From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleHatshepsut 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
August 24, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 7, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 16, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 15, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Removed Vandalism[edit]

Some person vandalizd the header with random references to Queen Elizabeth and a whole lot of <3's. I promptly removed them.-Edwin- 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Edwin- (talkcontribs)

sorry to put this here, don't know how to create talk about a new section. the articles regarding other pharaohs have sections regarding their family and parentage, it seems like hatshepsut deserves one too. Hatshepsut was the daughter of Thutmose I and his primary wife Ahmes. Her husband Thutmose II was the son of Thutmose I and a secondary wife named Mutneferet (who carried the title King's daughter and was likely a child of Ahmose I). Hatshepsut and Thutmose II had a daughter named Neferure. Thutmose II fathered Thutmose III with Iset a secondary wife. There are a few monuments that demonstrate that Thutmose III married his half-sister Neferure. She disappears from the record shortly thereafter. This information may be sourced in the book "The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt" by Aidan Dodson and Dyan Hilton (pages 130-132), a book that deals explicitly with the family relationships in the royal families of ancient Egypt. apologies again for putting this in the wrong spot! (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Image Fail: Her Mummy[edit]

Has images all over the net. Surely one of them is public domain. -LlywelynII (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

General Bias[edit]

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)

Transgender Issue[edit]

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 (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hatshepsut wore a man's clothing to prove that she could perform a man's duties. It would have been for political purposes only. (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Sarah Grace


I added in the version of her Divine Conception that I learned. This page has a much more detailed explanation, but it isn't one I learned 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 brother 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 monumental 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 a woman ruling Egypt? Who knows? Maybe you do.

Reply to Mythology[edit]

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

No she didn't! Thutmose III was her husband's son. She married Thutmose II, who was her half-brother.

Nitocris claims[edit]

"...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 regiant 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)

Manetho and Hatsepsut[edit]

- 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)

I go to laurel elemntary in pomona


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)

Civ4 image[edit]

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)

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

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.


Some comments[edit]

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)


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)

Hieroglyphs again[edit]

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)

Following are her names as far as i have read:
HAt Spswt "Hat-shepsut" (Foremost of noble women)
HAt Spswt xnmt jmn "Hat-shepsut-khenemet-amun" (Foremost of Noble Women, united with Amun)
HAt = first
Spswt = noble women
xnmt = united
jmn = the god Amun
Hr wsr.t kAw "Horus: Weseret-kau" (Horus: Mighty of souls)
Hr = the god Horus
wsr.t is the feminine form of wsr = powerful, a goddess from Thebes, most likely a surname of Hathor
kAw is plural of kA = soul
nbtj wADt rnpwt "Nebty: Wadjet-renput" (The Two Ladies: Flourishing-of-years)
nbtj = The Two Ladies - meaning godesses Nekhbet and godess Uto
wADt = green, a goddes of lower Egypt
rnpwt = year
Hr nbw nTrt Xaw "Netjerat-khau" (Horus of Gold: Divine of Appearances)
Hr = the god Horus
nbw = gold
nTrt = goddess
Xaw = appearance
nb tAwy mAat kA ra "Maat-ka-ra" (Lord of the Two Lands: Truth is the soul of Ra)
nb = lord
tAwy = two lands
mAat = truth, the goddess Maat
kA = soul
ra = the god Ra —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


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)


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)

There is what may be only a minor hiccup in the section: Comparison with other female rulers, where it says: "Nimaethap of the third dynasty may have been dowager of Khasekhemire, but certainly acted as regent for her son, Thutmose III..." On the face of it, this looks like an error of a thousand years. But I suspect the error is just the omission of the name of Hatshepsut. Perhaps someone with more confidence than I have can put this right. --DStanB (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


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 :)

Hatshepsut/Senemut Graffiti[edit]

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)

More recent scholarship[edit]

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)

trade issues[edit]

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. 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Mummy Discovery[edit]

Discovery Channel is set to announce the discovery of her Mummy. Caesarscott 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Zahi Hawass now says he's "100% certain" this mummy is Hatshepsut. 12:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

From Zahi Hawass's own website - his new article detailing the new evidence -

Some great images of Zahi Hawass' descent into the tomb and viewing of the mummy. You'll have to copy and paste.

