Katherine Reece Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I noticed this in footnote 59: "A recent article
> has proposed that the two pieces reconstructed by
> Loeben as a single shawabti of Nefertiti belonged
> instead to two separate shawabtis, one of
> Nefertiti and the other of Meritaten: J.-L. Bovot,
> "Un chaouabti pour deux reines amarniennes?" Egypt
> Afrique et Orient 13 (1999), 31-34"
>
> Have you read this article, or know the argument
> for this position? I remembered Nicholas Reeves
> mentioning this in passing in his book Akhenaten:
> Egypt's False Prophet but he provided no details.
> He only said, " ...turn out not to belong to the
> same figure, as was once thought" and also said
> that it is a votive offering from earlier in
> Akhenaten's reign and not a shabti and therefore
> has no bearing on Nefertiti's status at death. I
> notice Allen doesn't mention anything about the
> shabti not being a shabti and he doesn't seem as
> convinced as Reeves that the reconstruction by
> Loeben was in error.
What Allen and Reeves are referring to is this article by Loeben:
Loeben, C. E. 1986. Eine Bestattung der grossen königlichen Gemahlin Nofretete in Amarna? Die Totenfigur der Nofretete.
MDAIK 42: 99-107.
In this article, Loeben proposed that two fragments, Brooklyn Museum 33.51 and Louvre AF 9904, can be interpreted, on the basis of the agreements of numerous parts as an approximately 30 cm high shabti of Nefertiti, as the figure carries a fly whisk and a /
HqAX/ sceptre, as do royal shabtis, and is designated on the known fragments as the the king's Great Royal Wife and /
Hsyt n nsw/ "the chosen/promised one of the king", probably as a reference to Nefertiti being the main recipient of Akhenaten's teachings, states Loeben.
Loeben constructed a possible set of inscriptions for the missing parts of the two fragments, which can be found in Aldred 1988. I believe Aldred interpreted the term /
Hsyt n nsw/ as "heiress," but you would need to check his book as to why he did this.
Obviously, not all agree with Loeben's textual reconstruction, but the fragments which do exist certainly do appear to be a shabti. I have seen the Louvre piece (which is the upper portion), while Aldred has an image of the lower piece from the BMA in his 1988 work on Akhenaten.
Reference:
Aldred, C. 1988.
Akhenaten, King of Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson.
HTH.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom