1 N.° 29691.15.16

There is no doubt about the identification of the numbers detected on this object: 29691 is the entry number of the Journal d’Entrée of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, 15 refers to Daressy ‘A.List’ while 16 to Bouriant ‘B.List’.

The description of the inner coffin (petit cercueil interieur) decoration fits perfectly with the interior decoration of the inner coffin N.INV. 8528. At the same time the description of the outer coffin (grand cercueil) corresponds exactly with the interior decoration observed on the outer coffin N.Inv. 8524.

We thus have the full identification of a four-piece ensemble (lids and cases) belonging to the anonymous woman buried in the coffin set A.15. Besides, we can include in this burial assemblage a fifth piece, the mummy-cover: without any doubt N.Inv. 9534.⁸ In this case the decoration of the object follows very closely the scheme detected on the lid of the inner coffin (N.Inv. 8528).

Only one problem remains to be solved: the Journal d’Entrée (JE) number. Document n. 7 states the number 29691, while the report published by Daressy in 1907 gives the number 29695.⁹ This discrepancy could have been the result of a typing error that occurred during the edition of the text, so we decided to trust in Document 7 (compiled soon after the discovery) and maintain the number J.E. 29691.

To summarize, we have the following situation:

2 N.° 29701.60

The words ‘grand cercueil’ led us to speculate that we are dealing with an outer coffin. Indeed, the name Ankhefekhonsu appears in the hieroglyphic texts on the case of the outer coffin N.Inv. 8523. This is a male outer coffin (striped wig, closed hands and hole on the chin for the joint of the beard), so no doubt about the identification of this object with part of the burial equipment of the deceased A.60 of Daressy List. Furthermore Niwiński matches the objects N.Inv. 8521 and 8522 with the number 8523 and Daressy records that the name Ankhesenmut was read on the ‘planche intérieure’ of the coffin set A.60.¹⁰

Actually the name Ankhesenmut appears in the inscriptions of the mummy-cover N.Inv. 8521 and leads us to uphold the matching. The material evidence confirms the speculation of reuse proposed in the document sources: on the mummy-cover the striped wig was re-painted black and painted earrings were added below the ears in sight; the breasts were painted below the lappets of the wig and the hands were replaced (in fact the open hands are disproportionate to the general layout of the object).

As for the inner coffin, unfortunately we cannot match the inner coffin N.Inv. 8522 with those objects, because it surely does not belong to the coffin ensemble A.60 (see below).

Looking for an inner coffin to associate with the outer coffin and the mummy-cover, only the female anonymous coffin N.Inv. 8526 is left (in fact N.Inv. 8528 belongs to A.15 and N.Inv. 8527 bears another name—see below).

However the matching of N.Inv. 8521–8522–8523 creates noticeable problems. First of all, the three components are of very different styles and seem to have been produced in different workshops in different times, certainly not for the same woman. In fact as we have seen the outer coffin was usurped from a man (though the lid still maintains its male characters, we can notice that in the inscriptions of the case the name Ankhefenkhonsu was erased to overwrite that of the new owner). The same can be said about the mummy-cover. As for the inner coffin, it has female features but is anonymous (the space reserved for the deceased name was left blank), so we can only speculate if it was reused or commissioned by the deceased.

The mismatch is further corroborated by the typological and consequently chronological comparison: the outer coffin dates to the end of the 21st Dynasty (type of the lid III-a, type of the case C/3c), while the inner coffin shows traces of archaization (type of the lid between IIa and IId, type of the case A/2a) and the mummy cover dates to the first half of the 21st Dynasty.¹¹ In conclusion, the components of this coffin ensemble appear to have been scrambled together from various sources and reused for the burial of Ankhesenmut.

3 N.° 29676

‘Cercueil de Khonsoumès, scribe de la maison d’Ammon’. The matching seems to be unquestioned, giving that the inscriptions of the lid of the N.Inv. 8527 display the name and the titles of Khonsumes.

While lacking in Document 7, the matching of the number A.22 of Daressy List with a deceased called Khonsumes is confirmed by all the sources.¹² As for the entry in the Journal d’Entrée of the Cairo Museum, two J.E. numbers are associated with the coffin of Khonsumes and this matching is confirmed by all the sources:¹³ 29676 and 29731. The fact that in Document n. 7 only the number 29676 appears could mean that

1. The same coffin was given two numbers (one for the lid and another one for the case) or

2. The funerary equipment of Khonsumes consisted in two pieces (outer + inner coffin or inner coffin + mummy cover) and the second object was lost.

