13
Daressy #: 116
Owner: Nentawaeref (tomb undiscovered, perhaps at Khokhah)
Reasons: --
Transliteration: jmAxy xr Asjr Xrd n kAp jmj-rA wabw n jmn nn-tA-wA-r=f mAa-xrw
Translation: Revered one before Osiris, child of the kap, overseer of the wab-priests of Amun, Nentawaeref justified.
Date: --
Length: --
Colours: There are traces of red under white (01-024 in Davies's notebook).
Findspots:
One from TT 201 (01-024 in Davies's notebook, 03-079 in Macadam's Red file).
Two from near TT 253 (Strudwick and Strudwick 1996: 105, 155).
Unknown examples from TT 257 (Mostafa 1995: 79).
11 from TT 47 area (Kondo 2021: 123).
Remarks:
In the past, Egyptologists have all made the connection between this cone and 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). Certainly, the names and titles attributed to the owners of this cone and those found in the tomb are identical. In addition, a stelophorous statue of Nentawaeref (MFA: 1986.747) was discovered at or near TT 398. It is described as 'Xrd n kAp jmj-rA wabw [n jmn?]' and therefore certainly belongs to the owner of cone # 13 (Collins 1976 [JEA 62]: 33). However, the inscription style of this seal is completely different from that of # 118 and # 119, both of which definitely belong to TT 398. Our cone was most likely made for a Khokhah tomb, as suggested by its location, but no Khokhah tombs with funerary cones are known from the period in which TT 398 is thought to have been cut. Moreover, the examples of this cone have been found far away from TT 398. Furthermore, the Boston stela does not mention that Nentawaeref had another name, Kamose, and Kamose of cones # 118 - # 119 does not mention the title jmj-rA wabw. Boston Nentawaeref is dated to the reign of Amunhotep II because of his facial style (Brovarski 1988). Furthermore, my own textual chronology shows that the word 'Osiris' did not appear at 'the end of the 17th dynasty to the beginning of the 18th dynasty', when the TT 398 is most likely to be dated. Only after the reign of Hatshepsut the word had started to be used and thereafter until the end of the 18th dynasty it was used more and more frequently. The above facts indicate that the owner of # 13 was not the same person as the owner of cones # 118 - # 119. Also, again according to my own research, there were cones in the early 18th dynasty that did not mention any deities (just like # 118 - # 119). However, cones gradually became 'funerary' by inscribing the name of a god on their faces. Considering this phenomenon, our cone is probably dated to the middle or later 18th dynasty.
Dewachter thought that the owner was one and the same person, not only with those of # 118, and # 119, but also with that of # 207 (Dewachter 1984 [RdE 35]: 86-87). However, as I stated above, the owner of our cone was different from those of # 118, # 119, and # 207, although I think the three cones have the same owner. See the 'Remarks' section of # 207 for further details.
See also 05-092 & 093 in Macadam's DALEX file 1, and 06-041, 042, 088, 089, & 090 in his DALEX file 2.