207

Daressy #: 81

Owner: Kamis

Reasons: --

Transliteration: wab rmn n tA-wr m-HAt jmn k(A)mjs

Translation: Wab-priest, bearer to the east before Amun, K(a)mis.

Date: T. I (Vivó 2022: 388) - T. II.

Length: --

Colours: White on red pottery (01-099 in Davies's notebook).

Findspots:

• One from the monastery at Deir el-Bakhit in Dra Abul Naga (Kruck 2012: 141).

Remarks:

• EMC has a stela of this Kamis. The text inscribed on it states that his wife was Sebeknakht, and his son was Nakht (CG 34048. Lacau 1909: 82-84). This Nakht was the owner of # 235 (Kees 1960 [ZAS 85]: 45) and TT 397. See Habachi 1968 for the inscriptions from TT 397.

• Since # 235, belonging to the grandson of Kamis, is dated to the reign of Amenhotep II, our cone is best dated to the period between the reigns of Thutmose I and Thutmose II.

• The Kamis mentioned here was the same person depicted on a stela housed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Inv. # 17.2.6. Hayes 1990: 172-173, Fig. 94. The vowel 'A' in his name is clearly inscribed between 'K' and 'm'). His grandson was Amunhotep who had # 151 and # 198. 

• Inv. no. 72.1588 preserved in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston may have belonged to our Kamis.

• Kees and Dewachter thought that the owner was one and the same person with TT 398 Kamose called Nentawaeref whose cones were # 13, # 118 and # 119 (Kees 1953: 21; Kees 1958: 8; Dewachter 1984 [RdE 35]: 86-87). However, as written in the 'Remarks' sections of # 13, # 118 and # 119, I do not believe that the owner of # 13 was the same person with the other cones. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the owner of cone # 207 was the same individual as that of # 118 and # 119. If # 207 also belonged to the same person, the following problems would arise:
  1. The uprased arms sign (D 28), phallus sign (D 52), or bull sign (E 1) used in # 118 and # 119 and the basket sign (V 31) used in # 207 are not known to be interchangeable in any attested case.
  2. If TT 398 Kamose (Nentawaeref) were indeed the father of the owner of TT 397 (Nakht), the two tombs would show a striking disparity in size, despite both individuals holding the prestigious title sA-nswt tpj n jmn.
  3. There is no overlap in titles between # 118 – # 119 and # 207. One would expect that the most socially significant title possessed by an individual would recur across all funerary cones associated with him.
  4. The provenances of # 118 – # 119 and # 207 differ significantly, which further complicates any assumption of shared ownership.
  5. The owner of # 207, Kamis, is never attested under the alternative names Kamose and/or Nentawaeref.
  6.  Moreover, while the wife of Kamis (owner of CG 34048) is named as Sobeknakht, no wife is mentioned either in TT 398 or on cones # 118 and # 119 associated with Kamose (Nentawaeref). This absence may suggest that the Kamose of TT 398 had no wife, further weakening the case for identity with the Kamis of # 207.
  It is, of course, possible to hypothesize that TT 398 was Kamose’s first tomb, constructed prior to his marriage to Sobeknakht, and that # 207 was embedded in a second, as yet unidentified tomb built later. One might also argue that the absence of the wife's name in TT 398 is merely due to the poor state of preservation of the tomb’s interior decoration, and that she was originally depicted. However, at present, there is no concrete evidence to support such interpretations. 

• See also 04-072 in Macadam's Green file, 05-137 in his DALEX file 1, and 06-041, 042, 061, & 098 in his DALEX file 2.

Image Gallery