re: Thutmose I
Thu Nov 9, 2017 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 whoever ripped off the hands. As I said, the mummy was not found in its original condition so anything could have happened to it. Even the metal lodged in its chest could have gotten there by the king himself in some kind of freak accident. An arrow tip to the chest would be removed for a prince or a king prior to embalming. Whatever this object is the rest of it was removed and those who removed it apparently had no reason to think there was still more lodged inside the body. Hawass is a joke to me. The first time he rejected the mummy of Hatshepsut was because, and I quote, "she wasn't very pretty." Typical Arab unable to leave his cultural crutches at home.

  • 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 I — Tory, Thu Nov 9 17:54
    • 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