The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 10 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Prince Ahmose Sapair again
Open accessAbstract
Some years ago, I argued in an article published in this journal that the figure being worshipped on British Museum stela BM 360 is Prince Ahmose Sapair. Claude Vandersleyen indicates serious doubts about this identification in a recent book. My aim in these few lines is to refute his arguments against the identity of Ahmose Sapair in the above mentioned stela
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In this brief rebuttal, Pino Fernández defends her identification of the figure worshipped on British Museum stela BM 360 as the deified Prince Ahmose Sapair against Claude Vandersleyen’s doubts. She argues Vandersleyen’s objections are inconsistent, especially because he accepts a Hermitage glass statuette as Ahmose Sapair on comparable evidence.
Key findings
- The author maintains that BM 360 shows Nakhy worshipping “Satpair,” whom she identifies as the sanctified Prince Ahmose Sapair, and calls the stela “the first evidence of worship to Prince Ahmose Sapair in Deir el-Medina.”
- Vandersleyen’s 1983 article listed up to 20 documents related to Ahmose Sapair but omitted BM 360; his 2005 book discusses and illustrates BM 360 yet says the association with the prince is “pas tout à fait sûre” and that “il n’y a pas de certitude à se sujet.”
- Pino Fernández notes that Vandersleyen identifies the blue glass statuette in the State Hermitage Museum (Inventory number 752) as Prince Ahmose Sapair even though its inscription only gives *sA pA ir mAa xrw*, just as BM 360, with no full name, title, or company of royal deified persons.
- She points to a contradiction: Vandersleyen includes BM 360 in the “Table succincte des attestations utilisées” and identifies the theoretically doubtful figure as “Le prince” in the “Liste des documents utilisés,” number 16, despite calling her paper’s bases bad.
Methods
- Short polemical/rebuttal article responding to Vandersleyen’s earlier article and recent book; no new excavation or survey is presented.
- Focused on the textual and artefactual case of BM 360, compared with Vandersleyen’s treatment of other Ahmose Sapair documents, especially the Hermitage statuette inv. 752 and the Louvre statue E 15682.
- Analysis is argumentative: it cites Bierbrier and Demarée as supporting the identification and Bolshakov on glass statuettes, using consistency and contradiction in Vandersleyen’s own publications.
Limitations
- No limitations section is stated in the paper.
- Evident from the text: it is explicitly “these few lines” and aims only to refute Vandersleyen’s arguments, so it does not present a full new epigraphic or iconographic study of BM 360; it refers readers to the author’s 2003 article.
- Evident from the text: the argument relies heavily on secondary scholarly opinions and on alleged inconsistency in Vandersleyen’s publications rather than on new primary evidence.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 10 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingnone given§ Abstract
The inscription on the back of the throne of the Hermitage statuette only reveals sA pA ir mAa xrw, just as BM 360.
“The inscription on the back of the throne only reveals: sA pA ir mAa xrw, just as BM 360.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation§ Abstract
The figure worshipped on British Museum stela BM 360 is Prince Ahmose Sapair.
“Some years ago, I argued in an article published in this journal that the figure being worshipped on British Museum stela BM 360 is Prince Ahmose Sapair.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Pino, Cristina (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation§ Abstract
Vandersleyen does not give credit to Bierbrier's opinion that Sitpair is the deified Prince Ahmose Sipair.
“Moreover, he does not give any credit to M. Bierbrier, whose opinion is transcribed in the book, who states:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bierbrier, Morris (1993)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation§ Abstract
Vandersleyen's arguments against the identity of Ahmose Sapair on BM 360 are based on omissions: the name Ahmose, the title sA nsw, or other royal deified persons.
“Vandersleyen argues against the identity as Ahmose Sapair in this stela basing his argument on several omissions: the name Ahmose, the title sA nsw or other royal deified persons.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Vandersleyen, Claude (2005)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning§ Abstract
The argument used by Vandersleyen for the Hermitage statuette is exactly the same as the argument used by Demarée referring to BM 360.
“The complete name, the titles, the company of royal deified persons, appear to be no longer necessary, only the appearance: exactly the same argument used by Demarée referring to BM 360.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
- It may state two separate claims as one. 5
Probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ AbstractVandersleyen identifies the blue glass statuette of the State Hermitage Museum (Inventory number 752) as Prince Ahmose Sapair.
“it is surprising that these omissions do not prevent the author from identifying as Prince Ahmose Sapair the blue glass statuette of the State Hermitage Museum (Inventory number 752).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Vandersleyen, Claude (2005)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim.
Premisecitation§ AbstractVandersleyen has serious doubts or reservations about the identification of the figure on BM 360 as Prince Ahmose Sapair.
“Claude Vandersleyen indicates serious doubts about this identification in a recent book.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
“it is clear that Vandersleyen, at least, has reservations about the identity of the figure worshipped on BM 360”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Vandersleyen, Claude (2005)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation§ AbstractVandersleyen affirms that the Hermitage statuette is a reduced facsimile of the Louvre statue and that the prince's image was so striking that even his material appearance was respected.
“Vandersleyen affirms: Cette statuette est un fac-similé en réduction de la statue de Louvre […] l'image du prince a tellement frappé les esprits qu'on respectait même son apparence matérielle 11 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Vandersleyen, Claude (2005)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation§ AbstractVandersleyen disparages Demarée's assessment of BM 360 and omits reference to Demarée's description.
“In the same way, Vandersleyen disparages R. J. Demarée's assessment of BM 360 as he omits reference to Demarée's description of the stela:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Demarée, Robert Johannes (1983)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationreasoning§ AbstractThe complete name, titles, and company of royal deified persons appear to be no longer necessary, only the appearance, in Vandersleyen's argument for identifying the Hermitage statuette.
“The complete name, the titles, the company of royal deified persons, appear to be no longer necessary, only the appearance: exactly the same argument used by Demarée referring to BM 360.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation§ AbstractVandersleyen's recent book alludes frequently to BM 360 and twice illustrates it.
“However, his recent book alludes frequently to BM 360 and twice illustrates it 4 .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Vandersleyen, Claude (2005)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation§ AbstractBolshakov asserts that complexity of technology made glass statuettes a luxury and probably they were manufactured only in royal workshops; at least most of them represent kings.
“As A. O. Bolshakov asserts: A complexity of technology made glass statuettes a luxury and, probably, they were manufactured only in royal workshops; at least most of them represent kings 10 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites A. O. Bolshakov
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Premisecitation§ AbstractBM 360 is absent from Vandersleyen's first article: it is not catalogued among the 20 documents related to Ahmose Sapair and is not mentioned at all.
“In it, Vandersleyen enumerates up to 20 documents related to Ahmose Sapair; this stela is not catalogued amongst them.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“I am at a loss to explain the reasons for this omission, because the author does not mention the piece at all.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Vandersleyen, Claude (1983)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
Citations
Cites
Fernández, C. P. (2003) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · Cited by 1
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Pino Fernández, C.
- Venue
- Trabajos de Egiptología. Papers on Ancien Egypt
- Publisher
- University of La Laguna
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 1695-4750
- Pages
- 107-108
- OpenAlex
- W2513502499
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scientia Insularum Revista de Ciencias Naturales en islas (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Universidad de Sevilla
- Universidad de La Laguna
- Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
- Universitat de Barcelona
- Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Classics › Classical Antiquity Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Ancient Near East History
- Keywords
- New Kingdom Egypt
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-17, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-17 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