FWIW, the confirmation that the KV 60 mummy is in fact Hatshepsut has yet to be made. To date, no peer-reviewed article on the issue has been published, which contains all readings, testings, etc. which support the claim of the mummy as Hatshepsut. (Kgriffisgreenberg (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC))


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)


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 :-))

BCE vs. BC war[edit]

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)

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

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)

Agree with 83d40m, there's no good reason for mentioning Queen Iti's steatopygia[edit]

It's not pathological: it only refers to large buttocks. One might as well say, "Queen Iti of Punt, who had large breasts." (And whether steatopygia - or large breasts - is/are beautiful is a cultural and personal opinion.) More important, it's irrelevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippachaucer (talkcontribs) 15:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


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)

Cause of Death[edit]

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.She was also beatin badly by King thutmose lll. Mapjc 19:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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:

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):

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)

everybody knows that king thoumous or what ever the 111 killed her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

DO TELL MORE! NO ONE UNDERSTANDS! EITHER YOU TELL A BETTER ONE OR GET THEE TO A NUNNERY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


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)


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)

GA Sweeps[edit]

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.

Introduction is very long[edit]

The introduction is very long. I created a separate section to deal with her comparison to other Egyptian queens using some language from the intro, but it was deleted, and I still fail to see why this discussion should be included in a general introduction of her.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, no one has really responded to this, but why do we have an extensive discussion of other female pharoahs in the introduction? Wouldn't the opening sentence of that paragraph suffice, then later discuss it in a seperate section. I'm actually not convinced it belongs in the article at all. This is an article on Hatchepsut, not unrelated female pharoahs of Egypt.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly debate about Hatshepsut and Moses[edit]

I deleted the following paragrpah, which was also a complete section in itself:

There is a claim that Hatshepsut may have been the princess who found Moses floating in the Nile. Her connection to Moses has been debated by Egyptologists, Muslim and Biblical scholars.[1] One of the obvious reasons is the similarity between the "Moses" and -mose ('son of' in Egyptian[2]), as in Thutmose. The controversy lies in the fact that "mose" so closely resembles "son of" in Egyptian, but in Hebrew the word masheh means to "to draw out", and the word Mosheh is derived from that root. This name corresponds with the story of the Egyptian princess drawing Moses out of the basket from the Nile. The Hebrew Bible states that the princess found the basket and inside the infant Moses, when her father had decreed the slaughter of the infant Hebrews. This daughter was said to have found the infant Moses in a basket floating in the Nile and "[s]he took pity on him and said, "This is one of the Hebrews' children...and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said "Because I drew him out of the water". In the Hebrew Bible this is the only reference to the origin of Moses's name.[3]

Only the first of the three references is in support of the statement that this claim and debate exists - the other two are about the derivation of Moses's name. (Note that there's no doubt that the origin of Moses's name is debated - what's at issue here is simply whether there's been any attempt to connect the Egyptian princess who drew Moses from the Nile with Hatshepsut). That reference is to a book by a certain Michael A. Harbin. So who is Michael A. Harbin? There's not much available to tell us, but he seems to be an academic at a Texas bible college called Taylor University. From the Taylor University website, it doesn't seem to be a major institution. Nor is there any trace of Harbin having done much publishing. He's a genuine scholar, but not a notable one. Since he himself isn't notable, his book doesn't provide sufficient support for the idea that there's a debate over the Hatshepsut-Moses connection, and so this section in the article doesn't have sufficient basis.

