HSC Ancient History: Hatshepsut historiography (the Section II personality guide)

What this guide is for

Hatshepsut is one of the most-studied Section II personalities in HSC Ancient History. The historiographical debate about her reign and proscription is extensive and contested. This guide covers the three main interpretive schools, the key evidence each draws on, and how to weave historiographical awareness into a Section II extended response.

The reign and its evidence

Hatshepsut reigned approximately 1479-1458 BC, the fifth pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Initially regent for the young Thutmose III, she assumed full pharaonic titulary around year 7. The reign was characterised by:

• Major building program. Deir el-Bahari mortuary temple. Karnak additions including obelisks.
• Trade expeditions. The Punt expedition (probably around modern Somalia/Yemen), depicted in the Punt reliefs at Deir el-Bahari.
• Mining expeditions. Sinai mining for turquoise and copper.
• Theological projects. Promotion of Amun's role; the divine-birth reliefs.
• Peaceful reign. Limited military campaigns, in contrast to her successor Thutmose III's extensive military activity.

The proscription (erasure of her name and image from monuments) occurred after her death; its timing and motivation are contested.

The three historiographical schools

Traditional (early 20th century)

Main figure. James Henry Breasted (1865-1935), early American Egyptologist.

Argument. Hatshepsut was a usurper who unlawfully took the throne from Thutmose III. The proscription was Thutmose III's just response upon assuming full power.

Underpinning. Early 20th-century assumptions about gender, political legitimacy, and inheritance. The male-line succession was assumed normative.

Strengths. The argument addresses the proscription directly; recognises Hatshepsut's gender as politically significant.

Weaknesses. Treats gender as automatically delegitimising. Underplays the legitimate basis of her rule (she was daughter and chief queen of pharaohs). Misreads the proscription evidence (the timing was much later than initially understood).

Feminist revisionist (late 20th century)

Main figure. Joyce Tyldesley (Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh, 1996).

Argument. Hatshepsut was a legitimate pharaoh whose reign was successful. The proscription was a misogynistic erasure that removed her from history. The traditional account is itself shaped by patriarchal assumptions.

Underpinning. Second-wave and third-wave feminism. Recovery of women's history in archaeology and ancient history.

Strengths. Recovers Hatshepsut as a major historical figure. Identifies the patriarchal assumptions in traditional accounts.

Weaknesses. Sometimes overstates Hatshepsut's progressive intent (she presented as male pharaoh, not as a feminist innovation). Risks anachronistic reading of "feminist" categories.

Modern political (21st century)

Main figure. Peter Dorman (and others at the Oriental Institute, Chicago).

Argument. The proscription was a late-reign pragmatic political move, decades after Hatshepsut's death, to consolidate Thutmose III's son Amenhotep II's succession. Not personal revenge; not misogynistic erasure; political housekeeping.

Underpinning. Detailed chronological evidence (the proscription dates from around year 42 of Thutmose III's reign, when Hatshepsut had been dead for over 20 years).

Strengths. Addresses the chronological evidence directly. Avoids the assumptions of both earlier schools.

Weaknesses. May underplay the gender dimensions. Mid-2000s reception saw some pushback from feminist historians.

Weaving historiography into your response

A Band 6 Section II response on Hatshepsut:

1. Names schools explicitly. "The traditional view (Breasted) saw Hatshepsut as a usurper; the feminist revisionist position (Tyldesley) recovers her as a legitimate pharaoh; modern political analysis (Dorman) explains the proscription pragmatically."

2. Names historians. Specific names earn credit.

3. Acknowledges contestability. "Historians remain divided about..."

4. Distinguishes evidence and interpretation. "The proscription is well-documented; its motivation is interpretive."

5. Treats Hatshepsut as a subject of debate. Not as a transparent historical figure but as one constructed by successive historians.

A worked paragraph

The proscription of Hatshepsut's name and image from her monuments after her death has been the most contested aspect of her legacy among modern historians. James Breasted (1906), writing in the early 20th century, interpreted the proscription as Thutmose III's justified response to his stepmother's usurpation; the traditional view treated Hatshepsut as fundamentally illegitimate. Joyce Tyldesley (1996), drawing on second-wave feminism, reread the proscription as a misogynistic erasure that compounded the patriarchal Egyptological tradition. Peter Dorman (2005), citing detailed chronological evidence that places the proscription around year 42 of Thutmose III's reign (more than 20 years after Hatshepsut's death), argued that the action was a pragmatic political move to secure the succession of Amenhotep II rather than a personal or misogynistic act. The historiographical movement from personal revenge to systemic misogyny to political pragmatism illustrates how successive interpretive frameworks reshape the reading of the same evidence; a sound assessment recognises both the specific evidence (the late-dated proscription) and the framework limitations of earlier accounts.

A response of this kind, integrated across the body of an extended response, secures Band 6 marks.

In one sentence

Hatshepsut's reign (c. 1479-1458 BC) is interpreted by three main historiographical schools (traditional Breasted as usurper, feminist revisionist Tyldesley as legitimately erased, modern political Dorman as late-reign pragmatic proscription), and a Band 6 HSC Section II response on Hatshepsut explicitly names schools and historians, draws on the key archaeological evidence (Deir el-Bahari, Karnak obelisks, Punt reliefs, the proscription evidence), and acknowledges that successive interpretive frameworks have produced different readings of the same evidence.