View 18'th Dynasty Theban Royal Mummies from DB320 & KV35

New!
Tomb 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.

Updated!
Special KV 55 Section!
========
Follow the trail of the missing treasures from mysterious KV 55.

KV 55's Lost Objects: Where Are They Today?

The KV 55 Coffin Basin and Gold Foil Sheets

KV 55 Gold Foil at the Metropolitan

Mystery of the Missing Mummy Bands

KV 35 Revisited
See rare photographic plates of a great discovery from Daressy's Fouilles de la Vallee des Rois.

Unknown Man E
Was he really
buried alive?

The Tomb of Maihirpre
Learn about Victor Loret's important discovery of this nearly intact tomb in the Valley of the Kings.

Special Section!
Tomb Robbers!
Who were the real tomb raiders? What beliefs motivated their actions? A new perspective on the ancient practice of tomb robbing!

Special Section!
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.

Special Section!
An Audience With Amenophis II Journey once more with Pierre Loti as he explores the shadowy chambers of KV 35 in the early 1900's.

Jackal.gif (13609 bytes)
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 web pages.

--Thank You

This website is constantly developing and contributions of data from other researchers are welcomed.
Contact The Theban Royal Mummy Project at:
anubis4_2000@yahoo.com

Background Image: Wall scene from the tomb of Ramesses II (KV 7.) From Karl Richard Lepsius, Denkmäler (Berlin: 1849-1859.)

XVIII'th Dynasty Gallery II
Learn more about the 18'th Dynasty here, here, and here.

Amenhotep I (c. 1551-1524 B.C.)
18'th Dynasty
Provenance: DB 320
Discovery Date: 1860? (official discovery 1881)
Current Location: Cairo Museum JE 26211; CG61058

Click here for biographical data

Details: The mummy of Amenhotep I is in good condition and has never been unwrapped. It was found with a floral garland, a cartonnage funerary mask, and an orange shroud. A wasp was also found in the coffin. X-rays published in 1967 reveal a bead girdle and a small amulet still within the mummy wrappings. They also show a post-mortem fracture of the lower right arm, which Reeves thinks was probably caused by re-wrapping done in the XXI'st Dynasty. Although broken, the kings arms had been placed across his chest in what was to become the standard position for king's mummies. Amenhotep I was found in a replacement coffin (which Reeves thinks was part of same group of coffins that Tuthmosis II's replacement coffin came from) originally made for a mid-18'th Dynasty priest named Djehutymose and subsequently reinscribed by the reburial party for Amenhotep I. (See photo of coffin from Ian Bolton's Egypt: Land of Eternity site.) The coffin also has inscriptions supplying other reburial data (see Coffin Docket translations below.) Reeves notes a similarity between this coffin and that of Tuthmosis II, leading him to conclude that Tuthmosis II (see below) may have been reburied a month before the latter king's own restoration occurred. (Source Bibliography: ASAE 34 [1934], 47f.; CCR, 7f.; DRN, 212, 253; EM, 91; EMs, 37, ill. 38; MiAE, 79, 89, 91, 122, 157, 208, 315, 316, 318, 322, 323, ills. 88, 265, 266; MMM, 26, 35, 37, 75, 86, 87, ill. 76; MR, 536f., pl. 4b; RM, 18, pl. XIII; XRA, 1A13-1B8; XRP, 101, 102, 128ff., 131, 132, ill. pp. 18, 32-33.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: AN B
Official Inspections: Year 16 of Ramesses IX'th
Restorations: Year 6 & Year 16 of Smendes
Reburials: (i.) in tomb of Inhapi (WN A?) by Year 10 of Siamun; (ii.) In DB 320 no earlier than Year 11 of Shoshenq I (Source Bibliography: DRN, 253.)

Coffin Dockets:

(i.) "Yr 6 4 prt 7 Smendes/Pinnudjem I: On this day the high priest of Amon-Re king of the gods Pinudjem (sic.) son of Piankh commanded renew the burial (whm krs) of king (nsw) Djeserkare son of Re Amenophis l. p. h. by the overseer of the double treasury Pa..." (Source Bibliography: [transcr., photo.]; DRN, 235; GPI, doc. 3; 536f. [facs., transcr.]; RNT, 249 [4b]; TIP, 418 [10].)

(ii.) "Yr 16 4 prt 11. The high priest of Amon-Re king of the gods Masaharta son of king (nsw Pinudjem commanded to renew the burial (whm krs) of this god by the scribe of the treasury and scribe of the temple Penamun son of Sutymose (?)" (Source Bibliography: CCR, 8, pl. 7 [photo][27].)

Photo Credit: MR1 (Cairo, 1881), reprinted in KMT, (3:4) 40.

Source Abbreviation Key

Tuthmosis I (?) (c. 1524-1518 B.C.?)
18'th Dynasty
Provenance: DB 320
Discovery Date: 1860? (official discovery 1881)
Current Location: Cairo Museum CG61065; JE26217

Click here for biographical data

Details: The mummy of "Tuthmosis I" had been thoroughly plundered in antiquity, but his body remained basically intact except for missing hands. Smith calls attention to the excellent state of preservation of the mummy and notes the "firmness and durability of the skin and tissues." The bandages had been soaked in resin, and, from the condition of the ears, G. E. Smith concluded that they had been plugged with balls of resin as in the case of Tuthmosis II and Tuthmosis III. Smith remarked that the mummy's genitalia had been treated in an unusual manner, having been somehow flattened against the perineum and thereby giving the erroneous impression that the man had been castrated. This may have resulted from over-desiccation during the embalming process. Maspero noted that the mummy's teeth were worn, and believed the man was over fifty at the time of his death.
The mummy was found in coffins (CG 61025) originally made for Tuthmosis I by Tuthmosis III (see Herbert Winlock, JEA 15, [1929], 59, n. 3.) Winlock had observed that the the outer coffin would "fit snugly" into the KV 38 sarcophagus (JEA 15, ibid.) Reeves notes textual similarities between inscriptions on the inner coffin and the KV 38 sarcophagus lid (DRN, 18, n. 51.) The coffins had been appropriated, redecorated, and reinscribed by Pinudjem I for his own use (see photo of coffins from CCR [Cairo, 1909.]) Reeves, after considering the size of the appropriated coffins, believes that Tuthmosis I also originally had a third, inner coffin which is now lost, and that this coffin might have been similar to that in which Tutankhamen was found (DRN, 18, n. 50.)
Since there were no dockets on the bandages or coffins, the identification of this mummy is still a matter of dispute. Maspero believed it to be the body of Tuthmosis I because (to him) the head bore a "striking resemblance" to those of Tuthmosis II and Tuthmosis III. Smith gave further support to this identification by concluding that the technique of embalming employed dates the mummy to a period later than Amosis and earlier than Tuthmosis II. However, prevailing opinion currently denies that the body is that of Tuthmosis I because of the position of the arms, which are not crossed over the chest as on all pharaoh's after Amenhotep I. One recent theory, as noted by Ikram and Dodson, proposes that this mummy is actually that of Ahmose-Sipairi, the alleged father of Tuthmosis I. (For more on identifying royal mummies, read Edward F. Wente's article, Who Was Who Among the Royal Mummies. Then see Royal Mummies Musical Chairs by Dennis Forbes for more on this topic. Also click here to read Marianne Luban's very well-argued theory about the identity of the mummy traditionally labeled "Tuthmosis I.".) (Source Bibliography: DRN, 17, 203, 244; EM, 91; EMs, 37, ill. 38; EMbm, 53;

