DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4147#0018
HATSHEPSC AND THE TEMPLE OF DEIK EL BAHAKI.
11
became one of the largest depositories of mummies
that there was in Egypt. We learn from modern
travellers that it was already exploited as such in the
middle of the eighteenth century, and for this reason we
are unable to tell how far back the earliest sarcophagi
were put there. We note the same thing in the temple
of Mentuhotep, where the priestesses of Hathor, who
were also the king's favourites, were buried ; but to
this day we have no proof that the king himself was
buried there also.
One of the objects of those temples was to serve as
a book in which should be written all the important
events in the reign of the builder, all his great deeds.
The sculptured and painted pictures on the walls
would describe the principal episodes marking the
years in which Hatshepsu sat on the throne. She
might thus be following the example of Mentuhotep.
On the platform of the temple of the Xlth Dynasty
the fragments of the sculptures show us enemies
pierced with the king's arrows, festivities, and perhaps
also some buildings. After Hatshepsu, Rameses II.
and Rameses III. will do it on a much larger scale,
spreading over the walls of their chapels, now called
the Ramesseum and Hedinet-Habu, the tale of the
victories which they boasted of having won.
The walls of Deir el Bahari are lamentably ruined
by the effect of time and the destruction wrought
by Coptic monks, and also by the fanaticism of
Amenophis IV., and the hatred felt by the Ramessides
for Hatshepsu. We might have learnt from the in-
scriptions covering these walls many remarkable events
of her reign—her wars against the Nubians or the
Asiatics, which were probably engraved on the walls
of the lower portico; also her buildings, of which an
interesting scene, the transport of two obelisks, still
remains. Happily the filling in done by the Copts
saved the inscriptions of her birth and coronation,
which had suffered cruelly from the damage inflicted
on them by Amenophis and Rameses. The terrace of
Punt, partly destroyed in ancient times, was also saved
in the same way.
At what period in the reign of Hatshepsu must we
place the building of the temple ? Probably very soon
after her accession, or, at least, when by the death of
Thothmes II. she found herself in possession of the
regal power, and associated with her nephew, who was
still a child. It does not seem as if Thothmes I. had
anything to do with this temple, not even the making
of the plan. It is true that he often appears in the
sculptures, and the queen even built a hall of worship
specially dedicated to him. But this was because
Hatshepsu was deeply attached to her father; she was
grateful to him for having wished to transfer to her his
claims to regal power, and she wished this association
to last even in another life. In the small chapel I
have called the chapel of Thothmes I., which looks on
to the court of the great altar, Thothmes I. twice
appears as living—once behind the queen in front of
Amut, the other time followed by his mother Sen-
seneb, and as fellow to his daughter, who is also
followed by her mother (see Vol. I., pll. IX. and
XIV.). But everywhere else he is a dead king, and
particularly in the chamber next to that of Hatshepsu,
a chamber much ruined by the Coptic monks, where
he was represented on a throne, while his daughter
stood before him bringing offering's.
Do o
I think we must consider the representations of the
little chapel as recalling past events, not contemporary
with the building of the chapel itself. Ramaka had at
one time made offerings to the gods with her father.
If we allow that Thothmes I. was living at the time
when this chapel was built, we must consider that his
own mother Senseneb, and Aahmes, the mother of Hat-
shepsu, were also both living at the time, which is
most improbable, since in the sanctuary near by
Thothmes I., Aahmes, and Thothmes TI. are all men-
tioned as being dead.
Besides, the foundation deposits (see pi. CLXVIII.)
mention only the queen. This again is a circumstance
which leads us to believe that the temple is the work
of Hatshepsu at a time when she considered herself to
be sole sovereign.
What strikes us when studying the sculptures of the
temple is the small place occupied by Thothmes II.; it
goes without saying that I mean the sculptures where
the name of Thothmes II. is original. For at first
sight his name appears everywhere, for example in the
Upper Court and in the chapel of Hathor. But it is
easy to recognize that in all these instances it has been
restored by Rameses II. When he repaired the
devastations of Amenophis IV. he took the opportunity
of erasing the name of the queen whom he hated,
replacing it by that of her husband, which was all the
more easily done as the queen was represented as a
man; so a man's name best suited the figure. At
present I cannot indicate a single original figure of
Thothmes II., except in one of the niches of the Upper
Court. The king is seated, and before him stands
11
became one of the largest depositories of mummies
that there was in Egypt. We learn from modern
travellers that it was already exploited as such in the
middle of the eighteenth century, and for this reason we
are unable to tell how far back the earliest sarcophagi
were put there. We note the same thing in the temple
of Mentuhotep, where the priestesses of Hathor, who
were also the king's favourites, were buried ; but to
this day we have no proof that the king himself was
buried there also.
