Amarna, Before and After

[Aldebaran]

4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

It's quite possible that he did NOT want the throne for various reasons -- or that something happened and the royal family decided that he should not be on the throne.  This has happened in European royal houses; I don't see why it would be impossible in ancient Egypt.

If a prince really did not want to succeed, I don't suppose he could be forced to.  Maybe I didn't make the point forcefully enough that Khaemwaset of QV44 didn't seem to live long enough to be buried by the actual successor, Ramesses IV, who also had a tomb in the VOQ as a prince.  QV53.  Marta Faruggia, in her paper on the sons of Ramesses III wrote:

"Ramesses Meryamen seems to have been crown prince that is Eldest King’s Son as from regnal year 27 of Rameses III. This could offer us an approximate time of prince Khaemwaset’s death in or before Rameses III’s 27 th year. This is supported by an inscription found in the Theban Tomb TT148 which belonged to High Priest of Mut at Karnak, Amenemopet at whose appointment prince Ramesses Meryamen officiated."

Also, as I mentioned before, Khaemwaset's image in his tomb was never changed from that of a prepubescent lad, which could have been easily done by painting a wig over his shaven head.  Of course, Ramesses III reigned for a few more years after his Year 27 when Ramesses Meryamen appears as crown prince.  In two other tombs of sons of Ramesses III, the lads are painted wearing wigs.  It really does make a difference where age is concerned.  Only those still considered children [before puberty] had bald heads with the exception of a sidelock and this is the same for princesses.  I could not find an image of Prince Ramesses Meryamen in QV53, so I don't know what status he had achieved when his tomb was prepared.  But, as he became pharaoh, he never needed it, regardless.

Still, I would like to know what kind of "inscription of Ramesses IV" was found on that sarcophagus from QV44.  I suppose one must get hold of something from Schiaparelli to learn that, as I have not been able to so far.  It says online that the Italian discovered the mummy of Amen[hr]khopeshef in QV55, which surprised me very much as I had never heard of such a mummy.  Regardless, the QV44 sarcophagus, whose image I posted, need not be for the original intended occupant.  Perhaps even a son of Ramesses IV, himself.  But unless I learn more, I really don't know what links that king to the anthropoid stone sarcophagus.

Edited September 8 by Aldebaran

[Wistman]

Just a guess, we might be dealing here with two Khaemwasets, sons of succeeding pharaohs.  There were a few, besides the famous son of Ramesses II.

  .

Edited September 9 by Wistman

[Wepwawet]

Further on whether the depictions of the Thutmose in this discussion are all of the same person. In "The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt" by Dodson and Hilton, only six separate individuals with that name are listed. King Thutmose I,II,III and IV, the eldest son of Amunhotep III and the 22nd son of Ramesses II. A further Thutmose appears on a whip handle found in the tomb of Tutankhamun and named as commander of chariotry. This is believed to refer to either Thutmose IV when he was a prince, or to the son of Amunhotep III. It cannot of course belong to the son of Rameses II, and there are no other Thutmoses known apart from those already listed.

All of these depictions show a king's son with the name of Thutmose and wearing the leopard skin of a sem. One of these statues is a model funeral bier, so this Thutmose cannot be any of the ones who became king, and Thutmose I can be ruled out of being any of these statues as he was not the king of a son. This only leaves the sons of Amunhotep III and Ramesses II. From the depiction in the tomb of Apis I we know for certain that prince Thutmose, eldest son of Amunhotep III, was a sem. Nothing is known about Thutmose son of Ramesses II except his name, however, his elder brother Khaemwaset was first sem, and then HPPM while keeping the title of sem, therefore this mitigates against the prince Thutmose on the funeral bier being the son of Ramesses II.

There is a small statue of a prince Thutmose dressed as a sem grinding wheat. This activity fits with text on the base stating that this is a "servant of the god, his miller". This does not mean that he is a miller, he cannot be as he is the son of a king, but as a servant of the god it is his responsibility to make offerings to the god, and here he is grinding wheat to make a bread offering. The translation of the text on this statue is made to better fit the activity, the reason being that we translate the title hem-netjer, variants being hem-neter and hem-netcher, as priest. So I think that translating the text as "servant of the god" is better than "The priest, his miller". I'll go into more detail about priests in a later post. As there is no evidence for any royal Thutmose being a sem other than the son of Amunhotep III, then, unless evidence contra comes to light, he is the only candidate to be the person depicted on this statue.

