The death of Hatshepsut, the identification of her mummy (KV 60), and the proscription (damnatio memoriae) by Thutmose III, including the timing, scope, and proposed motivations

What this dot point is asking

NESA expects you to describe Hatshepsut's death and burial, the modern identification of her mummy, the later proscription of her record under Thutmose III, the scope and pattern of the damnatio memoriae, and the historiographical debate over its motivation. The "deserves her reputation" question is closely linked.

The answer

Death

Hatshepsut died around 1458 BC, in regnal year 21 or 22 of Thutmose III's reign. The last attestation of her name as ruling pharaoh dates to this period; after her death, Thutmose III ruled alone, beginning the great series of Syrian campaigns that begins with the Battle of Megiddo (around 1457 BC).

Tomb arrangements

Hatshepsut had two prepared tombs:

The Queen's tomb. An earlier cliff tomb prepared while she was Great Royal Wife of Thutmose II. The tomb is now lost (or partly excavated but not securely identified). Her sarcophagus from this tomb was found at the Wadi Sikkat Taqet Zayed.

KV 20. Her royal tomb in the Valley of the Kings. KV 20 is one of the most architecturally complex tombs in the Valley, with a long descending corridor. Hatshepsut arranged for her father Thutmose I to be reburied in KV 20 with her. After her death, Thutmose I was moved again (probably to KV 38).

Hatshepsut's quartzite sarcophagus from KV 20 was found in the tomb. It was originally made for her but inscribed for her father Thutmose I, suggesting Hatshepsut had originally planned a joint burial.

The KV 60 mummy

Two unidentified female mummies were found in tomb KV 60 (a small adjacent tomb in the Valley of the Kings) by Howard Carter in 1903. One was a mummified wet-nurse named Sitre-In (identified by an inscription on a coffin found nearby); the other was unnamed.

In 2007, Zahi Hawass led a team that examined both mummies using CT scanning and DNA analysis. A small wooden box bearing Hatshepsut's cartouche, found in the Deir el-Bahri cache (DB 320), contained internal organs and a single tooth. The tooth matched the dental gap visible in the unnamed female KV 60 mummy.

The identification is widely accepted, though some scholars urge caution. The mummy is now displayed in the Cairo Museum as Hatshepsut.

Cause of death

The 2007 study of the KV 60 mummy revealed:

• Obesity (more visible in life than the slim statues suggest)
• Severe dental abscesses
• Diabetes (probable)
• Bone metastases consistent with cancer (possibly bone cancer or metastatic carcinoma)

Death was probably from disease and complications, not from violence. The presence of a carcinogenic lotion in a Hatshepsut-cartouched flask has prompted speculation that long-term skin lotion use may have contributed.

The proscription (damnatio memoriae)

After Hatshepsut's death, her name and image were systematically removed from many of her monuments. This is one of the best-documented Egyptian examples of damnatio memoriae.

Scope. Statues at Deir el-Bahri were smashed and dumped in a pit (now known as the Senenmut Quarry). The Metropolitan Museum of Art expedition recovered around 200 statue fragments from this pit, which have been partially reassembled. Cartouches were erased from many monuments. Figures of Hatshepsut in reliefs were chiseled out or replaced with figures of Thutmose I or Thutmose II.

Selective pattern. The proscription was not total. Cartouches in inaccessible positions (high up on the obelisks, deep in internal sanctuaries) were often left. Reliefs showing Hatshepsut as queen rather than as king were sometimes left intact, suggesting the proscription targeted her kingship rather than her existence. Her tomb (KV 20) was not destroyed.

Timing. Older interpretations dated the proscription to immediately after Hatshepsut's death, reading it as Thutmose III's personal revenge. Charles Nims (1966) and Peter Dorman (1988, 2005) have revised this. The proscription is now thought to have begun late in Thutmose III's reign, after his regnal year 42 (around 1437 BC, roughly 20 years after Hatshepsut's death).

The implication of late timing. A 20-year gap between death and proscription rules out personal vendetta as the principal motive. The proscription was a deliberate act long after Hatshepsut's death.

Motivations

Succession. The late timing aligns with the preparation of Amenhotep II for succession. Thutmose III's son was being readied to inherit. Removing the visible record of a female pharaoh from Egyptian monuments secured the masculine succession line and prevented Hatshepsut's reign from being used as a precedent for future female claimants.

Theology. A female pharaoh contradicted the standard Egyptian theology of kingship as Horus, the falcon king. Erasing Hatshepsut's kingship from public record restored theological order.

Not personal animus. If Thutmose III had personally resented Hatshepsut as a usurper, the proscription would have begun immediately. He had reigned alongside her for over 20 years; the proscription came after another 20 years of sole rule.

Continued ritual. Importantly, Hatshepsut continued to receive offerings as a deceased royal ancestor. Her name appears in some king lists; her burial was not desecrated. The proscription targeted public memorialisation, not eternal afterlife or the basic religious offerings owed to the dead.

Death and proscription at a glance

Historiography

Charles Nims ("The Date of the Dishonoring of Hatshepsut," 1966) first proposed the late dating of the proscription.

Peter Dorman ("The Proscription of Hatshepsut," in Roehrig 2005) is the canonical recent treatment. Late, selective, institutionally motivated.

Zahi Hawass (2007) led the mummy identification team.

Joyce Tyldesley (Hatchepsut, 1996) integrates the death, the proscription, and the broader reign.

How to read a source on this topic

Section III sources on the death and proscription typically include photographs of defaced reliefs at Deir el-Bahri, the Senenmut Quarry statue fragments, the 2007 mummy identification report, or the chiseled-out cartouches at Karnak. Three reading habits.

First, note the selective pattern. A defaced cartouche on an accessible wall reads differently from a preserved cartouche on the top of an obelisk. The pattern reveals the proscription's logic.

Second, watch the dating evidence. Nims and Dorman's late dating rests on stratigraphic and inscriptional evidence. Modern sources usually present the late dating; older sources may present the immediate-revenge view.

Third, separate the death from the proscription. They are different events separated by 20 years. Don't conflate them.

Common exam traps

Dating the proscription to immediately after death. The modern view (Nims, Dorman) is the late dating, after year 42 of Thutmose III.

Treating the proscription as personal revenge. The late timing rules this out. Cite Dorman.

Forgetting the KV 60 identification. The 2007 identification is now standard.

Missing the selective pattern. Inaccessible cartouches were often left. This is examinable evidence.

In one sentence

Hatshepsut died around 1458 BC (her KV 60 mummy identified by Hawass in 2007 from a CT scan and a tooth in a Hatshepsut-cartouched box, with cause of death probably bone cancer or related disease), and was subjected to a proscription (damnatio memoriae) by Thutmose III not immediately but late in his reign after his year 42 (around 1437 BC), a selective and institutionally motivated act that Dorman reads as a succession-preparation move on behalf of Amenhotep II rather than a personal vendetta.