Wm. Max Miller,
Click on Anubis to learn about our logo and banners.
About Our Project
See what's new at the T. R. M. P.
Quickly Access Specific Mummies With Our
View mummies in the
Including the mummy identified as Queen Hatshepsut.
Including the mummy identified as Queen Tiye.
Featuring the controversial KV 55
mummy. Now with a revised reconstruction of ancient events in this perplexing
Featuring the mummies of Tutankhamen and his children.
Still in preparation.
Now including the
mummy identified as
21'st Dynasty Coffins from DB320
Examine the coffins
of 21'st Dynasty Theban Rulers.
Including the mummy identified as Tutankhamen's mother.
About the Dockets
Using this website for research papers
Links to Egyptology websites
Biographical Data about William Max Miller
The Treasures of Yuya and Tuyu
the funerary equipment of Queen Tiye's parents.
Raiders of KV 46
How thorough were the robbers who plundered the tomb of
Yuya and Tuyu? How many times was the tomb robbed, and what were the thieves
after? This study of post interment activity in KV 46 provides some answers.
Special KV 55 Section
Follow the trail of the missing treasures from mysterious KV 55.
55's Lost Objects: Where Are They Today?
The KV 55 Coffin Basin
and Gold Foil Sheets
Gold Foil at the Metropolitan
Mystery of the Missing Mummy Bands
See rare photographic plates of a great
discovery from Daressy's Fouilles de la Vallee des Rois.
Unknown Man E
Was he really
Tomb of Maihirpre
Learn about Victor Loret's
important discovery of this nearly intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings.
Who were the real tomb raiders?
What beliefs motivated their actions? A new perspective on the ancient practice
of tomb robbing.
Spend a Night
with the Royal Mummies
Read Pierre Loti's eerie account of
his nocturnal visit to the Egyptian Museum's Hall of Mummies.
Audience With Amenophis II Journey
once more with Pierre Loti as he explores the shadowy chambers of KV 35 in the
Most of the images on this website have been
scanned from books, all of which are given explicit credit and, wherever
possible, a link to a dealer where they may be purchased. Some images derive
from other websites. These websites are also acknowledged in writing and by
being given a link, either to the page or file where the images appear, or to
the main page of the source website. Images forwarded to me by individuals who
do not supply the original image source are credited to the sender. All written
material deriving from other sources is explicitly credited to its author.
Feel free to use material from the Theban Royal Mummy Project website.
No prior written permission is required. Just please follow the same guidelines
which I employ when using the works of other researchers, and give the Theban
Royal Mummy Project proper credit on your own papers, articles, or
This website is constantly developing and contributions
of data from other researchers are welcomed.
Contact The Theban Royal Mummy Project at:
Background Image: Wall scene from the tomb of Ramesses II (KV 7.) From Karl
Richard Lepsius, Denkmäler (Berlin: 1849-1859.)
The Tomb of Inhapi
The k3y of Inhapi
Evidence from the dockets on the coffin of Ramesses II
and also on a fragment from the coffin of Ramesses
I, both found in
DB 320, show that these kings had at one time been cached in KV
17 along with
the mummy of the tomb's owner, Seti
I. Dockets also reveal that all three kings
had been removed from KV 17 on a date given as Year 10, 4 prt 17
of Siamun/Pinudjem II, and reburied three days later in another tomb referred to
as the k3y ("high place") of Inhapi on Year 10, 4 prt
20. This tomb is further described as a "great place" (st c3t)
and one in which "Amenophis rests," showing that Amenhotep I had
earlier been cached there also. But where is the k3y of Inhapi located?
Is it DB 320? Could it be one of the many unidentified tombs found throughout the Theban
necropolis? Or is its location as yet unknown?
