# Talk:Thutmose I

There is definitely still confusion over Egyptian dates. E.g. Reeves' "Valley of the Kings" uses the same dates as Wikipedia (which it says come from Baines' "Atlas of Ancient Egypt"), but Clayton's "Chronology of the Pharaohs" (a recent work) gives Tuthmosis I's reign as 1524-1518 (using a system which the author followed from Mumane's "Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt"). Noel 01:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
None of the other pharoahs use "of Egypt," so I am moving this page. -- Emsworth 00:00, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

This article looks to be in fair shape to me as a student of this discipline, so now I think it's time to run it past the laypersons. If it fails, at least it can be shaped up in thin areas. Thanatosimii 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've passed it (after some minor copyrighting). Well-written, well-sourced, and deserving of Good Article status. --JerryOrr 02:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been DNA testing done on eighteenth Dynasty mummies. The conclusion was that it is highly probable that Amenhotep I is the father of Thutmose I.
http://www.egyptologyonline.com/using_dna.htm Welsh4ever76 06:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Everything I'Ve read is the to the contrary, he clearly was not of the existing Royal family, he just married into it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.33.65 (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC) 
The book "Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt" puts forward the idea that Thutmose's father is Ahmose-Sipairi (page 128). Ahmose Sipairi is a son of tao ii. tao ii is known to be the father of ahmose i. kahmose, often depicted as the brother of ahmose, is 
(based on his age) the brother of tao ii and holds the throne until his nephew ahmose comes of age. kahmose 'marries' the widow of tao ii (mother of ahmose) when he takes the throne. the eldest son of ahmose and his wife ahmose-nefertiry is ahmose-ankh. he dies young and his brother amenhotep i takes the throne instead. the dna evidence may indicate they are from the same family, but doesn't demonstrate parentage.
the crux of the issue, is that the mother of thutmose i, senisonbe, was only noted as a king's mother and not as a king's wife (as she would have been had her husband been amenhotep i. 76.3.171.21 (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The mummy that was thought to be Thutmosis I is not him. This mummy died when he was thirty, he died of an arrow wound and his arms were not crossed as a King's position. This was the conclusion of Dr. Zahi Hawass. There is a DNA match between Amenhotep I and Thutmosis II and III indicating that they share a common ancestor. Welsh4ever76 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, mind adding that info to the article instead of just removing the mummy image? Captmondo 10:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject bad articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. 

