UNIVERSITÀ DI NAPOLI L’ORIENTALE
Dipartimento Asia, Africa e Mediterraneo

Studi Africanistici
Serie Egittologica
4

Animals in Religion,
Economy and Daily Lifeof Ancient Egypt and beyond
a cura di
R. Pirelli, M.D. Pubblico & S. Ikram

UNIVERSITÀ DI NAPOLI L’ORIENTALE
DIPARTIMENTO ASIA, AFRICA E MEDITERRANEO

Studi Africanistici––––––––––––
Serie Egittologica
4

Direttrice
Rosanna Pirelli
Comitato scientifico
Alessia Amenta, Katarina Arias, Bettina Bader, John Baines,
Irene Bragantini, Rita Lucarelli, Floriana Miele, Salima Ikram,
Daniela Picchi, Federico Poole, Alice Stevenson
Comitato editoriale
Ilaria Incordino, Stefania Mainieri, Massimiliano Nuzzolo,
Maria Diletta Pubblico, Anna Salsano

UNIVERSITÀ DI NAPOLI L’ORIENTALE
Dipartimento Asia, Africa e Mediterraneo

Studi Africanistici––––––––––––––––
Serie Egittologica
4

Animals in Religion,
Economy and Daily Lifeof Ancient Egypt and beyond
a cura di

R. Pirelli, M.D. Pubblico & S. Ikram

UniorPress

Napoli 2023

UniorPress
Via Nuova Marina, 59 - 80133, Napoli
uniorpress@unior.it

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License

ISBN 978-88-6719-285-4
Il presente volume è stato sottoposto al vaglio di due revisori anonimi

CONTENTS
Contents ..................................................................................................................... 5
Preface ........................................................................................................................ 9
Acknowledgements................................................................................................ 11
Abstracts .................................................................................................................. 13
List of abbreviations .............................................................................................. 27
Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze:
Considerations about the Materiality and Value of Containers for Animal
Mummies kept in the Museo Egizio, Turin
Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti .............................................................. 31
Gift to Sobek.
Preliminary Results of the Analysis of a Young Crocodile Mummy in the Allard Pierson
Ben van den Bercken, Marinus Hoogmoed, Roel Jansen, Nick Lobé, Mario Maas &Zosja Stenchlak ......................................................................................................... 63
The Faunal Remains from the “Economic Annexes” at the Temple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep II (Luxor, West bank)Fabio Bona ................................................................................................................. 71
Wandering Falcons:
On the Referent and Meanings of Nemty Hieroglyphs (/, G7A / G7B)
Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo ................................................................................... 83
Food for Thought:
Considering the Presence of Zoomorphic Figurines in Predynastic Egyptian
Burials
Elizabeth Brice ......................................................................................................... 109

6Contents

Animals Remains from the Egyptian Collection of the Civic ArchaeologicalMuseum of Milan:
Conservation and Study Project
Sabrina Ceruti & Cinzia Oliva ............................................................................... 137
Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt:
A Comparison between Animal Iconography and Faunal Remains of the
Bagrus Fish
Ramona D’Alfonso .................................................................................................. 153
The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture
Elena D’Itria............................................................................................................ 173
Meroitic Lexemes Concerning Animals
Gilda Ferrandino ..................................................................................................... 193
The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period
Laura Harris ............................................................................................................ 203
Wrapping it Up: Animal Mummy Studies in 2022
Salima Ikram ........................................................................................................... 225
Mythical Animals of Kush.
Remarks on the Imaginary Creatures and Religion in Kerma
Andrea Manzo ......................................................................................................... 235
Animals of Ancient Kheny: The Rupestrian Collection
Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyatt .............................................................. 271
Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife:
Function and Fashion in Early Roman Egypt
Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych.......................................................... 291
The Imperial Iseum in Benevento and its Zoomorphic Gods
Rosanna Pirelli ........................................................................................................ 311

