Presented by 
Wm. Max Miller, 
M. A.
Click on Anubis to learn about our logo and banners.

About Our Project

Project Updates
See what's new at the T. R. M. P.

Quickly Access Specific Mummies With Our  
Mummy Locator 

XIX'th Dynasty Gallery I
Learn more about the 19'th Dynasty.

                              
 Ramesses I  (?) (c. 1293-1278 B.C.)
 19'th Dynasty
 Provenance: DB 320 (?)
 Discovery Date: 1860? 
 Previous Location: Emory University's Michael C. Carlos Museum  #1999.1.4;    NFM M7 
 Current Location: The Mummification Museum, Luxor, Egypt.

Click here for biographical details on Ramesses I

 Details: Purchased in Luxor in 1860 by James Douglas, who subsequently sold it a year later to Colonel Sidney Barnett, son of the Niagara Falls Museum founder, this well-preserved mummy's identity remained a matter of pure speculation for 138 years. Displayed at the Niagara Falls Museum in Canada since 1861, the royal appearance of the mummy and its unlikely labeling by the NFM as one of the wives of Akhenaten (Nefertiti, no less!) finally captured the interest of Meinhard Hoffman, a technician from Germany, who persuaded a German television station to conduct a scientific examination in 1985. Dr. Arne Eggebrecht, from Hidlesheim, came to Canada and examined the mummy, soon discovering that the body was that of a male. Radiologist Dr.Wolfgang Pahl and his assistant Lisa Bark from Tubingen also examined the mummy, and noted many features which caused certain experts to speculate that the mummy could be one of the missing New Kingdom royal mummies. The mummy's arms were crossed over the chest in a distinctively royal position, and its hands were clenched as though having once held the royal crook and flail. Its facial features bore a definite resemblance to early 19'th Dynasty royal mummies, and cranial/facial measurements of the mummy taken with X-rays, when compared with those of Seti I and Ramesses II, revealed an unmistakable family resemblance. Adding to the mounting evidence, the coffin associated with the mummy, also part of the Niagara Falls Museum collection, could be stylistically dated to the late 18'th-early 19'th Dynasties (Photo below right shows coffin and mummy as they were originally displayed at the Niagara Falls Museum.) Some researchers began to seriously wonder if this could be the mummy of Ramesses I, the founder of the 19'th Dynasty, whose mummy was mysteriously missing from the DB320 cache tomb in spite of evidence strongly indicating that it had once been interred there. 
    After being acquired by Emory University's Michael C. Carlos Museum in 1999, a CT examination of the mummy revealed that it had been mummified in a fashion consistent with embalming practices used during the time of Ramesses I, and preliminary carbon dating indicated that the mummy derives from this era. After considering all the evidence, Egyptian authorities asserted that this is indeed the mummy of Ramesses I, and requested that the mummy be returned to Egypt. This return occurred on October 26, 2003, when the mummy arrived for inspection at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. On March 9, 2004, the mummy was moved to its current location at the Mummification Museum in Luxor, where it is displayed and labeled as "Ramesses I." However, not all experts concur with this identification. Mummy specialists Bob Brier, Salima Ikram, and Aidan Dodson are fairly confident about the mummy's royalty and 18'th-19'th Dynasty derivation, but remain uncertain regarding its precise dating and identification as Ramesses I. There are other alternative identifications that seem equally plausible, and the mummy could conceivably be that of Horemheb (the last ruler of the 18'th Dynasty) or the missing Ramesses VII (late 19'th Dynasty.) 
    The mummy is that of a man 1.60 m. tall who died between 35 and 45 years of age. The body had been very well preserved using embalming techniques typical of the late 18'th-early 19'th Dynasties. An incision had been made in the left abdomen through which the internal organs had been removed and replaced with linen packing. The brain had been extracted by perforating the ethmoid process, and the skull had been filled with liquid resin. One of the ears of  the man had been deformed, and researchers speculated that this could have been the result of a poorly-done ear-piercing procedure. They also found some evidence to indicate that the man may have died from complications resulting from a severe ear infection.
(Source Bibliography: Emory Reports, 01/08/01; Emory University's  Emory Magazine, Winter, 2004.;  Returning Ramesses, by Peter Lacovara. For further information, the PBS-sponsored Nova TV program website provides an online transcript of their documentary The Mummy Who Would Be King that features comments by several Egyptologists. )

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: KV 16, providing the identification as Ramesses I is correct.

Reburials and Post Interment Activity: A fragmented coffin found in DB320 inscribed with a Type B Coffin Docket (see photo of Coffin Docket and translation below) informs us that the mummy of Ramesses I had been removed from the KV 17 cache and placed in the k3y of Inhapi in Year 10, 4 prt 17 of Siamun. (See photos of coffin from CCR, pl. XXIV and XXV. The coffin appears intact in these photos, but Reeves explains that the basin had been damaged. He also notes that the coffin is a replacement of 21'st Dynasty manufacture. [DRN, p. 214, no. 30.] This indicates that the original coffin of Ramesses I had either been destroyed by thieves or appropriated by the Necropolis officials.) The date of the removal of Ramesses I from his own tomb (KV16) and of his  temporary placement in KV 17 are not known, but Reeves thinks he was probably placed in KV 17 around the same time as the mummy of Ramesses II, in Year 15 of Smendes, 3 3ht 6.  Reeves dates the transfer of Ramesses I from Inhapi's tomb into DB320 to the same time that the mummies of Seti I and Ramesses II were moved there, an action which occurred sometime after Year 11 of Shoshenq. If the mummy from Niagara Falls is Ramesses I, he was apparently removed from DB320 by the Abd el-Rassul family and sold to James Douglas in 1860. This is a full 11 years earlier than the 1871 date usually given for the Abd el-Rassul's discovery of DB320. In 1861, James Douglas sold the mummy to Colonel Sidney Barnett. That year, Barnett displayed the mummy in his father's Niagara Falls Daredevil Museum, along with other Egyptian mummies, where it remained in obscurity until Emory University purchased it in 1999 and amassed sufficient evidence to convince the Egyptian government that it is the mummy of Ramesses I. (Source Bibliography: DRN, 246f .; Emory University's  Egyptian Museum Website, Mummy 7, Coffin 5.)

 Coffin Docket: (i) Found on coffin fragment in DB320: Year 10, 4 prt 17 of Siamun/Pinudjem II: "(Yr 10 4 prt 17 of) king (nsw) Siamun. (Day of bringing king Men)pehtyre out of the (tomb of king Menmaatre-) Setymer(en)ptah (that he might be) taken into this high place (k3y) of Inhapi which is a (great pla)ce (st ^c3t) (and in which Amen)ophis rests, by the prophet of Amon (-Re king) of the gods Ankhefenamun son of Baky, and the god's father of Amon (-Re king) of the gods, third prophet of Khonsemwast-Neferhotep, the scribe of off(erings of the house of Amon-Re) king of the gods, sm-priest of the temple of (Usermaatre-Setepenre) in the house of Amun, general of Tasetmerydjhuty, scribe and chief agent Nespakashuty son of Bak(en)khons. Afterwards Mut, the one having the authority over the great place (st wrt) said: (That which was in good condition in my care...)" (Source Bibliography: CCR, 27, pl. 23 [transcr., photo.]; DRN, 237; MR, 551[transcr.]; RNT, 252 [28a]; TIP, 423 [77.])
                              
Photo Credit: Coffn fragment: from the collection of Ángel González y Arema, Theban Royal Mummy Project associate researcher. MummyPhotos: Emory University's Egyptian Museum website. For further photos of this mummy, click here.

Source Abbreviation Key

Seti I (c. 1291-1278 B.C.)
19'th Dynasty
Provenance: DB 320
Discovery Date: 1881
Current Location: National Museum of Egyptian Civilization in Fustat CG6107; JE26213
Click here for biographical data

Details: The mummy of Seti I had been extensively plundered by ancient tomb robbers, and considerable damage was done to the king's body. His head had been detached and the anterior wall of his abdomen was completely broken in. In spite of these injuries, the head of Seti I is extremely well preserved, and (to some) even pleasant to look at. The restorers had covered Seti's remains with a yellow shroud. Beneath this, his original bandages had been reordered as much as possible given their tattered condition. G. E. Smith reports that Seti's body cavity and chest were packed with resin soaked linen, and says that traces of the king's heart remain within the chest. X-rays of the mummy also reveal a wd3t amulet in place on the left shoulder, and other small items in the bandaging.
    Seti I was found in one of his original coffins (CG61019) but it remains undetermined whether this was his outer or second-innermost coffin. At some point, the original outer surface of this coffin, including its inscriptions and symbolic elements, had been entirely removed. This indicates that it had originally been entirely gilded, and that this gilt surface was probably removed by thieves rather than by the restorers who, in other cases where they had stripped coffins of their gold foil coverings, left inscriptions and religious motifs intact. The foot section of the coffin had also been broken off, another indication that it had been pillaged by robbers rather than roughly processed by necropolis officials. The restorers remodeled the face of Seti's coffin and painted the the whole coffin white, with details and inscriptions in black. (See photo of coffin from TVK, p. 149. Also, see below for color photo of coffin.) There were several Type B dockets on the coffin (see Coffin Docket translations below) and Type A and B dockets were also found on the mummy wrappings (see Linen Docket translations below.)  (Source Bibliography: CCR, 30f.; DRN, 202, 208, 214; EM, 98-99; MiAE, 41, 73, 116, 122, 226, 261, 263, 315, 318, 325, ills. I, 38, 69, 93, 126, 286, 427; MR, 553ff.; RM, 57ff.; XRA, 2A5-2B1; XRP, 43, 152f.)

Other Burial Data
Original Burial: In KV 17
Restorations: As the series of linen and coffin dockets associated with his mummy attest, Seti I did not rest easy in his beautiful tomb in the Valley of the Kings. The burial required several restorations prior to the removal of the king's mummy to the k3y of Inhapi, and, finally, to DB 320. The first of these occurred during Year 6 of the period of  whm mswt ("renaissance" or, literally, "repetition of births.") A second restoration of the burial in KV 17 took place in Year 10 of Smendes I, and Reeves dates a third restoration to Year 15 of Smendes I, when the mummy of Ramesses II was cached with his father's in KV 17. A fourth restoration occurred on Year 7  2 prt 16 of Psusennes I. 
Reburials: Seti I was finally removed from KV 17 on Year 10  4 prt 17 of Siamun, and cached in the k3y of Inhapi three days later. Here he lay until at least Year 11 of Shoshenq I, when he was moved with the other mummies cached in Inhapi's tomb to DB 320 at the time of Djedptahiufankh's burial. (Source Bibliography: DRN, 92, 94, 247.)

Coffin Dockets:
(i.) Year 6  2 3ht 7 of whm mswt/Herihor: "Yr 6  2 3ht 7. The day the vizier...high priest of Amon-Re king of the gods Herihor commanded to renew the burial (whm (kr)s) of king (nsw) Menmaatre l. p. h., son of Re Setmer(en)ptah, by the agent Herenamenpenaef and the youth Prepayit" (Source Bibliography: CCR, 30, pl. 18; DRN, 234; HA, 11; MR, 553; RNT, 249 [2a]; TIP, 417 [which Reeves notes mistakenly gives the date as prt.])

(ii.) Year 10  4 prt 17 of Siamun/Pinudjem II: "Yr 10  4 prt 17 of king (nsw) Siamun. Day of bringing king (nsw) Menmaatre-Setmer(en)ptah l. p. h. out of his tomb that he might be taken into the high place (k3y) of Inhapi which is a great place (st c3t), by the prophet of Amon-Re king of the gods Ankhefenamun son of Baky, and the god's father of Amon-Re king of the gods, third prophet of Khonsemwast-Neferhotep (scribe) of offerings of the house of Amon-Re king of the gods, sm-priest of the temple of Usermaatre-setepenre in the house of Amun, general of Tasetmerydjhuty, scribe and chief agent Nespakashuty son of Bakenkhons. Afterwards Mut, the one having the authority over the great place (st wrt), said: That which was in good condition in my care, there has been no injury to it in the bringing out from the tomb in which they (sic.) were in order to take them into this high place (k3y) of Inhapi which is a great place (st c3t) and in which Amenophis rests." (Source Bibliography: CCR, 33, pl. 22; DRN, 238; MR, 557f.; RNT, 252 [28c]; TIP, 423 [77.])

(iii.) Year 10  4 prt 20 of Siamun/Pinudjem II: "Yr 10  4 prt 20. Day of taking the god into his place in order to rest in the mansion of eternity (hwt nhh) (in which) Amenophis...is...by the god's father Amun, overseer of the treasury Djedkhonsiufankh; the god's father of Amun...; the god's father of Amun, third prophet of Khons..." (Source Bibliography: CCR, 31, pl. 19; DRN, 238; MR, 554; RNT, 252 [29c]; TIP, 423 [78.])

Linen Dockets: 
(i.) Year 10 of Smendes/Pinudjem I: "Linen which he high priest of Amon-Re king of the gods Pinudjem son of Piankh made for his father Khons in yr 10" (Source Bibliography: DRN, 235; GPI, doc. 7; MR, 555; RNT, 250 [5b]; TIP, 418 [14.])

(ii.) Year 6 of Psusennes I/'King' Pinudjem I/Menkheperre: "Linen which the high priest of Amon-Re Menkheperre made for his father Amun (in) Yr. 6" (Source Bibliography: DRN, 236; MR, 555; RNT, 251 [17]; TIP, 420 [37.])

(iii.) Year 7 2 prt 16 of Psusennes I/'King' Pinudjem I/Menkheperre: "Yr 7 2 prt 16. Day of burying (krs) King (nsw) Menmaatre l. p. h." (Source Bibliography: DRN, 236; MR, 554; RNT, 251 [18]; TIP, 420 [38.])
                              
Photo Credits: Color photo of mummy: Kenneth Garrett; black & white photo: RM, pl. XXXVIII; sepia-tone photo of Seti I by Emile Brugsch; color photo of Seti I's coffin by merjaattia. 
For high resolution photos of Seti I see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's The Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912,) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59, plates XXXVIII, XL, XLI, and Frontpiece.

Source Abbreviation Key 

Ramesses II (c. 1279-1212 B.C.)
19'th Dynasty
Provenance: DB 320
Discovery Date: 1881
Current Location: National Museum of Egyptian Civilization in Fustat CG61078; JE26214
Go here for biographical data

Details: Unlike the mummies of Amenhotep I and Isiemkheb-D, which were never unwrapped, Ramesses II was stripped of his wrappings at a public relations gala staged by Gaston Maspero on June 1'st, 1886, with the Khedive Tewfik and other now-forgotten luminaries looking on. Sadly, this dramatic procedure destroyed a beautiful example of ancient Egyptian funerary art. Judging by the carefully arranged appearance of his shrouded mummy, Ramesses II had still commanded great respect in the 21'st Dynasty. The necropolis officials who restored his mummy during one of its many peregrinations from one temporary cache tomb to another had taken great pains to do their best work when they "renewed" his remains. In his brief account of the unwrapping (BIE, [1889,] 253ff.) Maspero fails to give any details about the shroud or its ornate floral decorations, nor were any photographs taken of the mummy prior to the removal of its outermost coverings. The only record we have concerning its original appearance and condition comes from Georg Schweinfurth, a professional botanist, who published a drawing of the shroud and its garlands in his Der Blumenschmuck Ägyptischer Mumien, Die Gartenlaube, 38 ([Leipzig, 1884], 629.) (See drawing below right.)
      Schweinfurth, trained in a field which demanded excellent draftsmanship skills, provides an almost photographic rendering of the mummy of Ramesses II still covered by an intact shroud held neatly in place by a series of horizontal and vertical bandages. Other bandages are arranged in a stola pattern across the chest and upper abdomen. Flowers on long stems had been carefully inserted between the three lower horizontal bandages. Marija Tomashevska, in her study of floral garlands from the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, identifies these flowers as blue water lily blossoms (SFG, 14 and n. 89 [citing Lise Manniche ].) A series of floral garlands covers the shroud from the neck area down to the lower abdomen. Tomashevska reports that these garlands “were made of Persea leaves (Mimusops laurifolia) and petals of blue water lily (Nymphaea caerulea), threaded on a string of date palm.” (SFG, ibid, and n. 88 [citing Christiane Jacquat].)
     Beneath the shroud and bandages lay the body of a very old man, perhaps a nonagenarian at the time of his death. Maspero observed that Ramesses II's genitals were missing and surmised that they may have been intentionally removed by the embalmers and kept separately for ritualistic purposes. G. E. Smith, when he later examined the mummy, also noted the absence of the king's genitals. However, since the sex organs had not been removed from the mummies of earlier or subsequent kings (with the exception of Merenptah--see below) Smith believed that they had been broken off by thieves in their haste to strip the mummy of its original bandages. In support of this, Smith points out that the edges around the area from which the sex organs had been removed appeared broken rather than carefully excised. When the necropolis officials rewrapped Ramesses II, they neglected to include the detached genitalia with the king’s remains.
     In 1977, Ramesses II’s mummy was flown to Paris for much needed conservation work. While in France, the mummy was x-rayed and CT-scanned and the results showed that Ramesses II had suffered from severe arthritis of the hips, arteriosclerosis of the lower legs, and extremely bad dentition. In The Royal Mummies of 1912, G. E. Smith had described the Pharaoh’s teeth as being in unusually good condition. His examination of the mummy, however, had been limited and he missed the severe dental abscess revealed by the x-rays. This abscess had infected a large area of Ramesses II’s lower right teeth and jaw. Paleobiologist Bob Brier comments that the infection could have been serious enough to have killed the elderly Pharaoh. (EMbb, 201ff. & Fig, 74.)
    Another discovery made by the team of experts who examined Ramesses II in Paris involved the color of his hair, which had naturally whitened with the advance of old age. The embalmers had colored the great ruler’s hair in an attempt to create an illusion of youthfulness, and, after the passage of many centuries, the dye which they employed made the hair on his mummy appear to be a kind of strawberry-blonde color. When the roots of his hair were microscopically examined, the investigators determined that, in his youth, Ramesses II had red hair—an unusual hair color for an ancient Egyptian. Hair color is a genetically inherited trait, and Bob Brier points out that red-headed people were associated with the god Set by the ancient Egyptians. He goes on to suggest that hair coloration could explain the association of the Ramessides with this deity and notes that two prominent members of their family line had been named Seti, a name meaning “of Set” or “a follower of Set.” (EMbb, 200ff. & Fig, 74.)
      In late 2006, the hair of Ramesses II became newsworthy again because of its appearance for sale online by Jean-Michel Diebolt of Grenoble, France. French authorities quickly investigated and confirmed that Diebolt’s claims for the authenticity of the hair samples were factual. Diebolt’s father, who had access to the mummy of Ramesses II while it was in Paris between 1977 and 1979, managed to purloin a lock of the renowned Pharaoh’s hair. He had also stolen some of the fragmented portions of the ancient monarch’s wrappings. These illicit activities remained completely unknown to the authorities for thirty years until Diebolt tried to sell the hair and bandage samples on the internet. The stolen samples from the mummy of Ramesses II were confiscated and returned to Egypt, accompanied by great media fanfare, in 2007.
    The mummy of Ramesses II was found in a recycled 18’th Dynasty coffin, probably in the side chamber off the second passage of DB 320. This replacement coffin, skillfully fashioned and made of costly cedar wood from Lebanon, is of much higher quality than those used for most of the other reburials in the cache tomb and had obviously been designed to hold a royal mummy. Reeves thinks it may have originally belonged to Horemheb. (See Nicholas Reeves, The Coffin of Ramesses II.) The original decorative surface had been completely removed (perhaps indicating that it had originally been entirely gilded) and the whole coffin had been carefully restored, with wooden inlays used to replace missing metalwork. In addition to the careful re-wrapping of his mummy by the necropolis officials, their selection and careful refurbishing of such a high-quality coffin for the reburial of Ramesses II shows the great veneration with which this illustrious 19'th Dynasty ruler was still viewed in the late 20’th and early 21’st Dynasties. (See photo of coffin CG 61020 below right.) Both the coffin and the wrappings of Ramesses II bore inscriptions which help to date the times of his various restorations and reburials. (See Coffin and Linen Docket translations below.)