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: The original tomb of Tuthmosis I is still not known with certainty. Since two tombs (KV 38 and KV 20) and two sarcophagi (one from each tomb) are associated with this king, the circumstances surrounding his burial are far from clear. Loret, who discovered KV 38 in 1899, believed that this was the tomb of Tuthmosis I referred to by the architect Ineni, who described on the walls of his own tomb how he had secretly designed the king's sepulcher, "no one seeing, no one hearing." (Learn about Ineni's tomb at Ian Bolton's Egypt: Land of Eternity website.) KV 38 obviously had been connected to Tuthmosis I, as evidenced by the presence of an empty sarcophagus (RS, 52ff.) and canopic chest inscribed for this king. However, in 1903, Howard Carter excavated KV 20 and discovered another sarcophagus inscribed for Tuthmosis I along with a sarcophagus belonging to Hatshepsut (ASAE 6 [1906], 119.) The question arose concerning which of the two tombs associated with this king was the the original place of his burial. After studying the architectural design of KV 38, John Romer dated it to a time no earlier than the reign of Tuthmosis III (JEA 60 [1974], 121f.) Proponents of Romer's dating scheme therefore point to KV 20, known to be the tomb of Hatshepsut, as the original tomb of Tuthmosis I. They argue that Queen Hatshepsut wished to be buried with her father and had his tomb modified to accommodate her own burial. Tuthmosis III, wishing to erase Hatshepsut's memory, subsequently prepared KV 38 (complete with a new sarcophagus) for Tuthmosis I, and had the king removed from the dead queen's offensive presence and reburied in the the newer tomb (DRN, 18.) Proponents of Loret's initial appraisal of KV 38 as the original resting place of Tuthmosis I contend that Hatshepsut had KV 20 prepared for herself and then removed her father's mummy from KV 38 into this tomb. Tuthmosis III subsequently restored Tuthmosis I to his original tomb, where a new sarcophagus awaited him (cf. Herbert Winlock in JEA 15 [1929], 56ff.; and Hayes, RS, 6ff.) Both theories account nicely for the existence of two sarcophagi for Tuthmosis I, but the correctness of either is still very much an open question. (Source Bibliography: ASAE 6 [1906], 119; DRN, 17f.; JEA 60 [1974], 119ff; see especially George B. Johnson in KMT, [3:4], 64-81; RS, 6ff., 52ff.; )

Reburials: (i.) By Hatshepsut in KV 20? By Tuthmosis III in KV 38? (ii.) in tomb of Inhapi (WN A?) during Year 7-8 of Psusennes I; and (iii.) in DB 320 after year 11 of Shoshenq I. (Source Bibliography: DRN, 244.)

Photo Credit: RM (Cairo, 1912,) pl. XX.
For high resolution images of Tuthmosis I see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's The Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59. plates XX, XXI, XXII.

Source Abbreviation Key

Tuthmosis II (c. 1518-1504 B.C.)
18'th Dynasty
Provenance: DB 320
Discovery Date: 1860? (official 1881)
Current Location: Cairo Museum CG61066; JE26212