Contents

7

A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS) Project:
An Introduction
Maria Diletta Pubblico ............................................................................................ 331
Some Remarks on Roman Period Mummy Masks from Kellis with theJackal Motif:
An Update on Regionalism and Craftsmanship in the Western EgyptianDesertCarlo Rindi Nuzzolo ............................................................................................... 349
Appendix. Programme of the 3rd International Symposium
on Animals in Ancient Egypt, the Middle Nile and their Hinterlands ........ 361

Preface
Since time immemorial, animals have played a key role in all aspects of
Egyptian civilization. They were believed to be the manifestations of divine
power on earth through which believers might easily address their concerns
to the gods, they provided food, raw materials, were a mainstay of the economy, a measure of wealth, and inspired art, language, and literature. Amongthe hieroglyphic signs of Alan Gardiner’s Sign-list, more than one hundredand fifty belong to the animal world. The omnipresence of fauna has long
been regarded as a curious and/or odd expression of Egyptian culture. Yet
this situation has changed over the last years, with the number of research
devoted to this topic growing considerably.
The International Symposium on Animals in Ancient Egypt, the Middle
Nile and their hinterlands (ISAAE) was founded with the aim to trigger ameaningful dialogue between peers coming from different research fields,
who share an interest in the interactions between animals and humans in ancient Egyptian and Nubian societies, thus fostering a useful exchange of data,techniques, and methods, which will widely contribute to advance the stateof-the-art on the topic. The first two previous editions of the ISAAE, hosted
by the Musée de Confluences in Lyon and the American University in Cairo,
offered significant progress and inspiration in this field. The Third Symposium was hosted at the University of Naples “L’Orientale” (UniOr) from 15th
to 17th June 2022. The ISAAE3 was organized by the Department of Asian,African and Mediterranean Studies (DAAM) of the UniOr in partnership with
the American University in Cairo.
The main objective of the ISAAE3 was to provide an insight into the roleof animals in Ancient Egypt and beyond, from the 5th millennium BC to the
7th century AD, to report on the most recent advancements in this field, topave the way for future research, and to identify potential challenges. The
three intensive days of meetings and discussions provided a valuable opportunity to exchange and update theoretical and field research topics, as well as
technical issues related to modern research technologies. Scholars from allover the world (Europe, United States, Egypt, Japan, Australia) have addressed a plethora of animal-related topics: archaeozoology, slaughter,10Prefacemummification and related modern preservation-restoration techniques, funerary practices, religion, terminology and writing, arts and crafts, nutrition,
economy and resources exploitation. These studies have been carried out
also applying ground-breaking technologies and advanced methodologies,
such as 3D imaging, CT-scans, radiography, radiocarbon dating, as well as avariety of chemical analyses.
This volume collects the results of these investigations, thereby broadening our knowledge on the role of animals in religion, economy and daily lifeof ancient Egypt, and beyond.

Rosanna Pirelli, Maria Diletta Pubblico, Salima Ikram

Acknowledgements
The 3rd International Symposium on Animals in Ancient Egypt, the Middle Nile and their hinterlands (ISAAE3) has been organized thanks to the effort of various institutions and people, to whom the editors are very gratefulfor their commitment to the success of this event.
We are indebted to the University of Naples “L’Orientale” (UniOr), andespecially to the Dean, Roberto Tottoli, and the Director of the Department of
Asian, African and Mediterranean Studies (DAAM), Andrea Manzo, for accepting to host the Symposium and the logistical support. We would like tothank the other members of the Scientific Committee: Andrea Manzo (DAAM,
UniOr), Cinzia Oliva (Freelance Restorer), Stéphanie Porcier (Labex Archimède, Montpellier).
We want to express our gratitude to the members of the Organizing Committee: Elena D'Itria (DAAM, UniOr), Ilaria Incordino (White-Levy Programme for Archaeological Publications, Cambridge, MA), Stefania Mainieri(Museo Egizio, Turin), and Anna Salsano (Independent Researcher), without
whose efficiency and commitment the Symposium would not have takenplace.
Moreover, we thank our sponsors: the University of Naples “L'Orientale”,
the American University in Cairo, the Grafica Montese S.N.C., the Royal Trophy S.R.L., the Study Center about Africa (CESA), the Interdepartmental Services Center for Archaeology (CISA), the National Archaeological Museum of
Naples (MANN) and the Archaeological Parks of Pompeii and
Herculaneum.
We would like to express our warmest thanks to the reviewers, whotook time away from their busy schedule to help us in the double-blind peer
review process of the articles published in this volume. A special thanks
also goes to the UniOr Press for the editorial work.

