The Zagreb Mummy case file · rev. 2 · 2026-11-14
Taf.I
Taf.II
Taf.III
Taf.IV
Taf.V
Taf.VI
Taf.VII
Taf.VIII
Taf.IX
Taf.X

45 pieces of the linen book on 10 plates, all at one scale — J. Krall, 1892. His collotypes are a third smaller than the linen; these are smaller still.

An Etruscan book cut into bandages, an Egyptian woman, and a papyrus that may not be hers.

Every claim carries a tag for how well its sources support it.

Published sources only. Nothing here was checked against archives first-hand. A tag records how strongly the cited sources support a claim; it is never a verdict of our own dressed up as fact.

  • 89 claims
  • 29 sources
  • 15 radiocarbon dates
  • 7 gaps
  • 21 leads
held by — Archaeological Museum in Zagreb

The markshow firmly the sources hold

The recordby when it happened

I1400 BC – AD 10025 claims
  1. Established — 360 BC – AD 5:
    The inscribed linen dates to 360 BC – AD 5

    A single AMS sample from the book itself (OxA-1680, 2110 ± 60 BP). The authors stress that only this date, never the dates on plain bandages, can date the book.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1989, Housley et al.Housley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullradiocarbon — OxA-1680
    Housley et al. 1989
  2. Supported inference — c. 360–210 BC:
    Written in Etruria, most likely in the 3rd century BC

    Housley and colleagues combine the book's own date with the date of mummification: the book cannot be older than its radiocarbon range, and must exist before the body was wrapped. The argument holds only if the book wrapped this body from the start.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1989, Housley et al.Housley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in full
    Housley et al. 1989
  3. Established — at writing:
    A ritual calendar of more than 1,200 words, the longest Etruscan text known

    The only surviving example of an Etruscan linen book.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1892, KrallHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Housley et al. 1989 +1
  4. Established — at writing:
    Written in black and red: ivory black and cinnabar

    Chemical analysis before dating found red and black paint containing mercury sulphide and charred ivory, so samples were cut from unpainted areas.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1986, Srdoč & HorvatinčićHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullSrdoč & Horvatinčić 1986 — scholarly, known through a citation
    Housley et al. 1989 +1
  5. Claimed — at writing:
    Made near Lake Trasimeno, in south-eastern Tuscany

    Argued from the local gods the calendar names.

    Known here only through Wikipedia's summary of van der Meer.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 2007, van der Meervan der Meer 2007 — scholarly, known through a citationWikipedia — popular, through a summary
    van der Meer 2007 +1
  6. Rejected — 1st c. BC or 1st c. AD:
    Written in the 1st century BC or the 1st century AD

    Two of the three dates proposed from the letter forms. Most researchers had also put the cutting into bandages in this window.

    Rejected. The book wraps a body mummified about 385–210 BC, so it cannot be later than about 210 BC. This rests on Housley's two stated assumptions about the body sample. Housley et al. 1989

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1980, RoncalliRoncalli 1980 — scholarly, known through a citationHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in full
    Roncalli 1980 +1
  7. Rejected — c. 390 BC → 3rd c. BC:
    The linen was about a century old when the book was written

    Inferred in this case's own notes on 2026-11-11, by reading 2290 BP as the date of the book's cloth and setting it against the 2110 BP date of the inked sample.

    Rejected. 2290 BP is a date on plain bandages, not on the book (Table 1). The book has one date of its own, and it fits a 3rd-century inscription. Housley et al. 1989

    concerns — Book · Bandagesfirst recorded — 2026, case notesCase notes — working, read in full
    Case notes
  8. Rejected — c. 390 BC ± 45:
    Book and body both date to about 390 BC ± 45

    The 1986 Zagreb conclusion, drawn from one date on plain bandages (2290 ± 45 BP). Still repeated by Uranić in 2006 and by the IMPACT database.

    Rejected. The bandages are of at least two ages and carry no writing. In the authors' words, it is important not to use the high-precision dates on the wrappings to date the book. Housley et al. 1989

    concerns — Book · Bodyfirst recorded — 1986, Srdoč & HorvatinčićSrdoč & Horvatinčić 1986 — scholarly, known through a citationUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullIMPACT database — secondary, read in full
    Srdoč & Horvatinčić 1986 +2
  9. Unknown — between writing and wrapping:
    How the book reached Egypt

    No evidence at all. Proposals include an Etruscan family living in Egypt, worn linen sold on as rags, or a traveller's possession.

    concerns — Bookgap — G3, The crossing
  10. Established — at mummification:
    Cut into bandage strips to wrap a body in Egypt

    Embalmers in this period often reused old cloth; this reuse is why the book survives at all.

    concerns — Book · Bodyfirst recorded — 1892, KrallHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Housley et al. 1989 +1
  11. Claimed — at mummification:
    That body was this woman

    Every source assumes it, but nobody recorded the unwrapping: when Barić died in 1859 she was already unwrapped and the bandages displayed apart. Her wrappings are of mixed ages, so some cloth was added later. The book's date is compatible with hers, which does not prove it.

    concerns — Book · Bodyfirst recorded — 1862, museum traditionUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullgap — G4, What belongs together
    Uranić 2006 +1
  12. Established — c. 405–205 BC:
    Plain bandages, first group: about 405–205 BC

    Three radiometric dates on uninscribed bandages, close to the body's age. The two high-precision dates disagree slightly, so even this group is not one cloth.

    concerns — Bandagesfirst recorded — 1986, Srdoč & HorvatinčićHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullSrdoč & Horvatinčić 1986 — scholarly, known through a citationradiocarbon — Z-1653 · GrN-13875 · GrN-14442
    Housley et al. 1989 +1
  13. Established — c. 1015–800 BC:
    Plain bandages, second group: about 1015–800 BC

    Two AMS dates on one piece of uninscribed linen, some six centuries older than the body.

    concerns — Bandagesfirst recorded — 1989, Housley et al.Housley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullradiocarbon — OxA-1387 · OxA-1388
    Housley et al. 1989
  14. Established — at death:
    A woman aged 30–40, 164 cm tall, mummified the Egyptian way

    Established by X-ray in 1986. Teeth and nails are intact. The 1998 restorer judged the embalming typical of late dynastic Egypt.

    concerns — Bodyfirst recorded — 1986, PlavšićPlavšić 1986 — scholarly, known through a citationUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Plavšić 1986 · Uranić 2006
  15. Established — 395–40 BC:
    Her tissue dates to 395–40 BC

    OxA-1386, 2160 ± 80 BP. The authors write that the body had been soaked in kerosene in the 19th century, and cleaned the sample first. This is probably the petroleum bath the museum gave her around 1900.

    concerns — Bodyfirst recorded — 1989, Housley et al.Housley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullradiocarbon — OxA-1386
    Housley et al. 1989
  16. Supported inference — c. 385–210 BC:
    Mummified about 385–210 BC, at the end of the Late Period or early in Ptolemaic rule

    The pooled mean of the tissue and the plant part of the unguent is 2218 ± 12 BP. This assumes the kerosene was fully removed and the plants were fresh when used.

    concerns — Bodyfirst recorded — 1989, Housley et al.Housley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in full
    Housley et al. 1989
  17. Established — at mummification:
    Her embalming unguent contains fossil carbon

    The unguent's plant part dates with the body, but a small soluble fraction gives 1430–1020 BC and a melted fraction 3610–2920 BC. The authors suggest bitumen or fossil resin, possibly from Sinai.

    concerns — Bodyfirst recorded — 1989, Housley et al.Housley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullradiocarbon — GrN-13860 · Z-1682 · OxA-1390 · OxA-1391 · Z-1675
    Housley et al. 1989
  18. Unknown — at death:
    Who she was

    Two explanations circulate. Neither has direct evidence.

    1. Hypothesis 1. An Egyptian woman. The book was old linen reused by the embalmers, which was customary in this period. Housley et al. 1989 · Wikipedia
    2. Hypothesis 2. A woman of Etruscan descent living in Egypt, buried the Egyptian way with an Etruscan sacred book. Offered by the museum's curator as one possible explanation. Uranić 2006
    concerns — Bodyfirst recorded — 1892, since KrallHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullWikipedia — popular, through a summary
    Housley et al. 1989 +2
  19. Established — c. 1400–520 BC:
    The wreath's leaves are centuries older than the body

    Zagreb first blamed counting statistics; Groningen and Oxford confirmed the older age independently.

    concerns — Wreathfirst recorded — 1986, Srdoč & HorvatinčićHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullradiocarbon — Z-1654 · GrN-14467 · OxA-1389
    Housley et al. 1989
  20. Established — at burial:
    A wreath of sewn leaves holding the skull of a young cat, with flowers and a necklace

    Some leaves look stained, probably with an organic dye; X-ray fluorescence found no lead, mercury or iron paint.

    concerns — Wreathfirst recorded — 1986, TvrtkovićTvrtković 1986 — scholarly, known through a citationUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in full
    Tvrtković 1986 +2
  21. Claimed — at burial:
    Bird bones and a mummified crocodile among the wreath

    Reported by IMPACT from an unpublished overview. Not mentioned by Uranić.

    concerns — WreathIMPACT database — secondary, read in full
    IMPACT database
  22. Established — end of Late Period / early Ptolemaic:
    Papyrus Zagreb 602 names Perekh-Khons, servant of Khnum, and his wife Nesi-Khons

    A Book of the Dead in hieratic. The vignette shows a man and a woman praising Osiris and Imenty. His titles include god's servant in the temple of Karnak; she is mistress of the house. The text dates to the end of the Late Period or the start of Ptolemaic rule.

    concerns — Papyrusfirst recorded — 2006, UranićUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Uranić 2006
  23. Contested — end of Late Period / early Ptolemaic:
    Her husband was a 'divine tailor' of Thebes

    The popular version names them Nesi-hensu and Paher-hensu, which are spellings of the same names. Only the title differs: the curator's published reading of the vignette has him as servant of Khnum, with no tailor.

    1. Version 1. Nesi-hensu, wife of Paher-hensu, a Theban 'divine tailor'. IMPACT database · Wikipedia
    2. Version 2. Nesi-Khons, mistress of the house, wife of Perekh-Khons, servant of Khnum and god's servant in Karnak. Uranić 2006
    concerns — PapyrusIMPACT database — secondary, read in fullWikipedia — popular, through a summaryUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    IMPACT database +2
  24. Contested — at burial:
    The mummy is Nesi-Khons

    First asserted by her owner's brother in 1862, to prove she was genuine. The curator calls the link only an assumption, 'because it cannot be proved', and nothing else in the remains points to her.

