Posted by Kate Phizackerley on Monday, January 24, 2011

Two complementary articles on the mummy of King Tuthmosis I.  Tim Reid has an article on the possibly convoluted travels of the supposed mummy of Tuthmosis IMarianne Lubhan, however, thinks this mummy is probably that of Prince Sipair, a son of King Amenhotep I.  They are worth reading together as both articles are well researched and complement each other.

(I think they are both talking of the same mummy.  Tim refers to it as CG61066, pictures of that match those in Marianne's article. If I have that wrong, sorry guys, I hope one of you will jump in to correct me!)

CORRECTION: Marianne was talking of mummy CG61065


tim said...

Hi Kate

Thanks for the link but sorry to say wrong mummy. CG61066 is a good choice for the mummy of Thutmosis I but currently is going under the name of Thutmosis II.

Cheers :)

Marianne Luban said...

The mummy on my website is CG61065. But I fail to see why CG61066 is better suited to be "Thutmose I" than his current label of "Thutmose II". His docket read "Aaenre", which is not correct, but the "xpr" element of "Aakheperenre" can have been inadvertently ommitted. However, the prenomen of Thutmose I, which is "Aakheperkare" does not contain an /n/ at all--and both "xpr" and "kA" would have had to have been omitted. This does not seem likely. Professor Smith judged the mummy, which he called Thutmosis II, to have been no more than 30 years old at death. Albeit partially bald, the hair remained "dark brown". I do not know what age the Egyptians have more recently assigned from CT-scan.

Somehow, I think the mummy of the real Thutmose I just vanished. Pinudjem I, who was a real fan of the Thutmosids, even naming his children Menkheperre and Maatkare, was thrilled to get the coffins of Thutmose I as relics for his own use, but I doubt he would have appropriated them if Thutmose I still had need of them. The first Thutmose was a renowned warrior who made enemies. The day may have come when foreigners were able to go into the Valley and do some real damage to him and Thutmose III, another foe of the eastern peoples. The mummy of Thutmose III is simply in pieces, far more damaged than any grave robbers needed to inflict and T II was hacked about pretty badly, as well. If you check in Faulkner, in the earlier kingdoms, the term "robber" or "iTw" var. "iTA" did not have the sign denoting "foreigner" as part of the spelling but by the Papyrus Abbott, written in the reign of Ramesses IX, it certainly did!

Kate Phizackerley said...

Cheers Marianne, I will correct the article when I'm on the laptop tomorrow.


Admin Control Panel