As regards the cat sarcophagus, until the article doubting it's authenticity can be produced, then I'm going to assume that it is genuine, maybe somebody wants to pay £23 to read one article and let us all know what it says. However, as there is no known prince Thutmose who was also a sem other than the son of Amunhotep III, and this item is alleged to come from Mit Rahina, the site of the temple of Ptah at Memphis, it has to be assumed, barring evidence contra, that it did belong to Thutmose son of Amunhotep III.

A note on the sem. The only item of clothing that denotes the wearer is a sem is the leopard skin, there is no headgear specifically for a sem, there are depictions of them wearing various forms headgear and none at all.

 

 

Edited September 9 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

This is an image of Khaemwaset E in what is described as his tomb, QV44, though the focus is on his father Ramesses III, and even when Khaemwaset is depicted it is not in a mortuary setting, even while this is a tomb. Very curious. However, here he is in what I guess is full dress for a prince. The text above him says that he is sem-priest of Ptah. Note that he is not dressed as a sem and has the usual sidelock of youth. IMO, the images on the walls of this tomb look more like the sort of images you would find in a temple, either a normal temple for a god or in a king's mortuary temple during the NK. Mostly the images in this tomb remind me of the Set I temple at Abydos.

 

 

 

Edited September 9 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

This is Ptah-mai, chief wab-priest of Ptah during the reign of Ramesses II. Note that he is shaven headed. He also wears a sash which is usually the mark of a lector, but they could hold multiple positions, even to the extent of being members of the priesthoods of more than one god and working in different temples in rotation. Wab-priests, meaning pure ones, did not have access to the inner sanctums of a temple, that was reserved for the 1st priest [high priest], 2nd priest [often, or always, the sem] only one of each, or just the one when the high priest was also the sem, and the multiple members of the 3rd and 4th rank priests. When applied to the Amun priesthood we call these four ranks of priests "prophets", with the high priest being "First Prophet of Amun", but this is a misnomer thanks to the Greeks, and they are all a hem-netjer of the fourth to first ranks. These stolists, as this was their basic function, held the rank of hem-netjer, servant of the god, and were closer to being what we in modern terms see as a priest than the wabs. The chief wab could be seen as being the equivalent of the modern verger or sexton in a cathedral, but not allowed beyond the crossing into the choir and high alter. The wabs below chief wab could be seen as cleaners and workmen responsible for the upkeep of the temple. Curiously, allthough they were considered to be not pure enough to serve the god as a stolist, on festivals when the god was carried around a route for the population to see, it was the wabs who carried the shrine, and they also exerted some power in the form of "divination" in the manner in which they carried the shrine, this is very arcane and was to do with when and where they stopped with the shrine along the route, and this was, it seems, fully under the control of the wabs.

Edited September 10 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

Came across this today, it's the full version of an article that I first read in Ancient Egypt magazine a few years ago. The author is retired dentist Joseph L. Thimes. There is I think only one area of serious contention, and that is in the age he gives for the Younger Lady based on her dentition, and that is 15 or 16. Otherwise, this is a very clearly laid out and well argued article, of particular note being the family trees he has produced to show various scenarios. He calls for the re-testing of the royal mummies using better techniques than used in 2007, and for the testing of Thutmose IV and the KV35 boy, who we know has definately been tested in 2022 along with the two KV21 mummies. I suspect that we will  not be presented with these new results this month, and that they will be released in a documentary still in the making, and I don't doubt there will be a lot of hype for this. I disagree with the releasing of important information in the form of documentaries, usually full of hyperbole, extraneous information and dubious dramatic reconstructions.

Reasons for re-testing the Tutankhamun family DNA

[Wepwawet]

This video is a general one about Ancient Egypt presented by Chris Naunton, but does cover some aspects related to this thread, and many others of course. It's a bit lightweight due to the format, but heavy stuff I think for anybody who thinks the pyramids are landing pads for flying saucers, power plants or "warnings about disasters" 😁

I thought I would include this video as well, and again presented by Naunton. It is a very clear and concise guide to hieroglyphs, and would @Kenemet have been useful some weeks back, even if disregarded by those challenged by hieroglyphs, common sense and sanity.

