|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:40 am
Ok. Well a few nights ago I was reading something about Hatshepsut.. there seems to be a lot of controversey around her. I mean she was technically one of the greatest rules Egypt had seen, and during her reign, the counrty had seen great prosperity, wealth, power, etc. Yet after her death, she was slandered. Her face and name mutilated from all temples, statues, etc. So, I want to know.. what is YOUR opinion? Do you really think she deserved to have that done to her? Discuss it here. 3nodding
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:18 am
Yes she was a great Pharoah but she lied about her father (who she claimed was Amun) and she didn't allow her step-son, Tuthmosis III. I visited Hatshepsut's temple near the Valley of the Kings and Queen's and it is in poor condition, mainly because what her step-son did.
Great Pharaoh yes, not my favourite (Ramses's II has to be my all time fav whee )
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:01 am
Yup I pretty much agree with the above. I mean I understand the difficulty she must have had in being the only self ruling QUEEN, but I presonally believe that she should have turned her throne over to Thtumosis III, I mean it WAS rightfully his.... stare But aside from all that, I do like her. But she's not one of my favorites. My favorites include: Tuthmosis III, and Rameses II. *Both from the late midle to early new kingdom* blaugh
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:10 pm
Well, as for "lying" about her parentage, I don't think she was necessarily lying. It was a common belief of the royalty that they were divinely conceived- and in Hatshepsut's case her mother told her that Amn came to her one night in the form of her husband, and this sounds plausible given what I have encountered in other African religions of the phenomenon of "trance possession." It's a well known and familiar practice within these cultures- though certainly always a special occasion when it actually happens- for a god or a spirit to take "possession" of a human body in order to interact with the physical world in physical ways. And having sex with the queen in order to conceive a future ruler would definitely fall under the category of "physical interaction" in my book. It seems likely to me according to this worldview that the king, who was already conceived of as being in a state of permanent cohabitation with the divine entity known as the "kingly kA" (an emanation of Horus which gave the king his divine persona), could have been entered by a deity and then entered the bedchambers of the queen. Whether we, today, believe all this could happen or not is moot- the point is that Hatshepsut could have very well believed this, given her cultural perspective, and so what she said was not necessarily a "lie."
As for her name being erased, as I understand it, it wasn't so much because the Egyptians hated women or powerful women- Egypt was actually surprisingly egalitarian in their treatment of woman when compared to the countries around them. But the kingship was a ritual role which was set up specifically to be male, largely because it had always been male in the past. There were ritual acts during certain important ceremonies which required the proper biological equipment... and not having it could be viewed as dangerous since it left these very important rituals in a state of incompletion- or at the very least disrupted their natural progression. Everything the king did throughout the day was ritualized, seriously- reading Ritner's The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice and realizing the extent to which every single daily activity was routed into the country's magical protection and sustenance I almost felt bad for the kings. You couldn't even fix your hair without ritualistically slaying the enemies of Egypt! Even floor tiles, sandals, walking sticks, and door hinges had magical associations which were worked each time the king made use of them. So the king's ability to fulfill all of these myriad magical duties was of the utmost importance, and they were so closely tailored to the king's personal life (which was traditionally centered around the activities of a male) and rooted in tradition (so one didn't just up and change something because you didn't feel like- or weren't able to be- doing it), that a slight deviation from the usual type-cast of the king could have serious consequences on how effectively that role was served. And everything depended on that role.
Now granted, this isn't one of my main subjects of study- my opinions here are based on information gleaned while reading books or attending museum lectures or online egyptlogical forums on other subjects- but it seems to me that Hatshepsut was more or less well accepted during her time. It was an uncommon occurance and perhaps something of a ritual risk, but by all accounts she bore it out fairly well. However, that didn't make it imprudent to wipe the slate clean after she left the throne- if her reign held any symbolic weak points in Egypt's ritual armor, they would in theory be removed when her name was removed from the king lists and/or monuments. I suspect that was at least a part of the reason why her names were effaced after her death.
My theory, at least.^_~
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:16 am
no i don't belive she did. they reckon that it's because she was a woman and that women can't rule egypt.i don't beilve it was because her step son thutmoses III had been pushed to the side since it was belived to be a mutual agreement and he enjoyed the army.
my own personal theroy is that she was involed with a commener,her daughters tutor,he rose to great possion practilly in charge or everything.she even gave up her own queens coffin for him and made both there tombs lie near to each other,even if they srarted at different sides of the mountain.also there was graffti fromm a worker on his break of them too making love eek
and of course the pharoh can't marry a commoner,and it would explain why he never married,and that was rare in th ancient times
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:57 pm
She was a great Pharoah. Not as well known as Ramses the Great, but still a very importan women in Egypts history.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 5:44 pm
Well its a dificult theme. I think the problem is that she was the first woman to rule in Egypt and maybe many people werent agree, although it was kind of secret. Maybe Amun's priests didnt liked that, but i think she is admirable to reach the trone in that time, cus it was not a thing that you could easyly do
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 9:46 pm
I think that was done to her out of anger or spite. I mean, think about it. She took control from the one who was supposed to rule because he was too young and too weak. Not only that, but when she was in power Egypt became prosperous. While I'm sure the people loved that, I can't help but think that even in Ancient Egypt, when men and women were pretty much equal in society, there was still a bit of sexism, and the guy probably felt cheated and immasculated, even if just a little.
Plus, it was common for people to try to destroy the memories of those who had died if they were mad at who died. My guess is that it's sort of like spitting on someone's grave these days. sweatdrop
That's what I think, anyway. sweatdrop sweatdrop
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 7:44 pm
Unfortunately the Egyptians were very sexest! I think that they should have kept her and not erased anything. A great ruler is a great ruler no matter what!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:25 am
I read alot about her. It seems since for so long her son was deprive of the throne. When she died and the son took over, he hated her for the deprevison and threw and destroyed the images of her. As for the Great Temple of Dedra, he couldn't destroy it fully due to keeping the religion and priests happy.
He tried to destroy her region and make his the best as most rulers of Egypt have done with past rulers. Such as the Armana reign, etc. Its not JUST because she was a woman. That actully has little to do with her defacing, its was jealousy and anger.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:27 am
starmeow Unfortunately the Egyptians were very sexest! I think that they should have kept her and not erased anything. A great ruler is a great ruler no matter what! Not true really the woman of Ancient Egypt have much more rights than a modern day owman in Egypt! Woman could own land, businesses, RULE, choose a husband and have a divorce easily in Ancient Egypt. Its a fact. Muslim women don't have many of these rights due to extremists.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|