     The Mummy's Hand!--No account of the mummy of Ramesses II would be complete without mentioning a peculiar tale that has circulated for over a century concerning the raised position of his left hand and forearm. Photographs of the mummy clearly show that Ramesses II’s left hand does not rest upon his chest, as it supposedly did when the mummy was first unwrapped, but hovers approximately a foot above the torso. (See photo at left.) The following strange tale provides a very curious account of how the hand became elevated.
     Pierre Loti, the famed French travel writer, probably deserves credit as the primary source for the story. In his colorful travelogue La mort de Philae (1909), Loti relates how he and Gaston Maspero viewed the royal mummies during an eerie nocturnal excursion to the Cairo Museum. While describing the mummy of Ramesses II, he shares the following amazing anecdote: “Suddenly one day with a brusque gesture, in the presence of the attendants, who fled howling with fear, he raised that hand which is still in the air, and which he has not since deigned to lower.” (La mort de Philae, p. 25.) Loti goes on to state that the startling spontaneous movement of Ramesses II’s hand can be “explained by the action of the sun, which, falling on the unclothed arm, is supposed to have expanded the bone of the elbow.”
     Loti does not supply a source for this remarkable tale. Joyce Tyldesley, in Ramesses: Egypt’s Greatest Pharaoh (2000, p. 206), suggests that he had been “listening to the stories of the museum guards,” thereby implying that the account was like all the other fantastic legends fabricated by tour guides throughout Egypt for the entertainment of gullible tourists. Loti also does not state exactly when and under what circumstances the alleged postmortem movement of Ramesses II occurred. John Romer, however, fills in these gaps. In Valley of the Kings (1981, p. 151) he writes that the mummy spontaneously raised its hand while being examined by one of G. E. Smith's assistants. Romer attributes the unexpected movement to a retraction of "long compressed fibers in the royal arm." G. E. Smith, however, fails to mention this remarkable incident in either The Royal Mummies (1912) or Egyptian Mummies (1924) and it is unknown where Romer acquired his information. A photograph of Ramesses II's mummy taken by Emile Brugsch soon after its unwrapping in 1886 shows the hand already risen, indicating that the king's postmortem performance (if it occurred at all) would have taken place long before Smith or his assistants had examined the mummy.
     Whether this colorful tale is simply an Egyptological legend or an accurate report of a genuine phenomenon remains uncertain, but the story of the moving hand of Ramsses II’s mummy has become part of the folklore surrounding the illustrious ruler’s mortal remains, and is even recounted by Lionel Balout and C. Roubet in their scholarly compendium La Momie de Ramses II: contribution scientifique a’ l’egyptologie (Paris, 1985, p. 23.)
(Source Bibliography: BIE, [1889] 253ff.; CCR, 32ff.; DRN, 186, 202, 208; EMbb, 201ff. & Fig, 74; MiAE, 42, 45, 91, 95, 96, 121, 128, 216, 235, 252, 261, 263, 266, 288, 315, 318, 325-326, ills. 39, 122-23, 288; RG, 107, 109, 199; RM, 14, 59ff.; SFG, 14, n.88, n.89; XRA, 2B3-11; XRP, 155.)

Other Burial Data: 
Original Burial: In KV 7
Official Inspections and Restorations: (i.) The burial of Ramesses II was inspected (and perhaps restored?) in Year 6 3 prt? 15 of whm mswt. (ii.) Ramesses II was moved to KV 17, the tomb of his father, Seti I, in Year 15 3 3ht 6 of Smendes I. Reeves raises the possibility that Ramesses II may have been temporarily placed in KV 4, the tomb of Ramesses XI (perhaps for rewrapping) where a fragment of faience bearing his name was found. (This name, however, was also shared by Tuthmosis I, and so the fragment may indicate that it was this king, not Ramesses II, who was "restored" in KV 4.) (iii.) Ramesses II was removed from KV 17 in Year 10 4 prt 17 of Siamun and reburied three days later in the "high place" (k3y) of Inhapi on 4 prt 20. (iv.) Ramesses II was finally laid to rest in DB 320 sometime after Year 11 of Shoshenq I, probably on the occasion of Djedptahiufankh's funeral. (Source Bibliography: DRN, 244, 247.) 

