Marianne Luban
re: Thutmose I
Thu Nov 9, 2017 10:00
75.169.193.87

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 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."

I wouldn't say identical but Upper Egyptian and there is a familial resemblance. You can't dismiss the radiology and simply go back to Maspero's non-scientific approach of "looks like". Some of the arms of the kingly mummies were broken, but I have never seen it written those of this one were. So that can't be blamed for the arms being in the same pose as those of another prince, found in KV35. Prof. Smith quoted Maspero as opining that the teeth were worn, but how could he see the teeth without x-ray as the mouth of this mummy appears to be closed? Hawass and Seleem write of this latest exam of the person that the epiphyses are open. That's probably what Weeks et al saw on the x-rays during the 1970's, too. A man of about 50 would have fused epiphyses. This really is a tiny mummy, if you look closely at the measurements.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Thutmose_I_mummy_head.png

  • 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 I — Marianne Luban, Thu Nov 9 10:00
      • 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