TAA i.3.22.58

                                                                                                           12/<13>

          When dealing with these/<these> very imperfect seal impressions, it is 

possible that in the case of seal impressions <types> (E) and (H), by their 

being so similar in device, they may have been <composed[?]> confused in identi-

fication. However, <I should note,> among all the impressions <of this class> upon the original 

closings of the four doorways, I have never been able to find/<not succeeded in finding> an impression that could be identified with absolute certainty as 

seal (H). All t/<T>he impressions on the original of the type (E & H)

on the original closings that could be in/<d>entified with certainty, 

<always> proved to be imprints of seal (E). Under such circumstances it 

seem would seem reasonable to suppose that they were all imprints 

of seal (E), and that seal (H), found repeatedly on the subsequent 

l/<c>losings, was only employed when/<by> the officials <who> reclosed the breaches 

made by the robbers. To strengthen this assumption/<supposition>, the seven 

seals (A to G), undoubtedly employed during the original closing 

of the tomb at the time of internment, are all <special seals,> private/<personal> in nature: a

they either bear the king’s prenomen or refer to him <indirectly>.