hear. We can well imagine Hatshepsut, especially if she was a gifted linguist and scholar like England's Elizabeth I, would have a great desire to listen to Solomon. As the Biblical record shows, she responded to "One Sign" (New Testament) or "One Word" (Old Testament). Thus it is entirely possible that the hieroglyphs for her name read "The Sign of the The Sheba of The South (Egypt and Ethiopia)" and this explains her sudden demise. From an Egyptian point of view she became an Apostate like Akhenaten because she converted to the worship of a different god (God) i.e., Jehovah of Israel. Ramesses's scribes seem to have deleted Hatshepsut and Akhenaten from the official record - basically for a similar reason, Apostasy. Faced with her imminent demise she built a temple at Deir el-Bahari to reflect the famous words of Solomon in his Song of Solomon: "O my dove, you are in the cleft of the rock in the secret places of the stairs". Only Sheba-Hatshepsut could have known those words after her many meetings with Solomon. Her temple sits under the clefts of a rock-face, stairs leading to a holy shrine with secret tunnels bored into the cliff on either side. The stairs and the causeway are a copy of those used to construct Solomon's temple. The frontage would be what Solomon's looked like. Deir el-Bahari is in fact a copy of Solomon's temple although unfinished because Thutmose III then had enough power to overthrow her and stop the Temple Project. The Land of Punt recorded on the walls of the temple is Israel-Lebanon (Pun = Pun-icea, or Phoenicia). Israel was the bridge land where Africa met Asia and God met Man in Jerusalem. It is the Bridge or Punt of the World. The trouble is that Hatshepsut and her dynasty pre-dated Solomon by 500 years according to official Egyptian chronology. This thesis counters by saying the chronology of ancient Egypt therefore has to be reconstructed. That cannot be done here but recent apparent discoveries of Hatshepsut's mummy and missing molar would seriously challenge the hypothesis here because it would seem the mummy of one who is to be resurrected with the Saints of Old, according to Jesus in the New Testament, would remain in peace and undisturbed until that resurrection. That is the test of this hypothesis that enables the hypothesis to be falsified. A very important and neccessary requirement of any hypothesis. If this mummy that has been found is indeed Hatshepsut's, then all the circumstances outlined above, and much more information which cannot be discussed here, would then suggest that a very clever set of circumstances has been established regarding the archaeology of Hatshepsut that gives a very strong impression that she was the Queen of Sheba. But who would want to fake something like that and how or when was this done? The search for Hatshepsut's mummy is a very important task. But there is a double-edged sword here for a lot of reasons. Don StewartTtdonaldstewart 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC) (edit)

WikiProject Echo has identified Hatshepsut as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 General Bias 2 Is this informaton true of just biased? Is it trying to make her look more fabulous? 3 Transgender Issue 4 Mythology 5 Reply to Mythology 6 Nitocris claims 7 Manetho and Hatsepsut 8 Removed picture 9 Images 9.1 Civ4 image 10 Corrected Names, Titles and Removed Heiress Theory Presumption 11 Some comments 12 Thoughts? 13 Hatshepsut 14 Hieroglyphs again 15 broke 16 Inconsistency 17 Consistancy 18 Hatshepsut/Senemut Graffiti 19 More recent scholarship 20 trade issues 21 Mummy Discovery 22 Pronunciation 23 vandalized 24 BCE vs. BC war 25 Edits by the anon, replaced by 83d40m 26 Referencing 27 Cause of Death 28 What's the point of the illustrative image "Image Maat.JPG"? 29 Note 30 Suggestion 31 GA Sweeps

[edit] General Bias

I studied Hatshepsut last year and a problem was there were many historians biased against Hatshepsut. However that isn't the problem with this article, I got the feeling it is very heavily biased for her.

I am fairly certain some of the information in this article isn't widely believed by historians and is debated very heatedly amongst them. This article tends to only portray one side of the debate amongst historians. Perhaps people who know more about Hatshepsut and her reign could post more information about it? (I'll post what I can remember and when I have time what I can research, but I'm fairly busy so I thought I'd point out the bias as well).

Is this an incorrect use of the Discussion Page? --John Lynch 13:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is this informaton true of just biased? Is it trying to make her look more fabulous?

I haven't ever studied Hatshepsut unlike John Lynch but I was wondering if this information is true. You see I use Wikipedia every time I have a report but for some reason my information always comes out wrong when I have rewritten their words - but have the words still mean the same - and my teacher always puts "Find more information next time" and its like 20 paragraphs! At least it seems like that sense my hand starts hurting after. But I can't trust Wikiperdia so I was wondering IS THIS INFO TRUE?

So please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.170.211 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

---

You know, people can always change the text for fun and if you look in it, you'll have the wrong information.Every word you find in Wikipedia are not true.It'll be better if you find it somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.198.84 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be just the beginning of your research, NOT the end and definitely not the whole of it. Wikipedia is intended to be a useful summary of information that is already out there, and is often less biased than other websites! However I always double check information I read here, because as the above reader points out there is a chance it's not accurate but more important because it is basic good research practice to cross-check. From a purely practical point of view, your teacher will certainly have reviewed the Wikipedia article on any subject you get, and will spot it immediately if you have not strayed beyond these pages. Good luck with your future projects! Clippership (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transgender Issue

The article originally had

Her motivation for wearing men's clothing was political and not sexual.

I changed this to say some historians believe that it was political. Many historians (such as Gardner) believe the worst about Hatshepsut so they claim she wore men's clothing because she was a cross-dresser (I'm not saying cross dressing is bad, but the historians who claim this mean it in a derogatory way). Other historians such as Gae Callendar believe it was only political (I went to a lecture by her). I didn't include either of their names because I am only 80% sure they are the historians who believe as much. So I decided to speak in more general terms until someone can do some research on it.--John Lynch 02:58, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is it just me or is there no information in this article referring to Hatshepsut's being forced to dress as a man? Rach —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:14, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Hatshepsut wore mens' clothing so she could prove she was fit for the job of a man. That means that she wore the clothes for political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.170.211 (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi im kathie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.236.112 (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology

I added in the version of her Divine Conception that I learnt. This page has a much more detailed explanation, but it isn't one I learnt so I thought I would put it here until someone has a chance to verify it.--John Lynch 03:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I studied Hapshepsut last year and I found out that she was the first female pharoh of Egypt. She married her brothe Thutmose II. Thutmose II died leaving a son, Thutmose III, who was only 10 at the time. Thutmose III wasn't Hapshepsut's son, but he was the legal pharoh. Since he was too young to rule, Hapshepsut took his place. When Thutmose III was ready to rule, she refused his pharohship and continued ruling as pharoh. It was only after 20 years of her ruling that Thutmose III finally took over his rightful kingdom. When Hapshepsut died, all of her files mysteriously disappeard. All of her momunetal heads were beheaded and buried and all drawings of her scratched off. Historians still don't know who did this. Many guess it was jealousy form Thutmose III, or was it someone who didn't believe in woman ruling Egypt? Who knows? Maybe you do.

[edit] Reply to Mythology

She married her cousin-Thutmose III —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.170.211 (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nitocris claims

"...both of those honors belong to Nitocris of the Sixth dynasty. However, we are not 100% sure of Nitocris's rule, so Hatshepsut is the first woman to 100% sure take the title of Pharaoh."

I am removing these claims about Nitocris until, evidence is produced that she had herself crowned King of Egypt. Though we use the word Pharaoh to denote a ruler of Egypt, the term actualy comes into use only in the 19th dynasty, as the father (or head) of the Great House. Hatshepsut not only claimed to be queen regnant but to be the legitimate ruler of Egypt by taking the title King, there was no Egyptian equivalent of our word Queen, as in Queen Elizabeth I, only the Great Wife of Pharaoh. I have looked at various sources and none of them claim that Nitocris went any further in her claim to power, than Sobeknefru. Little is know, of Nitocris and some of what is known is wrong, Manetho's claim she built the third pyramid at Giza for example. Hatshepsut is currently one of the most popular Pharaohs in acedemia today, and I think given that her article is going to be in high demand we should be extra careful about the claims we make in it. After all this is supposed to beWikipedia:WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt's example article; and one we hope to eventually get featured status. -JCarriker 09:46, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

As someone unfamiliar with the subject, I find the treatment of this topic uneven and confusing in this article at present. The controversy about the claim of "first female pharoh" is highlighted in italics in the introduction, and apparently never mentioned in the article (there is an off-hand mention in the "Official propaganda" section). As someone who came to this article, was intrigued by something in the introduction, and was completely unable to find out more about the topic in the body, I don't think this is up to featured quality. --DDG 18:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No it's not yet. Its still a work in progress. Thanks for your comments. -JCarriker 19:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manetho and Hatsepsut

- Is possible that Tuthmose III may identify with Miphramuchthosis of Graeco-Egyptian historian Manetho?

- Is possible that Hatsepsut may identify with Miphris or Misaphris of Graeco-Egyptian historian Manetho?

--IonnKorr 22:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed picture

Where was that picture of that statue taken. The one picture which is now removed from the article. From a book I know, but where is that statue? If it's in Egypt I am bound to have a picture of it somewhere and could scan it. Garion96 (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that statue is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.-JCarriker 05:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I was afraid of that, I have been there but I doubt I have a picture. Will check just to be sure. Garion96 (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

At the request of JCarriker, I paid a visit to the Met today and documented the room of Hatshepsut artifacts. Here's a page with thumbnails of the images I uploaded; I took the liberty of replacing the fuzzy lead image in the article, but will leave it up to the contributors more familiar with this topic to decide how best to use these. The information given in the image descriptions comes from the placards accompanying each piece in the museum. I also took some pictures of the smaller head fragments you'll see mounted on the wall in the background of the panorama image; let me know if these will be useful as well. Postdlf 03:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civ4 image

Jkp1187 removed the Civ4 image citing that it was not fairuse. He was directed to the image by a user who was upset that a similar image remained here when Jkp1187 removed one at Mansa Musa. However the usage on Mansa Musa was different than it was here and I have restored the pic. The use of the Civ4 image in Hatshepsut is quite different from the use of the image in Mansa Musa because in this article the image is used in the context of a discussion Hatshepsut in pop culture that includes Sid Meier's Civilization IV while the Mansa Musa pic was stuck in with no context. To my understanding and that of the colleagues (especially Theresa knott) I have consulted with, the usage in Hatshepsut does constitute fairuse. If someone has information that is more particular about why this image would not constitute fairuse please bring it to my attention. Thanks. -JCarriker 19:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected Names, Titles and Removed Heiress Theory Presumption

Removed again the references to maternal lineage rights of kingship. As noted below, this theory has been thoroughly disproved and care should be taken that this reference does not enter the article again. It's is a dead theory in Egyptology and shows amateurish scholarship to have it included in ANY Wikipedia article on Egypt.

Citations on this lack of royal lineage passing through the female line is as follows:

Mertz, B. 1952. Certain Titles of the Egyptian Queens and Their Bearing on the Hereditary Right to the Throne. Ph. D. Dissertation (Unpublished) Oriental Languages and Literature. University of Chicago: Chicago.

Robins, G. 1983. A Critical Examination of the Theory that the Right to the Throne of Ancient Egypt Passed through the Female Line in the 18th Dynasty. Göttinger Miszellen 62: 67-77.

Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship: in ancient Egyptian myth and history. BOREAS 14. Uppsala: ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis.

8 June 2008 --Kgriffisgreenberg (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

---

March 15, 2006. I removed references to Hatshepsut possessing the title of "God's wife of Amun." She never possessed this title, according to Michel Gitton's work, Les divines éspouses de la 18e dynastie (1984: 61-66). She possessed only the title of "Wife of the God," in which "god" refers to the king, Thutmose II (Troy 1986: 18.13, and B2/25). She uses these titles only in her position as queen, but not as pharaoh (Troy 1986: 163), so she does not consider "the title of 'God's wife' as her favorite."

I also removed references to Meritre, which I assume refer to Thutmose III's Great Royal Wife, Merytre Hatshepsut. She is not a daughter of Hatshepsut, but the daughter of the Adoratrix Huy, as shown in British Museum statue EA 1280, in which Huy is shown as grandmother of the children of Thutmose III and Merytre Hatshepsut (Dodson 2004: 133). This lack of royal lineage is confirmed by the fact that Merytre Hatshepsut does not hold any title of sAt nsw, "royal daughter" in any of her titles (Troy 1986: 18.19), which she would do were she the daughter of Hatshepsut and Thutmose II. Her only royal titles are those associated with those of her king-husband, Thutmose III.

