Category: Blog Posts

Chapter Four: The Story of Hatshepsut

15th Century B.C.E.

Hatshepsut was one badass pharaoh.

Note the use of the word “pharaoh,” not “queen” – Hatshepsut was the first female ruler of Egypt to ever rule as a king. That is, she was the one in charge. Head honcho. The (wo)man wearing the gold-lined pants, if you will. This is just to say that she was not seen as a secondary ruler, rather as the true, honest-to-gods pharaoh, and that’s a really big deal (if you couldn’t tell by now).

She wasn’t just a lady wearing a man’s wig, though. She was an extremely successful leader who brought great success and prosperity to Egypt during her reign. Not only did she bring wealth to the kingdom – she was a prolific builder and skilled trader/negotiator. She knew a thing or two about a thing or two.

But we’re not here right now to talk about Hatshepsut and her awesome achievements and yay, girl power! For a long time, the world did not know Hatshepsut’s name. In fact, a lot of people today still don’t. As far as really famous Egyptian pharaohs go, to be fair, there are only a couple that I think consistently pop into people’s minds: King Tut, Cleopatra, perhaps Ramses the Great? Maybe if you’re really historically savvy, you’ll remember Akhenaten or Khufu. But I think it’s safe to say most people do not. There’s not even really anything wrong with that – I can’t list every Roman emperor off the top of my head. But I do want more people to know about Hatshepsut and how time and history did her dirty for so, so long, because I think she deserves better.

So, Hatshepsut wasn’t really meant to take the throne. That is, it wasn’t like she was first in line for inheriting the throne from her father; Ancient Egypt didn’t suddenly become #woke in the 15th century (B.C.E.). This is all very incest-y and kind of confusing, but it went down like this: Hatshepsut was daughter to Thutmose I, a pharaoh, and his first wife (the queen). She married her brother, Thutmose II, who assumed the throne following their father’s death. This made Hatshepsut the queen. They had one daughter together, but no sons. Thutmose II bites the bullet at a pretty young age, and since Hatshepsut doesn’t have any sons, the throne goes to an infant son Thutmose II had fathered with a secondary wife (which feels icky to write, but whatever. It was Ancient Egypt). But, you know, infants can’t exactly run a prosperous empire. So, as was traditional, Hatshepsut took over as the future pharaoh’s regent. Kind of like a substitute teacher or something if the substitute was filling in for the teacher because the teacher was born three days ago.

Seven years into the whole ruler thing, I guess Hatshepsut decided it was pretty neat, because she took over. As a pharaoh. Co-pharaoh, to be fair – she never claimed the throne as her own and still recognized Thutmose III’s claim to it. What a nice woman.

Despite this, though, Thutmose III made a grand attempt to erase his stepmother from history after she died. Perhaps he felt threatened by her legacy, since she was successful – maybe he was bitter she made herself a co-pharaoh. Maybe he just hated the rest of the world and history knowing a woman had been in power, especially because said woman shared his own throne. Maybe it was just a matter of keeping the patriarchal flow of power in the kingdom alive. Whatever the reason, or perhaps a combination of them all, he embarked on what I feel is kind of a hissy fit: trying to erase or destroy hieroglyphic messages and inscriptions of all kinds that mentioned her name, destroying statues, buildings, structures, or any physical/tangible evidence that this woman existed. Even her sarcophagus was empty (although that isn’t necessarily a result of these actions, I am still highly sus). And, by golly, it worked. No one even knew she existed until about 100 years ago.

This post is already getting lengthy, so I will leave the further analysis and reflection up to you. I think the takeaway here is pretty clear: an incredibly successful and prosperous ruler, directly linked to the royal family in a number of ways, who did a number of great things for her kingdom, completely scrapped from history. Because she was a woman who got a little too ambitious.

Joke’s on you, Thutmose III. Through his attempt to erase her, he arguably brought her even more fame and admiration than if he had just allowed history to do its thing.

Chapter 3: The So-Called “Dancing Plague” of 1518

July, 1518 ~ Strasbourg, Holy Roman Empire

To take a slightly less serious, albeit still bizarre and admittedly quite entertaining, approach, I thought it appropriate to discuss what’s been dubbed as the “dancing plague” that struck the city of Strasbourg (a city in what was the Holy Roman Empire), in the summer of 1518. The events that took place throughout the summer are still relatively unexplained.

It sounds funny on paper: a woman starts dancing silently on the street one day with no explanation. A week or so later, others have joined her. Soon, hundreds of people dance, twirl, and spin on the streets without any rhyme or reason – seemingly just the unexplainable and intense urge to flail their bodies around aimlessly to the point of exhaustion. And such a fate awaited many of the participants: some collapsed due to exhaustion and overexertion(understandable) while others actually suffered more serious, fatal consequences like strokes or heart attacks.

So, people are wiggling and bopping around town, then dropping dead like flies. It’s madness, right? Imagine being, by modern standards, an extremely uneducated devout Catholic in the 16th century. As discussed before, unexplainable and bizarre behavior really only had a few potential causes: witchcraft, demonic influence, divine punishment, or some combination of the three. Naturally, this phenomenon was quite alarming to those not afflicted by the extreme urge to shake what their mothers gave them.

The cause was chalked up to “hot blood,” and, surprise, victims were whisked away to pray the dance fever away. Eventually, the hysteria died down, and life went on. Most modern explanations of this bizarre event is just that: hysteria. It really is, at least by definition, a case of hundreds of people entering some sort of strange hysterical fit, but what caused the hysteria? No one really knows. Some theorize that moldy bread was the culprit; others claim the dancers might have been part of a religious cult, or otherwise involved themselves with religious motivation while they shook their groove things. It’s not really clear, and it probably never will be until a town of people decides to start dancing in the streets sometime in the modern era so that we can study it better.

As far as analysis goes, I’d like to consider how a community reacts to some sort of conflict or issue, and what that can say about the rest of society around them. Obviously, things were much different in the 16th century than they are today; the lack of technology, medical knowledge, and seemingly overall common sense led people to very different conclusions than what we would experience in the modern world. But, regardless, the desire to stamp out the unknown – via prayers, or whatever the case may be – rather than trying to fully understand it is interesting to me. It seems that, as a society, as time has gone on we’ve become more eager to truthfully and genuinely be able to wrap our minds around the things that confuse us rather than dismiss or attempt to eradicate them. After all, isn’t that what 99.9% of social issues are really about: people not understanding one another?

Additionally, regardless of what truly caused the hysteria, the fact that it happened is, itself, quite a thinker. It’s bizarre, especially when you look at other instances of people being weirdos throughout history, that the first woman to start dancing wasn’t apprehended. People just let her dance on for a week. Why? Such behavior would have certainly stuck out, even by today’s standards (and people are really wack now, truly). And when dozens more joined her, they too danced their hearts out. Does this comment on earlier societies’ tendency to isolate and ignore those who stuck out rather than trying to understand their condition or actions? Am I reading way, way, WAY too much into what’s generally just a kind of weird thing that happened one summer in Europe? Potentially. But we’ll never know if no one asks.

 The Salem Witch Trials

Salem, Massachusetts ~ Summer of 1692

Basically everyone in the Western world is familiar with the infamy and the horror of the Salem witch trials and the mass hysteria that consumed the area during the late 17th century. It’s easy to want to pretend it didn’t happen, or to downplay its cultural and societal significance as just an example of religious fanaticism at its worst. Religion does indeed play a large role in this phenomenon, and understanding this role in early American society is crucial when trying to understand why the fear of witchcraft, as silly as it may seem now, was so deeply embedded in the minds of many colonial Puritans. I don’t, however, think it was the only thing at play. I want to make the argument that the horrific and tragic events that took place in Salem during this time were a product of misogyny just as much as they were a product of a misguided religious frenzy.

I don’t think that this is a bold claim to make, either. Nearly everyone involved in these trials (aside from those who tried and sentenced them) were women. The entire series of event started with two young girls, Elizabeth Parris and Abigail Williams, who began acting strangely (violent fits, outbursts, contortions, and a variety of other seemingly unexplainable and alarming behaviors). As other girls in the community began to exhibit similar symptoms, doctors and townsfolk alike cried bewitchment. Arrest warrants were promptly issued to a collection of alleged witches thought to be responsible; this is where I think the prejudiced undertones become undeniably clear. Starting from the beginning and continuing on throughout many of the other instances of accused witchcraft, the supposed “witches” were often poor, old, widowed, or otherwise “rejected” women. They were easy targets, truly, and how can one prove innocence when accused of witchcraft?

A lack of medical knowledge and what I’m sure was a genuine fear and desire to put an end to these scary occurrences led the village of Salem to use the lower end of their society, specifically their women, as scapegoats. Whether or not there was tangible evidence of these women’s wrongdoings was not important not relevant. Just existing as a woman in the wrong place at the wrong time was damning enough to get you hanged. Several accused died in jail, but nearly all the convicted were sentenced to death by hanging as opposed to the general misconception that witches were burned at the stake.

