Why was the reign of Hatshepsut considered unusual?

Answer 1

Answer

Because it's not likely for a woman to be a pharaoh and because she united Egypt and made it more peaceful and a lot more wealthy.

Answer

The above answer is broadly correct, although it is more likely her father (Thutmose I) and perhaps his predecessor who re-united Egypt. Hatshepsut certainly strengthened the unity of the Nile nations, hence peace, commerce and wealth along the region. The African nations of the Nile - today they are principally Egypt and the Sudan and modern "Ethiopia" - were sometimes united under one 'supranational' monarch ("Pharaoh". But at other times there could be several kingdoms or city-states along the Nile. Usually, the Nile river system was seen as being divided into upper-, mid- and lower-Egypt. In practical terms, the domain of the Egyptian 'pharaoh' probably never extended much further than the modern Egypt-Sudan border.

A survey of the Egyptian king-lists reveals that women were indeed rare over the throne of Egypt. In Britain, and if one includes the Matildas of William I and Henry I, England (and as the UK) has had 8 queens over the last millennium. Egypt had only one in two millennia (Hatshepsut), although this expands to three with one queen ruling for a couple of years at the end of the 12th dynasty and Cleopatra of course. The ancient Egyptians took patriarchy to extreme lengths. The concept of a woman being chosen by God was impossible for them. Hatshepsut made every effort to buck this opposition. Indeed, her success is most notable. It is so unusual that commentators have failed to really convince us why she even managed what she did.

Before she either died, abdicated or was forcibly removed from the throne, she managed to erect a magnificent temple at Deir el-Bahari. The Ramesside scribes removed her - and Akhenaten - from the official lists. Only modern Egyptologists have effectively returned her to those lists. Akhenaten was removed for religious apostasy. Commentators fail to consider Hatshepsut lost the throne and her position in the king-lists for the same reason. But what would that 'apostasy' be? Her temple at Deir el-Bahari, describes a massive overseas journey she and her retinue made to a place called Punt. Where was Punt? This is also in dispute. Amenhotep III said "When I look to the sunrise I come to the countries (plural) of Punt". Thus, Punt was Israel and Phoenicia or Pun-icea.

Israel's Chronicals of its kings tell of the visit of the "Queen of Ophir" (a.k.a Queen Sheba) to Israel. In the Hebrew, "Ophir" is written 'A-u-ph-i-r-ah' or Africa. Israel and Egypt are neighbours. The mnost sensible deduction from all this is that Hatshepsut must have been the person recorded in the Israelite annals. However, we have to push her dynasty forward 500 years to make that fit. But that is reason why Hatshepsut's reign is so "unusual". Firstly, it indicates that Egyptian chronology is erroneous. Secondly, Jesus of Nazareth's statement about the queen who visited Solomon clearly indicates she believed in the God of Israel. That would be apostasy and heresy for Egyptians. Which is why Ramesses II removed her name from the king-lists. Thirdly, and the implication is quite clear, the God of Israel raised her up to be queen although she did not understand this until she met Solomon and read his Song of Solomon. She returned to Egypt and built a temple to echo the words of SoS 2:14; "Oh my Dove, you are in the cleft of the rocks in the secret places of the stairs". If one studies pictures of Hatshepsut's temple with secret tunnels drilled into the cliffs, the secret Holy of Holies at the top of the stairs and the cleft-filled cliff-face in the backdrop, one will get the point.

The reason why Hatshepsut so unusually acsended the throne of Egypt is that her husband and consort died young but under the treaty terms between the Ethiopians and Egyptians (18th dynasty) she was able to insist on continuing to rule alone. But the real player behind all this would seem to be Israel's God who is the real player behind modern circumstances surrounding modern Israel's and modern Egypt's affairs.

Answer 2

Answer

Because it's not likely for a woman to be a pharaoh and because she united Egypt and made it more peaceful and a lot more wealthy.

Answer

The above answer is broadly correct, although it is more likely her father (Thutmose I) and perhaps his predecessor who re-united Egypt. Hatshepsut certainly strengthened the unity of the Nile nations, hence peace, commerce and wealth along the region. The African nations of the Nile - today they are principally Egypt and the Sudan and modern "Ethiopia" - were sometimes united under one 'supranational' monarch ("Pharaoh". But at other times there could be several kingdoms or city-states along the Nile. Usually, the Nile river system was seen as being divided into upper-, mid- and lower-Egypt. In practical terms, the domain of the Egyptian 'pharaoh' probably never extended much further than the modern Egypt-Sudan border.

A survey of the Egyptian king-lists reveals that women were indeed rare over the throne of Egypt. In Britain, and if one includes the Matildas of William I and Henry I, England (and as the UK) has had 8 queens over the last millennium. Egypt had only one in two millennia (Hatshepsut), although this expands to three with one queen ruling for a couple of years at the end of the 12th dynasty and Cleopatra of course. The ancient Egyptians took patriarchy to extreme lengths. The concept of a woman being chosen by God was impossible for them. Hatshepsut made every effort to buck this opposition. Indeed, her success is most notable. It is so unusual that commentators have failed to really convince us why she even managed what she did.

Before she either died, abdicated or was forcibly removed from the throne, she managed to erect a magnificent temple at Deir el-Bahari. The Ramesside scribes removed her - and Akhenaten - from the official lists. Only modern Egyptologists have effectively returned her to those lists. Akhenaten was removed for religious apostasy. Commentators fail to consider Hatshepsut lost the throne and her position in the king-lists for the same reason. But what would that 'apostasy' be? Her temple at Deir el-Bahari, describes a massive overseas journey she and her retinue made to a place called Punt. Where was Punt? This is also in dispute. Amenhotep III said "When I look to the sunrise I come to the countries (plural) of Punt". Thus, Punt was Israel and Phoenicia or Pun-icea.

Israel's Chronicals of its kings tell of the visit of the "Queen of Ophir" (a.k.a Queen Sheba) to Israel. In the Hebrew, "Ophir" is written 'A-u-ph-i-r-ah' or Africa. Israel and Egypt are neighbours. The mnost sensible deduction from all this is that Hatshepsut must have been the person recorded in the Israelite annals. However, we have to push her dynasty forward 500 years to make that fit. But that is reason why Hatshepsut's reign is so "unusual". Firstly, it indicates that Egyptian chronology is erroneous. Secondly, Jesus of Nazareth's statement about the queen who visited Solomon clearly indicates she believed in the God of Israel. That would be apostasy and heresy for Egyptians. Which is why Ramesses II removed her name from the king-lists. Thirdly, and the implication is quite clear, the God of Israel raised her up to be queen although she did not understand this until she met Solomon and read his Song of Solomon. She returned to Egypt and built a temple to echo the words of SoS 2:14; "Oh my Dove, you are in the cleft of the rocks in the secret places of the stairs". If one studies pictures of Hatshepsut's temple with secret tunnels drilled into the cliffs, the secret Holy of Holies at the top of the stairs and the cleft-filled cliff-face in the backdrop, one will get the point.

The reason why Hatshepsut so unusually acsended the throne of Egypt is that her husband and consort died young but under the treaty terms between the Ethiopians and Egyptians (18th dynasty) she was able to insist on continuing to rule alone. But the real player behind all this would seem to be Israel's God who is the real player behind modern circumstances surrounding modern Israel's and modern Egypt's affairs.