I revised and added the definition of an interregnum regent rather than "regent", as that is a specific type of regent in ancient Egyptian culture. Hatshepsut started off as an interregnum regent queen for Thutmose III, but later usurped the throne for herself as a ruling regent and Pharaoh. Present studies indicate she and Thutmose III ruled for awhile as co-regents, but actual dating as to this rule is rather vague (Tyldesley, for example).

Finally, I removed all references to the "royal heiress" theory of the succession of kingship, which ran throughout the article. This theory has been thoroughly rebutted by the following studies:

Mertz, B. 1952. Certain Titles of the Egyptian Queens and Their Bearing on the Hereditary Right to the Throne. Ph. D. Dissertation (Unpublished) Oriental Languages and Literature. University of Chicago: Chicago.

Robins, G. 1983. A Critical Examination of the Theory that the Right to the Throne of Ancient Egypt Passed through the Female Line in the 18th Dynasty. Göttinger Miszellen 62: 67-77.

_________. 1983. The God's Wife of Amun in the 18th Dynasty in Egypt. In A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt, Eds., Images of Women in Antiquity: 65-78. Cranberra: Croon Helm.

Troy, L. 1986. Patterns of Queenship: in ancient Egyptian myth and history. BOREAS 14. Uppsala: ACTA Universitatis Upsaliensis.

In all studies, the theory that the royal line of succession, which required the ascending king to marry a royal princess from the previous reign, was found to be untrue, with Sensonb, mother of Thutmose I, being the first of some 10 exceptions to this theory concerning queens and royal mothers of the 18th Dynasty.

In Robins' 1983 study published in GM 62, she concluded

"Not all kings marry woman of royal birth, or have mothers of royal birth, and this makes no difference to the position of the king or his queens on the monuments. Indeed, with the presumably high rate ot mortality, any form of inheritance which was rigidly formulated on the existence of a particular person would be impractible." (Robins 1983: 71).

Other references:

Dodson, A. and D. Hilton 2004. The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson.

Gitton, M. 1984. Les divine éspouses de la 18e dynastie. Centre de Recherches d'Histoire Ancienne 61/Annales Littéraires de l'Université de Besançon 306. Paris: Les Belles-Lettres.

Barbara

[edit] Some comments

I went through the article and gave it a general copyedit, and here's some things that should be done before another FAC:

• Cleanup the See also section.
• Add more inline references, and convert all bare links to {{cite web}}/{{cite book}}/{{cite journal}} citations. Whether you use Cite.php or Footnote3 references, be sure to be consistent throughout the article.
• Keep a citation immediately adjacent to quoted text.
• Make sure all the facts in the article check out.
• Get some sort of free replacement to the infobox image; it has killed the previous FA candidacies, and it is NOT GFDL.

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments Titoxd. As the person who has most worked to expand this article, I have given up and will not renominate this article as a FAC again. So it will likely not be renominated soon. -JCarriker 15:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts?

Greetings. I have taken a large interest of late in the mass exapansion of other 18th Dynasty Articles, And so far have tenativly completed Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, and Thutmose I. Now, you'll notice that not far along if I keep moving in sequential order, I am goint to hit Hatshepsut. Unlike other 18th dynasty articles, however, Hatshepsut is not a total mess. There are some minor suggestions that I would like to raise. Would any of you object to overhauling the dating information? The dates of all Egyptian monarchs are not set in stone, but we (some of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt) have been standardizing them more or less to Ian Shaw's or Nicolas Grimal's dates, and then I have been adding an entire section outlining basic logic for when the dates are placed when they are, and how long the reign is thought to last. Second among other minor concerns, since the data in the "Names" subsection is not particularly vital to the flow of the text of the article itself, and can be subsumed into the Pharaoh infobox, would anyone also be adverse to its oughtright removal, with relevant data all kept in the Pharaoh infobox? Finally, I am concerned about the lack of citations. The first three articles which I have worked on have about 40 references each. Now, while I am probably guilty of overcitation, I feel that an article of this length could stand to be cited a little more. There are large sections that need citations. Since this article is already a Good article, I don't think it would be wise for me to overhaul it like I've overhauled previous articles, but it could probably stand a little tweaking, which, in addition to replacing that picture with a GFDL one, could definitly remove all objections between this article and featured article. Thanatosimii 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)]

Well, I wrote an article on the dates of her reign. The dates here were high, but so far all the rest of the 18th dynasty has been dated low, since that is the most common system in recent years. The possibility of high has been moved into the paragraph, and the dates are changed to low. I've noticed that there are precious few citations in this article, and perhaps I could look into backing up many of the claims made. Thanatosimii 04:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hatshepsut

Hutshepsut was turn in to a pharaoh and was the 1st girl pharaoh in that time line! So she had to act like a guy.But she did that because thir was nothing to call a girl that was queen.

[edit] Hieroglyphs again

Hello people, some more about the names again-- the golden Horus name is listed as Hr Tst-tawy, Horus, who ties together the two lands. I gotta check but I think that's the Horus name of Smenekhkare. (edit: it's the name of Ahmose I) What is the proper golden Horus name for Hatshepsut?

Also, Nebty name = Fortunate of years? Is rnpt a masculine or feminine word? My notes don't say. Horus name = Ka's of the Powerful Woman? Does the t belong to a feminine wsr.t? --Cliau 13:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] broke

sometime in the recent vandalism spree, the infobox got broke. Now, I can revert the last two weeks or so, but people started editing good stuff over broken pages. This page needs a good lookover for the broke stuff, which I can't contribute right now. Thanatosimii 17:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

If she ruled from 1479-1458 BC then she can't have died in 1483 or 1482. Please fix appropriately. Viewfinder 12:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistancy

Although I don't want to mess up somthing that's already made GA in the format that it's currently in, this page is going to need minor edits for consistancy so as to not stick out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of the 18th dyansty, which looks to be shaping up nicely. Mostly formatting things, including an ovehaul on her names. Thanatosimii 21:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a good factual document and i am glad people have taken the time to edit it :)

[edit] Hatshepsut/Senemut Graffiti

Where's the reference for this information?? It's put there but nobody tries to back it up. --Promus Kaa 21:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More recent scholarship

I'm surprised that a so-called A-class article does not have a section on the more recent scholarship re-evaluating the relationship between Hatshepsut and T3. Gone and added a section about it. James5555 00:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this fit better in the existing section "In Egyptology"? The new section repeats at least some of what is already in this section. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Done. James5555 23:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trade issues

I have to question the idea that trade networks were disrupted under the Hyksos. Redmount working at Tell El-Maskhuta found not only locally made pottery in Canaanite styles, but also imports from "Cyprus, Palestine...and possibly Syria" including Cypriote White Painted VI juglets.

Ethnicity, Pottery, and the Hyksos at Tell El-Maskhuta in the Egyptian Delta Carol A. Redmount Hopkins, D. (2001, c1995). Vol. 58 numbers 1-4: Biblical Archaeologist : Volume 58 1-4. Biblical Archaeologist volume 58 numbers 1-4. (electronic ed.). Logos Library System. Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research.

4.249.198.225 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mummy Discovery

Discovery Channel is set to announce the discovery of her Mummy.

http://news.africast.com/africastv/article.php?newsID=62289 Caesarscott 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3320263 Zahi Hawass now says he's "100% certain" this mummy is Hatshepsut. 206.156.242.36 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

From Zahi Hawass's own website - his new article detailing the new evidence - http://www.guardians.net/hawass/articles/quest_for_the_mummy_of_hatshepsut.htm

Some great images of Zahi Hawass' descent into the tomb and viewing of the mummy. You'll have to copy and paste. www.crystalinks.com/hatshepsut.html

[edit] Pronunciation

how the hell do you pronounce her name? HALP! I'm looking for the standard English pronunciation... not the original period ancient Egyptian pronunciation.--Sonjaaa 20:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is usually pronounced exactly as spelled, stress on the second syllable. hat-shep-sut. Infrequently I have heard some say it ha-shep-sut, but the first one is standard.Thanatosimii 06:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion, simply split her name into three syllables, and pronounce them without any emphasis - thus, phonetically, 'hat' - 'shep' - 'soot'. This is how my Archaeology Professors pronounce her name!