Click here for biographical data

Details: The mummy of Tuthmosis II was unwrapped by Gaston Maspero on July 1'st, 1886. It had been severely damaged in antiquity and was restored by G. E. Smith on September 22, 1906. Smith chronicles the history of injuries that this mummy sustained at the hands of thieves: the right leg was severed from the body; the abdominal wall was broken away; ribs were badly broken; the right arm was cut off just below the elbow; the left arm was broken off at the shoulder, and the neck and face had been cut in several places with a sharp instrument.
    Tuthmosis II's fingernails and toenails had been neatly trimmed. His ears and nostrils had been plugged with linen soaked in resin, and remains of the embalming wound (which had been mostly obliterated when the abdominal wall was hacked away) indicated that it had been fusiform, large and gaping. Although Maspero reported the presence of the king's genitals when he unwrapped the mummy in 1886, Smith could find no definite remains of them when he examined the mummy twenty years later. He comments that they may originally have been flattened out and pressed against the perineum as in the case of the alleged mummy of Tuthmosis I above.
    Maspero believed that Tuthmosis II died young, at around age 30. He based his conclusion on the condition of the king's teeth, which were not badly worn. However, Smith pointed out that the ruler's overbite (a well-known characteristic of the Tuthmosids) could have effected dental wearing and therefore concluded that Maspero's dentally based age estimate was doubtful. Smith noted that Tuthmosis II was practically bald and that the skin of his face was wrinkled, facts which made him conclude that the king was older than 30 when he died. No obvious cause of death was found during the examination of the mummy, but Maspero, Smith, Ikram and Dodson all report that the ruler's skin is covered with scab-like patches that may be symptomatic of some as-yet unknown disease which may have claimed his life. Smith, however, thought that the skin eruptions could have been caused post mortem by reactions of the tissues with the embalming materials.
    The mummy was equipped with a floral garland, and an outer shroud covered the remains of the original wrappings. The shroud had a 21'st Dynasty inscription which dates the reburial of Tuthmosis II to Year 6 3 prt 7 of Smendes/Pinudjem I (see Linen Docket translation below.) Tuthmosis II was found in a coffin originally belonging to an unidentified man, also of the 18'th Dynasty. (See photo of coffin from Ian Bolton's Egypt: Land of Eternity site.) (Source Bibliography: CCR, 18; DRN, 203, 209; EM, 91; EMs, 37, ill. 38; MiAE, 28, 88, 255, 258, 315, 318, 322, 323, ill. 355; MMM, 35, 37, 87, 88; MR, 545ff.; RM, 28ff.; XRA, 1C7-1D3; XRP, 101, 133, 136, 137, ill. 36.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: Unknown. KV 42? WN-A? or DB 358?
    George B. Johnson, in a paper appearing in KMT ([10: 3] 20-33, 84-85) presents a careful consideration of the theories that KV 42 is the tomb of Tuthmosis II. The tomb was first attributed to this king by Arthur Weigall in 1910 (GAE, 224-225.) William C. Hayes, after his study of sarcophagi and architectural tomb development in the Valley of the Kings, wrote in 1935 that KV 42 was probably a tomb of Tuthmosis II that had never been used (RS, 2, pl. II; 34, 36f., 141.) Most recently (in 1990) Erik Hornung also attributed the tomb to Tuthmosis II. (HE, 204.)