Linen Dockets:  
(i.) Year 15 3 3ht 6 of Smendes/Pinudjem I: "Yr 15 3 3ht 6. Day of bringing the Osiris king (nsw) Usermaatre-Setepenre l. p. h. (to) renew him (and) to bury him (whm.f  r  k3s.f) (in) the tomb (p3 hr) of the Osiris king (nsw) Menmaatre-Sety l. p. h. by the high priest of Amun Pinudjem" (Source Bibliography: DRN, 235; GPI, doc. 11; JARCE 2 [1963] 102; MR, 560; RNT, 250 [8], n. 22; TIP, 419 [26] [Reeves points out that Kitchen erroneously gives the date as prt.])

Coffin Dockets: 
(i.) Year 6 3 prt? 15 of whm mswt (Herihor): "Yr 6 3 prt? 15. Day the chief of...high priest of Amon-Re king of the gods commanded..." (Source Bibliography: CCR, 32 [pl. 22]; DRN, 234 [#9]; HA, 11; MR, 557; RNT, 249 [2b]; TIP, 417 [3].) 

(ii.) Year 10 4 prt 17 of Siamun/Pinudjem II: "Yr 10 4 prt 17. Day of bringing king (nsw) Usermaatre-setepenre the great god out of this tomb of king (nsw) Menmaatre-Setymer(en)ptah that he might be taken into this high place (k3y) of Inhapi which is a great place (st c3t), by the prophet of Amon-Re king of the gods Ankhefenamun son of Baky, and the god’s father of Amon-Re king of the gods, third prophet of Khonsemwast-Neferhotep, scribe of offerings of the house of Amon-Re king of the gods, sm-priest of the temple of king (nsw) Usermaatre-Setepenre in the house of Amun, general of Tasetmerydjehuty, scribe of the chief agent Nespakashuty son of Bakenkhons. Afterwards Mut, the one having authority over the great place (st wrt) said: That which was in good condition in my care, there has been no injury to it in the bringing out from the tomb in which they (sic.) were in order to take them into this high place (k3y) of Inhapi which is a great place (st c3t) and in which Amenophis rests" (Source Bibliography: CCR, 33 [pl. 22]; DRN, 238; MR, 557f.; RNT, 252 [28c]; TIP, 423 [77].)

(iii.) Year 10 4 prt 20 of Siamun/Pinudjem II: "Yr 10 4 prt 20. Day of taking the god into his place in order to rest in the mansion of eternity (hwt nhh) in which Amenophis-pahatyenamun is, in l. p. h., by the god’s father of Amun, overseer of the treasury Djedkhonsiufankh; the god’s father of Amun, his third prophet Iufenamun son of Nespakashuty; the god’s father of Amun Wennufer son of Mentemwast; the god’s father of Amun…" (Source Bibliography: CCR, 33f. [pl. 23]; DRN, 238; MR, 559; RNT, 252 [29c]; TIP, 423 [78].)
                            
Photo Credit: Top photo: NG/Kenneth Garrett; Black& white drawing: Georg Schweinfurt; Bottom right photo: flickr/Khaled Salama; Photo of coffin: RG, 199.
For high resolution photos Ramesses II of see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's The Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912,) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59, plates XLII (showing mummy in coffin), XLIII (showing top of cranium,)  XLIV.

Source Abbreviation Key 

Merenptah (c. 1212-1202B.C.)
19'th Dynasty
Provenance: KV35
Discovery Date: March 9'th, 1898 by Victor Loret
Current Location: National Museum of Egyptian Civilization in Fustat CG61079; JE34562
 Go here for biographical data

Details: The mummy of Merenptah was discovered in side-chamber Jb of KV 35 (at position 4--see diagram), and was not removed and sent to Cairo until 1900. At some point, Victor Loret, the discoverer of KV 35, expressed some uncertainty regarding the mummy's identity. Maspero gives the following interesting information: "M Loret crut e reconnaitre la momie du Pharaon heretique de la XVIII dynastie, Khouniatonou." However, Groff's analysis of the faded inscription found on the mummy's wrappings (see Reeves' Type "A" Linen Docket translation below) resolved any doubts concerning its identity: "M Groff affirma le premier que c'etait Menephtah, et la lecture du cartouche, trace en ecriture hieratique sur la poitrine de la momie, demontra la justesse de son opinion." G. E. Smith, who unwrapped the mummy on July 8'th, 1907, stated that, even in the absence of inscriptional evidence,  the embalming technique employed on the mummy firmly dated it to the same period as Seti I, Ramesses II and Siptah.
    Merenptah, the 13'th son of Ramesses II, was a corpulent old man in poor health at the time of his death. X-rays taken by Harris and Weeks show that Merenptah suffered from extremely poor dentition, degenerative arthritis of the cervical vertebrae, arteriosclerosis in the soft tissues of the thigh, fractures in the femurs, and a large hole in the right side of the cranium. Smith stated that this hole was probably made by thieves, who carelessly chopped through the bandages in their search for valuables. But he also stated that the cranial opening may have been "deliberately made--perhaps for some occult reason." He may have stated this out of deference to Maspero, who had theorized that the hole had been made by the embalmers in order to allow evil spirits to escape from the skull. Four of the other mummies from KV 35 (Seti II [see below], Ramesses IV, Ramesses V, and Ramesses VI) also exhibit similar cranial openings, but such skull injuries are not attested to in most other royal mummies, and Smith's theory that they were inflicted by the same robber (or group of robbers) who simply used the same technique of hacking away at the bandages seems highly credible (except, perhaps, in the case of Ramesses V, whose cranial wound appears to have occurred prior to his death and perhaps even caused the king's demise.) Maspero's theory of ritualized post-mortem trepanation is unlikely. 
    The rest of Merenptah's mummy had been badly damaged by thieves, who had broken his right clavicle, tore off his right arm, chopped through the anterior abdominal wall, and generally hacked at the mummy with an adze which left numerous cuts on the body. The fact that the tip of Merenptah's penis and his scrotum are missing has attracted much comment. (Reeves only notes that the tip of the penis is missing, whereas other researchers just mention the missing scrotum.) Smith probably inadvertently sparked an unusual amount of interest in this injury by stating that he could not determine whether Merenptah had been castrated immediately before or after his death. He was certain, however, that this wound had been inflicted prior to the completion of the embalming process because it had been coated with balsam. There are several theories to explain Merenptah's "castration." One theory holds that he suffered from a severe hernia that had necessitated the surgical removal of the scrotum and testes. (This theory implies a very high level of sophistication for ancient Egyptian medicine.) Salima Ikram and Aidan Dodson provide the most likely scenario when they theorize that Merenptah's scrotum and testicles had become overly desiccated during the embalming process, and had simply dropped off. The missing tip of the penis appears to be the result of damage inflicted on the mummy when robbers tore through the wrappings.
    Merenptah's mummy was found in the coffin box of a cartonnage coffin that had originally belonged to Setnakhte (CG61039. See photo of coffin at Ian Bolton's Egypt: Land of Eternity website.) The gilded surfaces of this coffin had been adzed over. Its lid had been inverted, laid on the floor, and used to contain the mummy of an unidentified woman, labeled "Unknown Woman D" (Tausret? Setnakhte's wife Tiye-Mereniset?) (Source Bibliography: BIE, [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 111 [4]; CCR, 219f.; EM, 99-100; EMs, 42, 43; FVR, no. CG24737; DRN, 204, 210, 215; MiAE, 326; XRA, 2B12-2C8; XRP, 157.)  

