# The Zagreb Mummy
crux · case file · rev. 2 · 2026-11-14
page: https://crux.rindesigns.com/liber-linteus
data: https://crux.rindesigns.com/liber-linteus/case.json

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.

held by: Archaeological Museum in Zagreb
scope: 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.
years in the data: Years are signed: negative numbers are BC. No year-zero correction is applied; the evidence resolves decades, not single years.

89 claims · 29 sources · 15 radiocarbon dates · 7 gaps · 21 leads

## How to read this file

Every claim opens with its tag in square brackets. The tag belongs to the claim: repeated without it, a claim says more than its sources do.
Sources are cited by id in braces, such as {housley1989}. Every source is listed under "Sources" at the end, with its grade and how it was read.

[established] Measured, or documented in a primary or peer-reviewed source, with no source against it.
[supported inference] Not stated outright. Follows from established evidence by reasoning someone has written down, with its assumptions named.
[claimed] A source says so, but it is unverified: popular or secondary only, an anecdote, or never checked against the record.
[contested] Sources disagree. Every version is kept until the evidence settles it.
[unknown] No supported evidence. A gap, stated as a gap and never filled with a guess.
[rejected] Was asserted, and evidence now rules it out. Kept in the record, struck through, with the reason.

A rejected claim is kept so the record shows it was made, followed by the reason it is ruled out. It is not a finding.

## Objects

Book — Liber Linteus Zagrabiensis. Etruscan ritual calendar on linen, more than 1,200 words, cut into bandage strips.
Bandages — Plain wrappings. Uninscribed linen from the same mummy. Radiocarbon shows at least two different ages.
Body — The mummy. A woman aged 30–40, 164 cm tall, with her embalming unguent.
Wreath — Wreath and grave goods. Sewn leaves, the skull of a young cat, flowers, a necklace.
Papyrus — Papyrus Zagreb 602. Book of the Dead in hieratic, in many fragments, given to the museum with the mummy.

## Record

Claims are grouped by trail and ordered by date. Undated claims close each trail.

### Trail A · Ownership — Who held it, where, and when? (36 claims)

[established] c. 1791–1850 · Michael Barić: born in Semeljci, Slavonia, about 1791; studied theology, never ordained
  id: baric-life · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Around 1850 he parcelled out land he owned in Vienna's 3rd district, where Barichgasse still bears his name. He kept an art collection.
  Sources: {mirnik1986} {krall1892}
  First recorded: 1892, Krall

[established] 1829–1848 · Barić is a court official: Hofkonzipist of the Royal Hungarian Court Chancellery, pensioned at his own request in 1848
  id: chancellery · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Appointed in 1829 (Wiener Zeitung). Krall adds a six-year lease of the Pressburger Deutsche Zeitung from 1843.
  Sources: {wz1829} {krall1892} {wz1859}
  First recorded: 1829, Wiener Zeitung

[unknown] 1848–49 · Sold by an unknown merchant
  id: seller · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  The museum's own curator calls the seller 'an unknown merchant'. This is the central missing link.
  Gap: G1, The seller
  Sources: {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 2006, Uranić

[established] 1848–49 · Mihael Barić, a Croat living in Vienna, acquires the mummy
  id: baric-acquires · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Every source agrees, and his heirs later gave her to the museum. No purchase document is cited anywhere.
  Sources: {uranic2006} {impact} {wikipedia}
  First recorded: 1862, museum records

[supported inference] 1848–49 · He bought her in Egypt, on a journey there in 1848–49
  id: in-egypt · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  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.
  Sources: {uranic2006} {krall1892} {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1892, Krall, from the niece

[claimed] 1848–49 · In Alexandria
  id: alexandria · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Popular accounts name Alexandria. The curator says only Egypt.
  Sources: {wikipedia} {ancientorigins}

[unknown] 1848–49 · The journey: route, dates, companions
  id: trip · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  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.
  Gap: G6, The journey
  Sources: {krall1892}

[claimed] 1848–49 · She was still fully wrapped when he bought her
  id: still-wrapped · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  The 1986 editors say so but mark it as their own conjecture.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević

[unknown] 1849 · Export from Egypt and shipment to Vienna
  id: export · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Egypt had banned the export of antiquities in 1835, with loose enforcement. No permit, manifest or shipping record is known.
  Gap: G5, The export
  Sources: none

[established] 1849 · Back from Egypt, he applies to re-enter service and is refused
  id: reentry-1849 · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  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.
  Note: Where the file is today is contested between the two sources and unverified.
  Sources: {krall1892} {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1892, Krall

[established] 1849–1859 · Kept at Barić's home in Vienna
  id: vienna-home · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  She stood in his art collection. His last address, Altenfleischmarkt 728, is today Rotenturmstrasse 20; the building has been replaced.
  Sources: {uranic2006} {mirnik1986} {wz1859}
  First recorded: 2006, Uranić

[established] 1849–1859 · Displayed naked and fully upright on an iron rod, in a tall glass case hung with curtains
  id: upright · concerns: Body
  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.
  Sources: {ilija-letter} {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1862, Ilija Barić

[established] by 1859 · Unwrapped, with the bandages displayed separately
  id: unwrapped · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body
  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.
  Gap: G4, What belongs together
  Sources: {uranic2006} {krall1892} {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 2006, Uranić

[claimed] 1849–1859 · Barić unwrapped her himself and put the bandages in a glass case
  id: unwrapped-by-him · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body
  Popular accounts. The curator and IMPACT say only that she was found unwrapped at his death.
  Sources: {ancientorigins} {vintagenews} {wikipedia}

