60
Daressy #: --
Owner: TT 276 Amunemopet
Reasons: Inscription and provenience
Transliteration: jmAxy xr Asjr Xrd [n] kAp jmj-rA aXnwtj jmn-m-jpAt mAa-xrw
Translation: Revered one before Osiris, child [of] the kap, chamberlain, Amunemopet justified.
Date: T. III – A. II
Length: --
Colours: White over red face (01-077 in Davies's notebook).
Findspots:
40 from the TT 276 area (Gauthier 1919 [BIFAO 16]: 176–183).
One from the court of TT 276 (Fakhry 1937 [ASAE 37]: 35).
16 from the tomb Z1 at Dra Abul Naga (Aglan 2020: 203, 206, 273, and 353).
Remarks:
EA 9728 in the British Museum gives a better text for this cone (James 1959 [JEA 45]: 116).
The ascribed owner is identical to that of # 186.
Curiously, 16 examples of this cone were found at Dra Abul Naga, but no examples of # 186, which was in the possession of the same official, were found there. This means that someone # 60 deliberately chose to transport from TT 276 at Qurnet Murai to Dra Abul Naga for unknown reasons.
Our cone is different with # 186 in the design. It also has only jmj-rA aXnwtj, but # 60 has Xrd n kAp as well as jmj-rA aXnwtj. This means that the makers of the two cones were most likely different. According to Saad, TT 276 did not yield any Xrd n kAp titles (Saad 2022: 18 and 21). Therefore, Amunemopet did not have Xrd n kAp at first and after he had made # 186, cut his tombs, and painted the wall decoration, he received the title and then made the second cone, # 60.
However, considering the meaning of the title Xrd n kAp as 'child of the kap', it is unlikely that it was something bestowed upon a person only after reaching adulthood, as the position would have been attained already in childhood. Why, then, was the cone referring to Xrd n kAp created later? The following possibilities can be considered as answers to this question:
1. The title Xrd n kAp might not be interpreted in its literal sense but as a title given to a person who achieved some accomplishments in adulthood. In this case, while the title Xrd n kAp could be significant enough to merit the creation of a new cone, it suggests that it was not valuable enough to warrant modifications to completed murals or the construction of a new tomb.
2. The title Xrd n kAp could be interpreted literally, but it might only be formally used by someone who had accomplished certain achievements. In this case as well, while the title Xrd n kAp could be important enough to justify remaking a cone, it indicates that it was not valuable enough to require adjustments to completed murals or rebuilding a tomb.
3. It is possible that the owners of cones # 186 and # 60 were not actually the same individual but only had similar names and titles. Initially, the owner of # 186 may have constructed TT 276, but later, the owner of # 60 might have reused that tomb.See also 04-112 in Macadam's Green file, 05-014 in his DALEX file 1, and 06-040, 088, 089,