Learn about Unidentified Mummies from the Theban Royal Necropolis

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.)

Unidentified Mummies
Gallery I

Bakt?
18'th Dynasty?
Provenance: DB 320
Discovery Date: 1860? (official discovery 1881)
Current Location: Cairo Museum CG 61076

Biographical data: Unknown.

Details: Originally misidentified by Maspero as "Meshenuttimehu" (MR, 554), this mummy was tentatively identified via inscriptional evidence on its coffin as that of a woman named Bakt, whose biographical details are not known. This identification, however, is based on tenuous evidence and is far from certain. Since no corroborating identification dockets are reported as having been found on her wrappings, the reliance on coffin inscriptions alone for identification purposes inspires little confidence, especially in light of the restorer's frequent mistake of placing mummies in the wrong coffins.
The mummy had been garlanded with flowers and appeared to be superficially intact. However, thieves had cut the wrappings open, and the mummy itself was little more than a skeleton. Upon examination, the bones were found to be those of a young woman of about 21 years of age. Smith comments that she had been exceedingly slender in life. An odd assemblage of objects had also been wrapped up with the bones. These included a yellow varnished coffin fragment and a mirror handle. Smith states that, providing the wrappings in which her body were found were original to her mummification, the mummy was probably of 18'th Dynasty derivation. Ikram and Dodson speculate that she may have been a princess.
The mummy was found in an 18’th Dynasty replacement coffin (CG61015). Reeves comments that the surface had probably been adzed off, indicating that it had once been gilded. He notes that the eye inlays had also been removed. The coffin had been reinscribed for Bakt in black ink. (Source Bibliography: CCR, 17, n. 1; 20, 22; DRN, 201, 207, 212, 254; MiAE, 316; MR, 544, 554; RM, 56f.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: Unknown.
Restorations and : The location of Bakt’s original burial is unknown. Reeves theorizes that she was removed from her own tomb and placed in the k3y of Inhapi at a date that cannot be established with any degree of certainty. Here she remained until transferred into DB 320 with the other cached mummies at a date sometime after Year 11 of Shoshenq I. (Source: DRN, 254.)

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

Source Abbreviation Key

Unknown Man C (Nebseni?)
18'th Dynasty?
Provenance: DB 320
Discovery Date: 1860? (official discovery 1881)
Current Location: Cairo Museum CG 61067

Biographical data: Unknown.

Details: Unknown Man C holds the distinction of being the first mummy found by Brugsch when he entered DB 320. He was discovered in an 18'th Dynasty coffin (CG 61016) which Reeves describes as having had its surface decorations adzed off, indicating that it had once been decorated with gold foil. The coffin (which Smith and Dawson erroneously date to the 20'th Dynasty, cf. EM, 92) had been inscribed for a w^cb-priest named Nebseni, and Maspero used this inscriptional evidence to identify the mummy, further claiming that the man had probably been an in-law of Pinudjem I. G. E. Smith, however, confidently dated the mummy to the 18'th Dynasty based on the mummification techniques employed by the embalmers, and, considering the extended position of the arms, narrowed the time frame for its date of origin down to a period predating Tuthmosis II. Since the coffin in which the mummy was found is of 18'th Dynasty derivation, it would be helpful to know if the particular inscription which attributes its ownership to Nebseni is part of its original decoration or a subsequent addition intended to identify a later re-user. It is interesting that Maspero (who refers to Nebseni's title as "scribe," not "w^cb-priest") would so confidently assert that Nebseni was of 21'st Dynasty date in view of the obvious 18'th Dynasty style of the coffin. This would seem to indicate that the Nebseni inscription had been added later in the 21'st Dynasty so the coffin could be re-employed by a new owner. However, if original to the coffin's decorative scheme, the inscription would then be consistent with the period during which Smith asserts that the coffin's occupant was embalmed. Ikram and Dodson provide a photograph of a section of the coffin (MiAE, p. 209, ill. 268) which, although showing signs of wear, does not appear to have been damaged by an adz. They confidently date the decorations and inscriptions to the 18'th Dynasty. The photograph published by Maspero (click here for photo of coffin from MR1 [Cairo, 1881] and reprinted in KMT [3:4] 48) clearly shows that at least portions of the gilding on the lid had been scraped off. Most accounts of the coffin describe it as having been whitewashed and then painted yellow. From black and white photographs, it is impossible to tell if the yellow paint had been used to cover the adzed sections. If so, this would indicate that at least some of the coffin's decorations had been repaired, probably by 21'st-22'nd Dynasty restorers.
When found, Unknown Man C's mummy had been plundered by the Abd el-Rassul's. Consequently, it was difficult to tell if any damage had also been done to the mummy in ancient times. The mummy was fairly intact from an anatomical point of view, and displayed physical traits that differed significantly from other royal mummies of the early 18'th Dynasty. Described by Smith as being "tall and vigorous," Unknown Man C measured 1m & 739mm in height, prompting Smith to comment that he would have been a giant among the other, usually smaller, Egyptians of his time. His facial features, characterized by Smith as "strong...with pronounced features," do not resemble those of any other royal mummy. In fact, because of the many physical differences observed between Unknown Man C and the other cached mummies, Smith commented that he did not appear indigenous, and more closely resembled the "alien, so-called Armenoid group." (Click here for additional photo of mummy, from MR1, reprinted in KMT [3:4] 48.)
Smith observed that there were "small perforations" in Unknown Man C's ear-lobes, probably indicating that his ears had been intentionally pierced. His teeth were well-worn, and Smith estimated that he had been well advanced in years when he died. No trace of genitalia could be observed, causing Smith to wonder if the man had been a eunuch. However, Smith balances this view against the fact that the genitalia of Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis II, and Tuthmosis III, none of whom were eunuchs, had all been treated by the embalmers in a similar fashion. (Source Bibliography: CCR, 20ff; DRN, 200, 207, 213, 254; EM, 91f., and fig. 11; KMT [3:4] 48; MiAE, 209 [ill. 268], 316; MR, 574ff; RM, 31f.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: Unknown
Reburials: No date can be confidently established for the time at which Unknown Man C was removed from his original tomb. Reeves theorizes that he was cached in the k3y of Inhapi probably because of the location at which he was found in DB 320 (i.e., the first mummy found in the entrance corridor by Brugsch, hence the last mummy to placed in the tomb by the reburial commission, coming right after Inhapi herself, who occupied 2'nd place in the entrance corridor.) He was then moved into DB 320 with the other mummies at some time after Year 11 of Shoshenq I. (Source: DRN, 254.)

Photo Credit: RM (Cairo, 1912,) pl. XXV. For high resolution photo of see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912,) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59, plates XXV, XXVI, XXVII.

Source Abbreviation Key

Unidentified Boy (Webensenu?) (c. 1453?-1419? B.C.)
18'th Dynasty?
Provenance: KV 35
Discovery Date: March 9'th, 1898, by Victor Loret
Current Location: Still in side chamber Jc in KV 35. CG 61071

Biographical data: Unknown, although, if the mummy is that of prince Webensenu, he would have been a son of Amenhotep II and a brother of Tuthmosis IV. But see below for an alternative identification.

Details: Found by Victor Loret in KV 35 (in side chamber Jc—see KV 35 diagram), this mummified boy, estimated by G. E. Smith as being no older than 11 years of age at the time of his death, has long been a candidate for identification as Webensenu, a prince of Amenhotep II. Since Loret had found a shabti (FVR, CG 24272) inscribed with Webensenu’s name (perhaps on the steps of antechamber F which lead down to corridor G and the burial chamber [DRN, 194]), as well as parts of a canopic set belonging to this prince (FVR, CG 24269-71, CG 24273, CG 5031) he concluded that the mummy of the Unidentified Boy was that of prince Webensenu. G. E. Smith, who examined the mummy, also agreed that it was probably the mummy of this prince. However, there is no hard evidence to support this identification, and Webensenu's remains could equally well be represented by one of the two unidentified skulls found in the tomb (DRN, 210 [no.s 7-8]) or by the "Body on the Boat"--an unidentified mummy thrown onto a funerary bark in antechamber F (see Romer [TVK, 161.] Reeves, however, tentatively identifies the "Body on the Boat" as the mummy of Sethnakhte [DRN, 204.])
    Granting that the presence of Webensenu's few funerary objects indicate that KV 35 was his original place of burial, there exists evidence on the Unidentified Boy's mummy that he had originally been buried elsewhere and should not, therefore, be identified as Webensenu. Smith observed a hole in the Unidentified Boy's cranium similar to the holes found in the heads of Merenptah, Seti II, Ramesses IV, V, and VI. He interpreted the cranial wounds to mean that all these mummies had their original wrappings removed by the same group of people, who employed the crude technique of hacking through the bandages at the mummy's heads with an adz (thereby causing the holes in the skulls) so they could "peel" the shrouds from the top downward to reveal the bodies beneath. Reeves argues that the Unidentified Boy was probably handled by the same group of people at approximately the same time as the other royal mummies with skull wounds (DRN, 223 [n. 168.]) This would strongly suggest that he had been removed from some other tomb by restorers, "processed" along with the other mummies that were included in this particular wave of restorations, and then subsequently cached along with them in KV 35. He should not, therefore, be identified as Webensenu, who was in all probability originally interred in his father's sepulcher.
    Smith had estimated the boy’s age at death via an examination of his teeth, which revealed that he had permanent and fully-grown canines. He was small of stature, measuring 1 m. 242 mm. in height. Smith noted that both of the boy’s ears had been pierced and found it interesting that he had not yet been circumcised. Both arms were extended, with the hands placed over the pubic area. Smith reports that the left hand was clenched, but that the thumb of this hand was extended (cf. the mummy of the Elder Woman, subsequently identified as Queen Tiye.) In addition to the hole in the skull noted above, plunderers had made a large gash in the left side of the boy’s neck and thorax. Otherwise, the mummy was fairly well preserved.
    When found in chamber Jc, the boy lay between two other 18’th Dynasty mummies. The photograph of these mummies taken in situ by Loret (click here for photo from TVK, 162) shows that they had been unwrapped in antiquity and partly re-covered in a careless fashion in what appear to be the remnants of their bandages. No record of any Linen Dockets that may have been found on these wrappings exists to my knowledge. Thus it is impossible to tell if the wrappings were original to the mummies or later 21’st Dynasty restorations. Had any dockets been found, especially any which would help to identify the mummies, Loret certainly would have recorded them, so it is safe to assume that none were discovered. None of the well preserved Jc mummies possessed a coffin. Perhaps their coffins had been so badly damaged by thieves that they were abandoned in the original tombs of their owners by the ancient restorers. However, the relatively intact state of the mummies themselves argues against this. Perhaps the coffins were appropriated for reuse by other individuals.
    If not Webensenu, then who else might the KV 35 Unidentified Boy be? Due to his close proximity to the mummy later identified as Queen Tiye, it is tempting to tentatively identify him as Tuthmosis, the son of Amenhotep III and Tiye, who died unexpectedly and thereby made it possible for his younger brother, the revolutionary Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten, to inherit the Double Crown. His position next to Tiye in KV 35 could indicate that he and his mother had been previously buried together in the same as-yet unidentified tomb. It seems likely that all three KV 35 Jc mummies, all of 18'th Dynasty derivation, had been closely associated prior to their caching in the tomb of Amenhotep II. (Source Bibliography: BIE [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 101, 103f; DRN, 194, 198, 204, 205,210, 222-23 [n.129 & 168], 272; EM, 93 and fig. 16; FVR, CG 24269-71, CG 24273, CG 5031; TVK, 161.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: If this mummy is Webensenu, KV 35 is his original burial, for reasons noted above. If the hole in the mummy's skull can be interpreted to mean that it was at some time associated with the mummies of Merenptah, Seti II, and Ramesses IV (and perhaps also Ramesses V and VI), perhaps in the transitional cache established in KV 14, then it cannot be the mummy of Webensenu, and would have been originally buried in a tomb other than KV 35. The location of such a tomb is, of course, unknown. The unknown boy's close placement with two other unwrapped and un-coffined 18'th Dynasty mummies, plus the similar adzing of the wrappings on all three mummies, suggests that they may have been buried with him in this unidentified tomb and had been subsequently "processed" by the same group of restorers prior to their removal to the tomb of Amenhotep II. (Sources: BIE [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 106; DRN, 198.)

Restorations and Reburials: Reeves argues that the Jc mummies had entered KV 35 shortly after the the coffined mummies had been placed in side chamber Jb, an event which cannot be dated precisely, but which Reeves states occurred around the same time as the restoration of the mummy of Amenhotep III during Year 12 or 13 of Smendes (see Linen Docket translation in the entry for Amenhotep III.) The discovery of one of the unknown boy's toes in side chamber Jd (BIE [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 106) indicates that it had been placed here before being removed to side chamber Jc. At some unspecified time afterward, the tomb was entered (probably by thieves) and plundered. After this event, the burial was once more reorganized by restorers and the mummy of the Unidentified Boy was moved into side chamber Jc, where he remained with the two other 18'th Dynasty mummies until his discovery by Loret. (Sources: DRN, 197ff.; CVK, 199.)

Photo Credit: RM (Cairo, 1912,) pl. XCVIII.
For high resolution photo of this mummy see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912,) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59, plate XCVIII.

Source Abbreviation Key

Unidentified Woman (Younger Woman) (Nefertiti? Sitamun?) (c. 1350?-1334? B.C.)
18'th Dynasty?
Provenance: KV 35
Discovery Date: March 9'th, 1898, by Victor Loret
Current Location: Still in side chamber Jc in KV 35. No. CG61072

Biographical data: Unknown, although her placement with the mummy identified as Queen Tiye and the mummy of the unidentified prince would suggest that she was a person of some importance, perhaps a princess or queen herself.

Details: Loret discovered the mummy of the Younger Woman in side chamber Jc of KV 35 (see diagram), where she lay along with two other 18’th Dynasty mummies (that of the Unknown Boy, discussed above, and the Elder Woman subsequently identified as Queen Tiye.) He initially identified this unwrapped mummy as that of a man. However, G. E. Smith’s examination quickly revealed that it was the body of a female.
    Based on an examination of the iliac bones and his observation that the third molar teeth had not erupted, Smith estimated that the Younger Woman had been less than 25 years of age at the time of her death. Her head had been completely shaved, and her bald appearance had probably confused Loret into mistakenly identifying her gender as male. Smith discovered two small perforations in the Younger Woman’s left ear lobe, indicating that it had been pierced. Her right ear had been broken off.
    The embalming wound was large and gaping, and the abdomen had been filled with balls of linen soaked in resin. Smith also noted that a large mass of resin had been spread over the whole perineum. The mummy had suffered damage at the hands of thieves. A large opening had been broken into the chest, and the lower left side of the face (the cheek, mouth, and parts of the jaw) had been broken away. The left arm was extended with the hand placed over the thigh. The right arm had been snapped off below the shoulder. Smith himself seemed vague about whether this arm still existed or not. He commented that he had examined the mummy of the Younger Woman while it was still in side chamber Jc of KV 35, apparently not under optimal conditions, and refers to the "hasty" notes that he had jotted down at the time. These notes, however, clearly seem to indicate that the right arm was present "along with the three mummies" in side chamber Jc. Apparently, this severed arm was somewhere close to the bodies, perhaps on the floor along with their torn bandages. Smith described the arm as "flexed at the elbow," and he notes that "the hand was clasped." This arm was recently rediscovered in KV 35 by the University of York's Mummy Research Team, who confirmed Smith's description of the royal positioning of the arm, with the hand clenched as though it originally held a royal scepter. (See more about the University of York's investigations below.)
    Like the other two mummies buried with her in Jc, the Younger Woman did not have a coffin, and no identifying Linen Dockets were apparently found among her tattered wrappings which could help identify her. Based on his analysis of the mummification techniques employed to embalm the Younger Woman, Smith dated the mummy to the time of Amenhotep II. Loret believed that all three Jc mummies were close relatives of Amenhotep II, and thought that KV 35 was their original place of burial. However, as with the mummy of the Unidentified Boy discussed above, the Younger Woman's mummy shows some evidence that it may have first been buried elsewhere and moved into KV 35 soon after the other mummies had been placed in side chamber Jb. (See Other Burial Data below.)
    One theory holds that the Younger Woman may possibly be Princess/Queen Sitamun, the daughter of Tiye and Amenhotep III. This theory receives support from the fact that the Younger Woman was placed in side chamber Jc in such close proximity to the mummy identified as Tiye's. Another interesting theory concerning the identity of the Younger Woman has been proposed by Marianne Luban, who argued in 1999 that this mummy may be that of Nefertiti. Bernhard A. Grundl of Nuernberg, Germany, recently called my attention to the investigations of Joann Fletcher, field director of the University of York's Mummy Research Team, who examined the Younger Woman's mummy in situ in side chamber Jc of KV 35, where it still remains today. Fletcher adds little that is new to the argument originally presented by Luban, and focuses on basically the same evidence Luban gave four years earlier, including the mummy's shaved head, the impression of a tight-fitting brow band on the forehead, and the doubly-pierced ear lobe (originally reported by Smith, see above) like that depicted in certain portraits of Nefertiti, her royal daughters, and other royal women. None of these features conclusively confirm that the mummy is that of Nefertiti, but, along with the royal positioning of the rediscovered right arm, they show that this unidentified occupant of KV 35 was definitely a royal female. The Younger Woman's close position to Tiye strongly suggests a relationship to the Amarna royal family, and her profile certainly does reveal a definite resemblance to the famous Amarna Queen. However, if Smith's estimate for the age of the Younger Woman at the time of her death is correct, she would have died too young to be Nefertiti, and a more recent X-ray examination of the mummy (noted by Zahi Hawass in a recent press statement) indicated that the Younger Woman may have been as young as 16 years of age when she died. Experts caution against making an overly hasty identification, and point out that the bald head, head band impression, doubly pierced ear, and royal arm/hand positioning are features shared by many female royal mummies and are not peculiar to Nefertiti alone. (For more on Marianne Luban's theory, see her article, "Do We Have the Mummy of Nefertiti?" For information on Joanne Fletcher and the University of York's Mummy Research Team, see The Discovery Channel's "Queen Nefertiti's Mummy Found?" by Rossella Lorenzi. Click here and here to see the most recent color photos of the three KV 35/Jc mummies. Photos sent to me by Bernhard A. Grundl of Nuernberg, Germany.) (Source Bibliography: BIE [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 104; DRN, 204, 210; EM, 94, fig. 14-15; RM, 40ff.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: Her placement in side chamber Jc along with two other 18'th Dynasty mummies, all of whom show signs of having had their bandages hacked off by the same group of individuals who handled the mummies of Merenptah, Seti II, and Ramesses IV (and perhaps also Ramesses V and VI), suggests that the Younger Woman's original place of burial was not in KV 35, but in some as-yet unidentified sepulcher. This is also supported by the presence of a hole in her cranium which is similar to, although smaller, than the holes found in the skulls of these other mummies (and also in the skull of the Unidentified Boy--see above.)
Restorations and Reburials: Because of her close association with the other mummies in side chamber Jc, the history of the Younger Woman's placement into KV 35 would be similar to theirs (see Restorations and Reburials for the Unidentified Boy above.) (Sources: DRN, 197ff.; CVK, 199.)

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

Source Abbreviation Key

In Preparation

Unknown Woman D (Tawosret?) (c. 1187?-1185? B.C.)
19'th Dynasty?
Provenance: KV 35
Discovery Date: March 9'th, 1898 by Victor Loret
Current Location: Cairo Museum CG61082

Details: (Source Bibliography: BIE [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 111f.; DRN, 204, 210; RM, 81ff; XRA, 4D2-9.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: Unknown (KV 14?)
Official Inspections:
Restorations:
Reburials: (Source: .)

Coffin Dockets:

Photo Credit: Photo Credit: RM (Cairo, 1912,) pl. LXVII. For high resolution photos of this mummy see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's The Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912,) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59, plates LXVII and LXVIII.)

Source Abbreviation Key

In Preparation

The Body on the Boat (Sethnakhte?) (c. 1187?-1185? B.C.)
19'th Dynasty?
Provenance: KV 35
Discovery Date: March 9'th, 1898 by Victor Loret
Current Location:

Details: (Source Bibliography: .)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: Unknown
Official Inspections:
Restorations:
Reburials: (Source: .)

Photo Credit: TVK, 160.

Source Abbreviation Key