    KV 42, which is located in the south-western end of the Valley of the Kings, may have been discovered by the workmen of Victor Loret in 1898-1899 (see Johnson, KMT [10: 3] 20). If so, Loret never reported the tomb, and, in 1900, Boutros Andraos and Chinouda Macarios (after receiving permission from Howard Carter to excavate in the Valley) claimed the discovery of KV 42 for themselves (ASAE II [1901], 196-198.) The tomb had a cartouche shaped burial chamber and royal proportions, and architecturally seemed part of the series of tombs beginning with the tomb of Tuthmosis I (KV 38) and ending with the tomb of Tuthmosis III (KV34.) Howard Carter inspected the tomb and discovered canopic jars inscribed for Senetnay, the wife of Sennefer, who was a mayor of Thebes during the reign of Amenhotep II. Based on their presence, Carter tentatively suggested that KV 42 might be Sennefer's tomb (ASAE II [1901], 196-198. cf. T. G. H. James, HCPT, 76.) Twenty years after his first inspection, Carter discovered the foundation deposits of Meryt-Re Hatshepsut near the entrance to KV 42, and cautiously concluded that the tomb had been prepared for her. Still influenced by the discovery of Senetnay's canopic jars in the tomb, Carter now proposed that Sennefer had appropriated the tomb from Meryt-Re Hatshepsut (ToT, [vol. I], 84.)
    Elizabeth Thomas also rejected the idea that KV 42 was the tomb of Tuthmosis II. Persuaded by the evidence of Meryt-Re Hatshepsut's foundation deposits and the cartouche shaped burial chamber, she suggested that KV 42 was a royal tomb dedicated by Meryt-Re Hatshepsut for the use of one of her sons or grandsons (RNT, 70-80.) The theory that KV 42 was the tomb of Meryt-Re Hatshepsut is the one currently accepted by most Egyptologists including Romer (TVK, 253), Wilkinson & Reeves (CVK, 103) and Roehrig (KMT [10: 3], 27 and n. 17.)
    Based on his analysis of the kheker frieze in the burial chamber, George B. Johnson presents persuasive evidence that KV 42 post-dates the death of Tuthmosis II by many years. This frieze is stylistically different from kheker decorations in other 18'th Dynasty royal tombs, and is virtually identical to the kheker frieze from the Dier el-Bahri chapel of Tuthmosis III, to such an extant that Johnson believes they could have been painted by the same artist (KMT [10: 3], 28f., 31.) On still other stylistic grounds, Johnson dates the rectangular quartzite sarcophagus found in the burial chamber of KV 42 to the reign of Tuthmosis III, and confidently attributes the ownership of the tomb to Meryt-Re Hatshepsut (KMT [10: 3], 84.) Sarcophagus specialist Edwin C. Brock also finds no evidence indicating that KV 42 belonged to anyone other than Meryt-Re Hatshepsut (KMT [10: 3], 33 [sidebar.])
    If KV 42 is not the tomb of Tuthmosis II, then where was the original burial of this king? According to Reeves the recent proposal of WN-An lacks solid evidence in favor of the claim that this is the missing tomb of Tuthmosis II (DRN, 18, 24, 253-54). Johnson mentions an inscription on a statue of a certain Hapuseneb, now in the Louvre, which records the intriguing fact that Tuthmosis II had commissioned this vizier and high priest of Amen to "conduct the work upon his cliff tomb because of the great excellence of my plans." (KMT [10: 3], 84.) The lost tomb of Tuthmosis II, described here as a "cliff tomb," may be similar in placement to the original tomb of his wife, Hatshepsut, before she became king.
Restoration or Reburial in new tomb (evidence is unclear): Year 6 of Smendes/Pinudjem I. At this time, Tuthmosis II was given a new coffin and re-wrapped.
Reburial: (i) Possibly in tomb of Inhapi (WN A?) along with Amenhotep I, in Year 6 of Smendes/Pinudjem I.; and (ii) in DB 320 after Year 11 of Shoshenq I.. (Source Bibliography: ARE, 161-162; ASAE II [1901] 196-198; CVK, 103; DRN, 18, 24, 253-54; GAE, 224-225; )