It should be remarked that the inner coffin N.Inv. 8527 has been later modified for a woman: the ears were covered and earrings were added in paint; the closed hands were replaced with open ones (now lost).

This situation led us to consider the features of a female mummy-cover preserved in the Florence Egyptian Museum, namely N.Inv. 9530. Its decoration strikingly recalls the decoration of the lid N.Inv. 8527, but this resemblance was never considered because the mummy-cover ‘clearly’ belonged to a woman and its provenance was unknown.¹⁴

Once more the material evidence led us to speculate that this mummy-cover was a part of the coffin ensemble A.22 and suffered the same fate of the inner lid: indeed even here we can detect the traces of reuse, with the covering of the ears, the painting of the earrings and the adding of the open hands. But the clearest evidence of the reuse is to be noticed in the lower part of the inscriptions of the mummy-cover: here the title and the name of the male deceased (Khonsumes) was clearly erased to overwrite the title (mistress of the house) and the name (now lost) of the female usurper.

To conclude, the final setting up of the coffin ensemble A.22 results as follows:

4 N.° 29644

The word ‘cercueil’ is not useful for a match, but if we consider the number (clearly the J.E. number) this object can be associated with the number A.56 of Daressy List¹⁵ and with the funerary equipment of a priest of Amun named Karo.

The only male object of the Lot V, apart from that of Khonsumes, is the N.Inv. 8525. Following the material evidence one would expect to notice a coffin, but unfortunately we found just an anonymous male outer lid on which only the titles ‘Priest of Amun’ and ‘Scribe’ appear. How about the case? Is it lost? Luckily it is not so. After a careful search within the museum collection we found a case on display in room VIII of the Egyptian Museum of Florence. It was anonymous¹⁶ and without inventory number, but according to some stylistic consideration it could be matched with our lid: both the lid and the case are 2,12 m long; the painted decoration of the case, showing an iconography influenced by the Books of the Netherworld, fits perfectly with the decoration of the lid (IIIa) dating from the end of the pontificate of Menkheperra to the end of the 21st Dynasty.

But how about the name? All the textual sources agree in recording that the name of the deceased buried in A.56 was Karo,¹⁷ but following the material evidence the outer coffin N.Inv. 8525 is anonymous. In such a situation, the name Karo must have been written elsewhere, that could be

1. A further component of the burial assemblage (inner lid or mummy-cover) or

2. The mummy of the deceased itself

We searched long in the storerooms for a further coffin or a mummy-cover that could fit with the outer coffin A.56, but with no results. Maybe the object was lost during the shipping, or never left the Cairo Museum, or even it might have been shipped elsewhere with a different lot.

Therefore, for now the setup of A.56 is as follows:

5 N.° 20.25

In light of the above, only the inner coffin N.Inv. 8522 has to be matched.

This female coffin is anonymous, but its matching could not be more specified: on the headboard of the lid, precisely in the part corresponding to the neck, we noticed a little tally inscribed with the number ‘20.25’: this can only refer to the numbers A.20 and B.25.

In Document n. 7 there is no mention about other objects pertaining to this funerary ensemble. Nevertheless in the Museum storerooms we found a female mummy-cover that could fit with our coffin. N.Inv. 9476 is anonymous and its provenance is unknown.

Following the material evidence we noticed striking affinities in the decoration of the two lids (the panels with udjat-eyes that adorn the forearms; the shape of the sacred scarab, with the head perfectly distinguished from the corpse; the first part of the inscriptions, with the use of the same composition, the same words, the same signs and even the same colours).

In conclusion, this is the setup of the coffin ensemble A.20:

Summarizing the results of our study on the coffin ensembles of Lot V, the Egyptian Museum of Florence received two complete coffin sets, two inner coffins with mummy-cover and an outer coffin.

To give a general view of the findings we present a Table of Concordances, concerning the concordances between the Inventory Number of the Egyptian Museum of Florence (INV.Florence), the number of the ‘A.List’ given by Daressy,¹⁸ the number of the ‘B.List’ by Bouriant,¹⁹ the number of the Journal d’Entrée of the Cairo Egyptian Museum and the number of each coffin in the fundamental publication of Niwiński.²⁰ The reference is completed by notes about the typology of the object and name and titles detected on it. Finally the corresponding number of the present Catalogue is given.

The entries listed in the Catalogues of the Florence Egyptian Museum are given in plain black, while the new entries identified after this study are given in bold black.

Table of Concordances