12

Acknowledgements

Finally, we would like to acknowledge all the participants to the Symposium, for having broadly contributed to the advancement of the discipline bysharing their research.

Rosanna Pirelli, Maria Diletta Pubblico, Salima Ikram

Abstracts
Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze:
Considerations about the Materiality and Value of Containers
for Animal Mummies kept in the Museo Egizio, Turin
Johannes Auenmüller & Federica FacchettiCollection, Research and Education Area,
Fondazione Museo delle Antichità Egizie di Torino, Italy
johannes.auenmueller@museoegizio.it
federica.facchetti@museoegizio.it
The Museo Egizio, Turin, preserves a significant collection of animal mummies and containers for faunal remains. The currently running Turin Animal
Mummy Project has committed itself to the comprehensive documentation andpublication of these objects. The present article provides a preliminary overview of the different materials used to make the animal mummy containers
in the collection: ceramic, wood, stone, and bronze. Questions about the valueof the materials and the “functional materialism” of the animal mummy containers made in these different materials are also addressed. The present paper is intended to stimulate discussion on the economic significance and materiality of the animal coffins that were a significant part of the ritual offeringsof certain animal mummies involved in the enormous animal mummy industry of the 1st millennium BC and beyond.
Keywords: Pharaonic Egypt, 1st millennium BC, animal mummy containers,
materiality, economic value

14

Abstracts

Gift to Sobek
Preliminary Results of the Analysis of a Young Crocodile
Mummy in the Allard Pierson
Ben van den Bercken1, Marinus Hoogmoed2, Roel Jansen3, Nick
Lobé3, Mario Maas3 & Zosja Stenchlak3
Allard Pierson, Collections of the University of Amsterdam
b.j.l.vandenbercken@uva.nl
2 Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém, Brazil;
3 Amsterdam University Medical Centers
1

The Allard Pierson – Collections of the University of Amsterdam is investigating its thirteen animal mummies, including a young crocodile that was recently acquired and never previously investigated. The crocodile mummy
was CT-scanned and x-rayed. After preliminary analyses and discussion, it
was featured in a small exhibition in the Allard Pierson. The scanning process
yielded data that tells us more about the individual animal, the mummification process and the post-depositional life of this specimen. Research is stillongoing to answer questions on species, traumas, more traces of the mummification process, and its provenance history.
Keywords: crocodile mummy, provenance, CT-scanning, morphological analysis,
species determination

The Faunal Remains from the “Economic Annexes” at theTemple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep II (Luxor, West bank)Fabio Bona
Centro di Egittologia Francesco Ballerini, Como, Italy
fabgeo@libero.it
In the southern area of the Temple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep II alabyrinthine structure consisting of very small to medium rooms have beenunearthed. The presence of several walls with episodes of rebuilding testifies

Abstracts

15

to the active reconfigurations of the area from the 18th Dynasty to the Ptolemaic period. In addition, the presence of rooms with ovens, remains of ostraca
and large numbers of pottery sherds clearly testify to the diverse activities
carried out in this sector of the Temple.
The excavation of the fills overlying the floors allowed us to collect a small
but significant faunal assemblage that dates, probably, to early episodes in thedevelopment of the Temple.
The faunal complex is composed of fragments of bones of mammals, birds,
and fish along with the shells of freshwater bivalves. These appear to represent the remains of meals consumed by the persons (probably scribes) thatworked in the temple.
Keywords: Temple of Millions of Years, Amenohotep II, “economic annexes”, faunal
complex

Wandering Falcons:
On the Referent and Meanings of Nemty Hieroglyphs (G7A / G7B)/,

Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain
francisco.borrego@uam.es
The hieroglyph/(G7A / G7B etc.) has been described as a falcon on aboat, on a crescent, or on a throw-stick. To date, studies have focused on its
phonetic reading – which is Nmtj and not *antj – and have paid only cursory
attention to its visual referent. A new approach to the reality of signs should
consider elements that have been overlooked: their earliest attestations (fromthe fourth and third millennia BC) and their palaeographic features; the texts
relating to the god Nmtj; and, above all, the ethology, life cycle and habitat of
the Falconidae of the Nile Valley. This last set of factors is essential for understanding the nature of ancient Egyptian falcon hieroglyphs and the extent ofancient Egyptians’ knowledge of the animal world.
Keywords: Ancient Egypt, hieroglyphic writing, falcons, Nemty, nest

16

Abstracts

Food for Thought:
Considering the Presence of Zoomorphic Figurines in
Predynastic Egyptian Burials
Elizabeth BriceMacquarie University, Sydney, Australiaelizabeth.brice@hdr.mq.edu.au
This paper explores whether the animals represented as clay zoomorphic figurines in Predynastic burial contexts dating to Naqada IA–IID (ca. 3,800–3,325
BC) may be evidence of a novel Predynastic folk taxonomy relating to food or
consumable products. This follows a long-standing belief that zoomorphic
figurines in Predynastic graves are replicas of the real animals in the burial
context. The specific purpose of their replication and its benefits for the deceased still require further study, particularly when we encounter animal subjects that are not typically envisioned as ‘food’. Their potential purpose in theburial is compared with zooarchaeological evidence for the partial and complete remains of animals in contemporaneous graves to explore whether zoomorphic figurines and faunal remains may, in some circumstances at least, beconsidered complementary in their funerary significance.
Keywords: Predynastic Egypt, zoomorphic figurines, folk taxonomies, resources,
burials

Animals Remains from the Egyptian Collection of the Civic
Archaeological Museum of Milan:
Conservation and Study Project
Sabrina Ceruti1 & Cinzia Oliva2
Civic Archaeological Museum, Milan, Italy
saceru@tin.it
2 Independent Textile Restorer
oliva.c@libero.it
1Abstracts

17

The Egyptian Collection of the Civic Archaeological Museum of Milan holds
twenty-three animal mummies, almost all from private collections, except forseven baby crocodiles which come from Achille Vogliano’s 1930s excavationsat Tebtynis (Fayyum). As part of the ongoing refurbishment works of the permanent exhibition in the Egyptian galleries (presently closed and expected toreopen within some years), the museum launched a comprehensive diagnostic study and conservation project of the mummified remains from Egypt,both human and animal. The group of animal mummies, which have neverbeen the subject of a scientific examination, thus underwent a series of diagnostic and conservation studies. In the present paper the preliminary outcomes of the project will be presented. The examinations allowed in somecases to re-evaluate old and erroneous interpretation of the remains. During
the conservation project, special attention was paid to providing the animal
remains with supports, in order to provide safe and correct handling duringstorage and/or display, to avoid invasive treatments of the most fragile items,
and thus to allow future studies.
Keywords: animal mummies, Egypt, conservation, CT-scanning, textile, votive offerings

Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt:
A Comparison Between Animal Iconography and Faunal
Remains of the Bagrus Fish
Ramona D’AlfonsoFreie Universität, Berlin, Germany
ramonadalfonso@gmail.com
Old Kingdom Egypt's iconography provides a wealth of animal species andrural activities. Due to their standardised nature, iconographic contexts canbe categorised according to their environment, and animal species can be
identified through the figures’ study.
Although decorum has been widely recognised in Egyptian art for decades, it
has mainly focused on general figures and representation patterns. Thus, thequestion arises whether decorum also applies to animals and whether the18

