Tory
re: Thutmose I
Thu Nov 9, 2017 08:50
180.190.163.178

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 no crossed arms does not mean much since the mummy was not found in its original state or wrapping. Anything could have happened to it after the first burial. The mummy has the identical facial features of Thutmose II, which lends strong support to Maspero's first analysis that these are father and son.


  • 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 I — Tory, Thu Nov 9 08:50
      • 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