Linen Docket: "Yr 6 3 prt 7 Smendes/Pinudjem I, 'On this day the high priest of Amon Re king of the gods Pinudjem son of the high priest of Amun Piankh commanded the overseer of the great double treasury Payneferher to repeat the burial (whm sm3) (rebury?) king (nsw) Aaenre (sic.) l. p. h.'"(Source Bibliography: DRN, 234, no. 13; GPI doc. 2; MR 545 f. [facs., transcr.]; RNT, 249 [4a]; TIP, 418 [9].)

Photo Credit: RM (Cairo, 1912,) pl. XXIII.
For high resolution images of Tuthmosis II see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's The Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59. plates XXIII, XXIV.

Source Abbreviation Key

Tuthmosis III (c. 1504-1450 B.C.)
18'th Dynasty
Provenance: DB 320
Discovery Date: 1860? (official discovery 1871)
Current Location: Cairo Museum CG61068; JE26213

Click here for biographical data

Details: The mummy of Tuthmosis III was unwrapped by Emile Brugsch in July of 1881 and then subsequently rebandaged, only to be unwrapped a second time in 1886. Maspero records in Les Momies Royales that the mummy was covered with a greasy, whitish layer of material containing putrid human fat. Originally thought to be natron by Dr. Mathey, G. E. Smith identified this substance as an "efflorescence of fatty acids."
    The mummy had been badly damaged in antiquity and "repaired" by members of the reburial party, who reinforced it with four wooden oars (see photo of wrapped mummy from MR1 [Cairo, 1881].) The head was broken off at the neck; the arms and legs were detached; both arms were broken at the elbows, and the feet were broken off. The right arm and forearm were tied to a piece of wood by a mass of fine linen. The king's left hand is clenched, indicating that he had once been holding an object (perhaps a ceremonial scepter or flail) which robbers had stolen.
    The 11 cm. embalmer's incision on the left side cuts a diagonal line from hip bone to pubes, and Smith records that through its narrow aperture one can see the resin soaked linen used to fill the body cavity after the internal organs had been removed. Resin treated wads of linen had also been used to plug up the nostrils. Unable to find any traces of the genitals, Smith believed that they had been removed, probably during the embalming process. Tuthmosis III was short, standing only 1.5 m (just over 5 ft.) in height, and, since no sign of hair remained on the scalp, Smith concluded that he had been completely bald. Smith especially notes the skull, which he describes as "very remarkable for it's large capacity [and] pentagonoid form." As in the case of the mummy of Tuthmosis II (cf. above), large portions of Tuthmosis III'rd's skin were covered with what appears to be a rash of some sort, perhaps caused by an illness or by the action of the embalming salts, oils and resins on the skin after death.
    Strings of beads, made variously of carnelian, gold, lapis lazuli, and green felspar were found on the shoulders lying upon the innermost bandages. (Reeves states that the beads were found beneath the innermost bandages, but Smith quite clearly says that they were not touching the mummy's skin and found on top of the innermost layer of wrappings.) A bracelet on the right arm was also revealed much later by X-rays. Tuthmosis III was found in his original coffin (Cairo Museum CG 61014) which Reeves thinks might have been the second innermost coffin of a nested set. All the surfaces of this coffin have been adzed over and the eye inlays removed. However, the inscriptions on the interior of the coffin remain intact. (See photo of coffin from CCR [Cairo, 1909] pl. 14.) (Source Bibliography: CCR, 19f.; DRN, 209, 214; 92; EM, 92; EMs, 37, ill. 39; MiAE, 84, 89, 91, 116-17, 122, 128, 160, 209, 210, 226, 255, 258, 269, 315, 318, 322, 323, ills. 79, 301, 358, 359, 386, 415; MMM, 37, 57, 87, ill. 17, 36, 174; MR, 547f., pl. 6, a; RM, 32ff.; XRA, 1D5-1E2; XRP, 133, 136ff., ill. 38.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: KV34
Reburials: (i) dismantled at the same time as the tomb of Hatshepsut (KV 20) and reburied in tomb of Inhapi (WN A?) during reign of Pinudjem I; and (ii) in DB 320 after year 11 of Shoshenq I.. (Source Bibliography: DRN, 245.)

Photo Credit: RM (Cairo, 1912,) pl. XXVIII.
For high resolution image of Tuthmosis I see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's The Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59. plate XXVIII.

Source Abbreviation Key

Amenhotep II (c. 1543-1419 B.C.)
18'th Dynasty
Provenance: KV35
Discovery Date: March 9, 1898, by Victor Loret
Current Location: Cairo Museum CG 61069