16-July-2007 - New footnote: To allow more space for explaining the pronunciation of "Hatshepsut" (or also her other names), I have added the link-device of a footnote and a link named "pronounce" that connects to the Notes section (of footnotes). Pronunciations of names often involve complex issues, requiring more than 2 words to explain, so rather than clutter the intro text with IPA yada-yada coding, I have linked to an entire footnote devoted to "Pronunciation" and feel free to also show pronunciation of her other names within that footnote. Coded as a footnote, an adequate explanation about the pronunciation (of the various names) will not clutter the intro text of the article. Such a pronounce-footnote has been added into other articles without causing confusion, and I recommend putting a similar pronounce-footnote in other articles about Egypt. Note: To separate nested brackets "[[[" the tag "<font/>" is used as a filler between the brackets (as in "[<font/>[[...]]..]"); some other tag could be used, but "font" was chosen as commonplace. -Wikid77 15:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalized

I think the page has been vandalized, I can't imagine her predecessor really being named "poophead the idiot".

Already corrected I see (you're VERY quick :-))

[edit] BCE vs. BC war

How do we resolve these? I prefer BCE because it's neutral, but Christian wikipedians always fight for BC because of their religion. Does Wikipedia have a standard or guideline?--Sonjaaa 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes... sort of. Because both sides always vehemently argue that it is in fact their style which is truely neutral, rather than indulge them and let them get into full blown screaming matches (which have happened before, believe you me), the standard convention is to leave the issue alone. Both styles are permitted, but changing preexisting styles from one to the other, except for reason of internal consistancy, is forbidden. Thanatosimii 21:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, this is the link to the relevant portion of the Manual of Style. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras. Thanatosimii 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by the anon, replaced by 83d40m

Most of this seems frankly laudatory, and lacks any sense of balance or the possibility that anything like ordinary human motivation was at work in Hatshepsut's monument-building and other activities, and there's a not inconsiderable amount of POV injected. For example, there's no reason whatsoever to put quote marks around evidence in that sentence about the graffito. It is evidence and it is cited to support the opinion being discussed. Whether or not any editor thinks it's meaningful or valid is neither here nor there; that's up to the sources, not us. Nor is there any good reason to treat the sources mentioning it as if they were somehow suspect. We may not like their conclusion, but that's not a good reason.

Yes, some of the edits had changed the sense of cited text. I didn't say they were quotes. And again, much of the rewording was phrased so as to cast doubt on the veracity of the sources. We don't do that unless the source is known to be unreliable.

Sorry, but the depiction of the Queen of Punt can be called nothing but unflattering when everyone around her is idealized, but she is not. Or does the anon labor under the misconception that all Egyptians were perfect physical specimens? Akhenaton's sculptures proved otherwise.

We should not replace bad spelling and grammar. It's spelled "grandeur", the singular of "graffiti" is "graffito", and we should avoid run-on sentences. BTW, all graffiti is crude by definition; "crude graffiti" is redundant. This happened because a simple revert was done, when greater care should have been taken to retain this kind of fix. This article is already badly in need of copyediting; let's not make it worse.

"Propaganda" is not pejorative, and I have no idea where anyone would get the idea that it is. Using the word may be blunt, but it conveys the information accurately and concisely and it's not the job of an encyclopedia to pussyfoot around an issue. The fact is that ancient rulers erected grandiose monuments to themselves for exactly the same reasons that modern political figures do. It's mere fantasy to think otherwise, and there's no call in an encyclopedia to bury it under apologia of "cultural tradition", especially when it's worded to convey the impression that it tended to be accurate. It wasn't, when the truth was inconvenient. The purpose was to glorify the pharaoh, not celebrate actual accomplishment. It might be accurate, but accuracy was beside the point. And guess what: Propaganda is one of our cultural traditions too. As it's been for every culture in history. And as it's the word used in the sources, we have no justification for going to all that trouble to avoid it here.