Abstracts

depicted species were indeed present in the daily life of Egyptians. Comparing animal iconography with zooarchaeology remains an essential and inevitable step in gaining a better understanding of these issues.
The primary goal of this research is to identify any inconsistencies between
the Old Kingdom iconography and zooarchaeology, as well as explain theseinconsistencies using texts, zoological and ecological data. As a result, thisstudy reveals important discrepancies regarding Bagrus sp., which is absent
from the iconography but predominant in faunal remains. Accordingly, it
challenges the way artistic images are captured and the cultural knowledge
they represent.
Keywords: zooarchaeology, Bagrus sp., animal iconography, Old Kingdom iconography, decorum

The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture
Elena D’Itria
Department of Asian, African and Mediterranean Studies,
University of Naples “L’Orientale”, Naples, Italy
elenaditria2@gmail.com
Animals played a relevant role in the beliefs and ideology of the communitiesof the Middle and Upper Nile Valley, and the importance of fauna in the contexts of Kerma culture is undisputed. A considerable number of animal bones,
especially cattle, sheep, and goats, have been recovered during the excavationsof the ancient town and necropolis demonstrating that the subsistence and theritual sphere of these populations has been strongly linked to animals. This paper will allow us to better understand the social and religious value of fauna,
both domestic and wild, who not had only an economic role among Kerma people but also played an important part in the symbolic and religious domain.
Combining the results of the archaeozoological studies with the iconographies
representing animals found in Kerma sites, aims to provide new insights into
the nature of the religious beliefs and customs of the Kerma populations.
Keywords: Ancient Nubia, Kerma culure, fauna, funerary practices, symbolic role

Abstracts

19

Meroitic Lexemes Concerning Animals
Gilda Ferrandino
Department of Asian, African and Mediterranean Studies,
University of Naples “L’Orientale”, Naples, Italy
gferrandino@unior.it
The main information about Nubian fauna during the Meroitic period is derived from archaeological sites and iconography. Although some Meroitic inscriptions allude to animals, it is still difficult to learn about animals becauseof our very limited knowledge about the Meroitic vocabulary. At present, ofthe published list of thirty-nine lexemes with a confirmed meaning, fewer
than ten words refer to animals. Three of those included in the basic vocabulary present a convincing comparison between the North Eastern Sudanic(NES) languages, mainly based on the ongoing studies of proto-NES. The
other lexemes, outside the basic vocabulary, provide acceptable correspondences. The iconography associated with the main number of words has been
important to support their identifications and meaning.
Keywords: Meroitic language, Animals, Meroitic Inscriptions, parallel Texts
Method, contextual analysis

The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period
Laura Harris
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
laura.harris1@hdr.mq.edu.au
Cattle were important agriculturally, economically and religiously to the ancient Egyptians, and as a result they are depicted frequently in art. In some ofthese representations, cattle are shown with or undergoing a physical modification of their bodies. This paper will examine one of these practices, horn
deformation. The artificial deformation of cattle horns is represented in twodimensional art scenes from elite tombs throughout the Pharaonic period, andthis paper will focus on examples from the New Kingdom (c.1550-1069 BC).

20

Abstracts

Drawing on ethnographic comparisons, the process, purpose, and welfare implications of Egyptian modification will be discussed. Evaluation of the practice has revealed that, on balance, the Egyptians were not concerned with animal welfare when modifying the appearance of their cattle.
Keywords: cattle, horn deformation, animal modification, Egyptian art, animal welfare

Wrapping it Up:
Animal Mummy Studies in 2022
Salima Ikram
American University in Cairo (AUC), Cairo, Egypt
salima@aucegypt.edu
This article will present a brief history of the study of animal mummies before
discussing the current state of the field and possible future directions for its
development. It is an update of a paper (Ikram 2019) presented at the first
Symposium of Animals in Ancient Egypt, held in Lyon in 2016.
Keywords: Animal mummies, radiography, isotope analysis, ancient DNA, zoonotic
disease

Mythical Animals of Kush.
Remarks on the Imaginary Creatures and Religion in Kerma
Andrea Manzo
Department of Asian, African and Mediterranean Studies,
University of Naples “L’Orientale”, Naples, Italy
amanzo@unior.it
The contribution will deal with some imaginary creatures occurring in the
Kerma art. Indeed, mythical animals like criosphinx, winged giraffe andAbstracts