Click here for biographical data

Details: Amenhotep II was one of only two pharaohs to be found in their own tombs. The mummy sustained damage in antiquity: the head was broken off; the front abdominal wall was missing; the spine was broken; and the right leg and thigh were separated from the body and from each other. Amenhotep II had been rewrapped and given a shroud (with Linen Docket--see translation below) by the priests in charge of restoring his tomb after it had been plundered. (See below for Reeve's dating of this restoration.)
    The king had been tall for his times and stood at 1.8 m (6 ft)--much taller than either his father or son. His body is that of a robust, strongly built individual. At the time of the ruler's death, his hair was graying and he had developed a bald spot on the back of his head. According to G. E. Smith, the arms of Amenhotep II were crossed with the forearms parallel and lower down than on most other kingly mummies. Although Smith reports in 1924 (in EM, 93,) that the hands of the mummy were not tightly clenched, his 1912 account (in RM, 37,) states that the fingers of the right hand were tightly closed, with the thumb extended. The left hand was also closed, but Smith states that the fingers were not as tightly clenched as those of the right hand. Unlike the mummy of his father, Amenhotep II retained his genitals, and he had been circumcised. His teeth were well worn but in good condition. As in the case of the mummies of Tuthmosis II and Tuthmosis III (cf. above), the body of Amenhotep II was also covered with raised nodules, which Smith thought could have been caused either from a disease or by the action of the embalming materials with the skin.
    Amenhotep II was found in a replacement cartonnage coffin which had been inscribed for him. (See photo of coffin lid and mummy from ASAE III [1902.]) This was found in a large sarcophagus in the burial chamber of the king's tomb (see photo from BM.) According to Loret, the mummy had a floral garland ("...au cou une guirlande de feuilles...") a small boquet of mimosa flowers ("...une petit bouquet de mimosa...") and a floral crown or headpiece ("...une bouquet de fleurs et sur les pieds une couronne de feuillage...) (quoted in DRN, 195.) Howard Carter, writing later, described the mummy as having on his breast "a few flowers and some foliage of the olive tree." (quoted in HCBT, 61.) Impressions of jewelry (including that of some kind of pectoral ornament) were found in the dried resins which had been used in the embalming process. A large bow, which had either been broken or cut in two, was found with the mummy.
    Many objects, most of which were in a damaged condition, were found in the tomb (see Special Exhibit: Funerary Objects from the Tomb of Amenhotep II on navigation bar at left). With the king, in side rooms off the burial chamber, were also found the mummies of other New Kingdom rulers and notables (see KV 35 link above.) (Source Bibliography: BIE, [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 108; DRN, 192-199, 210, 215, 245; EM, 92; EMs, 37, 39, 45, ill. 40; HCBT, 61; MiAE, 38, 79, 84, 96, 132, 282, 285, 315, 316, 318, 324, ills. 330, 411, 413d, 415, 425; MMM, 38, 39, 40, 84, 87, 88; RM, 36ff.; XRA, 1E3-1F1; XRP, 112, 113, 115, 116, 135, 136, 137, 138ff., 142, 157, 159, 166, ill. 39.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: KV 35 (see link above.)
Inspections/Restorations: Reeves cannot provide a very precise account of all the post-interment activity in KV 35 because the archeological evidence is difficult to interpret. He tentatively dates one inspection/restoration of KV 35 in Year 8 of Ramesses VI, and another in Year 13 of an unspecified king. At this time, the cache of royal mummies was placed in room Jb (see diagram.) Next (and probably not long afterward) the three mummies found in room Jc were placed in the tomb, all perhaps originally in room Jd (although only the Unidentified Boy can first be placed here with any degree of certainty, as is indicated by the discovery of his mummified toe in this chamber. See BIE [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 106.) This was followed by a period of more illicit pillaging, in which thieves ransacked the mummies. Finally, restorers put the contents of the tomb back in order, and moved the three unwrapped mummies into room Jc before sealing the tomb. (Source Bibliography: )

Linen Docket: According to Loret, this simply gave the prenomen of Amenhotep II: "('Le prenom d'Amenophis II'): Akheperure." (Source Bibliography: DRN, 232.)

Photo Credit: Howard Carter, ASAE III (1902.)

For more on KV 35 and its discovery, see Ian Bolton's Egypt: Land of Eternity website.

Source Abbreviation Key

Tuthmosis IV (c. 1419-1386 B.C.)
18'th Dynasty
Provenance: KV35
Discovery Date: March 9, 1898, by Victor Loret
Current Location: Cairo Museum CG61073; JE34559

Biographical data: A son of Amenhotep II, Tuthmosis IV is remembered today primarily as the royal prince who fell asleep under the Sphinx at Giza. In a dream, the Sphinx promised Tuthmosis the double crown providing that he clear away the sand which had covered most of it. Tuthmosis undertook the clearing project, and the Sphinx kept its word: Tuthmosis became Pharaoh. He commemorated this event by placing a large stela between the paws of the Sphinx which is still in place today. Zahi Hawass, on a recent television documentary, gave a more cynical interpretation to this romantic tale when he stated that Tuthmosis IV (or, more probably, the supporters of the young king) may have fabricated the whole thing to cover up the fact that he had murdered his elder brother in order to obtain the throne for himself. The scant evidence which leads some scholars to suspect foul play was the discovery at Giza of three defaced stelae inscribed for a son (or sons) of Amenhotep II. Their defacement might have been intentional; a kind of damnatio memorae intended to erase the memory of rival claimants to the throne. Additionally, as Dennis Forbes points out, why would the Sphinx promise to reward the throne to Thuthmosis IV if he were already the Crown Prince? Apparently, the kingship had been originally destined for one or more of his older brothers who never lived--for whatever reason--to inherit it.(cf. Dennis Forbes, KMT [vol. 13: 2], 45.)

Details: The mummy, which is basically intact except for disarticulated feet, was found in room Jb of KV 35 (at position 1--see tomb diagrams) along with eight other royal mummies. Ikram and Dodson report that the king died young, and note that the wasted condition of his body has led to speculation that he may have suffered from some unknown illness which eventually took his life. They also note that both ears were pierced, and describe his fingernails as being neatly trimmed. His arms were crossed over his chest in the now-standard royal fashion, and his hands were clenched. A crude embalming incision was made in the mummy, and his body cavity was filled with resin-coated linen. Tuthmosis IV had been rewrapped in his original bandages and had been given a new shroud with a Reeves' Type A docket on the chest area. (See Linen Docket translation below.)
Reeves states that Tuthmosis IV was found on a white painted plank that had been placed in his coffin. This coffin (CG61035) was a replacement coffin covered with a layer of plaster which concealed any original decoration (see photo of coffin from Georges Daressy's, Cercueils des cachettes royales [Cairo, 1909.]) It had been reinscribed for Tuthmosis IV with hieroglyphs in a column down the front. Reeves states that this coffin was similar to the one used for Ramesses V, and proposes that the reburial of Tuthmosis IV was perhaps undertaken at the same time as that of Ramesses V immediately after KV 43 was abandoned. (Source Bibliography: BIE, [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 111 [1]; CCR, 217; DRN, 211, 215; EM, 94; EMs, 39, ill. 40; KMT [vol. 13: 2], 45; MiAE, 62, 74, 84, 96-7, 210, 258, 315, 324, ills. 69-70, 360, pl. xxxvii; MMM, 39, 76, 87, 131, ills. 28, 157; RM, 42ff.; XRA, 1F2-10; XRP, 60, 112, 136, 138, 139, 140, ill. 38.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: KV 43
Restorations (whm krs): Yr 8 3 3ht 1 of Horemheb (based on inscriptional evidence in the form of a wall docket found in KV 43 [see Wall Docket translation] indicating an official inspection of the burial, probably occasioned by signs of illicit activity in or near the tomb.
Reburials: In KV 35 after year 13 of Smendes. (Source Bibliography: DRN, 245.)

Linen Docket: Probably dates to the time when Tuthmosis IV was moved into KV 35 (i.e. after year 13 of Smendes.) This docket simply recorded the prenomen of Tuthmosis IV: "Menkheperure ('en grands signes hieratiques a l'encre bleu')" (Source Bibliography: ASAE 4, [1903], 110 [transcr.], 232; BIE, [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 111 [1]; DRN, 232.)

Photo Credit: RM (Cairo, 1912,) pl. XXX.
For high resolution images of Tuthmosis IV see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's The Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59. plates XXIX, XXX

Source Abbreviation Key