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: In KV 8
Restorations and Reburials: Because Merenptah was found in the coffin box of Setnakhte, Reeves thinks he may have earlier been reburied in the KV 14 cache along with Seti II (see below) and Siptah (see below) perhaps as early as Years 6 or 7 of of the period of  whm mswt ( "renaissance" or, literally, "repetition of births.") Merenptah was transferred to KV 35 sometimes after Year 13 of Smendes I. (Source Bibliography: DRN, 247.)

Type A Linen Docket: "King Baenre." (Source Bibliography: DRN, 232; RdT 23 [1901] 32 {'facs.'].)
                              
Photo Credits: upper and center photos: Kenneth Garrett/National Geographic; bottom photo: Getty Images. For high resolution photos of Merenptah see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's The Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912,) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59, plates XLV (showing mummy in coffin and close-up of  groin,)  XLVI, XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX (showing hole in back of head.)

Source Abbreviation Key 

Seti II (c. 1199-1193 B.C.)
19'th Dynasty
Provenance: KV35
Discovery Date: March 9'th, 1898 by Victor Loret
Current Location: National Museum of Egyptian Civilization in Fustat JE34561; CG61081

Biographical data: Seti II  was the son of Merenptah and Isisnofret II. Although he was the rightful heir to the throne, Seti II seems to have had his royal prerogatives usurped (or at least partly usurped) by an ephemeral personage named Amenmesse. One theory holds that Seti II was absent at the time of his father's death (perhaps involved with a military campaign?) and Amenmesse took advantage of the temporary power vacuum to have himself installed on the throne. Another theory (proposed by Aidan Dodson and Rolf Krauss) suggests that Seti II and Amenmesse ruled jointly, albeit as bitter rivals, with Seti II ruling in Lower Egypt and Amenmesse ruling in Upper Egypt. After a brief reign of five years, Amenmesse died and Seti II became sole ruler. He initiated a program of damnatio memorae against Amenmesse and his monuments. Seti II had three wives: Takhat II , Twosret (who was the mother of crown prince Seti-Merenptah), and Tiaa (who is frequently identified as the mother of Ramesses-Siptah. However, see the entry for Siptah below, where this identification is contradicted by inscriptional evidence.) Apparently, Seti-Merenptah predeceased his father, and Siptah eventually became king.

Details: The mummy of Seti II was unwrapped by G. E. Smith on September 5'th, 1905. It had been badly damaged in antiquity. The body had adze marks from the tool used to strip away the original bandages, and part of the anterior body wall had been broken away. Smith believed that this latter injury had occurred prior to the wrapping of the body. The head was detached from the body and the neck was broken. Both of the king's arms had been torn off, and the right forearm and hand were completely missing. The left hand had also sustained damage, and several of the fingers were missing. Smith noted that Seti II's skull was pierced by a hole very similar to those observed on the skulls of Merenptah (see above), Ramesses IV, Ramesses V, and and Ramesses VI.
    Smith found several objects still in place on the mummy. Blue faience wd3t amulets were attached to the legs with string that had been wound spirally from the ankle to the knee, and blue faience scarabs were attached at each end of this string. Smith also reports finding three small sphinx amulets in front of the right knee, also threaded on string.
    The mummy's original wrappings had been covered with a shroud, on the breast of which appeared a Type "A" docket giving the name of Seti II (see Type "A" Linen Docket translation below.) Smith comments on the fact that clothing had been employed to wrap the mummy, and reports that two intact shirts made of fine muslin were found among the wrappings along with pieces from several other garments. The cartouche of Merenptah and two other hieratic inscriptions were found on one of the shirts, but these inscriptions have not been published. Smith also comments on the brightly colored red and blue fringing on some of the wrappings.  
    The mummy was found in an uninscribed, undecorated coffin box (CG61036-7.) The original decorations had been adzed off, and the whole had been covered with a layer of plaster. There was no lid for this coffin, but a lid, originally inscribed for Seti II, was discovered on the coffin in which the mummy of Amenhotep III was found. This lid, however, was not originally the lid of the coffin which contained Seti II when discovered in KV 35. (Source Bibliography: BIE [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 111 [2-3]; CCR, 217f.; DRN, 205, 211, 215; MiAE, 326; RM, 73ff.; XRA, 2D9-2E5; XRP, 158f.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: In KV 14? Although KV 15 appears to have been undergoing preparation for the burial of Seti II at the time of his death, Hartwig Altenmuller has theorized that Queen Tawosret had the mummy of Seti II originally interred in her tomb, KV 14. He further proposed that, when Ramesses III took over KV 14 for the burial of his father Sethnakhte, he removed Seti II and had him reburied in KV 15, the tomb that had originally been partly prepared for him. (SAK 10, [1983], 53ff.) Altenmuller's theory accounts for the stylistic differences in KV 15's decorative scheme. According to him, the relief carving in the tomb's first corridor was left unfinished when Seti II was buried in KV 14. When the mummy of Seti II was reburied in KV 15, a different gang of workers was employed who quickly finished some of the remaining wall decorations in paint (SAK 10, [1983], 38ff.) 
    Reeves points out the interesting possibility that, if Altenmuller's theory is correct, the references in the Salt Papyrus to "the burial of all the kings" ("sm3-t3 n n3 nsywt drw" in Cerny's translation) might indicate that the robberies described in the papyrus occurred at the time of Seti II's reburial in KV 15. A tomb worker named Paneb, one of the better documented dwellers of Deir el-Medina, was found to be responsible for these robberies and conceivably could have caused some of the damage to the mummy of Seti II (DRN, 103, n. 16. See Morris Bierbrier, TBP, 107-111 for more on Paneb.)