There are a lot of factors to consider. One is Puritan society itself. Puritans were infamous for their strict, rigid, and intense interpretations of a just and biblical lifestyle, often at the expense of community members themselves. Their way of life was often unforgiving (think The Scarlet Letter). Another is the inevitable lack of understanding about physical and mental health that was widespread during this era. What was believed to be symptoms of bewitchment could be understood under a modern lens as symptoms of various psychological or mental disorders – not a sign of the devil, just a sign of humanity. But just as important, and often glossed over, is the way these older societies viewed women. Had women not been seen as generally inferior and often prone to temptation or unsavory activity (consider various examples of tempting, immoral women in the Bible, for example – even Eve herself), would they be the obvious and immediate culprits? Had women had the resources, the rights, and the confidence to adequately defend themselves, would they still be targets? Would they still have met the same horrid fate? I think the answers are obvious. How else have women throughout history been victims of a system that sought to oppress them at every turn?

Histories and Mysteries: Analyzing the Unfinished Stories of the Past

The Lost Colony of Roanoke ~ August, 1587

Colonists gather around the baptism of the first English person born in America, Virginia Dare

Perhaps one of the most puzzling and ominous stories in American history is that of the Roanoke Colony, founded in August, 1587, in modern day North Carolina. I first learned about this in my AP U.S. History class my junior year of high school, but it still continues to perplex me, as well as many others, to this day. I believe a lot of the mystery surrounding this story is due to its frustrating simplicity. In other words, there is no real evidence, no explanations, no leads; maybe a crime, a mass murder, or just a simple misunderstanding? It’s impossible to know. What we do know is that 115 colonists, without any real reason, vanished, leaving behind nothing but a strange clue carved into a piece of wood. The story itself is fascinating – but what can we learn from it, and what does it say about the history and present of American society and culture?

What follows is a brief description of the negative turn of events that took place within the Roanoke Colony, for some additional context. (See “Sources” at the end of this post for the full page).

From HISTORY.com: “Later that year [1587, the year the colony was established], it was decided that John White, governor of the new colony, would sail back to England in order to gather a fresh load of supplies. But just as he arrived, a major naval war broke out between England and Spain, and Queen Elizabeth I called on every available ship to confront the mighty Spanish Armada. In August 1590, White finally returned to Roanoke, where he had left his wife and daughter, his infant granddaughter (Virginia Dare, the first English child born in the Americas) and the other settlers three long years before. He found no trace of the colony or its inhabitants, and few clues to what might have happened, apart from a single word—“Croatoan”—carved into a wooden post.”

There is, of course, a great deal of speculation surrounding the fate of the colonists. Did they starve to death? Did they attempt to return to England or move elsewhere and get lost or die at sea? Did they simply pick up and move elsewhere? Could they have been apprehended by natives?

The colony at Roanoke, to me, is a symbol of its time. The 16th century was not a kind one: colonialism is, depending on how you look at it, either the best or the worst thing to happen at this point in history. If you were a wealthy, white European, you could make out well: just establish a colony, set up a functioning society within, and hope for profit. If you were a Native American, you had better hope those wealthy white colonies failed to do any of the above. Further south, the Portuguese and the Spanish (think conquistadors) infamously and ruthlessly enslaved and slaughtered devastating amounts of native populations. The presence of a new European settlement, then, could easily and kind of reasonably be assumed to be a threat to native society. I’m inclined to believe the last theory.

This clash between the Old World and the New World was not new, but upon further thought, the fact that Roanoke so horribly failed (potentially at the hands of Native Americans) seems to be a kind of victory for everyone who wasn’t on board with 115 pale tea-drinkers suddenly showing up in the Americas. It was a display of tragedy, and ultimately one of failure for such a powerful force as Great Britain. Perhaps that is why it shook the historical world so – or is it because history is, at least in the west, predominantly focused on the struggles and endeavors of the white world? Consider, for example, how many natives went missing or mysteriously died following European expansion into their lands?

And why do we have such an intense curiosity about this story in particular? So much that an entire season of a primetime television show was based upon it?

When we look into our past, it’s important to view it with a three-dimensional lens and understand not just the what or how or when, but the why, the how – after all, the point of studying history is to prevent it from repeating itself. To do so, we ought to consider how past events connect to our modern understanding of different facets of our culture and society.

SOURCES: