Just Ancient Egypt

John B

Ad Honorem
Mar 2016
3,882
Canada
"Discovery Date: March 9'th, 1898 by Victor Loret Current Location: The mummy was badly damaged in 1901, and it's broken remnants are presumably lost."
http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages2/BoatMummyCollage4.jpg
This picyure is attributed to Howard Carter.
http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages2/BoatMummy2Milan.jpg

"Current Location: The mummy was badly damaged in 1901, and it's broken remnants are presumably lost."
http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages2/UnidentifiedandMissing.htm

Natrawi did an examination of many royal remain at the Anatomy school later after the fact. The anthropology collection at the same location may have the remains in a box. There are also piles of finds boxes left in KV35 that have not been gone through since the original cache was removed. Also if H.C was involved the remains probably were boxed.
 

John B

Ad Honorem
Mar 2016
3,882
Canada
The other issue with genetic testing is the 18th Dynasty family tree is a Christmas wreath.
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
3,047
Crows nest
On this matter of the "Body on the boat" , while no proper examination of the mummy was ever made, Loret did make some sketches of the boat with the mummy laying on top of it, and he gave measurements for the length of the boat, about 6ft. If he has drawn the mummy in it's correct length compared to the boat, and going by the few photos, I doubt if the mummy was taller than about 4ft. This is about the same as the KV35 prince. But it's not exactly scientific, and it's difficult to make a judgement going by the photos as to whether this mummy has a full head of hair, or if it's s sidelock messed up all over the place. But if Loret is correct on the length of the boat, and I see no reason why not, then this mummy is not an adult.

I would contend that as this mummy was partially unwrapped and hacked up to an extent, then it was not part of the royal cache mummies, and was an original occupant of the tomb, probably robbed before the cache was made. Some of the kings were also found to have been hacked to pieces in their own tombs of course, but had been put back together again and re-wrapped, and had not been further disturbed after deposition in KV35. This further makes me think that this body was not part of the cache.
 
Last edited:

John B

Ad Honorem
Mar 2016
3,882
Canada
On this matter of the "Body on the boat" , while no proper examination of the mummy was ever made, Loret did make some sketches of the boat with the mummy laying on top of it, and he gave measurements for the length of the boat, about 6ft. If he has drawn the mummy in it's correct length compared to the boat, and going by the few photos, I doubt if the mummy was taller than about 4ft. This is about the same as the KV35 prince. But it's not exactly scientific, and it's difficult to make a judgement going by the photos as to whether this mummy has a full head of hair, or if it's s sidelock messed up all over the place. But if Loret is correct on the length of the boat, and I see no reason why not, then this mummy is not an adult.

I would contend that as this mummy was partially unwrapped and hacked up to an extent, then it was not part of the royal cache mummies, and was an original occupant of the tomb, probably robbed before the cache was made. Some of the kings were also found to have been hacked to pieces in their own tombs of course, but had been put back together again and re-wrapped, and had not been further disturbed after deposition in KV35. This further makes me think that this body was not part of the cache.
The boat being a high status burial good makes me think it may have been relocated from another site. For all we know it could be a set of remains from the tomb of Ramses II sons. We are out of luck in the long run. I would not like to fall into the Egyptological penchant for setting assumptions into doctrine. The best way to describe the issue is to list the probabilities or possibilities. Options 1 2 3 etc. Then let the factions pontificate.

I would first look in the local storage points then the anthropology collection in Cairo. As Carter was involved it is in a box some place. In fact they are trying to sort that mess out at the moment. But as usual it is a matter of funding.
 

John B

Ad Honorem
Mar 2016
3,882
Canada
Ay least they are giving options. However I myself think he was DNA tested with the whole batch. The results no being released as of yet. Or it failed. However the high quality of this mummy makes one think they would have retrieved a viable sample. Looking at the line of the family all the involved principles have been DNA profiled maybe this is being saved for a future press release. Yet again I say let the hard sciences gather the facts then play with the context. I will look to see what inventory graffiti if any the priest left in depositing the cache. That should be fun to find.

"However, the idea that this is the mummy of an Amarna prince, perhaps the enigmatic Smenkhkare himself, finds support from no less than Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, in a roundabout way. He examined the mummy and agreed with Loret that it was probably the mummy of Webensenu. What’s key though is the fact that Smith also made what is now viewed as a sensational claim about this mummy in his 1912 book “The Royal Mummies”: “(It) is a small boy (1 m. 242 mill.) whose general appearance is suggestive of an age of about nine or ten years: but as permanent canine teeth are present and fully grown he cannot be less than eleven years of age.”
Puzzle of the Unidentified KV35 Mummy: Boy Kings and the Specter of Smenkhkare—Part II

"Found in 1898 in a side chamber of Amenhotep II’s royal tomb (KV 35) in the Valley of the Kings with two other despoiled mummies, and a cache of nine reburied kings in the main burial chamber (Thutmosis IV, Amenhotep III, Merenptah, Sety II, Siptah, Sethnakht, and Ramses IV, V, and VI). Two female mummies, referred to as ‘the elder lady,’ which has been identified as the mummy of Queen Tiye, great royal wife of Amenhotep III, through DNA analysis and 'the younger lady' now know to be a daughter of Amenhotep II and Tiye. The third mummy found in the chamber, a young prince with a side-lock, might be Akhenaten’s older brother Thutmosis, or the more popular candidate, Prince Webensenu, a son of Pharaoh Amenhotep II. Circumstantial evidence in support of Webensenu includes canopic fragments and shabtis in his name.

Sir Grafton Elliot Smith examined the mummy and in his 1912 book The Royal Mummies said; “[It] is a small boy (1 m. 242 mill.) whose general appearance is suggestive of an age of about nine or ten years: but as permanent canine teeth are present and fully grown he cannot be less than eleven years of age.” "
Webensenu