"Early Egyptology" is not the study of the early parts of Egyptian civilization, but the earlier stage of the science of Egyptology. Anything that went on 100 years ago or longer should be mentioned in the past tense.

There is no reason whatsoever to place the paragraph on the new erasure theory in its own section, and again wording it so as to cast aspersion on the sources.

Don't replace (again) the word "young" in the last paragraph. It's not supportable from the sole source. The Bible says she was the pharaoh's daughter, but not a word about her age. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WRT 83d40m's edit comment to Leoboudv: This is exactly what I'm talking about. We don't interpret. See WP:NOR. We report the interpretations the sources have made. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

16-July-2007: Using the section titles recommended by WP:GUIDE, I have renamed sections "References/Further Reading" to become "Notes" and "References" (using "Notes" for footnotes). The section named "References" is basically the bibliography, so I linked to "References" in the Notes section, using "(see below: References)" rather than "see sources" as previously written. I feel these section names strengthen the "Good Article" standing.

It is confusing internally because Wiki-formatting uses ref-tags ("<ref>") for footnotes, which should have probably been named foot-tags ("<foot>") instead. So much of Wiki (like other long-term projects) has just meandered into existence, and making policies seem logical also involves retro-changing the traditional methods. However, "global edits" to revise all articles to use "<foot>" would be possible by robotic bot-edits. As you may know, many Wiki-format problems have existed, such as bizarre cursor positioning when words wrap during edits; but I believe those word-wrap problems could be easily fixed by simple changes if someone would just think about a more logical pattern for wrapping words, etc. As I understand the issues, there are many recommended changes to the Wiki software, so various changes become delayed by other improvements. -Wikid77 13:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cause of Death

Although the articles cited attribute her death to cancer, the Discovery Channel program detailing the identification of her mummy does not. It clearly states that while she certainly had bone cancer, she died of a burst abscess in her gums. Mapjc 19:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's the point of the illustrative image "Image Maat.JPG"?

This is the black and white image with the caption "The goddess Maat, depicted without breasts delineated, as many women and goddesses are in ancient Egyptian art and writing". Given the fact that the Egyptians tended not to be shy about illustrating women's breasts, but that Victorian/Edwardian-era illustrators were known to bowdlerize their subject matter, I suspect that this is more about bowdlerization of the original Egyptian image than anything having to do with Hatshepsut taking on the guise of a man or king.

Some examples of the former that I can think of: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AncientEgyptianEroticSceneOnPaintedLeather_MetropolitanMuseum.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Isis-FromAPaintedShroud_MetropolitanMuseumOfArt.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:LadyTjepu-TombPainting.png

and an excellent example of the later, a deliberately bowdlerized image (which is obvious, and was present on not just this single instance on that coffin):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:EditedImageFrom18thDynastyCoffin_RosicrucianMuseum.png

I suggest the image in the article just be deleted, but I want to explain why first, and why I don't think it is relevant in this case. Captmondo 15:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Have deleted image. Captmondo 13:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Added note that she was the "Strong One" of KV60. Sourse: Lost Queen of Egypt. Reason being, that four mummies were discovered, I think it's important to note which one was her.Sephiroth storm 22:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

There are lots of good things here, but it would be wonderful if somebody could give the article a jolly good cleanup. There is lots of repetition and a certain lack of flow that makes reading the article a bit of a challenge. I hope somebody with knowledge of this area can give it the time. I would be happy to return and help in an uninformed capacity.--Slp1 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• I have tidied the lead myself, but I think the lengthy discussion of possible other female pharaohs would be better situated in the article itself rather than in the lead.
• Move the "identification of the mummy" section further down the page, perhaps as a sub-theme of "burial complex" or "changing recognition".
• Family and early life is almost totally unsourced. Someone who knows the material should be able to source it fairly easily, so please do so.
• Sort out the merge tag.
• Major accomplishments is largely unsourced.
• If there is activity here, I will provide a more complete list of where sources are needed.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Update. I have added {{Fact}} tags to the relevant points in the article, ususally where it attributes an opinion to an egyptologist without giving a name. Could someone also look at the very last sentance about Civilisation IV. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Very little has happened in the six weeks since I finished reviewing this, so this has to go, sorry.