21

hippo with anthropomorphic body and others were represented in the capital
city of the kingdom of Kush in Kerma Classique times (ca. 1750-1550 BC). The
features of these mythical animals will be described, and their occurrence will
be outlined, with specific focus on the contexts where they were represented.
Some hypotheses on their meaning and on their relevance in the Kerma ideology and religion will be proposed.
Keywords: Kerma, Kush, religion, imaginary creatures

Animals of Ancient Kheny:
The Rupestrian Collection
Maria Nilsson1, John Ward2 & John Wyatt3
Department of Archaeology and Ancient History,
Lund University, Swaden
maria.nilsson@klass.lu.se
johnwardkt@gmail.com
3 British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, UK
1,2This paper presents an overview of animals depicted within the Swedish concession area of Gebel el-Silsila and Shatt el-Rigal, spanning the Prehistoric tothe early Islamic period. It includes commentaries on stylistic, technical andchronological phases of the rock art, and present an overview of distribution
patterns as well as a relative taxonomic morphology for the more frequent
motifs. Main emphasis will be on the early material as it represents the largest
group. The paper presents a relative stylistic timeline, divided into ninephases, based on the morphology and production technique used for the petroglyphs. Commentaries on empirical indices and temporal significanceshould be read as preliminary reflections and in a wider analytical perspectiveof general trends.
Keywords: animals, Gebel el-Silsila, rock art, Shatt el-Rigal, Swedish mission

22

Abstracts

Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife:
Function and Fashion in Early Roman Egypt
Marina Maria Serena Nuovo1 & Iwona Zych2
Ministry of Culture, Italy
nuanda45@hotmail.com
2 Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology
University of Warsaw, Poland
i.zych@uw.edu.pl
1

A rich repertoire of collars is depicted on dog and cat representations fromthe Roman age, including terracotta figurines, wall paintings and mosaics
from the 1st to the 3rd centuries AD. These depictions give insight into both thepractical function of collars on companion animals and possible ‘fashion’trends in this respect. Substantiating the review of iconographic sources is archaeological evidence of cat collars - the iron or copper-alloy rings with alocking device as well as bead collars - uncovered by the Polish-American
expedition working at Berenike (Red Sea, Egypt), where a cemetery of companion animals (“pets”) from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD has been excavatedsince 2017. The authors present the source material, both iconographic andarchaeological, looking at the functional design as well as aesthetics of theanimal collar in early Roman Egypt.
Keywords: Early Roman Egypt, Berenike, small animal/pet necropolis, cat and dog
burials, collars

Abstracts

23

The Imperial Iseum in Benevento and its Zoomorphic Gods
Rosanna Pirelli
Department of Asian, African and Mediterranean Studies,
University of Naples “L’Orientale”, Naples, Italy
rpirelli@unior.it
The texts of Domitian's two obelisks in Benevento inform us that in 88/89 AD,
Rutilius Lupus had a temple built in the Samnite city and dedicated it to thegoddess Isis to celebrate the emperor's victorious conclusion of the Dacian
Wars.
Although none of the ancient buildings found so far in the city can be attributed to an Iseum, the existence of such a temple is confirmed by a large
number of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic statues, a few epigraphs andsome architectural elements, most of which were found in a section of thefoundations of the ancient city walls; most of the fragments of the two obelisks
and another group of objects were found scattered in different areas of thecity.
Of the approximately fifty artefacts, numerous statues represent 'pharaohs',
in both human and sphinx form; two are anthropomorphic deities, three depict priests, and several statues represent sacred animals: four falcons, twobaboons and three Apis bulls; another bull is carved in high relief on an architectural frieze.
This extraordinary set of artefacts - belonging to different historical periods,
from the Pharaonic to the Ptolemaic and finally the Roman era - represents
one of the largest concentrations of Egyptian and Egyptianising materials belonging to a single cultic context of the imperial period outside Egypt.
Beginning with the publication that Wolfgang Müller devoted to the analysisof the Benevento 'Iseum’ in 1969, a lively debate (not yet concluded) has arisenon the nature of the temple, its possible location and the relationship of thismonument to the other temples dedicated to Isis scattered throughout the
Empire.
In order to provide an interpretative key to answer, even partially, some ofthese questions, my paper will briefly present all the Isiac sculptures in theSamnite Iseum, with a particular focus on the symbolism expressed by the24