But, since PiCo is also not notable, then this deletion doesn't have sufficient basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(Note again that it's not a matter of whether Hatshepsut was or was not the princess who drew Moses from the river, but simply whether the view that she might have been is sufficiently debated to make it notable.) PiCo (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I will try to assemble some scholarly sources. Google is full of results, but in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia By Geoffrey W. Bromiley, the author argues against the connection citing "serious objections...". The controversy was sufficiently notable for him to devote some discussion to it.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
On a practical note it is these types of mysteries and propositions that lead to further interest and study of the topic. So regardless of your take on the issue that is one benefit of inclusion.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd be quite happy with the notability of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (or similar works) - certainly more so than with Harbin. I am a bit uneasy with giving it a whole section here - surely it should be dealt with on the article on Moses, with the briefest of references here (maybe a sentence in the intro) with a wikilink to that fuller article. But up to you. PiCo (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I am astounded at PiCo's arrogant and rude attitude towards Michael Harbin. I have no reason to support him but to reject him in this way is frankly appalling. One might as easily wonder who PiCo is and why PiCo's opinion should count for anything. I googled Harbin, and he is chair of the Biblical studies, Christian education and Philosophy department at Taylor University. Taylor University is an evangelical college founded in 1846 and is subject to rating as are other genuine educational institutes. I would suggest that the reasoning behind the removal of the paragraph is entirely unfounded given that it relies on sneering at the credentials of Harbin. Merely considering that the idea is unfounded is not sufficient; it is an idea that has been propounded by a reputable scholar. A question that needs to be answered is whether Wikipedia will ignore theses proposed by academics merely because an anonymous and self-appointed editor decides that the academic is not sufficiently important. This is an abuse of the editorial process. Harbin may well be entirely wrong, but the reasons for excluding his proposal are unacceptable. Iain1917 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Harbin does seem to be a credible authority. But I am usually much more impressed by the quality of a person's work rather than the quantity or popularity of it. In this case if the argument is well made, isn't the well made argument more important than the popularity of the authority (if that authority is in fact from a scholar in that field)? Just some thoughts. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. The idea of Hapshepsut having anything to do with Moses may be entirely absurd, but an encyclopedia should either note the existence of the theory or ignore it based on the nature of the argument rather than an individual editor's reaction to the proponent of the idea. What I am reacting to is the way that PiCo justified the deletion of the paragraph. I have no issue with its deletion if the paragraph transgresses Wikipedia's guidelines, but I do if the deletion is just because PiCo doesn't consider Harbin to be sufficiently eminent.Iain1917 (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
A quick search for Hatshepsut and Bible reveals that there is extensive research being done in recent history into the theory of whether Hatshepsut is the literal "Pharoah's Daughter" who pulled Moses from the Nile. I agree completely that PiCo was completely out of line removing the section since not only does the theory fit the profile based on naming conventions of Egyptian Pharoah's of the time, but Hatshepsut also clearly fits with the literal timeline of the old testament which many modern Biblical scholars adhere to. Refer to the following well researched and well documented article in BibleArchaeology.Scotty (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


  1. ^ Harbin, p.122.
  2. ^ Carroll, Michael P. "A Structuralist Exercise: The Problem of Moses' Name" American Ethnologist, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Nov., 1985), pp. 775
  3. ^ Id. The problem of Moses name. [1]

Question about article layout[edit]

Should the section about the identification of her mummy (currently the first section after the lead paragraphs) be merged into the burial complex section? Normally, from what I've seen of other articles of this type, the person's life and achievements are discussed and then information about their death and burial is given later. Thoughts? --FeanorStar7 (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it it not where it ought to be. There is already some info on the mummy in the death section; I would put this section in that area, either separate or merged with death or burial complex. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I merged the information that was redundant between the identification and death sections, and moved it in-between the death and burial complex sections. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Second pharoah ?[edit]

Sorry if I'm not doing this the correct way as I'm not experianced in Wiki-etiquette but could someone fix the reference to Hatshepsut being the second pharoah of the 18th dynasty? Other pages plainly have her as the fifth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

) :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't she the sixth pharoah of the eighteenth dynasty?Arenaria (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture[edit]

Since this article is semi-protected, could someone please add the fact that Hatshepsut is in the game Age of Empires: Mythologies? FrenchDachshund (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just realized I could do it myself. FrenchDachshund (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Unfinished Obelisk[edit]