The only issue here is the unsourced final sentance about the mummy. Can someone please source and expand this? Once done I'd be happy to pass.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a source for this. Give me a day or two. -- Secisek (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I cited it but I think the lead needs to be improved for this to stay GA. Please look over WP:LEAD. -- Secisek (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Taking a peek at the section in question, there is insufficient context to understand the transition from Maspero's initial findings to the latest development. I think we need to add information regarding the subsequent examination by G. Elliot Smith which cast doubt on Maspero's identification, as well as the study conducted by Harris and Hussein (1991) on all the cached mummies. Also, I believe the mummy was finally withdrawn after the last CT scans in connection with Hatshepsut's mummy were made (at least that's how I'm interpreting the information in that link). — Zerida ☥ 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have decided to keep this at GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It switched around the cities in the section on the heliacal rise of Sothis. The majority of egyptologists believe that the observation was made from Thebes, in 1517 BCE, and a minority of them believe that the observation was made from Memphis or Heliopolis in 1537 BCE. The article claimed that the majority believed it was made in Memphis or Heliopolis in 1517, and a minority believed it was made in Thebes in 1537. This directly contradicts the pages on Ahmose I and Amenhotep I. I have therefore edited it to read correctly. Lionboy-Renae (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I made the following change to the bio of Thutmose I, because it is in fact rather common knowledge and the previous Bio was incorrect, stating that Thutmose II suceeded him in rulership when in fact Hatshepsut  followed him and ruled as regent because Thutmose II was only a small boy at the time.  Here is the change, if anyone has an issue with this change, please discuss
Thutmose I (sometimes read as Thothmes, Thutmosis or Tuthmosis I, meaning Thoth-Born) was the third Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. He was given the throne after the death of the previous king Amenhotep I who, speculation exists, may have been of no blood relation, however Thutmose I is thought to have been the general of his armies . During his reign, dated by some Egyptologists as being from 1526 BCE to 1513 BCE or by others as being from 1506 BCE to 1493 BCE, he campaigned deep into the Levant and Nubia, pushing the borders of Egypt further than ever before. He also built many temples in Egypt and built a tomb for himself in the Valley of the Kings; he is the first king confirmed to have done this (though Amenhotep I may have preceded him). He was succeeded by his daughter from his primary wife Hatshepsut, who ruled as regent in a co-rulership with Thutmose I son from a secondary wife. After marrying Thutmose II and ruling with him for three years Hatshepsut is thought to have orchestrated his death and continued to rule as Pharaoh, even wearing a fake beard and dress of a man. The reign of Hatshepsut was followed by that of her son Thutmose III who is thought to have torn down and defaced all images of her in an attempt to erase her rulership from Egyptian history.
Thanks98.92.244.28 (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your assertion that it is common knowledge is unestablished, and your record of attempting to use fringe material casts significant doubt on your claims. In any case, Wikipedia requires sources for any disputed points. If it is "common knowledge", it should be especially easy for you to provide one.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't even be consistent with itself.  This page states it as a fact she died as an infant, but her own Wikipedia page admits it's merely assumed by lack of reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.229.89 (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC) 

"He was given the throne after the feast of the PETA Amenhotep I." What on Earth does PETA mean in this context? Even if it's not a  mistake, it should be replaced with something more generally comprehensible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.105.74 (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC) 

https://www.academia.edu/27375879/THE_RISE_OF_THUTMOSE_I_AND_TWO_THEBAN_PRINCES
"Recently published DNA results2 place this mummy even farther away from being Thutmose I. If all the pharaohs of Dynasty 18 are truly the sons of their fathers, they should all have the y-haplogroup R1b, passed on from father to his sons in an unbroken chain going back indefinitely. Amenhotep III, KV 55 [probably Akhenaten] and Tutankhamen all have it, according to the study. But the mummy who was thought to be Thutmose I has a different haplogroup―L. [or L-M20] 3
So he cannot be the founder of the 18th Dynasty.But, for now, we don't know the y-haplogroup of the kings of Dynasty 17, including Seqenenre Tao, Ahmose, and Amenhotep I. Is it L? If not, then I don't know whose son the small mummy could have been―or what he was doing in the royal cache. Who is this prince not likely to be? Wadjmose or Amenmose, two sons of Thutmose I who died young. They would have had R1b, as well. If L is the y-haplogroup of the 17th Dynasty, then the mummy is not excluded from being the other Ahmose, son of Seqenenre Tao II.However, given the opinion of  Prof. Scott Woodward, the preponderance of the evidence appears to point to Ahmose-Sipair being identified."
2 Guardian of Ancient Egypt: Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass [2020] "Maternal and Paternal Lineages in King Tutankhamun's Family", Yehia Z. Gad et al.
3 L-M20 was not reported in the modern Egyptian population. This mummy was used as a control in the cited study."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:c300:290:79a1:bd6d:740a:50e8 (talk) 03:41, 2022 May 6 (UTC)

The Mummy section needs a rewrite as the section speaks about his mummy definitely being found and then later referring to a mummy that had been previously thought to have been his. This is rather confusing as it is not clear if the not-his-mummy is the same as the previously mentioned is-his-mummy, or if there are two mummies where one (not-his-mummy) was previously thought to be his until they found the second (is-his-mummy). Honestly, I am not even sure which it is, but sounds like (I'm guessing based on details gleaned from the Talk page) that it is the same [one/single] mummy, but it is now believed to likely not be his. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)