YOU ARE HERE:>> REAL or FAKE>>Egyptian>>Fake funerary cones, page 3.


This is an interesting one: quite an "old" fake.

One in the Fitzwiliam Museum and the other In the National Museum in Scotland. There is also one in the British museum.



The kings did not have funerary cones.

Some correspondence about this some time ago!

Another example has turned up.



February 2011.


Another on eBay.

Absolute nonsense.

Mould made so there are probably a lot of them around.



Our new book on Egyptian Funerary Cones.


Thanks to Nicolas for sending these pics.

Was for the "Is this genune?" section, but might as well go straight here.




Courtesy of Gary:

- The most notable feature is the pristine condition of the cone: no chips to the edges, damage in any form. Not impossible but highly unlikely to find a cone in this condition.


- Most cones that have been fired have the darker colours internally- this one appears to be the same throughout. However I have seen the odd cone that has obviously been sun dried and has no discolouring.


- If the cone was genuine and in pristine condition/ no weathering, one would expect it to still have external colour: no evidence of white or red or any colour for that matter.


- There appear to be file marks on the body of the cone. This suggests that the cone was made of a solid mass and filed into shape: I have never seen this before on the real article. Also the usual finger marks are missing on the cones body.


-There is no cone similar in Macadam. Whilst Obelisks were associated with the primeval mound and the worship of the sun, cones were, it seems, used only for decoration of the actual obelisks in  private tombs.The usual pictorial cones ( which are scarce anyway) depict the owner in prayers to the sun and/or the solar bark and the heavens. No obelisks.



The hieroglyphs:



-The ankh, 2nd column from the right , this hieroglyph was not executed in this style. In fact this style is more akin to the Roman/Coptic period and was not unlike the basic sign of the cross we see today.


-There is no "Honoured by Osiris" or "True of voice"  which is not necessarily incorrect but is in the minority.


-The majority of the hieroglyphs are not well executed or consistent in form.

There is no use of the "eye of Osiris" hieroglyph  which normally takes the form of the eye on cones and shabtis.


Combined grammatically the hieroglyphs do not make a lot of sense. For example the centre column if it is referring to Isis (which would be unusual  ) or even Osiris the rest of the sentence does not make sense.


-There appears to be considerable repetition of individual hieroglyphs/words. This in itself is not necessarily impossible BUT on genuine cones symbols/words that are repeated are mainly to do with occupations. For example you usually find something along the lines of ..........Honoured by Osiris , Huy  Scribe of..whatever......  Scribe of..whatever........ OR  similarly Overseer of..whatever.......... Overseer of...whatever........Overseer of ..whatever...... etc . Yet I can find no evidence of this occurring. In this case its mainly just individual symbols like the owl ( letter M) which get repeated.



January 2012.

  • Another quite well formed fake funerary cone.

  • Even the interior might be acceptable as there is indeed some variation on the more typical black core.

  • The hieroglyphs here are totally meaningless. 

Another one.  Also carefully broken to make it look ancient.

Was sold on eBay.

Was apparently sold by someone who does know about Egyptian antiquities.

Why then was it  shown the wrong way up?

This is the image flipped can now easily see that it is the  same one.

Look at the interior.

It is the one on the right.

Compare with the other example.

And another, sold at an auction house which has a specialist department for antiquities.


And yet another. Nice and fairly freshly made.


There are a few fakes around which replicate the typical appearance  of the inside material but this one does not.


The variety of internal appearance.


More fake funerary cones unfortunately>>>>