Herbert Winlock and Elizabeth Thomas both believed that the k3y
of Inhapi and DB 320 were one and the same. This view is supported by the fact
that a wall docket at the bottom of the entrance shaft to DB 320 records that
Pinudjem II was buried there on Year 10, 4 prt 20 of Siamun, the
same date on which Ramesses I, Seti I, and Ramesses II were all reburied in
Inhapi's tomb. This would seem to indicate that the necropolis officials had
taken advantage of Pinudjem II's interment in DB 320 to conveniently cache the
other mummies with him while the tomb was still open. John Romer's dating of the
tomb to the late 17'th or early 18'th Dynasty also lends support to the idea
that DB 320 could be the tomb of the late 17'th Dynasty queen Inhapi.
Reeves disagrees with Winlock and Thomas, and argues that a
consideration of the positions in which coffins were found in DB 320 shows that
this tomb could not possibly be the k3y of Inhapi. He contends
that Maspero's written reports concerning DB 320 indicate that the Antiquities
director had probably drawn his account of the cache tomb's discovery from a
common source, most likely notes composed by Brugsch at the time of the
sepulcher's clearance, and concludes that Maspero's comments concerning the
placement of objects in the tomb accurately reflect the distribution of the
finds at the time of their official discovery in 1881. Furthermore, Reeves
argues that the larger objects in DB 320 had probably not been disturbed by the
Abd el-Rassuls, who claimed to have entered the tomb only three times during the
ten years between their discovery of the cache and its official opening, and
then only for the purpose of removing some of the smaller objects. Reeves points
out that the large size and heavy weight of the coffins in DB 320 would have
prevented the Abd el-Rassuls from moving them, and so believes that accounts of
how the coffins were found by Brugsch when he first entered the tomb are, for
the most part, trustworthy indications of the ancient distribution of objects in the
Maspero's earliest accounts of the discovery of DB 320 were
published in the Bulletin de l'Institut Egyptien in 1881 and in his Guide
du visiteur au Musee de Boulaq in 1883. In these, he states that the first
coffin encountered near the entrance to corridor "B" of DB 320 (see tomb
diagram) was that of a man named Nebseni. Maspero does not identify the
owner of the second coffin found in corridor "B" but does date it on
stylistic grounds to the 17'th Dynasty. Six years later, in his Momies
royales, Maspero does identify this second coffin as being that of Seqnenre-Taa
II. However, Reeves points out that Maspero, in the 1906, 1908, and
1915 editions of his Guide to the Cairo Museum, returns to his 1881 and
1883 accounts which do not identify the owner of this coffin. Furthermore, all
of Maspero's accounts, with the single exception of the one in Momies royals,
place Seqnenre-Taa II in side chamber "D" of DB 320. Consequently,
Reeves believes that the 1889 identification of this second coffin as
Seqnenre-Taa II's was a mistake which Maspero corrected in his later Guides.
If not to Seqnenre-Taa II, then to whom did the second coffin
encountered in corridor "B" belong? Reeves states that the only other
coffin of 17'th Dynasty appearance found in DB 320 was that of the Lady Rai, which
contained the mummy of Inhapi. (For a photo of Ahmose-Inhapi's
coffin, see Ian Bolton's Egypt:
Land of Eternity site.) He also makes the observation that Inhapi
would certainly occupy a more central location in DB 320 if this was her tomb,
and would not have been placed in a corridor, resting one coffin away from the
tomb's entrance. Additionally, the mummies of Seti I and Ramesses II (and the
coffin fragment of Ramesses I), which are known to have been cached with Inhapi
in her tomb, were found at positions located farther into the tomb than hers,
indicating that they had been placed in DB 320 before her. Reeves explains that
this sequence of coffins and mummies is logical on the assumption that they had
all been removed from a tomb in which Inhapi's burial had been central. The
mummies would have been introduced into DB 320 in the order in which they had
been removed from Inhapi's tomb. Based on these considerations, Reeves concludes
that DB 320 cannot be the k3y of Inhapi referred to in the
dockets. He believes the fact that Pinudjem II was buried in DB 320 on the same
date that Ramesses I, Seti I, and Ramesses II were cached in the k3y
of Inhapi is purely fortuitous.
Reeves bases his theory on several presuppositions. Setting
aside questions concerning the possibility of accurately reconstructing the
ancient placement of coffins in DB 320 (and these are serious questions) the most
central assumption in his argument is that Inhapi was the second mummy
discovered in the entrance corridor of DB 320. As we have seen, Reeves contends
that her mummy should have been more centrally placed in the tomb if it were her
original place of burial. However, the fact that Maspero does not name the
second mummy in his original accounts is interesting, especially in view of the
fact that Inhapi's mummy was clearly labeled with a Type A Linen Docket. As
noted, Inhapi's mummy was found in the coffin of the Lady Rai, and one could
argue that the lid was probably closed when the tomb was first entered, thereby
concealing the docket identifying Inhapi. However, one must now ask why Maspero
did not identify the owner of the coffin as the Lady Rai? He gives the names on
other coffins found in DB 320, and one would assume that he would have given the
name of Lady Rai had it been inscribed on this second coffin. Of course, Maspero
might have seen both the coffin inscription and docket identification, and have
decided not to identify the mummy until the discrepancy was resolved through
later investigation. But it may also be the case that the second coffin found in
DB 320's first corridor was not Lady Rai's, as Reeves contends.
Even if the second coffin did contain the mummy of Inhapi, a
reconstruction of events different from the one Reeves provides can also be
given which explains the non-central placement of her mummy. Assuming that DB
320 was Inhapi's tomb, as Winlock and Thomas believe, might it not be the case
that she was removed from end chamber "F" by Pinudjem II so that he
and other members of his immediate family could occupy a place of honor in the
burial chamber themselves? The main problem with this theory is that we know
that Ramesses I, Seti I, and Ramesses II were cached in Inhapi's tomb on the
same day that Pinudjem II was buried in DB 320. If DB 320 was the k3y
of Inhapi, it seems safe to assume that the three 20'th Dynasty kings would have
been found in, or closer to, end chamber "F" than they actually
There is also no rule that coffins must be placed in a cache
tomb in the same order in which they were removed from a previous place of interment,
and Reeves puts a lot of weight on coffin placement when he argues that DB 320
is not Inhapi's tomb. Since mummies are often found in coffins which did not
originally belong to them, we know that the restorers often got things mixed up,
and were probably equally likely to rearrange the positions of those coffins
inside a cache tomb in ways that would not always make logical/archeological sense.
If DB 320 is not the k3y of Inhapi, then where
is the tomb of this queen located? The Egyptian word k3y, used in
the dockets to describe the tomb, may provide a clue. k3y translates
as "high place," a designation which seems to mean that Inhapi's
sepulcher was a cliff tomb, similar in its positioning to the original tomb of Hatshepsut
which was discovered by Howard Carter in 1916. (Learn more about Hatshepsut's
original cliff-tomb at Ian Bolton's Egypt: Land of Eternity website.)
Reeves calls attention
to the fact that only 750 meters southwest of DB 320 lies WN-A, a tomb he
describes as "the cliff tomb par excellence." Partly excavated
by Claude Robichon in 1931-1932, the tomb still awaits thorough clearance and
examination. Called Bab el-Mallaq in Arabic, a title which means "the
hanging tomb," WN-A's lofty position high up in the cliffs has inspired
comment at least since Roman times, when a graffiti recording an intrusive
burial used the Greek term khremasterios taphos (also translated as
"hanging tomb") to describe the place. Reeves points out that khremasterios
taphos is very similar in meaning to k3y, and might indicate
an ancient custom of referring to the tomb in this fashion. These considerations
lead Reeves to conclude that WN-A is probably Inhapi's tomb, but only systematic
examination of the tomb's contents could hope to finally prove this theory,
providing sufficient physical evidence even remains to be discovered. (Source
Bibliography: BIE [2 ser.] 2 , 134; CCR, 27 [pl. 23], 31 [pl. 19],
33 f. [pl. 22, 23]; CVK, 197; DRN, 185-192, 228, 237-239, 277; JARCE 16
, 85ff.; JEA 17 , 107f.; JEA 32 , 25ff.;
MR, 518, 522f., 553, 554, 557, 559; RNT, 252 [28a, 28b, 28c, 29b], 253
RP, 94; TIP, 423 [77, 78, 79].)
Source Abbreviation Key