Official Inspections, Restorations , and Reburials: Based on a graffiti inscription found above KV 15 (DRN, 103, n. 17--see Graffiti translation below) Reeves postulates a visit (perhaps involving an official inspection) of the tomb in Year 6 of the period of  whm mswt ( "renaissance" or, literally, "repetition of births") after which the mummy of Seti II was removed and reburied (for the second time?) in KV 14. Reeves notes that Seti II was probably furnished at that time with his replacement coffin, and also with the lid that did not match the coffin box. He also observes that this coffin was clearly produced by the same workshop that supplied the coffins of Siptah and Ramesses IV. Reeves' account of these events leaves unanswered the question of why the restorers would mate an unmatching lid with a replacement coffin. It may be the case that this lid  was original to Seti II's burial. Thieves may have destroyed the coffin box to which it belonged, and the restorers may have initially wanted to keep this lid associated with Seti II as the only remaining part of his original coffin. 
    At some point after Year 13 of Smendes, Seti II was removed from KV 14 and cached in KV 35 in side chamber Jb (at position 3--see diagram.) At this time, the decision was made to appropriate and reinscribe his coffin lid for use with the coffin in which Amenhotep III was found. The system of priorities used by the restorers for determining which king got a coffin lid and which did not remains unknown. Perhaps the memory of Amenhotep the Magnificent commanded greater respect for the restorers than did the more recent memory of Seti II. (Source Bibliography: DRN,  103-104, 112, n. 16, 247-248; SAK 10 [1983], 38ff., 53ff.) 

 Type "A" Linen Docket: ('Le nom de Seti II') (Source Bibliography: BIE, 111 [3]; DRN, 232; RM, 75.)

Graffiti #2056a: Found above KV 15 and tentatively dated to Year 6 2 3ht 7 of Herihor’s whm mswt: "Yr 6 2 3ht 7. On this day approaching by the king's butler Sethherwenemf...(king) Seti..." (Source Bibliography: DRN, 234; Gr, #2056a [facs., transcr.].) 
                            
Photo Credit: RM (Cairo, 1912,) pl. LXIV, LXV, LXVI. 
For high resolution photos of Seti II see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's The Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912,) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59, plates LXIV (showing mummy in coffin,) LXV, LXVI.

Source Abbreviation Key 

Siptah (c. 1193-1185 B.C.)
19'th Dynasty
Provenance: KV35
Discovery Date: March 9'th, 1898, by Victor Loret
Current Location: National Museum of Egyptian Civilization in Fustat JE34563; CG61080

Biographical data: The origins of Siptah are somewhat obscure. He was long believed to be the son of Seti II and Queen Tiaa. However, in 2006, Gae Callender called attention to a relief in the Louvre Museum (E 26901) that names Siptah's mother as "Shoteraja," a name that she believes hints at a Canaanite origin which would indicate that Siptah's mother had been a concubine and not a Great Royal Wife (Kmt, [17:1] Spring, 2006. p. 52.) Harris and Wente argue that Siptah was the son of Amenmesse, a political enemy of Seti II who ruled as Pharaoh (at least in Upper Egypt) for approximately 5 years before Seti II became the sole ruler of the Two Lands. (XRA, p. 147.) Siptah became a candidate for the throne upon the death of Crown Prince Seti-Merenptah (son of Seti II and Twosret ). While still a young boy, he was proclaimed as the ruling monarch (probably through the political maneuvering of the mysterious Chancellor Bay, who was referred to as "the kingmaker.") Bay and Siptah's stepmother Twosret remained the real powers behind the throne during the first 5 years of his brief 6 year reign. By Siptah's fifth year, Twosret (and perhaps Siptah himself) had grown weary of Chancellor Bay's ambitious schemes and pretensions to power and had him executed (Pierre Grandet, BIFAO 100 [2000]: pp. 339–345.)   

Details: The mummy of Siptah was found in side-chamber Jb of KV 35 (at position 5--see diagram.) G. E. Smith commenced unwrapping the mummy on August 29'th, 1905, and spent three days completing the task. Beneath the shroud in which the restorers had covered Siptah, Smith discovered that the mummy had been rewrapped in its original bandages. It had been badly damaged by tomb robbers. The right cheek and front teeth had been broken off and were missing; the ears had been broken off; the right arm was fractured at the shoulder; the right hand had been detached; and the right forearm was shattered. An attempt had been made to repair this broken forearm with wooden splints tied together with a piece of linen. The body wall had been broken through, probably in a search for a heart scarab and other valuables. 
    The mummy displayed some interesting innovations. Siptah's cheeks had been filled out with linen packing and his body cavity had been filled with dried lichen instead of the usual resin soaked bandages. The embalming wound had been sewn shut with a strip of linen (cf. the mummy of Tuya in 18'th Dynasty Gallery III on navigation bar at left.) Smith also describes finding an unusual crescent shaped band of black paint across Siptah's forehead, the significance of which is unknown at present. 
    Smith reports that a hieratic inscription was found on the shroud, but states that it was very indistinct (see Type "A" Linen Docket translation below.) A series of painted red lines were discovered on one of the original bandages of the mummy. Another bandage was inscribed with red lines and black hieroglyphs (see the link to plate LXIII below.) Smith provides no translation of these inscriptions, but Reeves surmises that they might be passages from the Book of the Dead. 
    No objects were found among Siptah's wrappings, but Smith notes the impression of a pectoral ornament left in the thick dried resin which coated the mummy's chest. Smith also discovered some gold foil impressed into the resin covering Siptah's right elbow which he believed had been left by a gilded staff originally held in the mummy's left hand. 
    Siptah was found in a replacement coffin (CG61038) which Reeves states may have originally belonged to a woman (see photo of coffin at Ian Bolton's Egypt: Land of Eternity website.) All the original inscriptions had been adzed off, and the coffin was reinscribed for Siptah. On stylistic grounds, Reeves contends that this coffin came from the same workshop that supplied the replacement coffins of Seti II and Ramesses IV, thus indicating that these three mummies had been restored at the same time.
    Siptah's mummy is especially interesting medically because of its clubbed left foot. Most writers diagnose the condition from which Siptah suffered as polio, but Ikram and Dodson state that the young king probably had cerebral palsy. Smith's comments about the peculiar position of Siptah's arms may have some relevance to this subject. He observed that the upper arms were laid parallel to the body and the lower arms were crossed transversely "in front of the thorax and epigastrium." Photographic plates in Smith's Royal Mummies (see below) show that Siptah's arms are crossed in a rather awkward position, which may have been necessitated if cerebral palsy had also afflicted the muscles of his arms. However, this unusual arm position may also have been the result of post-mortem damage which was only cursorily repaired by the ancient restorers.  (Source Bibliography: BIE, 111 [5]; CCR, 218f.; DRN, 205, 211, 215, 248; EM, 100; EMbm, 42-44; MMM, 90, 91; MiAE, 84, 121, 264, 288, 315, 318, 326, ills. 98-99, 101, 388; RM, 70ff., pl. 60; XRA, 2C9-2D8; XRP, 159f.)