[established] 14 Dec 1859 · Michael v. Barić dies in Vienna, aged 68
  id: death · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Death list: 'pens. königl. ung. Hofkonzipist, 68 J., Altenfleischmarkt 728, Erschöpfung der Kräfte'.
  Sources: {wz1859} {krall1892} {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 1859, Wiener Zeitung

[established] 1859 · His will leaves everything to his niece, Th. Jellinek, and names his brother Ilija executor
  id: heirs · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Sources: {mirnik1986} {krall1892}
  First recorded: 1892, Krall

[rejected] 1859 · Ilija had no interest in the mummy and simply gave it away
  id: ilija-priest · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Ilija was in fact a dean, consistorial councillor and parish priest at Golubinci.
  Rejected because: 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-letter} {mirnik1986}
  Sources: {ancientorigins}

[established] 14 Dec 1861 · Ilija declares the gift, as Michael's will directed
  id: donation · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  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.
  Sources: {ilija-letter} {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1861, Ilija Barić

[established] 5 Aug 1862 · Received by the National Museum on 5 August 1862, in her two glass cases
  id: arrival · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  The Vienna display furniture travelled with her, body and bandages already apart. She was housed in the former Drašković palace in Opatička street.
  Sources: {sabljar1862} {mirnik1987} {solter2016}
  First recorded: 1863, Sabljar

[contested] May 1862 · The Academy's committee, chaired by Ambroz Vraniczany, accepts the gift 'with great joy'
  id: academy-accepts · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  The printed edition disagrees with itself about the dates. Only the manuscript (Arhiv Hrvatske 462*1862) can settle them.
  Version 1: Meeting 7 March, reply 13 May (the 1986 narrative, p. 43). {mirnik1986}
  Version 2: Meeting 7 May, letter closed 18 May (document IV, p. 54). {mirnik1986}
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1862, committee minutes

[established] Jul 1862 · Officials inspect the Vienna apartment, and an expert packer prescribes three crates
  id: inspection · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  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.
  Note: The packer's institution is uncertain in the OCR; it may read as the Ambras collection.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1862, Mažuranić

[established] Jul 1862 · By rail to Zidani Most, then by carriage with an escort to Zagreb
  id: transport · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  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.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1862, chancellery accounts

[supported inference] 22–25 Jul 1862 · She physically reached Zagreb between 22 and 25 July 1862
  id: arrival-july · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  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.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević

[established] 19 Mar 1862 · Ilija's inventory: a golden boss on her forehead and '4–5 fascicles' of papyrus
  id: ilija-inventory · concerns: Body, 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.
  Sources: {ilija-letter} {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1862, Ilija Barić

[established] 1862 – today · Held by the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb
  id: holder · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Then the National Museum. Everything is there today, though not necessarily everything that arrived (G7).
  Sources: {uranic2006} {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1862, Sabljar's chronicle

[unknown] 1862 – today · What arrived in 1862, and what is there now
  id: inventory-drift · concerns: Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  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.
  Gap: G7, Inventory drift
  Sources: {ilija-letter} {mirnik1986}

[contested] Mar 1863 · The receipt is written up in March 1863
  id: receipt-date · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Both versions give the same 5 August arrival. They may be two records or an editorial difference; the manuscripts are unchecked.
  Version 1: Receipt note dated 10 March 1863. {mirnik1987}
  Version 2: Gift register AAMZ 23, 'Opis darovah 1855–64', entry dated 2 March 1863. {solter2016}
  Sources: {mirnik1987} {solter2016}
  First recorded: 1863, Sabljar

[rejected] 1867, 1868 or 1885 · She came to the museum in 1867, 1868 or 1885
  id: arrival-wrong · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  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 because: The museum's receipt records her arrival on 5 August 1862, and the transfer file closed in September 1862. {sabljar1862} {mirnik1987} {mirnik1986}
  Sources: {wikipedia} {natgeo} {impact}

[established] 1891–92 · The bandages reach the Vienna University Library on 31 January 1891, on loan for about a year
  id: lent-vienna · concerns: Book
  Sources: {krall1892} {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 1892, Krall

[contested] 1892 or c. 1900 · The upright display ends and she is laid horizontal
  id: laid-flat · concerns: Body
  Photographs pin her still upright in 1890–91. The two accounts may describe two episodes; they are not merged.
  Version 1: 1892, by Šime Ljubić with the physician Antun Lobmayer (photo caption). {solter2016}
  Version 2: Around 1900, after the petroleum bath weakened her joints. {mirnik1986}
  Sources: {solter2016} {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević

[established] c. 1900 · Bookworms attack her legs, and the museum kills them with a long petroleum bath
  id: petroleum · concerns: Body
  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.
  Sources: {mirnik1986} {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević

[claimed] 1967 · Put on permanent display, later sealed in a climate-controlled case after visitors' hands damaged her
  id: display-1967 · concerns: Body
  Sources: {impact}

[established] Dec 1984 · Nazzareno Gabrielli finds the body desiccated and 'slowly turning to dust'
  id: gabrielli-1984 · concerns: Body
  Without treatment her skeleton would be exposed within decades. His restoration followed in 1998.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević

[established] Jan–Apr 1985 · Restored at the Abegg-Stiftung by Mechtild Flury-Lemberg and remounted as shown today
  id: abegg · concerns: Book
  Reconstruction supervised by Francesco Roncalli. The Centraal Laboratorium in Amsterdam analysed the inks and the 1910 glue; glue and gauze were removed.
  Sources: {uranic2006} {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević

[established] 1998 · The body is restored by Nazzareno Gabrielli of the Vatican Museums
  id: restored · concerns: Body
  Sources: {uranic2006} {impact}
  First recorded: 2006, Uranić

[unknown] undated · The tomb
  id: findspot · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  No findspot, excavation, tomb or village is recorded for any of the objects.
  Gap: G2, The tomb
  Sources: none

### Trail B · Recognition — Who understood what, and when? (27 claims)

[rejected] 1859 · Brugsch examined mummy and bandages in 1859 and took the writing for hieroglyphs
  id: brugsch-1859 · concerns: Book
  Rejected because: Brugsch saw the bandages in Zagreb in 1869, saw the script was alphabetic, and could not name it. {mirnik1986} {uranic2006} {krall1892}
  Sources: {wikipedia}

[established] 19 Mar 1862 · Ilija describes her to the Ban, and says the 'palm leaves' prove she is genuine
  id: ilija-writes · concerns: Papyrus, Body
  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.
  Sources: {ilija-letter} {mirnik1986} {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 1862, Ilija Barić

[established] 1862 · Curator Mijat Sabljar logs the bandages as written with 'Egyptian letters'
  id: sabljar · concerns: Book
  His label in the vitrine credited the donor: 'Mumia iz Misira (Aegypten). Poklonio gosp. Ilia Barić'.
  Sources: {sabljar1862} {mirnik1986} {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 1862, Sabljar

[rejected] 1862–1891 · The writing on the bandages is Egyptian
  id: egyptian-script · concerns: Book
  The working assumption for three decades.
  Rejected because: Krall identified the language as Etruscan. {krall1892} {uranic2006}
  Sources: {sabljar1862} {wikipedia}
  First recorded: 1862, Sabljar

[established] 1869 · Heinrich Brugsch finds writing on a folded-back edge, combs through 40 metres of linen, and cannot name the script
  id: brugsch · concerns: Book
  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.
  Note: One 1892 newspaper (Grazer Tagblatt) gives 1868.
  Sources: {mirnik1986} {uranic2006} {krall1892}
  First recorded: 1892, Krall

[established] 1870 and 1889 · Ljubić catalogues the mummy and bandages first in the Egyptian collection
  id: ljubic-catalogues · concerns: Body, Book
  1870 in the museum's Viestnik; 1889 in his printed catalogue, with two pages and a plate.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1870, Ljubić

[established] 1872 · A request to lend the book to the Leipzig congress of philologists is refused
  id: leipzig-1872 · concerns: Book
  Asked on the strength of Brugsch's report. Museum and government both said no.
  Sources: {mirnik1986} {mirnik1987}
  First recorded: 1872, Leipzig request

[claimed] 1877 · A talk with Richard Burton about runes convinces Brugsch the script is not Egyptian
  id: burton-talk · concerns: Book
  Only Wikipedia tells this story. The 1986 account, after Krall, has Burton seeing the bandages himself in Zagreb in 1877.
  Sources: {wikipedia}

[established] 1877 · Richard Burton sees the bandages himself, on a visit to Zagreb
  id: burton-visit · concerns: Book
  Sources: {mirnik1986} {krall1892}
  First recorded: 1892, Krall

[established] 1879 · Burton publishes the text as runic, in 'The Ogham-Runes and el-Mushajjar'
  id: burton-1879 · concerns: Book
  From a copy made in 1878 by his vice-consul in Trieste, Philip Proby Cautley.
  Sources: {burton1879} {mirnik1986} {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 1879, Burton

[contested] 1880 or 1882 · A catalogue entry calls the bandages 'an unknown Egyptian script' and one of the museum's foremost treasures
  id: bojnicic · concerns: Body, Book
  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.
  Version 1: 1880, first issue. {krall1892}
  Version 2: 1882, vol. 3, p. 130. {mirnik1986}
  Sources: {bojnicic} {krall1892} {nfp1905} {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1880, Bojničić

[claimed] 1890–92 · Iso Kršnjavi informs Emperor Franz Joseph I of the discovery
  id: krsnjavi · concerns: Book
  The 1986 footnote prints the date as '17. I. 1890', before the bandages even reached Krall. The date as printed cannot be right.
  Sources: {krsnjavi} {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević

[established] 1891 · Brugsch writes to Jakob Krall about 'an interesting monument in Zagreb'
  id: brugsch-letter · concerns: Book
  Sources: {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 2006, Uranić

[established] 1891–92 · Jakob Krall identifies the language as Etruscan
  id: krall · concerns: Book
  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.
  Sources: {krall1892} {uranic2006} {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1892, Krall

[established] Jan 1892 · The discovery reaches the newspapers
  id: press-1892 · concerns: Book
  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.
  Sources: {press1892} {krall1892}
  First recorded: 1892, Deutsches Volksblatt

[established] 1892 – today · No accepted translation
  id: translation · concerns: Book
  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.
  Sources: {uranic2006} {bmcr2014} {vandermeer2007} {belfiore2010}
  First recorded: 2014, BMCR

[established] 1910 · Gustav Herbig finds one more inscribed piece among the leftover bandages
  id: herbig-1910 · concerns: Book
  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.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1911, Herbig

[established] 1913–14 · In Rostock, Rudolf Kobert cleans the Herbig fragment, and the rest of the plan dies with the war
  id: rostock-1913 · concerns: Book
  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.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1913, Herbig, Kobert, Brunšmid

[established] 1932–35 · Ivan Plotnikov's infrared photographs make stained passages readable
  id: plotnikov · concerns: Book
  90 of the 245 lines were photographed, and published by Runes and Cortsen in 1935.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1935, Runes & Cortsen