Abstracts

zoomorphic deities, especially in relation to their role in the representation of
Domitian’s imperial image.
Keywords: Iseum, Benevento, Domitian, zoomorphic deities, Egyptian royal ideology.

A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS) Project:
An Introduction
Maria Diletta Pubblico
Department of Asian, African and Mediterranean Studies,
University of Naples “L’Orientale”, Naples, Italy
diletta.pubblico@gmail.com, mariadiletta.pubblico@unior.it
The mummification of sacred animals is a religious phenomenon which was
widely spread throughout Egypt. Egyptian believed that some animals were
living manifestation of gods on earth and they took care of them during theirlifespan, while some others were intermediaries between humans and deities.
These latter animals possibly were reared in sacred enclosures and killed tobe sold to worshippers, who donated them to the corresponding god as votive
offerings, in return for favors and protection. Unfortunately, the large-scale
illegal pillaging of animal necropoleis during the 19th and 20th centuries, aswell as the relative disinterest of mainstream Egyptology, caused a great lossof information of these objects, especially relating to their date and origin.
In contrast to other forms of Egyptian material culture, animal mummies have
only a limited epigraphic apparatus that normally helps in reconstructing
their story. However, the increased demand of votive animal mummies between the Third Intermediate Period and the Roman Period promoted a certain degree of craft specialisation and potentially changes at both a chronological and geographical level, especially in terms of wrapping techniquesand styles. A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS) project aims
to investigate the mummies’ bandage weaves, which represent the sole iconographic apparatus of these artefacts, through the development of an innovative interdisciplinary methodology that integrates traditional research

Abstracts

25

approaches with new technologies in order to demonstrate that they aremarkers of specific periods and workshops. In doing so, SEAMS is set to fill the
gap in current knowledge on the contextual data of votive animal mummies
and shed light on their manufacture. This paper presents the methodology
and the expected results of this project, which will form a major contribution
to our knowledge by providing essential information to explore a so far uninvestigated topic.
Keywords: Animal mummies, craft, stylistic variations, regionalisms, chronology

Some Remarks on Roman Period Mummy Masks from Kellis
with the Jackal Motif:
An Update on Regionalism and Craftsmanship in the Western
Egyptian Desert
Carlo Rindi Nuzzolo
Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Yale University, New Haven, US
ISPC-CNR, Catania, Italy
Centre for Ancient Cultures, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Centre for Ancient Cultural Heritage and Environment, Macquarie
University, Sydney, Australia
carlo.rindi@ispc.cnr.it
Excavations carried out by the Dakhleh Oasis Project on the outskirts of thesettlement of ancient Kellis, in Egypt’s Dakhleh Oasis, brought to light an extensive cemetery with hundreds of rock-cut tombs. Exploration of this area,
now known as the Kellis 1 Cemetery, revealed the presence of several burials
where the bodies were equipped with decorated cartonnage coverings. This
paper focuses on a particular type of mummy masks discovered in the cemetery to reprise the discussion on specific iconographical features and an exploration of the identification of their place of manufacturing.
Keywords: Kellis, cartonnage, craftsmanship, mummy mask, jackals

