118

Daressy #: --

Owner: TT 398 Kamose

Reasons: Inscription and provenience

Transliteration: Xrd n kAp kA-ms Dd.n=f nn-tA-wA-r=f mAa-xrw

Translation: Child of the kap, Kamose, called Nentawaeref justified.

Date: --

Length: --

Colours: Red face and stem (01-044 in Davies's notebook).

Findspots:

• One from the 'pit 50 yards under TT 52' by Mond (01-044 in Davies's notebook. Davies seems to have written '82' by mistake, and 03-053 in Macadam's Red file followed. However, it is highly likely that the tomb was actually TT 52. See next data).

• 34 from the shaft which lies approximately 50 yards south-east of the TT 52 (Collins 1976 [JEA 62]: 33. The pit appears to be on or near TT 398. See Fig. 68).

Remarks: 

• The ascribed owner is identical to that of # 119.

• The inscription on both cones, # 118 and # 119, is almost identical, as is the size and the design. It can be concluded that the maker of the two cones is the same, and that they were created at the same time. However, the reason for the need for two almost identical cones remains unclear. Equally puzzling is the fact that while numerous examples of # 118 have been found, # 119 is extremely rare, and the reason for this disparity is also unknown. This is a matter for further investigation.

• Egyptologists have long recognized a connection between cone # 13 and cones # 118 - 119 from TT 398 (Manniche 1988a: 11; Kampp 1996: 608; Strudwick and Strudwick 1996: 3, 16, 105, 113, and 155; Depauw 1997: 217 n. 3; Kondo 1998: 40; Vivó 2002: 26; Kondo et al. 2015: 32). Furthermore, Kees and Dewachter proposed that the owner Nentawaeref was identical not only to the owner of cones # 118 - 119 but also to the owner of cone # 207 (Kees 1953: 21; Kees 1958: 8; Dewachter 1984 [RdE 35]: 86-87). This hypothesis is primarily based on similarities in names and titles. In support of this view, a stelophorous statue of Nentawaeref in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (MFA: 1986.747), discovered in or near TT 398, is often cited. The statue bears the title xrd n kAp jmj-rA wabw [n jmn?] and is clearly attributable to the owner of # 13 (Collins 1976 [JEA 62]: 33).
  However, several significant discrepancies cast doubt on this identification. The inscription style of # 13 is markedly different from that of # 118 - 119, which are firmly associated with TT 398. Likewise, the inscription on # 207 is distinct from both of these groups. Moreover, # 13 appears to have been intended for a tomb in the Khokhah area, as suggested by its findspots (see above); multiple examples of it have been found densely distributed far from TT 398, which is located at Qurna. Added to this, # 207 was found in Dra Abu el-Naga, a distinct area separate from both Qurna and Khokhah, where cones # 118 - 119 and # 13 are respectively associated. This geographical separation suggests that cone # 207 may have originally belonged to a different tomb and, by extension, to a different individual. However, as only a single example of cone # 207 has been discovered to date, this interpretation remains tentative.
  The Boston statue itself complicates the narrative further. It does not include the alternative name Kamose, which is associated with # 118 - 119. Conversely, Kamose—presumed owner of cones # 118 - 119—does not bear the title jmj-rA wabw.
  Regarding chronology, funerary cones in the early 18th Dynasty, typically omit divine names, like # 118 - 119, a pattern that gradually changed as cones became more explicitly funerary in nature, like # 13 (Zenihiro 2023: 690 and 695). Stylistically, the Boston statue has been dated to the reign of Amenhotep II, based on facial features (Brovarski 1988), or alternatively to the reign of Amenhotep III (Berteaux 2005: 88 n. 612; 348). Bernhauer and Seyr, in their typological study of stelophorous statues, classify the Boston example as type S.I, which first appears under Hatshepsut and Thutmose III (Bernhauer and Seyr 2023: 52). Accordingly, cone # 13 likely dates to the mid-to-late 18th Dynasty. As for cone # 207, it appears to date, t the reign of Thutmose I, since its owner, Kamis, was the father of Nakht, who was active during the reign of Hatshepsut (see Nakht’s cone # 235).
  Therefore, it can be stated with confidence that the owner of cone # 13 was different from those of cones # 118 - 119, and also from the owner of cone # 207. The identification of a single individual as the owner of both # 118 - 119 and # 207 is also highly questionable, as discussed in the 'Remarks' section for cone # 207.

• TT 398, into which cones # 118 and # 119 were embedded, has been dated to the reign of Thutmose I or the period around it. However, this dating was based on the assumption that the tomb’s owner, Kamose, was the father of Nakht—the owner of TT 397 and of # 235—who is thought to have lived during the reign of Hatshepsut or Thutmose III.  This assumption implies that Kamose, the owner of # 118 and # 119, was the same individual as Kamis, the owner of # 207. Yet neither the supposed father-son relationship between Kamose and Nakht nor the identification of Kamose with Kamis is firmly established. In light of this uncertainty, the dating of TT 398—as well as that of # 118 and # 119—must be considered unknown.

• See also 05-092, 093, & 135 in his DALEX file 1 and 06-088, 089, & 090 in his DALEX file 2.

Image Gallery