|
| AWAITING CONFIRMATION THAT THE MUMMY, "THUTMOSE I", IS THE SON OF AMENHOTEP I It is now several years since I published the paper "Is the Mummy, 'Thutmose I', Really Hatshepsut?". In the interim, insofar as I was aware, the scientist who conducted the DNA testing of the royal mummies, Prof. Scott Woodward of Brigham Young University, did not publish his findings. I have long been a supporter of the need for DNA research into the secrets the mummies might hold, even though I realized the results could prove me wrong where the mummy, "Thutmose I" was concerned. I was recently advised that Dr. Woodward gave a lecture to the Egypt Study Society in 2001 and his remarks were paraphrased in their publication, "The Ostracon", which can be seen online at http://www.egyptstudy.org/Ostracon/Greenfield_WoodwardDNA_June2001.pdf For a very long time, the mummy labelled as Amenhotep I remained unwrapped in order not to disturb the beautiful job the restorers had done with regard to this pharaoh. Nevertheless, it seems a sample of DNA was somehow extracted from the remains and this mummy was one of seven which Woodward was able to successfully sequence. Another was the putative "Thutmose I", and the Ostracon article has stated that the DNA results indicate that the two mummies are father and son because they share "a particular allele". However, the term "allele" covers some territory in genetics and the Ostracon report is not so clear on what is meant in the context. Presumably, though, Woodward was able to ascertain that "Thutmose I" is a male and that means that my speculation about the little mummy being a female was incorrect, even though, at one point, I received a letter from a very highly placed individual in Egypt, confirming that, indeed, things about this mummy were going to prove "a big surprise" as the result of DNA testing. Regardless, the only public comment by Woodward on the subject does not bear this out. I have written to Dr. Woodward, asking him to confirm what the Ostracon article says and, if he does, I will make a note of it here. But I am not holding my breath waiting for a reply. I also cautioned the microbiologist [not an Egyptologist, after all] about referring to the mummy as "Thutmose I". There are still certain factors present that make this identification highly unlikely. If I read the conclusions in Ostracon correctly, the other mummies tested by Woodward did not show a familial affiliation with Ahmose I, Amenhotep I and the small corpse in question. I assume that among them were Thutmose II and III. According to our understanding of ancient Egyptian history, the three early Thutmosids were surely related. That is the strongest argument, in my opinion, for rejecting the premise that the mummy known as "Thutmose I" is in fact that king. Woodward asserted that the latter introduced new matrilineal DNA into the royal house and that would mean that the mummy's mother was not related to his father, Amenhotep I. If it is true that Thutmose II and III are unrelated to the earlier pharaohs, that can only mean that the "real" Thutmose I, whose mummy is missing, was of a different line--which is what Egyptologists have thought all along, as he is never styled "king's son". In fact, it is now doubted by some that he even married a daughter or sister of his predecessor, Amenhotep I. In other words, the line of the 17th Dynasty Theban pharaohs (even though king Ahmose I is considered the founder of the 18th Dynasty, he belongs with them genetically) died out with the mummy who is the subject of this article. Maybe. The erstwhile "Thutmose I" is, as matters currently stand, neither a king nor a queen-- but probably a prince.. His very small dimensions are perhaps due to only being half-grown, even though those who x-rayed the body concluded that he was around the age of 18 when he died. So we still have the problem of why there was white hair on the face of a mummy who should have already, by that age, had traces of a darker beard. Dr. E. Smith's observation that the mummy was advanced in age due to the worn condition of his visible teeth would remain a contradiction. But Kent Weeks wrote in "X-raying the Pharaohs" that the teeth are only moderately worn. The fact that the mummy once had the (now missing) hands placed over the genitals corresponds to the position of the arms of the young prince found in KV35, although that boy wears the princely side-lock and the mummy questioned here is totally bald. GO TO NEXT PAGE |