    1. Version 1. The papyrus's date generally fits the radiocarbon date of the mummy. Uranić 2006
    2. Version 2. The papyrus is at least a century younger than the mummy, on linguistic grounds. Liber i mumija 2019
    concerns — Papyrus · Bodyfirst recorded — 1862, Ilija BarićIlija Barić's papers — primary, read in fullUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullLiber i mumija 2019 — scholarly, through a summarygap — G4, What belongs together
    Ilija Barić's papers +2
  25. Supported inference — at burial:
    Buried in Upper Egypt, probably near Thebes

    Follows from the husband's Karnak title, and holds only if the papyrus belongs to this mummy.

    concerns — Papyrus · Bodyfirst recorded — 2006, UranićUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Uranić 2006
IIno record2 claims
  1. Unknown — undated:
    The tomb

    No findspot, excavation, tomb or village is recorded for any of the objects.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusgap — G2, The tomb
  2. Unknown — between burial and sale:
    How materials of different ages came together

    That they did is measured (bandages and leaves centuries older than the body). Who combined them, and when, is not known. Two mechanisms are proposed, with no evidence that picks one.

    1. Hypothesis 1. Ancient: embalmers of this period are known to have reused old materials. Housley et al. 1989
    2. Hypothesis 2. Modern: 19th-century repair, or tomb robbers rewrapping a damaged mummy with cloth from other tombs, before the sale. Housley et al. 1989
    concerns — Bandages · Wreath · Bodyfirst recorded — 1989, Housley et al., citing H. WhitehouseHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in fullgap — G4, What belongs together
    Housley et al. 1989
III1791 – 186230 claims
  1. Established — c. 1791–1850:
    Michael Barić: born in Semeljci, Slavonia, about 1791; studied theology, never ordained

    Around 1850 he parcelled out land he owned in Vienna's 3rd district, where Barichgasse still bears his name. He kept an art collection.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1892, KrallMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullKrall 1892 — primary, read in part
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 +1
  2. Established — 1829–1848:
    Barić is a court official: Hofkonzipist of the Royal Hungarian Court Chancellery, pensioned at his own request in 1848

    Appointed in 1829 (Wiener Zeitung). Krall adds a six-year lease of the Pressburger Deutsche Zeitung from 1843.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1829, Wiener ZeitungWiener Zeitung 1829 — primary, read in fullKrall 1892 — primary, read in partWiener Zeitung 1859 — primary, read in full
    Wiener Zeitung 1829 +2
  3. Unknown — 1848–49:
    Sold by an unknown merchant

    The museum's own curator calls the seller 'an unknown merchant'. This is the central missing link.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 2006, UranićUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullgap — G1, The seller
    Uranić 2006
  4. Established — 1848–49:
    Mihael Barić, a Croat living in Vienna, acquires the mummy

    Every source agrees, and his heirs later gave her to the museum. No purchase document is cited anywhere.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1862, museum recordsUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullIMPACT database — secondary, read in fullWikipedia — popular, through a summary
    Uranić 2006 +2
  5. Supported inference — 1848–49:
    He bought her in Egypt, on a journey there in 1848–49

    The journey and its date rest on one witness: Barić's niece, telling Krall in the early 1890s. Uranić states the purchase plainly, then calls it 'almost certain'. The hedge is kept.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1892, Krall, from the nieceUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullKrall 1892 — primary, read in partMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Uranić 2006 +2
  6. Claimed — 1848–49:
    In Alexandria

    Popular accounts name Alexandria. The curator says only Egypt.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · PapyrusWikipedia — popular, through a summaryAncient Origins — popular, through a summary
    Wikipedia +1
  7. Unknown — 1848–49:
    The journey: route, dates, companions

    Known only from the niece's recollection. Routes, dates and companions are unrecorded. His 1849 file, his probate file and the niece herself are the ways in.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · PapyrusKrall 1892 — primary, read in partgap — G6, The journey
    Krall 1892
  8. Claimed — 1848–49:
    She was still fully wrapped when he bought her

    The 1986 editors say so but mark it as their own conjecture.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-MiočevićMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  9. Unknown — 1849:
    Export from Egypt and shipment to Vienna

    Egypt had banned the export of antiquities in 1835, with loose enforcement. No permit, manifest or shipping record is known.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusgap — G5, The export
  10. Established — 1849:
    Back from Egypt, he applies to re-enter service and is refused

    File Z. 23726/1849 of the Ministry of the Interior. Krall placed it in the Hungarian national archives; the 1986 editors in the state archive in Vienna.

    Where the file is today is contested between the two sources and unverified.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1892, KrallKrall 1892 — primary, read in partMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Krall 1892 +1
  11. Established — 1849–1859:
    Kept at Barić's home in Vienna

    She stood in his art collection. His last address, Altenfleischmarkt 728, is today Rotenturmstrasse 20; the building has been replaced.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 2006, UranićUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullWiener Zeitung 1859 — primary, read in full
    Uranić 2006 +2
  12. Established — 1849–1859:
    Displayed naked and fully upright on an iron rod, in a tall glass case hung with curtains

    The bandages and papyri lay in a second, horizontal glass case. The 'corner of his sitting room' of popular accounts is not in the documents.

    concerns — Bodyfirst recorded — 1862, Ilija BarićIlija Barić's papers — primary, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Ilija Barić's papers +1
  13. Established — by 1859:
    Unwrapped, with the bandages displayed separately

    By Barić's death in 1859 she was unwrapped and the bandages shown apart. Krall could not find out when: his informants disagreed, and the niece remembered seeing her bare face before 1859. Nobody recorded what lay where.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Bodyfirst recorded — 2006, UranićUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullKrall 1892 — primary, read in partMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullgap — G4, What belongs together
    Uranić 2006 +2
  14. Claimed — 1849–1859:
    Barić unwrapped her himself and put the bandages in a glass case

    Popular accounts. The curator and IMPACT say only that she was found unwrapped at his death.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · BodyAncient Origins — popular, through a summaryThe Vintage News — popular, through a summaryWikipedia — popular, through a summary
    Ancient Origins +2
  15. Established — 14 Dec 1859:
    Michael v. Barić dies in Vienna, aged 68

    Death list: 'pens. königl. ung. Hofkonzipist, 68 J., Altenfleischmarkt 728, Erschöpfung der Kräfte'.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1859, Wiener ZeitungWiener Zeitung 1859 — primary, read in fullKrall 1892 — primary, read in partUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Wiener Zeitung 1859 +2
  16. Established — 1859:
    His will leaves everything to his niece, Th. Jellinek, and names his brother Ilija executor
    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1892, KrallMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullKrall 1892 — primary, read in part
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 +1
  17. Rejected — 1859:
    Ilija had no interest in the mummy and simply gave it away

    Ilija was in fact a dean, consistorial councillor and parish priest at Golubinci.

    Rejected. He wrote the formal declaration and a detailed letter to the Ban, argued her authenticity, and steered the transfer. The gift followed Michael's will. Ilija Barić's papers · Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · PapyrusAncient Origins — popular, through a summary
    Ancient Origins
  18. Rejected — 1859:
    Brugsch examined mummy and bandages in 1859 and took the writing for hieroglyphs

    Rejected. Brugsch saw the bandages in Zagreb in 1869, saw the script was alphabetic, and could not name it. Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 · Uranić 2006 · Krall 1892

    concerns — BookWikipedia — popular, through a summary
    Wikipedia
  19. Established — 14 Dec 1861:
    Ilija declares the gift, as Michael's will directed

    Written on the second anniversary of the death: the mummy goes to the planned South Slavic Academy, or failing that to the National Museum, in his brother's name. The 1986 editors think the museum choice was probably Ilija's suggestion.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1861, Ilija BarićIlija Barić's papers — primary, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Ilija Barić's papers +1
  20. Established — 5 Aug 1862:
    Received by the National Museum on 5 August 1862, in her two glass cases

    The Vienna display furniture travelled with her, body and bandages already apart. She was housed in the former Drašković palace in Opatička street.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1863, SabljarSabljar's receipt and label — primary, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1987 — scholarly, read in partŠolter 2016 — scholarly, read in part
    Sabljar's receipt and label +2
  21. Established — 19 Mar 1862:
    Ilija describes her to the Ban, and says the 'palm leaves' prove she is genuine

    A young woman with all her teeth, nails and hair, a golden boss on her forehead, and at her side '4–5 fascicles of palm leaves, full of inscriptions and figures'. The palm leaves are the papyri; the papyrus–mummy link starts here, as an heir's argument.

    concerns — Papyrus · Bodyfirst recorded — 1862, Ilija BarićIlija Barić's papers — primary, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Ilija Barić's papers +2
  22. Established — 1862:
    Curator Mijat Sabljar logs the bandages as written with 'Egyptian letters'

    His label in the vitrine credited the donor: 'Mumia iz Misira (Aegypten). Poklonio gosp. Ilia Barić'.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1862, SabljarSabljar's receipt and label — primary, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Sabljar's receipt and label +2
  23. Contested — May 1862:
    The Academy's committee, chaired by Ambroz Vraniczany, accepts the gift 'with great joy'

    The printed edition disagrees with itself about the dates. Only the manuscript (Arhiv Hrvatske 462*1862) can settle them.

    1. Version 1. Meeting 7 March, reply 13 May (the 1986 narrative, p. 43). Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
    2. Version 2. Meeting 7 May, letter closed 18 May (document IV, p. 54). Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1862, committee minutesMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  24. Established — Jul 1862:
    Officials inspect the Vienna apartment, and an expert packer prescribes three crates

    Ivan Mažuranić of the court chancellery reports on 19 July that the inspection 'matches Ilija's description almost completely'. One crate for the mummy alone, one for the empty case, one for bandages and the second case. The vice-regal council approves on 22 July.

    The packer's institution is uncertain in the OCR; it may read as the Ambras collection.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1862, MažuranićMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  25. Established — Jul 1862:
    By rail to Zidani Most, then by carriage with an escort to Zagreb

    The Vienna accounts: crates 45 fl, removal and rail 25 fl 70 kr, telegram 4 fl 20 kr, stated total 75 fl 20 kr. The items sum to 74 fl 90 kr; the 30 kr gap is reported, not repaired. The Zagreb leg cost 10 fl 48 kr, and the file closed on 4 September 1862 with 14 fl 32 kr returned.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1862, chancellery accountsMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  26. Supported inference — 22–25 Jul 1862:
    She physically reached Zagreb between 22 and 25 July 1862

    Proposed by the 1986 editors. The 25 July accounts only reach Zidani Most, so they do not pin the Zagreb end. Arrival first and formal receipt on 5 August is a possible reading, not an established sequence.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-MiočevićMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  27. Established — 19 Mar 1862:
    Ilija's inventory: a golden boss on her forehead and '4–5 fascicles' of papyrus

    He places the boss 'where the brain was probably extracted'. This establishes what he described, not that it was ancient or still with her.

    concerns — Body · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1862, Ilija BarićIlija Barić's papers — primary, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Ilija Barić's papers +1
  28. Rejected — 1862–1891:
    The writing on the bandages is Egyptian

    The working assumption for three decades.

    Rejected. Krall identified the language as Etruscan. Krall 1892 · Uranić 2006

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1862, SabljarSabljar's receipt and label — primary, read in fullWikipedia — popular, through a summary
    Sabljar's receipt and label +1
  29. Established — 1862 – today:
    Held by the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb

    Then the National Museum. Everything is there today, though not necessarily everything that arrived (G7).

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1862, Sabljar's chronicleUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in full
    Uranić 2006 +1
  30. Unknown — 1862 – today:
    What arrived in 1862, and what is there now

    No modern account mentions a gold object, and the known papyri are Zagreb 602 with Book of the Dead fragments, not obviously four or five fascicles. Meanwhile a glass-paste bead necklace and wreath fragments were first shown in 1986 with no 1862 mention. Differences in description do not yet prove loss or substitution.

    concerns — Body · Wreath · PapyrusIlija Barić's papers — primary, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullgap — G7, Inventory drift
    Ilija Barić's papers +1
IV1863 – 189113 claims
  1. Contested — Mar 1863:
    The receipt is written up in March 1863

    Both versions give the same 5 August arrival. They may be two records or an editorial difference; the manuscripts are unchecked.

    1. Version 1. Receipt note dated 10 March 1863. Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1987
    2. Version 2. Gift register AAMZ 23, 'Opis darovah 1855–64', entry dated 2 March 1863. Šolter 2016
    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1863, SabljarMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1987 — scholarly, read in partŠolter 2016 — scholarly, read in part
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1987 +1
  2. Rejected — 1867, 1868 or 1885:
    She came to the museum in 1867, 1868 or 1885

    1867 is Wikipedia's year, 1868 National Geographic's, 1885 the unexplained 'date of acquisition' in the IMPACT header. 1868 is when the museum bought Franz Koller's Egyptian collection in Prague, a likely source of the confusion.

    Rejected. The museum's receipt records her arrival on 5 August 1862, and the transfer file closed in September 1862. Sabljar's receipt and label · Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1987 · Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · PapyrusWikipedia — popular, through a summaryNational Geographic — popular, through a summaryIMPACT database — secondary, read in full
    Wikipedia +2
  3. Established — 1869:
    Heinrich Brugsch finds writing on a folded-back edge, combs through 40 metres of linen, and cannot name the script

    Invited by the new curator Šime Ljubić to arrange the Egyptian collection, he saw the script was alphabetic and copied it, then told Krall only in 1891, by letter.

    One 1892 newspaper (Grazer Tagblatt) gives 1868.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1892, KrallMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullKrall 1892 — primary, read in part
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 +2
  4. Established — 1870 and 1889:
    Ljubić catalogues the mummy and bandages first in the Egyptian collection

    1870 in the museum's Viestnik; 1889 in his printed catalogue, with two pages and a plate.

    concerns — Body · Bookfirst recorded — 1870, LjubićMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  5. Established — 1872:
    A request to lend the book to the Leipzig congress of philologists is refused

    Asked on the strength of Brugsch's report. Museum and government both said no.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1872, Leipzig requestMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1987 — scholarly, read in part
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 +1
  6. Claimed — 1877:
    A talk with Richard Burton about runes convinces Brugsch the script is not Egyptian

    Only Wikipedia tells this story. The 1986 account, after Krall, has Burton seeing the bandages himself in Zagreb in 1877.

    concerns — BookWikipedia — popular, through a summary
    Wikipedia
  7. Established — 1877:
    Richard Burton sees the bandages himself, on a visit to Zagreb
    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1892, KrallMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullKrall 1892 — primary, read in part
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 +1
  8. Established — 1879:
    Burton publishes the text as runic, in 'The Ogham-Runes and el-Mushajjar'

    From a copy made in 1878 by his vice-consul in Trieste, Philip Proby Cautley.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1879, BurtonBurton 1879 — primary, read in partMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Burton 1879 +2
  9. Contested — 1880 or 1882:
    A catalogue entry calls the bandages 'an unknown Egyptian script' and one of the museum's foremost treasures

    By I. v. Bojničić in the Kroatische Revue. It is the entry that later caught Krall's eye, and the ancestor of most later retellings.

    1. Version 1. 1880, first issue. Krall 1892
    2. Version 2. 1882, vol. 3, p. 130. Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
    concerns — Body · Bookfirst recorded — 1880, BojničićBojničić, Kroatische Revue — primary, known through a citationKrall 1892 — primary, read in partNeue Freie Presse 1905 — secondary, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Bojničić, Kroatische Revue +3
  10. Claimed — 1890–92:
    Iso Kršnjavi informs Emperor Franz Joseph I of the discovery

    The 1986 footnote prints the date as '17. I. 1890', before the bandages even reached Krall. The date as printed cannot be right.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-MiočevićKršnjavi, Zapisci — primary, known through a citationMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Kršnjavi, Zapisci +1
  11. Established — 1891:
    Brugsch writes to Jakob Krall about 'an interesting monument in Zagreb'
    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 2006, UranićUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Uranić 2006
  12. Established — 1891–92:
    The bandages reach the Vienna University Library on 31 January 1891, on loan for about a year
    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1892, KrallKrall 1892 — primary, read in partUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Krall 1892 · Uranić 2006
  13. Established — 1891–92:
    Jakob Krall identifies the language as Etruscan

    He first saw the bandages on 3 February 1891 and drafted the finding for Deecke and Pauli that August. His 1892 monograph brought in J. M. Eder's orthochromatic photographs, J. Wiesner's analysis of linen and ink, and V. von Ebner's study of her hair.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1892, KrallKrall 1892 — primary, read in partUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Krall 1892 +2
V1892 – today19 claims
  1. Established — Jan 1892:
    The discovery reaches the newspapers

    The Vienna and Graz reports share their wording, so they count as one witness. Krall also wrote it up himself in the Agramer Zeitung, no. 67/1892, which is not yet found.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1892, Deutsches VolksblattVienna and Graz press, Jan 1892 — secondary, read in fullKrall 1892 — primary, read in part
    Vienna and Graz press, Jan 1892 +1
  2. Contested — 1892 or c. 1900:
    The upright display ends and she is laid horizontal

    Photographs pin her still upright in 1890–91. The two accounts may describe two episodes; they are not merged.

    1. Version 1. 1892, by Šime Ljubić with the physician Antun Lobmayer (photo caption). Šolter 2016
    2. Version 2. Around 1900, after the petroleum bath weakened her joints. Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
    concerns — Bodyfirst recorded — 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-MiočevićŠolter 2016 — scholarly, read in partMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Šolter 2016 +1
  3. Established — 1892 – today:
    No accepted translation

    A century of readings, from Lattes and Pallottino to Olzscha, then the editions of van der Meer (2007) and Belfiore (2010). A 2014 review judged a newer full translation less coherent than the ones before it.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 2014, BMCRUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullBMCR 2014 — scholarly, through a summaryvan der Meer 2007 — scholarly, known through a citationBelfiore 2010 — scholarly, known through a citation
    Uranić 2006 +3
  4. Established — c. 1900:
    Bookworms attack her legs, and the museum kills them with a long petroleum bath

    The worms died, but her joints were weakened. This is very likely the kerosene the 1989 laboratory had to wash out of its tissue sample.

    concerns — Bodyfirst recorded — 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-MiočevićMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullHousley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 +1
  5. Established — 1910:
    Gustav Herbig finds one more inscribed piece among the leftover bandages

    The 'new' or Herbig fragment, from the book's beginning. The museum's director Josip Brunšmid then glues all the strips to coarse gauze, a mounting undone in 1985.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1911, HerbigMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  6. Established — 1913–14:
    In Rostock, Rudolf Kobert cleans the Herbig fragment, and the rest of the plan dies with the war

    Working unpaid, Kobert found the dark stains carry iron salts, 'probably from decomposed blood', eating the fabric. The museum then valued the strips at one million crowns and kept the inscribed ones in its treasury. Herbig thought cleaning could recover about a quarter of the text; the last letter is answered on 6 January 1914.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1913, Herbig, Kobert, BrunšmidMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  7. Established — 1932–35:
    Ivan Plotnikov's infrared photographs make stained passages readable

    90 of the 245 lines were photographed, and published by Runes and Cortsen in 1935.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1935, Runes & CortsenMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  8. Established — Jul 1940:
    Emil Vetter offers free infrared photography in Vienna, and the museum declines for now

    Hoffiller's reply is procedural, not hostile, and notes Pallottino also wants images, but 'now is just not the right time to travel the world with such monuments'.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1940, Vetter and HoffillerMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  9. Established — 1952:
    The 1861–62 transfer documents turn up among Bishop Strossmayer's papers

    Found by V. Košćak and excerpted in the newspaper Vjesnik on 21 June 1962.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1962, KošćakMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  10. Established — 1966–67:
    The whole book is photographed in infrared at the police criminological institute

    Ivan Lukan took 86 photographs under curator Vera Vejvoda; Ramiza Pfleger made a linen facsimile from them. They were first reproduced in full in 1986.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-MiočevićMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  11. Claimed — 1967:
    Put on permanent display, later sealed in a climate-controlled case after visitors' hands damaged her
    concerns — BodyIMPACT database — secondary, read in full
    IMPACT database
  12. Established — Dec 1984:
    Nazzareno Gabrielli finds the body desiccated and 'slowly turning to dust'

    Without treatment her skeleton would be exposed within decades. His restoration followed in 1998.

    concerns — Bodyfirst recorded — 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-MiočevićMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  13. Established — Jan–Apr 1985:
    Restored at the Abegg-Stiftung by Mechtild Flury-Lemberg and remounted as shown today

    Reconstruction supervised by Francesco Roncalli. The Centraal Laboratorium in Amsterdam analysed the inks and the 1910 glue; glue and gauze were removed.

    concerns — Bookfirst recorded — 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-MiočevićUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Uranić 2006 +1
  14. Established — 1985–86:
    Shown in Perugia (Scrivere etrusco, 1985) and Zagreb (Pisati etruščanski, 1986)

    In Zagreb the hospital X-rays, a necklace of coloured glass-paste beads and fragments of the leaf wreath were shown in public for the first time.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-MiočevićMirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in full
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  15. Established — 1986:
    The museum's 1986 volume prints the transfer documents, X-rays, radiocarbon and the cat skull
    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreath · Papyrusfirst recorded — 1986, VAMZ 19Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 — scholarly, read in fullSrdoč & Horvatinčić 1986 — scholarly, known through a citationPlavšić 1986 — scholarly, known through a citationTvrtković 1986 — scholarly, known through a citation
    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986 +3
  16. Established — 1988–89:
    Three laboratories show the mummy is an assemblage of different ages

    Fifteen dates across book, body, bandages, leaves and unguent, spanning more than a thousand years.

    concerns — Book · Bandages · Body · Wreathfirst recorded — 1989, Housley et al.Housley et al. 1989 — scholarly, read in full
    Housley et al. 1989
  17. Established — 1998:
    The body is restored by Nazzareno Gabrielli of the Vatican Museums
    concerns — Bodyfirst recorded — 2006, UranićUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in fullIMPACT database — secondary, read in full
    Uranić 2006 +1
  18. Established — 2006:
    The curator publishes the papyrus and finds no proof it belongs to her
    concerns — Papyrus · Bodyfirst recorded — 2006, UranićUranić 2006 — scholarly, read in full
    Uranić 2006
  19. Claimed — 2019:
    The museum's volume Liber i mumija dates the papyrus a century after the mummy

    Known only through a search summary. Not read.

    concerns — Papyrusfirst recorded — 2019, AMZLiber i mumija 2019 — scholarly, through a summary
    Liber i mumija 2019

Two scalesKrall, 1892

Strip 1 d. of the linen book: rows of Etruscan letters, faint in places, on dark woven linen.
1 d.Taf. III, Columne V — printed a third smaller than the linen
The weave of the linen, magnified three times: the ink survives as dots in the furrows between threads.
2 iTaf. X — the start of piece 2 i, printed at three times its size
Betrachtet man dagegen die Buchstaben mit einem Verkleinerungsglase, so treten sie schärfer hervor, indem die schwarzen Pünktchen, aus denen sie bestehen, mehr aneinanderrücken.

Enlarging the signs does not improve the chances of reading them. Seen through a reducing glass, the letters stand out more sharply, as the black dots they are made of move closer together. This benefits the collotypes, which are a third smaller than the original.

Krall 1892, § 9, p. 21

The datesradiocarbon, as calibrated in 1989

labobjectmaterialBPcalibrated, 2σ
OxA-1680BookLiber linteus (inscribed linen)2110 ± 60360 BC – AD 5
OxA-1386BodyHuman tissue2160 ± 80395–40 BC
Body had been soaked in kerosene in the 19th century; washed before dating.
Z-1653BandagesLinen wrappings2290 ± 40405–210 BC
The 1986 Zagreb date later used, wrongly, to date the book.
GrN-13875BandagesLinen wrappings2210 ± 13365–205 BC
GrN-14442BandagesLinen wrappings2335 ± 15405–395 BC
OxA-1387BandagesLinen wrappings2760 ± 901015–800 BC (with OxA-1388)
Oxford cellulose pretreatment.
OxA-1388BandagesLinen wrappings (same piece)2700 ± 901015–800 BC (with OxA-1387)
Zagreb pretreatment.
Z-1654WreathLeaves2580 ± 60900–520 BC
Measured on a less reliable sample after the clean leaves were lost in a laboratory accident.
GrN-14467WreathLeaves2825 ± 151015–925 BC
OxA-1389WreathLeaves2920 ± 1001400–905 BC
GrN-13860BodyEmbalming unguent2240 ± 13385–255 BC
Z-1682BodyUnguent, fraction insoluble in chloroform2230 ± 50395–190 BC
OxA-1390BodyUnguent, fraction insoluble in chloroform2160 ± 100400 BC – AD 40
OxA-1391BodyUnguent, fraction soluble in chloroform3010 ± 801430–1020 BC
Old carbon: probably bitumen or fossil resin.
Z-1675BodyUnguent, melted and exuded fraction4540 ± 1203610–2920 BC
Old carbon: probably bitumen or fossil resin.

Laboratories: Z = Ruđer Bošković Institute, Zagreb; GrN = Centre for Isotope Research, Groningen; OxA = Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Oxford. Ranges are 2σ (95.4%) as calibrated in 1989 and have not been recalibrated against current curves.

The gapswhat no source records

  1. G1

    The seller

    Who sold the mummy in 1848–49. Even the museum calls him an unknown merchant.

    trail A, ownershipin the record — Sold by an unknown merchant

  2. G2

    The tomb

    Where she was buried and how she left the ground. The Theban guess rests on a papyrus that may not be hers.

    trail A, ownershipin the record — The tomb

  3. G3

    The crossing

    How an Etruscan sacred book reached an Egyptian embalming workshop. Probably unanswerable without G2.

    trail C, ancientin the record — How the book reached Egypt

  4. G4

    What belongs together

    The unwrapping happened at an unknown time and was never documented. The bandages and leaves are of different ages, and the papyrus link is an heir's argument. Which objects were really found with which is open.

    trail C, ancientin the record — That body was this woman, The mummy is Nesi-Khons, How materials of different ages came together, Unwrapped, with the bandages displayed separately

  5. G5

    The export

    How a mummy left Egypt in 1849 under an export ban, and how it reached Vienna.

    trail A, ownershipin the record — Export from Egypt and shipment to Vienna

  6. G6

    The journey

    Barić's route, dates and companions in 1848–49, known only from his niece's recollection. Ways in: file Z. 23726/1849, the probate file, the niece.

    trail A, ownershipin the record — The journey: route, dates, companions

  7. G7

    Inventory drift

    Ilija's 1862 description lists a golden forehead boss and four or five papyrus fascicles; modern accounts know no gold object, and add a bead necklace and wreath fragments first shown in 1986. What arrived, what was recorded, what remains?

    trail A, ownershipin the record — What arrived in 1862, and what is there now

The leadswhere a record may be

  1. L1

    Agramer Zeitung, July–August 1862 and no. 67/1892open

    Zagreb's own coverage of the arrival, and Krall's own article. ANNO does not hold either year.

    National and University Library (NSK), Zagreb, on paper or microfilm. The NSK digital catalogue finds no 1862 issues.

    access — library requestdigitalna.nsk.hr ↗would settle — She physically reached Zagreb between 22 and 25 July 1862, The discovery reaches the newspapers

  2. L2

    Barić's will and probate file, Vienna 1859open

    The will directed the gift. It may describe the mummy, the purchase, or papers that came with her.

    Vienna probate records, probably the Wiener Stadt- und Landesarchiv. Not yet confirmed.

    access — archive requestwould settle — G1, The seller, G4, What belongs together, G6, The journey

  3. L3

    File Z. 23726/1849open

    Barić's 1849 application could date the journey and say where he went.

    Hungarian national archives (Krall) or the state archive in Vienna (1986). Shelfmark unknown.

    access — archive requestwould settle — G6, The journey, Back from Egypt, he applies to re-enter service and is refused

  4. L4

    Find Th. Jellinekopen

    The niece and principal heir, and the source of the 1848–49 date. Her estate may hold Barić's papers.

    Lehmann's Vienna address books of the 1890s; estate records.

    access — partly onlinewould settle — G6, The journey, The journey: route, dates, companions

  5. L5

    The Kroatische Revue entry, 1880 or 1882open

    The wording-ancestor of most later retellings. Settles its own year.

    Kroatische Revue, Zagreb.

    access — librarywould settle — A catalogue entry calls the bandages 'an unknown Egyptian script' and one of the museum's foremost treasures

  6. L6

    Abegg-Stiftung and Amsterdam records, 1985open

    Residues on the strips could show whether the book ever touched this body's unguent, and whether Kobert's 1913 chemicals are still on the Herbig fragment.

    Abegg-Stiftung, Riggisberg; Centraal Laboratorium, Amsterdam.

    access — requestwould settle — G4, What belongs together, That body was this woman

  7. L7

    Herbig 1911, p. 6open

    A garbled footnote seems to list wood, painted fragments and a small mummified animal among the wreath remains.

    Herbig's 1911 publication on the text.

    access — librarywould settle — G7, Inventory drift

  8. L8

    Read Liber i mumija (2019)open

    Check the claim that the papyrus is a century younger than the mummy, and how it is argued.

    Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, 2019.

    access — library or museumwould settle — G4, What belongs together, The mummy is Nesi-Khons

  9. L9

    Read Krall 1892 beyond the introductionpartly

    The introduction yielded the niece, the 1849 file and the 1891 dates. The rest may hold more.

    Salomon Reinach project PDF; HathiTrust.

    access — public domaintpsalomonreinach.mom.fr ↗would settle — G4, What belongs together, Unwrapped, with the bandages displayed separately

  10. L10

    Read Burton 1879 in fullpartly

    Whether Burton's own text mentions a conversation with Brugsch.

    Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. 12.

    access — public domainwould settle — A talk with Richard Burton about runes convinces Brugsch the script is not Egyptian

  11. L11

    Vienna newspapers, summer 1862partly

    Die Presse and Wiener Zeitung for 22–31 July and 5–8 August 1862 were screened with nothing found. 1–4 August and later August remain.

    ANNO

    access — free, full textanno.onb.ac.at ↗would settle — She physically reached Zagreb between 22 and 25 July 1862

  12. L12

    Trace the 'divine tailor' titleopen

    Find where it comes from: an older reading, a museum label, or a mistake copied forward.

    Older museum guides, early press, IMPACT's unpublished source.

    access — mixedwould settle — Her husband was a 'divine tailor' of Thebes

  13. L13

    Find Perekh-Khons and Nesi-Khons elsewhereopen

    Uranić notes a Nesi-Khons, prophetess of Hathor, on a statue pedestal in the British Museum. Other monuments could point to a family tomb at Thebes.

    Topographical Bibliography (Porter & Moss) vol. VIII, no. 801-768-140; British Museum collection search.

    access — partly onlinewould settle — G2, The tomb, The mummy is Nesi-Khons

  14. L14

    Danielsson's papers, Uppsalaopen

    The editor of the Etruscan corpus was consulted in December 1913; the Rostock plan may survive in his correspondence.

    Uppsala University Library.

    access — archive requestwould settle — In Rostock, Rudolf Kobert cleans the Herbig fragment, and the rest of the plan dies with the war

  15. L15

    Košćak's article in Vjesnik, 21 June 1962open

    How the transfer documents surfaced from Strossmayer's papers.

    Vjesnik, Zagreb, 21 June 1962.

    access — librarywould settle — The 1861–62 transfer documents turn up among Bishop Strossmayer's papers

  16. L16

    Kršnjavi's Zapisci, vol. Iopen

    Settle the date of the emperor's briefing.

    Kršnjavi, Zapisci I, Zagreb 1986, p. 34.

    access — librarywould settle — Iso Kršnjavi informs Emperor Franz Joseph I of the discovery

  17. L17

    Antiquities dealers in 1840s Egyptopen

    Context for the seller, including Anastasi's 1857 sale catalogue. Context only, never a claim about Barić.

    Dealer histories and sale catalogues.

    access — mixedwould settle — G1, The seller

  18. L18

    Etruscans and Italian linen in Late and Ptolemaic Egyptopen

    Any trace of Etruscan people, or Italian linen in trade or reuse, in Egypt between 400 and 200 BC.

    Scholarship on foreigners in Egypt; the other known libri lintei.

    access — librarywould settle — G3, The crossing, Who she was

  19. L19

    Austrian Lloyd arrivals, Trieste 1849open

    A mummy and sarcophagus almost certainly came by steamer; arrivals were printed.

    Triester Zeitung in ANNO; Lloyd archives in Trieste.

    access — partly onlinewould settle — G5, The export

  20. L20

    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986done

    Read in full on 13–14 November: the 1861–62 transfer file, Barić's life, the conservation history to 1986. The plate images are still to look at.

    VAMZ 3rd ser. 19 (1986).

    access — onlinehrcak.srce.hr ↗would settle — G4, What belongs together

  21. L21

    The museum receiptdone

    Found: 5 August 1862, in two glass cases. Ended the 1867/1868 question.

    Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1987: 32; Šolter 2016: 36.

    access — onlinewould settle — Received by the National Museum on 5 August 1862, in her two glass cases

The sourceswhat each claim rests on