Other Burial Data:
Original Burial: In KV 47
Post Interment Disturbances: Much of the history of KV 47 and Siptah's mummy is not clear. It appears that the king's cartouches had been removed from KV 47 and then restored in paint at a later date (DRN, 107.)  Reeves states that this probably occurred not long after Siptah's burial. He mentions Spalinger's theory (published in BiOr 39/3-4 [1982], 283) that Tawosret, Siptah's stepmother, was responsible for the erasures of the king's cartouches, and that Chancellor Bay subsequently had them restored. Spalinger attributes these alleged activities to the 19'th Dynasty because, according to his view, 20'th Dynasty rulers questioned Siptah's legitimacy, and would presumably have taken little interest in repairing the inscriptions in his tomb. (Given that the cartouches were probably erased after Siptah's burial, the role of Chancellor Bay in their restoration, as posited by Spalinger, can now be ruled out. Pierre Grandet's reading of Ostraca IFAO 1864 shows that Bay had been executed one year before Siptah's death.)  
    To balance Spalinger's interpretation of events in KV 47, Reeves presents Hartwig Altenmuller's view (in SAK 10 [1983], 48ff.) that (a.) Tawosret usurped Siptah's sarcophagus for use in her own burial in KV 14; and (b.) that Ramesses III replaced it in KV 47 when he had KV 14 cleared out and prepared for the burial of his father Sethnakhte. At this time, contends Altenmuller, Ramesses III also restored the erased cartouches of Siptah in KV 47. It must be pointed out that Altenmuller published this theory four years before his clearance of KV 13 for the University of Hamburg, during which he discovered a large granite sarcophagus which had originally been prepared for Tawosret and subsequently altered for Amenherkhepshef D, a son of Ramesses III (SAK 21 1994], 1-18.) The existence of such an impressive piece of funerary equipment belonging to Tawosret seems to weaken Altenmuller's earlier theory that this queen had appropriated the sarcophagus of her stepson. (Source Bibliography: BiOr 39/3-4 [1982], 283; CVK, 154; DRN, 105-107, 248; SAK 10 [1983], 48ff.; SAK 21 1994], 1-18.)
     
Reburials: Based on the evidence of Ostracon O. CG25575, which Jaroslav Cerny states was found one foot below the entrance to KV 47 (O, 27), Reeves dates the transfer of Siptah to another cache tomb (probably KV 14, where he was reburied along with Seti II and Ramesses IV) to Year 7 2 3ht 1 of whm mswt (Herihor's "renaissance.") (See Ostracon translation below. The The Dier el-Medina Database indicates that this ostracon was found in the door one foot below the surface.) Reeves supports his dating of Siptah's reburial by comparing the date on the ostracon to several other significant dates found on Wall and Coffin Dockets inscribed by the restorers in the Valley of the Kings. In chamber Kb of KV 14, a graffiti gives the partial date: "Year 7, 2..." In the same tomb (in chamber Ka) another graffiti gives the date: "Year 6, 2 3ht 18." Reeves further points out that dockets on the coffins of Seti I and Ramesses II, as well as a graffiti in Horemheb's tomb (KV 57) all date to Year 6 of whm mswt (with the KV 57 graffiti reading: "Year 6, 2? 3ht 12.") These various dates testify to restoration activities in the Valley at the times indicated, and it seems plausible to assimilate the KV 47 ostracon with this series of dates linked to the period of whm mswt. Combined with the stylistic similarities between Siptah's replacement coffin and the replacement coffins of Seti II and Ramesses IV, Reeves placement of Siptah in a transitional KV 14 cache along with these kings seems very likely. (The dates given by Reeves for the KV 15 graffiti on pages 103 and 109 of DRN are inconsistent, but this does not substantially effect the validity of his argument.)  Siptah was finally removed from KV 14 and cached in KV 35 sometime after Year 13 of Smendes.  (Source Bibliography: DRN, 107, 109, 248; O, 27.)

Ostracon O. CG25575 (Provenance: KV 47): "Year 7 2 3ht 1. Going up to complete the work in this place by the gang: (list of 35 workmen.)" (Source Bibliography: DRN, 107; O, 27. See also The Dier el-Medina Database, O. Cairo CG 25575.) 

Type "A" Linen Docket: "('Le nom du meme roi')" (Source Bibliography: BIE, [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 111 [5]; RM, 70, pl. 61; DRN, 232.)
                              
Photo Credit: RM (Cairo, 1912), pl. LX, LXII.
 For high resolution photos of Siptah see the University of Chicago's Electronic Open Stacks copy of Smith's The Royal Mummies (Cairo, 1912,) Call #: DT57.C2 vol59, plates LX, LXI (showing linen docket,) LXII (showing crippled left foot,) LXIII (showing another linen docket.)

Source Abbreviation Key