The Building Projects section contains the following paragraph:

Another project, Karnak's Red Chapel, or Chapelle Rouge, was intended as a barque shrine and originally, may have stood between her two obelisks. She later ordered the construction of two more obelisks to celebrate her sixteenth year as pharaoh; one of the obelisks broke during construction, and thus, a third was constructed to replace it. The broken obelisk was left at its quarrying site in Aswan, where it still remains. Known as The Unfinished Obelisk, it demonstrates how obelisks were quarried.[15]

The problem is that the citation provided does not support anything in this paragraph except that the Unfinished Obelisk is in Aswan. There is a brief comment that Hatshepsut may have been the pharaoh (one of two prime candidates) who commissioned this obelisk but the cited author actually prefers yet a third pharaoh, Ramses the Great, as the likely suspect. There is no documentation for anything else in this paragraph at all. (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


My history book says she ruled from 1490-1468 BC, thats different than stated here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I read in a book that Hatshepsut died mysteriously. And that it is believed that Hatshepsut either died peacefully or that Thutmose the Third murdered her. Please add that, and thank you. Have a good day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


Hatshepsut was the daughter of Thutmose I and his primary wife Ahmes. Her husband Thutmose II was the son of Thutmose I and a secondary wife named Mutneferet (who carried the title King's daughter and was likely a child of Ahmose I). Hatshepsut and Thutmose II had a daughter named Neferure. Thutmose II fathered Thutmose III with Iset a secondary wife. (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, that should be in the article somewhere. --AnnekeBart (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


Why is there no mention of I Velikovskys perfectly reasonably argued theory the Hatshepsut and Sheba were one and the same, and theres a serious 600 year repeat in egyptian history. Its not like theres a lack of evidence (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Tyldesley hypothesis[edit]

I don't think this section heading is appropriate at all. It even starts by saying she's an example, and it's a phrase only used in this article so far as I can tell. Without going into a lot of specifics at the moment, I'll add that the last sentence looks like original research. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this hypothesis, but seen no evidence to suggest that it is any more than that. Does it really merit more than a short paragraph? Tattooed Librarian (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it could probably be cut down to a paragraph or so. I don't know where one would put it, though, given the article's current structure. If I were rewriting the article from scratch (which is the only way I'm willing to approach poor articles like this) I would include Tyldesley's hypothesis, among others, in a section about the damnatio memoriae and current ideas about the reasons for it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I've always thought that the hypothesis laid out by Tyldesley in her biography of Hatshepsut seems like a very good explanation for some of the curiouser things about the erasure of Hatshepsut's name from her monuments, but I don't think I've ever heard this idea called the "Tyldesley hypothesis" outside of Wikipedia. The information under that section should be merged with the main "Attempt at erasure from the records" section, IMHO. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Way too much time is spent on Tyldesley's ideas. She writes some popular books but she is in no way considered a scholarly expert on this particular subject as a specialty. Nims, Dorman, Roth all have written scholarly papers on the issue of the erasures that are far more credible than this. This article just smacks of having been written by a clueless amateur. -- (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if you could improve the article using those sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


Due to the barrage of anonymous vandalism, I have requested that this article be semi-protected. Ibadibam (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Extra ] in second paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Dora the Explorer was here! :)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hatshepsut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hatshepsut/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 15:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements[edit]

-Article needs to present a clearer timeline for her life. -Article needs major improvements in referencing. Too many "historians (who?) today agree that (no book referenced)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talkcontribs) 02:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hatshepsut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Multi-sailed ships[edit]

The depictions of the ships seem to show single-sailed ones. Multi-sailed ships would be quite remarkable, if true. HLHJ (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hatshepsut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


It is clear that Hatshepsut has been regent which has usurped power from Thutmose III. She was "good" usurper because she has not killed real ruler, but she was without any question usurper. My point is that real line of inheritence is:

My point is that Hatshepsut has not inherited crown from Thutmose II which is written in article, but taken crown from Thutmose III212.15.178.92 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)