Key Pages:

Home

• What are the innovations of the Queen Hatshepsut's complex, architecturally and pictorially? How is it a departure from earlier tomb/temple complexes?

• Roth writes that " its architecture and decorative programs locate Hatshepsut's temple cosmologically and geographically within Egyptian universe" How so? Can we think of the complex as a "cosmos" or a model of the known world?

• How does Queen Hatshepsut's pictorial program link military/economic expeditions to building activity back in Thebes? I there a cause-effect relationship between the two? How does this state ideology work?

This week, the discussion about the location of Punt was very interesting for me. Today, with all the devices available, we are still unable to relocate it. Mainly because of this, and because it possessed many Godly qualities, and that the species depicted could be only imaginary, my favorite argument was that Punt was not a real place. If we knew that the artist were not traveling with the ruler than this argument would be stronger since the depicted animals would not suggest any particular thing about the Punt but total imagination, what people thought how it would be like. But then the trees that were imported from there present another conflict. The fat queen representation which kind of looks disabled and the phrase used by Egyptians that I saw in Harvey’s page, “this land unknown to (other) people,” led me to think that actually Egyptians might have discovered America or more possibly Australia, the queen being a Native American or more probably an Aborigine. If it were within Europe, Africa, or Asia, then other people would have known the place since it would be able to be reached by land. And since the arguments show that Punt seems to be somewhere in Africa, we might just as well try to find a place in Australia that is similar to Africa. It would be indeed fantastic to find out that the Egyptians had discovered Australia!

Can

Posted at Oct 14/2008 12:48PM:
gianna: There are many innovations of the complex built for Queen Hatshepsut both architecturally and pictorially. This temple represents changes in architecture in comparison with earlier Egyptian architecture such as pyramids and large mortuary complexes. Her building represents an open and inviting quality in contrast with the towering intimidating qualities of large Egyptian pyramids. It is more close in resemblance to ancient Greek architecture (the Parthenon?) rather than the architecture of her time. Also, unlike other temples, it is a multi-diety worship temple with attributes toward Amun and Anubis as well as herself. Another innovation that arises from the building of this Temple is that fact that it was built to represent and worship and woman pharaoh which was very rare in those times. She depicted herself as a man in the large statues built around the outside of the temple. There is a direct resemblance with Hatshepsut's complex and Mentuhotep's stands directly next to Hatshepsut's. Hers was built 500 years after Mentuhotep's and has a striking resemblance. I think it could represent the start of new ages and how Queen Hatshepsut built something just as large and innovative as Mentuhotep had 500 years ago. She makes the statement that she is the new ruler and has started a new age.

One of the aspects of Queen Hatshepsut’s tomb that I found most striking was how much it differed from the Egyptian mortuary tombs we have previously discussed. Tombs in Old Kingdom Egypt served the primary function of preparing the dead for the afterlife, which the architecture and artwork of those complexes reflected. They weren’t created with the intent of impressing or indoctrinating viewers, as very few living people would even see the insides of the tombs. Hatshepsut’s temple, on the other hand, depicts lavish scenes not obviously connected with the afterlife, including the Punt trade/tribute reliefs. I think this might indicate an overall shift in the purpose of the mortuary complex; Hatshepsut also seemed intent on using her complex to highlight the relationship between her and the gods, as well as to boost her importance and image as a whole. The focus on preparing the soul for life after deaths appears to have diminished somewhat.

We talked about how Hatshepsut’s New Kingdom complex is pretty similar to Mentuhotep’s early Middle Kingdom temple. Hatshepsut’s stylistic similarities and close geographic proximity to this earlier complex were probably done on purpose. We look back at Mentuhotep and see him as a king who helped reunify Egypt; perhaps Hatshepsut was trying to not only associate herself more with the gods but also with this particular king in order to further legitimize herself. The onset of Mentuhotep’s reign also marked the closer relationship of the king and the common people of Egypt, as well as closer foreign relationships with other places. Egypt as a whole became less internalized, which was reflected in how the king interacted with the people (open processions that weaved through cities, for example).

Since more people were now viewing these mortuary complexes, it became important for Egyptian rulers to utilize them in ways that impressed the people. With more outside influence occurring, as well as the settlements of people from the Levant in the Delta, the kings probably felt it necessary to incorporate foreigners in artwork in ways that presented them as friendly, harmless, and good for the Egyptian kingdom. It may not be entirely accurate, but it is idealistic and serves the purpose of imprinting on the minds and imaginations of the scenes’ viewers so that they get an idea of how great such interaction is and how it helps the kingdom.

Caitlin

Posted at Oct 15/2008 02:24PM:
jed: This last week, and the study of the entire funerary complex was very intriguing. We have largely discussed in previous readings and weeks the role of the location of a monument in relation to its audience. In the minoan frescoes for example, we can see that they were largely intended for the elite class. The idea behind placing the entire ceremony in the middle of the city presents an interesting shift in the role of the narrative and the ceremony itself. It popularizes the art of the worship in addition to allowing the public to be involved with the temple itself. This can be noted through the study of the ceremony in the ways I just mentioned, but also in the architecture of the complex itself. There was a colonnade that was intended to bring, like the minoan palaces, an airy open feel that again emphasizes the invitational qualities that this complex holds for the public.

Furthermore, the intent of the building, and the purpose it serves is as revolutionary as to whom it is dedicated. By dedicating a temple to herself and to the god Amun, Queen Hatschepsut immediately deifies hereself. This is a step beyond what we see in the Narmer Palette where the king is depicted in a manner that suggests deification. Now, the queen is eternalized alongside the religious ceremonies of the god. She has instilled a sense of companionship with the god, that she may rest with him in the afterlife.

Posted at Oct 15/2008 03:03PM:
julia: Queen Hatshepsut's tomb was very different from the Egyptian tombs before her. While the tomb was modeled after Mentuhotep's tomb which lies next to it, Hatshepsut's tomb still proved to be innovative. Unlike the pyramids, Hatshepsut's tomb is very open. It is also is used as a temple for people to worship Gods such as Amun. Many other things in Hatshepsut's temple make it stand out compared to other tombs, such as the way in which she depicts herself as a male throughout the tomb. In many instances she also compares herself to the Gods themselves.

The art that depicted Punt was very interesting since it was the first extensive depiction of it. The art depicts what can be interpreted as a trade between the people of Punt and the Egyptians, or as Punt giving tribute to Egypt through gifts. The people of Punt are very distinguishable from the Egyptian people. While many clues can help archaeologists decide where Punt actually was, there is no definitive answer.

Posted at Nov 19/2008 11:21PM:
Jimmy: I find it amazing how much we rely on ancient wall reliefs to find the lost location of Punt. Archeologists have spent much time trying to find its location all based off some plants and animals that were depicted in a relief. After coming up empty handed again and again after much research and exploring in places such as Africa, I’m sure many archeologists are starting to give into the theory that Punt may have been an imaginary place. After all, there is no evidence that shows the artists went along on these journeys to punt, so the plant and animal life being brought back from punt may just simply be thought up. Queen Hatshepsut’s temple represents a drastic change from previous Egyptian temples. The typical temples previous to Hatshepsut’s were pyramids. Her temple was also much more than a temple dedicated to her. It was also dedicated to the gods Anubis and Amun. It also served for practical use as well. Unlike the pyramids, her temple allowed the public to actually get up close and walk into the temple to view the artwork on the temple walls. One thing I found interesting about the temple was the fact that Hatshepsut depicted herself in male form in the temple. This may be due to the fact that there weren’t as many female Pharos at the time.

Posted at Nov 23/2008 07:44PM:
Nolan: The idea of Punt fascinates me. Here is a land that, with all our knowledge and technology, we still cannot find. It remains as mysterious now as it was in the time of Queen Hatshepsut. It seems almost silly that a specific location cannot be found. Imagine not being able to locate Providence, or even a far off land like Nepal or Fiji! This falls directly in line with the Egyptian idea of Punt. According to Harvey, Punt was known for it’s production of various aromatic substances used in temple rituals and for it’s far off location. This further associates Punt with the divine. It is fitting that we, as of yet, haven’t located Punt geographically.

It is also interesting to me how modern scholars have gone about trying to find Punt. They have used the representations of it in Queen Hatshepsut’s temple complex to try to locate it. There is a very good chance that this will lead to a dead end, due to the fact that there is no evidence of artists traveling with the expedition to Punt. Finding an actual Punt would further our historical knowledge, but in my mind it might not be preferable. It would destroy the ideal of Punt as a place of divinity. It is a nice notion to place Punt with the Garden of Eden or Atlantis: a place that may or may not exist in actuality but is a much more potent symbol than a physical location could ever be.