One of the objects of those temples was to serve as
a book in which should be written all the important
events in the reign of the builder, all his great deeds.
The sculptured and painted pictures on the walls
would describe the principal episodes marking the
years in which Hatshepsu sat on the throne. She
might thus be following the example of Mentuhotep.
On the platform of the temple of the Xlth Dynasty
the fragments of the sculptures show us enemies
pierced with the king's arrows, festivities, and perhaps
also some buildings. After Hatshepsu, Rameses II.
and Rameses III. will do it on a much larger scale,
spreading over the walls of their chapels, now called
the Ramesseum and Hedinet-Habu, the tale of the
victories which they boasted of having won.
The walls of Deir el Bahari are lamentably ruined
by the effect of time and the destruction wrought
by Coptic monks, and also by the fanaticism of
Amenophis IV., and the hatred felt by the Ramessides
for Hatshepsu. We might have learnt from the in-
scriptions covering these walls many remarkable events
of her reign—her wars against the Nubians or the
Asiatics, which were probably engraved on the walls
of the lower portico; also her buildings, of which an
interesting scene, the transport of two obelisks, still
remains. Happily the filling in done by the Copts
saved the inscriptions of her birth and coronation,
which had suffered cruelly from the damage inflicted
on them by Amenophis and Rameses. The terrace of
Punt, partly destroyed in ancient times, was also saved
in the same way.
At what period in the reign of Hatshepsu must we
place the building of the temple ? Probably very soon
after her accession, or, at least, when by the death of
Thothmes II. she found herself in possession of the
regal power, and associated with her nephew, who was
still a child. It does not seem as if Thothmes I. had
anything to do with this temple, not even the making
of the plan. It is true that he often appears in the
sculptures, and the queen even built a hall of worship
specially dedicated to him. But this was because
Hatshepsu was deeply attached to her father; she was
grateful to him for having wished to transfer to her his
claims to regal power, and she wished this association
to last even in another life. In the small chapel I
have called the chapel of Thothmes I., which looks on
to the court of the great altar, Thothmes I. twice
appears as living—once behind the queen in front of
Amut, the other time followed by his mother Sen-
seneb, and as fellow to his daughter, who is also
followed by her mother (see Vol. I., pll. IX. and
XIV.). But everywhere else he is a dead king, and
particularly in the chamber next to that of Hatshepsu,
a chamber much ruined by the Coptic monks, where
he was represented on a throne, while his daughter
stood before him bringing offering's.
Do o
I think we must consider the representations of the
little chapel as recalling past events, not contemporary
with the building of the chapel itself. Ramaka had at
one time made offerings to the gods with her father.
If we allow that Thothmes I. was living at the time
when this chapel was built, we must consider that his
own mother Senseneb, and Aahmes, the mother of Hat-
shepsu, were also both living at the time, which is
most improbable, since in the sanctuary near by
Thothmes I., Aahmes, and Thothmes TI. are all men-
tioned as being dead.
Besides, the foundation deposits (see pi. CLXVIII.)
mention only the queen. This again is a circumstance
which leads us to believe that the temple is the work
of Hatshepsu at a time when she considered herself to
be sole sovereign.
What strikes us when studying the sculptures of the
temple is the small place occupied by Thothmes II.; it
goes without saying that I mean the sculptures where
the name of Thothmes II. is original. For at first
sight his name appears everywhere, for example in the
Upper Court and in the chapel of Hathor. But it is
easy to recognize that in all these instances it has been
restored by Rameses II. When he repaired the
devastations of Amenophis IV. he took the opportunity
of erasing the name of the queen whom he hated,
replacing it by that of her husband, which was all the
more easily done as the queen was represented as a
man; so a man's name best suited the figure. At
present I cannot indicate a single original figure of
Thothmes II., except in one of the niches of the Upper
Court. The king is seated, and before him stands