 

Edited September 10 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

On 9/9/2024 at 5:12 AM, Wepwawet said:

A note on the sem. The only item of clothing that denotes the wearer is a sem is the leopard skin, there is no headgear specifically for a sem, there are depictions of them wearing various forms headgear and none at all.

 

Oh, yes?  I've only seen the one wig with the long braid on any of them.  Can you point to a statue, something, indicating a sem of Ptah without it?  Since you tie all the items of Prince Thutmose to Memphis and the piece of relief that remains certainly was found in the serapeum, that is a specific sem priest.  If you count those guys wearing leopard skins in the royal tombs as sems, they were not necessarily sems of Ptah.  I would venture to say--not unless they wore the right wig.  What they were called was the "iwn mwt=f", the pillar of his mother, who were the officiants at the funerals of their royal fathers.  Other priests, Theban ones not associated with Ptah and his cult, are seen everywhere in tombs performing their duties.  They sometimes wore the leopard skin, as well, and their heads were mainly bald.

I have no difficulty reading German but I am not paying 42 American dollars to read one paper.  Ridiculous price.  I have a lot of curiosity but not that much.  I see Aidan Dodson has published a new book on Thutmose III and Hatshepsut.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't know of any new information about those two rulers having emerged in years.  I also don't buy books that merely repeat what I already know in order to supplement the author's income.  That's for Egyptophiles who are not that well informed.  Below is a scene from a tomb [forgot whose] at Qurnet Murai in the Theban necropolis.  It shows priests with the cult statues of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye.

Also, notice the fans.  Statues don't get hot and so don't require a breeze.  The fans just indicate "these are very important royal persons".  That's why one shouldn't underestimate the fan bearer hovering over the infant in the mourning scene in the royal tomb at Amarna.  The presence of the fan seems to me to indicate that this child is the most important person in the entire scene and also the most vulnerable. needs protecting.  This is a scene from the palace.  The child's sister has just died in another room and her parents are very distraught.  The mother seems to want to go to the daughter but her husband restrains her.  Why?  There is no reason--except if the husband, Akhenaten, realizes, suspects, that whatever killed the princess is catching.  The dead child's attendants are of no consequence.  

Edited September 10 by Aldebaran

[Aldebaran]

22 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

However, here he is in what I guess is full dress for a prince. The text above him says that he is sem-priest of Ptah. Note that he is not dressed as a sem and has the usual sidelock of youth.

Honorary title is the reason.  He's just a child.  He could have been shown with the wig, I suppose, but wasn't.

[Aldebaran]

9 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

This is Ptah-mai, chief wab-priest of Ptah during the reign of Ramesses II. Note that he is shaven headed.

He's a wab-priest, not a full time position.  Nor a sem.

[Aldebaran]

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Reasons for re-testing the Tutankhamun family DNA

The dentist again.  Well.  To quote from the site:

"One very unusual DNA pattern of concern is the full brother-sister relationship of the KV55 male to the Younger Lady (i.e. the parents of Tutankhamun). They share 11 out of 16 alleles, which indicates a high level of consanguinity within previous generations – past members of the family were possibly close cousins or even more incestuously related."

That is just plain wrong!  Doesn't this man understand that we don't get our alleles from previous generations--but from only two people, our parents?  That KV55 male and the Younger Lady have only the alleles that Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye had to donate.  They share a lot of DNA, about half, because they are a full brother and sister!

"The parents of KV55 and the Younger Lady were Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, who were not full brother and sister. However, a second DNA pattern showing a 6 out of 16 allele match was found for the father-in-law/son-in-law association of Yuya and Amenhotep III. This indicates both of these individuals were probably closely related."

So what?  How does that indicate "a high level of consanguinity within previous generations"?  

"It is possible that Mutemwiya, a minor wife of Thutmose IV and the mother of Amenhotep III, could be the full sister, or even half-sister (sharing a mother or father), of Yuya. If a full sister, this could explain the 11/16 allele match between KV55 and the Younger Lady, but also the match between Yuya and Amenhotep III. Another possibility could be that Amenhotep II was father to both Thutmose IV and Yuya. If so, this would mean Yuya and Thutmose IV were full, three-quarter or half-brothers. This too would explain much in the high allele match of KV55 to the Younger Lady and also that of Yuya to Amenhotep III. If neither of these relationships turns out to be true, then I would suspect either a fatherdaughter relationship between Amenhotep III and Sitamun, or mother-son incest between Tiye and Crown Prince Thutmose."

The dentist wrote this because he, evidently, had not read the 2020 paper by Hawass et all discussing a different aspect of the DNA of Tut's family members--mitochondrial and y-DNA.  Yuya and Amenhotep III may have been related, but they neither have the same mitochondrial nor y-DNA.  Amenhotep III would have had the same mitochondrial DNA as Mutwemwia, his mother, which is a sub-variant of H.  Yuya does not have H but K--so could not have been a full brother [with the same mother] of Mutemwia.  Some other relationship is not ruled out. Regardless, Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, themselves, do not share very much DNA at eight markers,  However much they share has no bearing on whether or not KV55 and the Younger Lady are their children--which they are for sure.  Nor is Yuya a son of a pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty--because his y-DNA does not match theirs, which is R1b.  A dynasty of pharaohs should have all the same y-DNA, passed on from father to son in an unbroken chain--unless there was some treason on the part of a royal wife.  The rest is not worth commentary.  No valid reason for re-testing was given.

 

[Aldebaran]

Not only does the DNA not indicate "consanguinity of previous generations", nor does the archaeological record.  From my paper "Some Nefertiti Logic":

"[Thutmose I] Even though the pharaoh was a commoner, one of his wives, Ahmose, is styled "king's sister", which likely means she was a close relative of her husband, although not necessarily his sister―because the word "snt" can mean other female connections, such as "cousin" or "niece". If Ahmose had been a sister of the predecessor, Amenhotep I, she would have had the right to be styled "king's daughter", as well.

In the following generation, Thutmose II [son of another wife, Mutnofret] and his half-sister, Hatshepsut, became king and consort for a short term. Yet, after that, incest was not so preferable, if even always possible. It is very likely that, at first, Thutmose III married his half-sister, Neferure, probably at the insistence of Hatshepsut. The other wives of Menkheperre were not of his family. The wives of his son, Amenhotep II, are not so well-known but, even though we are aware that he had sisters, none are indicated as having become queens. [Amenhotep II was not the son of a sister of Thutmose III]

The mother of the successor, Thutmose IV, was Tiaa and no one knows her background. This Thutmose did have a sister, Iaret, for a queen but she was not the mother of the next king. Neither was Nefertari, another attested queen of Thutmose IV, who had only the title of "Hmt nsw wrt" or "Great Royal Wife [chief spouse]. That could, of course, be given to any female selected by the pharaoh, but during the time of the 18th Dynasty, only one spouse at a time bore it.

The one who gave birth to the future Amenhotep III was a woman called Mutemwia, of whom nothing is known.¹ And, via DNA and archaeology, we are certain that the chief wife of that next ruler was the daughter of commoners, Yuya² and Thuya.

It is obvious that, by this point in Dynasty 18, having a sister for a queen had lost much of the importance it once had. Besides, it cannot have escaped the notice of the clever ancient Egyptians that the progeny of such unions often had physical and mental defects, had to have had according to much more recent scientific research.

1Except her mitochondrial haplogroup, which was H2b, passed on to her son, Amenhotep III.

2Yuya seems to have been a relative of Amenhotep III. They share considerable DNA.

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

Oh, yes?  I've only seen the one wig with the long braid on any of them.  Can you point to a statue, something, indicating a sem of Ptah without it?  Since you tie all the items of Prince Thutmose to Memphis and the piece of relief that remains certainly was found in the serapeum, that is a specific sem priest.  If you count those guys wearing leopard skins in the royal tombs as sems, they were not necessarily sems of Ptah.  I would venture to say--not unless they wore the right wig.  What they were called was the "iwn mwt=f", the pillar of his mother, who were the officiants at the funerals of their royal fathers.  Other priests, Theban ones not associated with Ptah and his cult, are seen everywhere in tombs performing their duties.  They sometimes wore the leopard skin, as well, and their heads were mainly bald.

It's interesting that the only images that seem to exist of sem-priests of Ptah are those of prince Thutmose and Khaemwaset, both of whom were also HPPM. Now of course there is a discussion to be had about these two and when they became HPPM, but I want to deal with the sem in general and what they wear as I do not believe that a sem-priest in the temple of Ptah will be wearing anything different to any other sem.

The first image shows a Iunmutef priest in the tomb of Seti I, and he wears a wig with sidelock, therefore this is not specific to Ptah. However, there is a difficulty in using the Iunmutef priest as an example for anything as it is possible that no such actual priest, or even position, ever existed in reality. You may think well of course they existed, here he is shown on a wall, but the issue is that nobody, to the best of my knowledge, ever claims to have been an Iunmutef priest. It is thought that the Iunmutef is a construct for specific scenes and that he represents Horus. This is similar to a sem of course, but at least we know for certain that the sem was a real person.

The second image shows two sem- priests, both wearing normal wigs without a sidelock, no leopard skin, and wearing the sash of a lector, but as can clearly be seen they are labelled as sem.

The third image shows a sem, again clearly labelled, and this time wearing a leopard skin, but with a normal wig.

 

[Aldebaran]

I should clarify something.  Yes, of course, when it comes to DNA our parents get their own alleles at the markers from their own parents and so on and so forth going back through the generations.  But when I say we only get our own alleles from two people, that's exactly right.  If our parents don't have it to give--we don't get it.  We certainly don't get all the DNA our parents got from their own parents.  Let me illustrate.

Dad --has two alleles at every marker but only gives one of them to an individual child, not always the same one.

Mom--has two alleles at every marker but only gives one of them to an individual child, not always the same one.

In other words, half of the DNA our parents got from our grandparents we never get.  As an example, at only eight markers Tutankhamun got nothing at all from Amenhotep III at one marker.  He would have received even less from his grandfather except that his parents were a full brother and a sister and Amenhotep III his only grandfather.

 

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

He's a wab-priest, not a full time position.  Nor a sem.

No, of course he's not a sem, but he is still a priest of Ptah, and while not a hem-netjer is, by virtue of being chief wab, and important part of the temple administration, he does in fact control the majority of priests in the temple. This raises the question of what headgear does a hem-netjer of Ptah wear, and is the reason I made the post.

[Aldebaran]

5 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

It's interesting that the only images that seem to exist of sem-priests of Ptah are those of prince Thutmose and Khaemwaset, both of whom were also HPPM.

No, there were others,  Just scroll up in this discussion a bit and you will see a link I gave to one who has a statue of himself in a naos.  Yes, the iwn-mwt=f was just a role the successor was supposed to play and that son was not necessarily a priest--but may have been.  Also, the wig of a grown prince may be a bit hard to distinguish from that of a sem priest of Ptah,  The rest are just sem priests with nothing special about their attire.

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

Honorary title is the reason.  He's just a child.  He could have been shown with the wig, I suppose, but wasn't.

Is it known for certain that these titles were honorifics. The more I think about it the less I am inclined to think any of these titles were honorifics, and yes, I know I've posited in the past that some titles may be honorifics, but is it because this is something we do, and have done for some time. When you see that an Ancient Egyptian held multiple roles of priest in various temples, are we to presume that only one title was valid and that the rest were honorifics, I don't, but, it's a matter of opinion, and I more and more prefer to accept that if a person has multiple titles, then unless there is evidence that they did not fullfill all these roles, the titles are valid.

Edited September 10 by Wepwawet

[Aldebaran]

9 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

Also, the wig of a grown prince may be a bit hard to distinguish from that of a sem priest of Ptah, 

But not in the illustration you posted of the iwn-mwt-f.  He has a sidelock, alright, but the braid does not descend directly from the crown of the wig like that of a sem-priest of Ptah, the only men I have ever seen wearing such a wig and the high-priest, too, I suppose as Prince Khaemwaset son of Ramesses II was one and he wears it.  Also that guy in the naos temp. Thutmose III.

[Wepwawet]

11 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

No, there were others,  Just scroll up in this discussion a bit and you will see a link I gave to one who has a statue of himself in a naos.  Yes, the iwn-mwt=f was just a role the successor was supposed to play and that son was not necessarily a priest--but may have been.  Also, the wig of a grown prince may be a bit hard to distinguish from that of a sem priest of Ptah,  The rest are just sem priests with nothing special about their attire.

That's Khaemwaset, who we know was sem and HPPM anyway. What is needed is an image clearly identifying somebody as sem or other hem-netjer in the temple of Ptah who is neither Khaemwaset or prince Thutmose. The image you posted of a figure in limestone, I guess, in white and wearing a black wig and sidelock is interesting, but no details as to who this is and what the context is. It looks like an offering, but to whom and where and by whom.

[Wepwawet]

For reference, this is the image of a HPPM who is not either Thutmose or Khaemwaset. This is Ptahmose from the 18th Dynasty, and his wig and sidelock are clear. Interestingly, the other man, Ptahankh, also a priest of Ptah described as his "choirmaster", is shaven headed.

[Aldebaran]

12 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

That's Khaemwaset, who we know was sem and HPPM anyway. What is needed is an image clearly identifying somebody as sem or other hem-netjer in the temple of Ptah who is neither Khaemwaset or prince Thutmose.

That's not the one I meant.  This is the link I posted to Ptahmose, high priest of Ptah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptahmose_I_(High_Priest_of_Ptah)#:~:text=Ptahmose was High Priest of,III of the 18th Dynasty.&text=Ptahmose inside a naos%2C in Cairo (CG 70038).&text=He held the titles of,and High Priest of Ptah.

 

[Wepwawet]

13 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

But not in the illustration you posted of the iwn-mwt-f.  He has a sidelock, alright, but the braid does not descend directly from the crown of the wig

An important point, as the wig of the Iunmutef has the sidelock we associate with youth, while the Ptah sidelock is rounder and "tighter", and as you say, higher up.  Though fashions in sidelocks did change between the 18th and 19th Dynasties, the former being the rounder type, the later the wider type.

[Wepwawet]

2 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

That's not the one I meant.  This is the link I posted to Ptahmose, high priest of Ptah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptahmose_I_(High_Priest_of_Ptah)#:~:text=Ptahmose was High Priest of,III of the 18th Dynasty.&text=Ptahmose inside a naos%2C in Cairo (CG 70038).&text=He held the titles of,and High Priest of Ptah.

 

I couldn't find that one, and I guess he is the same Ptahmose in my post above, this time showing that he is both HPPM and sem at the same time, clearly a common-ish practise with them.

[Aldebaran]

3 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

7 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

That's not the one I meant.  This is the link I posted to Ptahmose, high priest of Ptah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptahmose_I_(High_Priest_of_Ptah)#:~:text=Ptahmose was High Priest of,III of the 18th Dynasty.&text=Ptahmose inside a naos%2C in Cairo (CG 70038).&text=He held the titles of,and High Priest of Ptah.

 

I couldn't find that one, and I guess he is the same Ptahmose in my post above, this time showing that he is both HPPM and sem at the same time, clearly a common-ish practise with them.

Well, yes, but that doesn't mean every sem priest of Ptah was a high priest.  Little Khaemwaset, son of Ramesses III wasn't a HP.

[Antigonos]

6 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

This video is a general one about Ancient Egypt presented by Chris Naunton, but does cover some aspects related to this thread, and many others of course. It's a bit lightweight due to the format, but heavy stuff I think for anybody who thinks the pyramids are landing pads for flying saucers, power plants or "warnings about disasters" 😁

I thought I would include this video as well, and again presented by Naunton. It is a very clear and concise guide to hieroglyphs, and would @Kenemet have been useful some weeks back, even if disregarded by those challenged by hieroglyphs, common sense and sanity.

 

I spoke to him briefly on Twitter a few years ago, telling him how much I enjoyed his Egyptian Notebooks volume which had just been published. A nice guy.