Marianne Luban
re: Thutmose I
Thu Nov 9, 2017 08:42
75.169.193.87

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 said something like "Looks like an arrowhead but hard to be sure". So unless they dig it out, which probably won't happen, there's no confirmation of the exact nature of the item. Many years ago, when an x-ray study was done, resulting in another book by [if I recall] Kent Weeks, the verdict on the age there was only 18.

Thutmose I was not recorded dying in battle, but this mummy is not a king. No crossed arms and too young. When the real Thutmose I [do you think this mummy is his?] came to the throne, he already had two children who were about 15 years old--Thutmose II and Hatshepsut. They were half-siblings. [I have no age details about the other children.] That can be known because there are only 16 years between 1520 BCE, when Thutmose I succeeded and the accession of Thutmose III in 1504. And this agrees with the assessment of the mummy of Thutmose II having been "around 30 years old" when he died. So I apportion 13 years for TI and 3 for TII. Therefore, my guess would be that Thutmose I was at least in his mid forties when he died and probably older.

As I wrote in my paper, there is reason to believe the mummy first believed by Gaston Maspero to be TI is actually Prince Ahmose-Sipair. I would say there's a good chance all the mummies found in the Deir el Bahri cache are royals, even though the coffins of commoners were appropriated for some of them. I'm sure that even Lady Rai, who even had some of the bandages of a woman by that name, a royal nurse, [these mummies were restored and don't all have original wrappings]is a queen due to the imprint left by a heavy gold crown on her forehead. I wrote an article about this for Ancient Egypt Magazine of Britain quite some time ago

  • re: Thutmose ITory, Thu Nov 9 00:08
    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... more
    • re: Thutmose I — Marianne Luban, Thu Nov 9 08:42
      • 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