Key Research Questions 

Naturally, areas of interest and research topics concerning funerary cones vary from scholar to scholar. However, the research themes outlined below are ones that virtually all researchers are likely to share, and will probably continue to be studied for some time to come.

1. Completing a concordance between cones and tombs

The total number of known cone types approaches 700, but the corresponding tombs are known only for a portion of them, and the existence of still-undiscovered tombs must also be taken into account. Establishing a precise correspondence between cones and tombs, case by case, and completing a table of these relationships is therefore an indispensable task of basic research.

2. Determining the date of each cone type

In order to investigate the historical distribution of funerary cones, it is not sufficient to assign them only to broad periods such as 'the New Kingdom'. As far as possible, it is desirable to narrow the date down to shorter spans such as “the reign of King X”.

3. Clarifying whether there are period-specific characteristics

Funerary cones have a long history, and in some cases it is appropriate to discuss their characteristics by period. In fact, the types of clay used in their manufacture appear to change over time. If we also examine the design of the seal impression, the content of the inscriptions, and the style of writing of the script, and trace how these elements change over time, it may be possible to construct a chronological framework that will assist in dating cones more precisely.

4. Clarifying how funerary cones were manufactured 

For example, such research would seek to reconstruct in detail topics such as how the body of the cone was formed (some examples appear to have been thrown on a wheel and hollowed out, whereas others seem simply to have been hand-modelled), who actually made them (in some cases the finger marks are so small that they suggest manufacture by a child of around ten years old), how the stamp was applied and what kind of matrix or mould was used (in some instances the impression seems to have been made by placing the matrix below and pressing the cone down onto it, while in others the cone appears to have been held in one hand and the matrix stamped onto it with the other), and what kind of clay fabric was used and in what sequence of production steps.

The following topics 5–8 are all directly related to clarifying the purposes for which cones were produced.

5. Tracing changes in the function of cones

For the earliest cones, which appear in the Middle Kingdom, a widely held view is that they derive from decorative imitations of the ends of wooden beams. However, it is unlikely that the function of cones remained the same at every point between the Middle Kingdom and the Late Period. In the New Kingdom, for example, personal names and titles were stamped on them. It therefore seems probable that the use and function—that is, the intended purpose—of cones differed from period to period.

6. Clarifying why impressions were made on both conical cones and rectangular bricks

Stamped bricks can be regarded as a variant of the cone form, but the adoption of a brick shape is very likely to have been related to the architectural structure of the tomb. If there was a functional distinction between cases where a stamp was applied to a conical body and those where it was applied to a rectangular (brick-shaped) one, it is necessary to elucidate how this distinction operated and how the two forms were used differently.

7. Explaining why some individuals possessed multiple cone types

When a single individual is associated with more than one cone type, it is important to determine whether this diversity reflects mere personal preference or whether it carried social significance. Clarifying this point will help us to understand how funerary cones were used to express status, identity, or other aspects of the owner.

8. Identifying the criteria that distinguished owners of cones from non-owners

Even within the same period and among persons of apparently comparable social status, some individuals possessed funerary cones while others did not (for example, the viziers Ramose who had # 132, # 133 and # 694/B.67 and Rekhmire who had no cones). It is therefore necessary to analyse, period by period, which factors determined the possession or non-possession of cones—whether the decisive elements were the types of titles held, overall social rank, kinship ties, economic circumstances, or practical architectural requirements of the tomb, such as locations where retaining structures or similar features were needed.