Embedded Files
Daressy #: 155
Owner: Shepenmut (tomb undiscovered, perhaps at Khokhah)
Reasons: --
Transliteration: Hmt Hm-nTr 3 nw n jmn pA-dj-jmn-nb-nswt-tAwj mAa-xrw Sp-n-mwt sAj Hm-nTr n jmn Xrj-Hbt sS mDAt-nTr bn-jw-thj-Hr Hm-nTr jmn Hr[-m-Ax]-bjtj
Translation: Wife of the third prophet of Amun, Padiamunnebnesuttawy justified, Shepenmut, two children, prophet of Amun, lector-priest, scribe of the divine books, Beniutehhor, prophet of Amun, Her[emakh]bity.
Date: Psamtik I (Malek 1999 [PM VIII pt. 2]: 760).
Length: -
Colours: White paint (ROM: 993X.2.80). Whitewash over the red body (Bulte 1981: 75).
Findspots:
One from TT 106 (01-202 in Davies's notebook).
Unknown examples from near TT 133 (01-202 in Davies's notebook).
Remarks:
Cone for the husband of the owner is # 20.
A fragment of a basalt statue featuring this family is mentioned in Pellegrini 1898 [Rec. trav. 20]: 98. For a prosopographic study on this family, see Vittmann 1978: 66-95.
There is a fake cone imitating # 401. See here.
Is Louvre Museum's inv. no. E 33689 the mould for cones # 401 and # 584? If so, this would mean that # 584 and # 401 were created around the same time. However, because there is no trace of the rim of # 401 on the upper part of the actual cones of # 584 (for example, see MET: 15.10.49, Louvre: E 863 (N 707 47, CF 112, Clot bey C 16 nº220)), it suggests that the former was created slightly earlier than the latter. At the same time, it implies that he or she engraved # 584 in the corner of the mould. This means that, while creating the mould for # 584, he or she already had in mind the necessity of making another cone mould (for # 401) adjacent to the one for # 584, and thus wanted to leave room for it. However, all of these discussions are based on the assumption that this item was truly a mould used for making cones. I do not believe that this item was a mould created by the ancient Egyptians for making cones. For example, take another look at the actual cones of # 584, such as those in the Kunsthistorisches Museum (inv. no. 1709), the MET (15.10.49), and the Louvre (E 863 (N 707 47, CF 112, Clot bey C 16 nº220)). These cones have relatively large margins outside the stamped areas, and those margins protrude slightly more than the stamped sections. If this item were truly a cone mould and # 584 had been made using this mould, it would not protrude forward like this; rather, it would have been almost the same height as the stamped areas. Considering this, it is more likely that this 'mould' was not made to produce cones but was created based on cones # 401 and # 584. Furthermore, there is a possibility that this object is not from ancient times but rather a modern creation.
See also 05-041, 051, 108, 109, & 131 in Macadam's DALEX file 1 and 06-064, 065, & 068 in his DALEX file 2.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse