Mummfication Museum lecture - TT147

Theban Tomb Project TT147 Dr Boyo Ockinga MacQuarrie University

BTW When I write these notes I do try and look things up and when doing this one I found this very interesting link which talk about the work of the Australians in Egypt http://arts.monash.edu.au/archaeology/excavations/assets/documents/corroboree-catalogue.pdf

TT147 is located in the Dra Abu Naga area of the Theban Necropolis and belongs to Nefer - renpet. There is a gully just above it which runs down the hill directly into the courtyard of TT147 which has caused many problems for the tomb and they are trying to block this off to protect the tomb. The courtyard is filled with debris and the mud brick walls have been washed away. There is a different, softer stone in the gully and a hard rock around it and this made the ancient workmen move the position of the door. When the removed the existing door it revealed the sandstone threshold. The tomb is T shaped and has been reused with possible 2 subsidiary burials.

The original burial was in the time of Amenhotep III. The walls were blackened by soot and smoke which surprisingly was easy to remove compared to other similar tombs. Some lovely dancers were revealed by Ali Abdullah the restorer who uses a mixture of distilled water, alcohol and ammonia on tissue paper which is peeled off 30-40 seconds after application. Conservation was needed on the plaster as it was very vulnerable. The stone was poor quality so they had mud plaster walls 20cm thick and some of the mouldings were in this. On top of this there was two other layers plaster. Flooding had badly attacked the lower parts of the wall and the burial chamber had thick layers of silt. However they were able to make use of this during reconstruction. There was nothing left in the burial chamber except the impression of a wooden coffin in the mud.

Who were the owners of TT147?

The name was erased in antiquity, who did this?

Was there one or two owners?

There is definitely Amarna period damage, the owner was an official in the temple of Amun so that name was hacked out but there was also the owners name rubbed out. Funerary cones had been found which identified the owner these are DM464 and DM459 (I did not get where these references were from and would appreciate any help with that). From these cones the owner Nefer- renpet was the owner, the sheer number and the location makes him confident that the cones belong to this tomb. He was the scribe who counts the cattle of Amun. His wife’s name was also erased. Another title Chief Elder of the portal in Karnak also appears. There are two different sons offering to these people with 2 different titles. There are places where both titles are used but the second title does not appear on the funerary cones. From all this he concludes there was one owner who had two titles.

The reason there are two types of damage hacking and erasure is because one damage is Amarna period and the other is reuse of the tomb. Some scenes show a different style of perfume cone. Those from the Third intermediate period have distinct lines drawn on them but XVIII dynasty cones, the original period of this tomb do not have this feature. There is a name Amun Ra Ns pauty-(taw) which is a common name in the Third Intermediate Period. They found a lot of cartonage. He is a priest of Amun and responsible for the changes. There were shabties Nes-pauty-tawy God’s father which are 21^st dynasty.

Two different sons offering to owners with 2 different titles. There are places where both titles are used but the second title does not appear on the funerary cones. From all this he concludes there was one owner who had two titles.

The reason there are two types of damage hacking and erasure is because one damage is Amarna period and the other is reuse of the tomb. Some scenes show a different style of perfume cone. Those from the Third intermediate period have distinct lines drawn on them but XVIII dynasty cones, the original period of this tomb do not have this feature. There is a name Amun Ra Ns pauty-(taw) which is a common name in the Third Intermediate Period. They found a lot of cartonage. He is a priest of Amun and responsible for the changes. There were shabties Nes-pauty-tawy God’s father which are 21^st dynasty.

Art

There are two sets of scenes with banquet, musician and dancers. In the long hall they are lively with broad strokes whereas in the broad hall they are more detailed and less lively. This indicates different styles and possible different artists. Also in the long hall there is less light so this might have influenced the art. Duplicate scenes of the tomb owners also show different styles. In the banquet scenes the figures have more movement and different feet positions. The funerary people are more rigid and conservative.

Nebamun in the British Museum shows an elaborate style where TT147 is more like Nakht

Melinda Hartwig talks about there being 2 different styles with different artists so depending on who you were you would have used an artist from the temple school (priest) or the court school (official) during the reigns of Tutmosis IV and Amenhotep III

The temple style has composites and the state they are arranged around a large seated figure of the owner and his wife. Minor figures are small lively vignettes rendered gracefully. The shapes are drawn fine and relatively precise. This tomb seems to have a mixture of both styles with the long hall using the court style and the broad hall the temple style so we may need to rethink this definition

As always I am grateful for corrections