Tory
re: Thutmose I
Thu Nov 9, 2017 00:08
180.190.163.178

Unless he's quoted wrong, when he was interviewed by the Tribune he said the CT scan showed the mummy to be a man in his 30s. Now in his book this figure is reduced to 20??? Then he says in his book the metal object could be an arrow head, but this is not confirmed. Then he says Thutmose I is not recorded dying in battle. But the object in his chest could be the tip of a blade delivered by a close relative or slave or whoever, and not necessarily in battle. Then he says because the mummy was in the royal cache it could be a member of the royal family but not Thutmose I. Sorry, but this is not convincing to me at all.

Regards Tory

  • re: Thutmose IMarianne Luban, Wed Nov 8 09:01
    Hawass did publish a scan on page 51 of his book, "Scanning the Pharaohs" and discusses the mummy, concluding it is not that of a king.
    • re: Thutmose I — Tory, Thu Nov 9 00:08
      • re: Thutmose IMarianne Luban, Thu Nov 9 08:42
        Z. Hawass worked on this book with a radiologist, Saleem. I have a documentary here about the work with the mummies and yet another radiologist was looking at a CT-scan of the one in question and... more
        • re: Thutmose ITory, Thu Nov 9 08:50
          I believe Maspero was right about this mummy and its age being 50+. I do not trust the CT-scan since the ages keep changing depending on who is being quoted, and Hawass changed it from 30 to 20. The... more
          • re: Thutmose IMarianne Luban, Thu Nov 9 10:00
            Tory wrote: "I believe Maspero was right about this mummy and its age being 50+. I do not trust the CT-scan since the ages keep changing depending on who is being quoted, and Hawass changed it from... more
            • re: Thutmose ITory, Thu Nov 9 17:54
              Two different radiologists can examine a CT-scan and walk away with two completely different conclusions. That's my point. The no crossed arms is not significant since the arms were disturbed by... more
            • re: Thutmose IMarianne Luban, Thu Nov 9 10:14
              I also forgot to mention that the mummy in question had no identifying docket, which is strange in itself for a kingly mummy--if it were one. It is true that the remains were found in one of the... more
Click here to receive daily updates