[established] Jul 1940 · Emil Vetter offers free infrared photography in Vienna, and the museum declines for now
  id: vetter-1940 · concerns: Book
  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'.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1940, Vetter and Hoffiller

[established] 1952 · The 1861–62 transfer documents turn up among Bishop Strossmayer's papers
  id: papers-found · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Found by V. Košćak and excerpted in the newspaper Vjesnik on 21 June 1962.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1962, Košćak

[established] 1966–67 · The whole book is photographed in infrared at the police criminological institute
  id: lukan-1966 · concerns: Book
  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.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević

[established] 1985–86 · Shown in Perugia (Scrivere etrusco, 1985) and Zagreb (Pisati etruščanski, 1986)
  id: exhibitions-1985 · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  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.
  Sources: {mirnik1986}
  First recorded: 1986, Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević

[established] 1986 · The museum's 1986 volume prints the transfer documents, X-rays, radiocarbon and the cat skull
  id: volume-1986 · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath, Papyrus
  Sources: {mirnik1986} {srdoc1986} {plavsic1986} {tvrtkovic1986}
  First recorded: 1986, VAMZ 19

[established] 1988–89 · Three laboratories show the mummy is an assemblage of different ages
  id: assemblage · concerns: Book, Bandages, Body, Wreath
  Fifteen dates across book, body, bandages, leaves and unguent, spanning more than a thousand years.
  Sources: {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1989, Housley et al.

[established] 2006 · The curator publishes the papyrus and finds no proof it belongs to her
  id: uranic-papyrus · concerns: Papyrus, Body
  Sources: {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 2006, Uranić

[claimed] 2019 · The museum's volume Liber i mumija dates the papyrus a century after the mummy
  id: volume-2019 · concerns: Papyrus
  Known only through a search summary. Not read.
  Sources: {amz2019}
  First recorded: 2019, AMZ

### Trail C · Ancient — How did these things come to be together? (26 claims)

[established] c. 1400–520 BC · The wreath's leaves are centuries older than the body
  id: wreath-leaves · concerns: Wreath
  Zagreb first blamed counting statistics; Groningen and Oxford confirmed the older age independently.
  Radiocarbon: Z-1654, GrN-14467, OxA-1389
  Sources: {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1986, Srdoč & Horvatinčić

[established] c. 1015–800 BC · Plain bandages, second group: about 1015–800 BC
  id: bandages-old · concerns: Bandages
  Two AMS dates on one piece of uninscribed linen, some six centuries older than the body.
  Radiocarbon: OxA-1387, OxA-1388
  Sources: {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1989, Housley et al.

[rejected] c. 390 BC ± 45 · Book and body both date to about 390 BC ± 45
  id: wrong-390 · concerns: Book, Body
  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 because: 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. {housley1989}
  Sources: {srdoc1986} {uranic2006} {impact}
  First recorded: 1986, Srdoč & Horvatinčić

[established] c. 405–205 BC · Plain bandages, first group: about 405–205 BC
  id: bandages-young · concerns: Bandages
  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.
  Radiocarbon: Z-1653, GrN-13875, GrN-14442
  Sources: {housley1989} {srdoc1986}
  First recorded: 1986, Srdoč & Horvatinčić

[established] 395–40 BC · Her tissue dates to 395–40 BC
  id: body-c14 · concerns: Body
  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.
  Radiocarbon: OxA-1386
  Sources: {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1989, Housley et al.

[rejected] c. 390 BC → 3rd c. BC · The linen was about a century old when the book was written
  id: old-cloth · concerns: Book, Bandages
  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 because: 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. {housley1989}
  Sources: {case-notes}
  First recorded: 2026, case notes

[established] at mummification · Cut into bandage strips to wrap a body in Egypt
  id: book-cut · concerns: Book, Body
  Embalmers in this period often reused old cloth; this reuse is why the book survives at all.
  Sources: {housley1989} {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 1892, Krall

[claimed] at mummification · That body was this woman
  id: book-this-body · concerns: Book, Body
  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.
  Gap: G4, What belongs together
  Sources: {uranic2006} {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1862, museum tradition

[established] at death · A woman aged 30–40, 164 cm tall, mummified the Egyptian way
  id: body-person · concerns: Body
  Established by X-ray in 1986. Teeth and nails are intact. The 1998 restorer judged the embalming typical of late dynastic Egypt.
  Sources: {plavsic1986} {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 1986, Plavšić

[supported inference] c. 385–210 BC · Mummified about 385–210 BC, at the end of the Late Period or early in Ptolemaic rule
  id: body-mummified · concerns: Body
  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.
  Sources: {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1989, Housley et al.

[established] at mummification · Her embalming unguent contains fossil carbon
  id: body-unguent · concerns: Body
  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.
  Radiocarbon: GrN-13860, Z-1682, OxA-1390, OxA-1391, Z-1675
  Sources: {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1989, Housley et al.

[unknown] at death · Who she was
  id: body-identity · concerns: Body
  Two explanations circulate. Neither has direct evidence.
  Hypothesis 1: An Egyptian woman. The book was old linen reused by the embalmers, which was customary in this period. {housley1989} {wikipedia}
  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. {uranic2006}
  Sources: {housley1989} {uranic2006} {wikipedia}
  First recorded: 1892, since Krall

[established] at burial · A wreath of sewn leaves holding the skull of a young cat, with flowers and a necklace
  id: wreath-cat · concerns: Wreath
  Some leaves look stained, probably with an organic dye; X-ray fluorescence found no lead, mercury or iron paint.
  Sources: {tvrtkovic1986} {uranic2006} {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1986, Tvrtković

[claimed] at burial · Bird bones and a mummified crocodile among the wreath
  id: wreath-crocodile · concerns: Wreath
  Reported by IMPACT from an unpublished overview. Not mentioned by Uranić.
  Sources: {impact}

[contested] at burial · The mummy is Nesi-Khons
  id: papyrus-is-her · concerns: Papyrus, Body
  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.
  Version 1: The papyrus's date generally fits the radiocarbon date of the mummy. {uranic2006}
  Version 2: The papyrus is at least a century younger than the mummy, on linguistic grounds. {amz2019}
  Gap: G4, What belongs together
  Sources: {ilija-letter} {uranic2006} {amz2019}
  First recorded: 1862, Ilija Barić

[supported inference] at burial · Buried in Upper Egypt, probably near Thebes
  id: papyrus-thebes · concerns: Papyrus, Body
  Follows from the husband's Karnak title, and holds only if the papyrus belongs to this mummy.
  Sources: {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 2006, Uranić

[established] end of Late Period / early Ptolemaic · Papyrus Zagreb 602 names Perekh-Khons, servant of Khnum, and his wife Nesi-Khons
  id: papyrus-reading · concerns: Papyrus
  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.
  Sources: {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 2006, Uranić

[contested] end of Late Period / early Ptolemaic · Her husband was a 'divine tailor' of Thebes
  id: papyrus-tailor · concerns: Papyrus
  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.
  Version 1: Nesi-hensu, wife of Paher-hensu, a Theban 'divine tailor'. {impact} {wikipedia}
  Version 2: Nesi-Khons, mistress of the house, wife of Perekh-Khons, servant of Khnum and god's servant in Karnak. {uranic2006}
  Sources: {impact} {wikipedia} {uranic2006}

[supported inference] c. 360–210 BC · Written in Etruria, most likely in the 3rd century BC
  id: book-written · concerns: Book
  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.
  Sources: {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1989, Housley et al.

[established] at writing · A ritual calendar of more than 1,200 words, the longest Etruscan text known
  id: book-content · concerns: Book
  The only surviving example of an Etruscan linen book.
  Sources: {housley1989} {uranic2006}
  First recorded: 1892, Krall

[established] at writing · Written in black and red: ivory black and cinnabar
  id: book-paint · concerns: Book
  Chemical analysis before dating found red and black paint containing mercury sulphide and charred ivory, so samples were cut from unpainted areas.
  Sources: {housley1989} {srdoc1986}
  First recorded: 1986, Srdoč & Horvatinčić

[claimed] at writing · Made near Lake Trasimeno, in south-eastern Tuscany
  id: book-trasimeno · concerns: Book
  Argued from the local gods the calendar names.
  Note: Known here only through Wikipedia's summary of van der Meer.
  Sources: {vandermeer2007} {wikipedia}
  First recorded: 2007, van der Meer

[unknown] between writing and wrapping · How the book reached Egypt
  id: book-crossing · concerns: Book
  No evidence at all. Proposals include an Etruscan family living in Egypt, worn linen sold on as rags, or a traveller's possession.
  Gap: G3, The crossing
  Sources: none

[established] 360 BC – AD 5 · The inscribed linen dates to 360 BC – AD 5
  id: book-c14 · concerns: Book
  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.
  Radiocarbon: OxA-1680
  Sources: {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1989, Housley et al.

[rejected] 1st c. BC or 1st c. AD · Written in the 1st century BC or the 1st century AD
  id: book-stylistic · concerns: Book
  Two of the three dates proposed from the letter forms. Most researchers had also put the cutting into bandages in this window.
  Rejected because: 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. {housley1989}
  Sources: {roncalli1980} {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1980, Roncalli

[unknown] between burial and sale · How materials of different ages came together
  id: composite · concerns: Bandages, Wreath, Body
  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.
  Hypothesis 1: Ancient: embalmers of this period are known to have reused old materials. {housley1989}
  Hypothesis 2: Modern: 19th-century repair, or tomb robbers rewrapping a damaged mummy with cloth from other tombs, before the sale. {housley1989}
  Gap: G4, What belongs together
  Sources: {housley1989}
  First recorded: 1989, Housley et al., citing H. Whitehouse

## Gaps

What no source records. A gap stays open until a record closes it.

G1 · trail A · The seller
  Who sold the mummy in 1848–49. Even the museum calls him an unknown merchant.
  In the record: seller

G2 · trail A · The tomb
  Where she was buried and how she left the ground. The Theban guess rests on a papyrus that may not be hers.
  In the record: findspot

G3 · trail C · The crossing
  How an Etruscan sacred book reached an Egyptian embalming workshop. Probably unanswerable without G2.
  In the record: book-crossing

G4 · trail C · 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.
  In the record: book-this-body, papyrus-is-her, composite, unwrapped

G5 · trail A · The export
  How a mummy left Egypt in 1849 under an export ban, and how it reached Vienna.
  In the record: export

G6 · trail A · 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.
  In the record: trip

G7 · trail A · 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?
  In the record: inventory-drift

## Leads

Where a record may be. A lead is a place to look, not a finding.

L1 [open] Agramer Zeitung, July–August 1862 and no. 67/1892
  Why: Zagreb's own coverage of the arrival, and Krall's own article. ANNO does not hold either year.
  Where: National and University Library (NSK), Zagreb, on paper or microfilm. The NSK digital catalogue finds no 1862 issues.
  Access: library request · https://digitalna.nsk.hr/
  Would settle: arrival-july, press-1892

L2 [open] Barić's will and probate file, Vienna 1859
  Why: The will directed the gift. It may describe the mummy, the purchase, or papers that came with her.
  Where: Vienna probate records, probably the Wiener Stadt- und Landesarchiv. Not yet confirmed.
  Access: archive request
  Would settle: G1, G4, G6

L3 [open] File Z. 23726/1849
  Why: Barić's 1849 application could date the journey and say where he went.
  Where: Hungarian national archives (Krall) or the state archive in Vienna (1986). Shelfmark unknown.
  Access: archive request
  Would settle: G6, reentry-1849

L4 [open] Find Th. Jellinek
  Why: The niece and principal heir, and the source of the 1848–49 date. Her estate may hold Barić's papers.
  Where: Lehmann's Vienna address books of the 1890s; estate records.
  Access: partly online
  Would settle: G6, trip

L5 [open] The Kroatische Revue entry, 1880 or 1882
  Why: The wording-ancestor of most later retellings. Settles its own year.
  Where: Kroatische Revue, Zagreb.
  Access: library
  Would settle: bojnicic

L6 [open] Abegg-Stiftung and Amsterdam records, 1985
  Why: 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.
  Where: Abegg-Stiftung, Riggisberg; Centraal Laboratorium, Amsterdam.
  Access: request
  Would settle: G4, book-this-body

L7 [open] Herbig 1911, p. 6
  Why: A garbled footnote seems to list wood, painted fragments and a small mummified animal among the wreath remains.
  Where: Herbig's 1911 publication on the text.
  Access: library
  Would settle: G7

L8 [open] Read Liber i mumija (2019)
  Why: Check the claim that the papyrus is a century younger than the mummy, and how it is argued.
  Where: Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, 2019.
  Access: library or museum
  Would settle: G4, papyrus-is-her

L9 [partly] Read Krall 1892 beyond the introduction
  Why: The introduction yielded the niece, the 1849 file and the 1891 dates. The rest may hold more.
  Where: Salomon Reinach project PDF; HathiTrust.
  Access: public domain · https://tpsalomonreinach.mom.fr/files/original/91c9add56ea3ccc5fa17d4b6e9ff99e139074cbe.pdf
  Would settle: G4, unwrapped

L10 [partly] Read Burton 1879 in full
  Why: Whether Burton's own text mentions a conversation with Brugsch.
  Where: Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. 12.
  Access: public domain
  Would settle: burton-talk

L11 [partly] Vienna newspapers, summer 1862
  Why: 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.
  Where: ANNO
  Access: free, full text · https://anno.onb.ac.at
  Would settle: arrival-july

L12 [open] Trace the 'divine tailor' title
  Why: Find where it comes from: an older reading, a museum label, or a mistake copied forward.
  Where: Older museum guides, early press, IMPACT's unpublished source.
  Access: mixed
  Would settle: papyrus-tailor

L13 [open] Find Perekh-Khons and Nesi-Khons elsewhere
  Why: 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.
  Where: Topographical Bibliography (Porter & Moss) vol. VIII, no. 801-768-140; British Museum collection search.
  Access: partly online
  Would settle: G2, papyrus-is-her

L14 [open] Danielsson's papers, Uppsala
  Why: The editor of the Etruscan corpus was consulted in December 1913; the Rostock plan may survive in his correspondence.
  Where: Uppsala University Library.
  Access: archive request
  Would settle: rostock-1913

L15 [open] Košćak's article in Vjesnik, 21 June 1962
  Why: How the transfer documents surfaced from Strossmayer's papers.
  Where: Vjesnik, Zagreb, 21 June 1962.
  Access: library
  Would settle: papers-found

L16 [open] Kršnjavi's Zapisci, vol. I
  Why: Settle the date of the emperor's briefing.
  Where: Kršnjavi, Zapisci I, Zagreb 1986, p. 34.
  Access: library
  Would settle: krsnjavi

L17 [open] Antiquities dealers in 1840s Egypt
  Why: Context for the seller, including Anastasi's 1857 sale catalogue. Context only, never a claim about Barić.
  Where: Dealer histories and sale catalogues.
  Access: mixed
  Would settle: G1

L18 [open] Etruscans and Italian linen in Late and Ptolemaic Egypt
  Why: Any trace of Etruscan people, or Italian linen in trade or reuse, in Egypt between 400 and 200 BC.
  Where: Scholarship on foreigners in Egypt; the other known libri lintei.
  Access: library
  Would settle: G3, body-identity

L19 [open] Austrian Lloyd arrivals, Trieste 1849
  Why: A mummy and sarcophagus almost certainly came by steamer; arrivals were printed.
  Where: Triester Zeitung in ANNO; Lloyd archives in Trieste.
  Access: partly online
  Would settle: G5

L20 [done] Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  Why: 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.
  Where: VAMZ 3rd ser. 19 (1986).
  Access: online · https://hrcak.srce.hr/en/26862
  Would settle: G4

L21 [done] The museum receipt
  Why: Found: 5 August 1862, in two glass cases. Ended the 1867/1868 question.
  Where: Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1987: 32; Šolter 2016: 36.
  Access: online
  Would settle: arrival

## Radiocarbon dates

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.

OxA-1680 · Book · Liber linteus (inscribed linen) · 2110 ± 60 BP · calibrated 360 BC – AD 5
OxA-1386 · Body · Human tissue · 2160 ± 80 BP · calibrated 395–40 BC
  Note: Body had been soaked in kerosene in the 19th century; washed before dating.
Z-1653 · Bandages · Linen wrappings · 2290 ± 40 BP · calibrated 405–210 BC
  Note: The 1986 Zagreb date later used, wrongly, to date the book.
GrN-13875 · Bandages · Linen wrappings · 2210 ± 13 BP · calibrated 365–205 BC
GrN-14442 · Bandages · Linen wrappings · 2335 ± 15 BP · calibrated 405–395 BC
OxA-1387 · Bandages · Linen wrappings · 2760 ± 90 BP · calibrated 1015–800 BC (with OxA-1388)
  Note: Oxford cellulose pretreatment.
OxA-1388 · Bandages · Linen wrappings (same piece) · 2700 ± 90 BP · calibrated 1015–800 BC (with OxA-1387)
  Note: Zagreb pretreatment.
Z-1654 · Wreath · Leaves · 2580 ± 60 BP · calibrated 900–520 BC
  Note: Measured on a less reliable sample after the clean leaves were lost in a laboratory accident.
GrN-14467 · Wreath · Leaves · 2825 ± 15 BP · calibrated 1015–925 BC
OxA-1389 · Wreath · Leaves · 2920 ± 100 BP · calibrated 1400–905 BC
GrN-13860 · Body · Embalming unguent · 2240 ± 13 BP · calibrated 385–255 BC
Z-1682 · Body · Unguent, fraction insoluble in chloroform · 2230 ± 50 BP · calibrated 395–190 BC
OxA-1390 · Body · Unguent, fraction insoluble in chloroform · 2160 ± 100 BP · calibrated 400 BC – AD 40
OxA-1391 · Body · Unguent, fraction soluble in chloroform · 3010 ± 80 BP · calibrated 1430–1020 BC
  Note: Old carbon: probably bitumen or fossil resin.
Z-1675 · Body · Unguent, melted and exuded fraction · 4540 ± 120 BP · calibrated 3610–2920 BC
  Note: Old carbon: probably bitumen or fossil resin.

## Sources

{ancientorigins} Ancient Origins
  Ancient Origins, 'The Liber Linteus: An Egyptian Mummy Wrapped in a Cryptic Message'.
  grade: popular · through a summary
  url: https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-ancient-writings/liber-linteus-002690

{belfiore2010} Belfiore 2010
  Belfiore, V. 2010. Il liber linteus di Zagabria: testualità e contenuto.
  grade: scholarly · known through a citation

{bmcr2014} BMCR 2014
  Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2014.11.16, review of Woudhuizen's translation of the Liber Linteus.
  grade: scholarly · through a summary
  url: https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/?p=30724

{bojnicic} Bojničić, Kroatische Revue
  Bojničić, I. v. Catalogue entry on the Egyptian collection. Kroatische Revue, 1880 or 1882.
  grade: primary · known through a citation
  note: Known through Krall 1892 and Müller 1905. The year differs between them and the 1986 bibliography.

{burton1879} Burton 1879
  Burton, R. F. 1879. The Ogham-Runes and el-Mushajjar. Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature of the United Kingdom 12.
  grade: primary · read in part
  note: The Zagreb excerpt is read; the full article is not.

{case-notes} Case notes
  This case's own working notes, 2026-11-11.
  grade: working · read in full
  note: Our own earlier reasoning, kept so its corrections stay visible.

{housley1989} Housley et al. 1989
  Housley, R. A., Srdoč, D. & Horvatinčić, N. 1989. AMS and Radiometric Dating of an Etruscan Linen Book and Associated Mummy. Radiocarbon 31(3): 970–975. doi:10.1017/S0033822200012601
  grade: scholarly · read in full
  url: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200012601
  note: Fifteen radiocarbon dates from three laboratories. Table 1 read from the scanned page.

{ilija-letter} Ilija Barić's papers
  Barić, Ilija (Elias Barich). Erklärung, Golubinci, 14 Dec 1861, and letter to Ban Josip Šokčević, Golubinci, 19 Mar 1862. Printed in Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986, documents I–II.
  grade: primary · read in full
  note: Read in the 1986 printed transcription. Šokčević was Ban from 1860 to 1867.

{impact} IMPACT database
  IMPACT Radiological Mummy Database, entry IMP00092 (Nesi-Hensu). University of Western Ontario, undated.
  grade: secondary · read in full
  url: https://impactdb.uwo.ca/context/imp000921.pdf
  note: Student-compiled from Uranić 2006 and an unpublished overview by Reznicek. Gives the donation as August 1862 and, in its header, an unexplained acquisition date of 1885.

{krall1892} Krall 1892
  Krall, J. 1892. Die etruskischen Mumienbinden des Agramer National-Museums. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. 41.
  grade: primary · read in part
  url: https://tpsalomonreinach.mom.fr/files/original/91c9add56ea3ccc5fa17d4b6e9ff99e139074cbe.pdf
  note: Introduction (pp. 1–10) read in OCR; the rest not yet.

{krsnjavi} Kršnjavi, Zapisci
  Kršnjavi, I. Zapisci I. Zagreb 1986, p. 34.
  grade: primary · known through a citation
  note: Cited in the 1986 volume for the emperor's briefing.

{amz2019} Liber i mumija 2019
  Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. 2019. Liber i mumija.
  grade: scholarly · through a summary
  note: Known only through a search summary saying it dates the papyrus at least a century after the mummy. Not read.

{mirnik1986} Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1986
  Mirnik, I. & Rendić-Miočević, A. 1986. Liber linteus Zagrabiensis. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3rd ser., 19: 41–72.
  grade: scholarly · read in full
  url: https://hrcak.srce.hr/en/26862
  note: Narrative pp. 41–49 and documents I–XXIV read from the page scans; about 20 claims spot-checked against the OCR. A published transcription, not the manuscripts. The plate images are not yet viewed.

{mirnik1987} Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1987
  Mirnik, I. & Rendić-Miočević, A. 1987. Liber linteus Zagrabiensis II. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3rd ser., 20: 31–48.
  grade: scholarly · read in part
  url: https://hrcak.srce.hr/en/file/42915
  note: Documents XXV–XXVIII and the receipt note read.

{natgeo} National Geographic
  National Geographic History, 'What was the mystery message written on the mummy's wrappings?'
  grade: popular · through a summary
  url: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/what-was-the-mystery-message-written-on-the-mummys-wrappings

{nfp1905} Neue Freie Presse 1905
  Müller, D. H. Obituary of Jakob Krall. Neue Freie Presse, 16 July 1905, pp. 34–36.
  grade: secondary · read in full
  note: Quotes the museum catalogue's 'unknown Egyptian (!) script'.

{plavsic1986} Plavšić 1986
  Plavšić, B. 1986. X-Ray Analysis of the Zagreb Mummy. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3rd ser., 19: 99–103.
  grade: scholarly · known through a citation

{roncalli1980} Roncalli 1980
  Roncalli, F. 1980. Osservazioni sui libri lintei etruschi. Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Rendiconti 51–52: 3–21. Also: Carbasinis voluminibus implicati libri, Jahrbuch des DAI 95: 227–264.
  grade: scholarly · known through a citation

{sabljar1862} Sabljar's receipt and label
  Sabljar, M. Receipt note, Zagreb, 10 Mar 1863 (printed in Mirnik & Rendić-Miočević 1987: 32), and the calligraphic vitrine label crediting Ilija Barić.
  grade: primary · read in full
  note: Scan-checked in the 1987 printed edition. The manuscript is unchecked.

{solter2016} Šolter 2016
  Šolter, A. 2016. Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu: život od 19. do 21. stoljeća. Zagreb: Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu.
  grade: scholarly · read in part
  note: Two passages scan-checked (printed pp. 36–37): the gift register AAMZ 23 and the 1892 caption. The other 340-odd pages are unread.

{srdoc1986} Srdoč & Horvatinčić 1986
  Srdoč, D. & Horvatinčić, N. 1986. Radiocarbon Dating of the Liber linteus Zagrabiensis. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3rd ser., 19: 83–98.
  grade: scholarly · known through a citation
  note: Known through Housley et al. 1989 and Uranić 2006.

{vintagenews} The Vintage News
  The Vintage News, 'The Egyptian Mummy Wrapped in a Manuscript from Ancient Italy', 2018.
  grade: popular · through a summary
  url: https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/09/24/mummy-in-a-foreign-book/

{tvrtkovic1986} Tvrtković 1986
  Tvrtković, N. 1986. On the Skull of a Cat Found Among the Fragments of the Wreath of the Mummy of Zagreb. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3rd ser., 19: 105–106.
  grade: scholarly · known through a citation

{uranic2006} Uranić 2006
  Uranić, I. 2006. Contributions to the Provenance of the Zagreb Mummy. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 46: 197–202. doi:10.1556/AAnt.46.2006.1-2.20
  grade: scholarly · read in full
  url: https://real.mtak.hu/45814/
  note: By the museum's own Egyptology curator. Peer-reviewed. Cites no archival document for the purchase.

{vandermeer2007} van der Meer 2007
  van der Meer, L. B. 2007. Liber linteus zagrabiensis. The Linen Book of Zagreb: A Comment on the Longest Etruscan Text.
  grade: scholarly · known through a citation
  note: Known here only through Wikipedia's summary.

{press1892} Vienna and Graz press, Jan 1892
  Deutsches Volksblatt (Vienna), 13 Jan 1892; Grazer Tagblatt, 18 Jan 1892.
  grade: secondary · read in full
  note: Near-identical wording: dependent texts, not two witnesses.

{wz1829} Wiener Zeitung 1829
  Wiener Zeitung, 30 July 1829, p. 1: appointment of 'Michael v. Barich' as Hofkonzipist.
  grade: primary · read in full
  url: https://anno.onb.ac.at

{wz1859} Wiener Zeitung 1859
  Wiener Zeitung, 18 December 1859, p. 12, death list for 14 December.
  grade: primary · read in full
  url: https://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno?aid=wrz&datum=18591218&seite=12
  note: Scan-checked. Identifying this Barich with the mummy's owner follows Krall 1892.

{wikipedia} Wikipedia
  Wikipedia, 'Liber Linteus'.
  grade: popular · through a summary
  url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Linteus

## Images

The page shows 45 pieces of the linen book, and one passage magnified three times, cut from the ten collotype plates of J. Krall, Die etruskischen Mumienbinden des Agramer National-Museums (Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Classe, vol. XLI, no. III; Vienna, 1892), plates I–X. Photographs by the k. k. Lehr- und Versuchsanstalt für Photographie, Vienna; collotypes by J. Löwy, Vienna. Public domain. Cropped, never retouched. Scan: Bibliothèque de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon (1001 tirés-à-part Salomon Reinach, item 13691, https://tpsalomonreinach.mom.fr/s/TAPReinach/item/13691), published free of rights.

## Cite as

crux, "The Zagreb Mummy", case file rev. 2, 2026-11-14. https://crux.rindesigns.com/liber-linteus
One claim: add its id as a fragment, as in https://crux.rindesigns.com/liber-linteus#book-c14