List of AbbreviationsÄAÄAT
AZANIA
Acme
ACER
ACES
ADAIK

AegGregÄgLev/ Ä&L
AJA
ANES
Antiquity
ARC
ArOr
ASAE
ASE
AV/AVDAIKAWBABESCHBAR ISÄgyptologische Abhandelungen. Wiesbaden.
Ägypten und Alten Testament. Münster.
Journal of the British Institute in Eastern Africa. London.
Annali della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università degli Studi di Milano. Milano.
The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Reports. Sydney.
The Australian Centre for Egyptology: Studies. Sydney.
Abhandlungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo (DAIK), Ägyptologische Reihe.
Glückstadt-Mainz-Berlin.
Aegyptiaca Gregoriana. Città del Vaticano.
Ägypten und Levante: Zeitschrift für ägyptische
Archäologie und deren Nachbargebiete. Vienna.
American Journal of Archaeology. New York.
Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Leuven-Paris-Walpole.
Antiquity. Quarterly Review of Archaeology. Newbury, Cambridge.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge. Cambridge.
Archiv orientální. Prague.
Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte (SAE).
Cairo.
Archaeological Survey of Egypt. London.
Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, Deutschen
Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo. BerlinMainz am Rhein.
Antike Welt. Zurich-Mayence.
Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology. Leuven
British Archaeological Reports International Series.
Oxford.

28

BdÉ
BEHE
BiAe
BIFAO
BMSAES
BSAK
BSEG
CdÉ
CENiM

CG
CIL
CT
EES
EES-ExMem
EPRO
Enchoria
ERA
Estrat crìticEUGM
GÖF IV
IBAES
JAA

Lists of Abbreviations

Bibliothèque d’Étude. Paris.
Bibliothèque de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Études.
Paris.
Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca. Bruxelles.
Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale (IFAO). Cairo.
British Museum Studies on Ancient Egypt and Sudan. London.
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur – Beihefte. Hamburg.
Bulletin de la Société d’Égyptologie de Génève. Génève.
Chronique d’Égypte. Bruxelles.
Cahiers d’Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne. Institute d’égyptologie François Daumas, Univ. PaulValéry. Montpellier.
Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes duMusée du Caire. Cairo.
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin.
De Buck 1935-61
Egypt Exploration Society. London.
Egypt Exploration Society-Excavation Memoir. London.
Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dansl’Empire romain. Leiden.
Enchoria – Zeitschrift für Demotistik und Koptologie. Wiesbaden.
Egyptian Research Account. London.
Revista d'Arqueologia. Barcelona.
Egyptologische Uitgaven. Leiden.
Göttinger Miszellen. Göttingen.
Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Göttingen.
Internet Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie. London.
Journal of African Archaeology. Frankfurt am MainLeiden.

Lists of Abbreviations

JARCE
JAS
JAS-Rep
JDAI
JEA
JNES
J. Nat. HistKAW
KUSH
LD Erg.
MÄS
MASCA
MDAIK

Menes

MIFAO
MYTHOS
MonAeg
MRE
NAWG

OBO
OIMP
OLA
OLP

29

Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt.
Boston-New York.
Journal of Archaeological Science. London-New
York.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. LondonNew York.
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.
Berlin.
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, EES. London.
Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago
Journal of Natural History. Milton Park.
Kulturgeschichte der Antiken Welt. Mainz am Rhein.
Journal of the Sudan Antiquities Service. Khartoum.
R. Lepsius, 1913. Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Ergänzungsband. Leipzig.
Münchner Ägyptologische Studien. Berlin-MunichMainz am Rhein.
Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology.
Philadelphia.
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo (DAIK). Mainz-Cairo-BerlinWiesbaden.
Menes. Studien zur Kultur und Sprache derägyptischen Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches. Wiesbaden.
Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Cairo.
Rivista di Storia delle Religioni. Caltanissetta.
Monumenta Aegyptiaca. Bruxelles.
Monographies Reine Élisabeth. Bruxelles.
Nachrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften
zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse. Göttingen.
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Leuven - Paris – Bristol.
Oriental Institute Museum Publications. Chicago.
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Louvain.
Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica. Louvain.

30

OrAnt
PALMA
PAM
PES
PdÄ
Philippika
P.L.BatPN
QuadMusEg.
REM
RdE
RGRW
RiME
SAAC
SAK
SDAIK
SMET
SNR
TLA
UEE
UGAÄ
Urk. I
UZK

VDI
Wb.
ZÄS

Lists of Abbreviations

Oriens Antiquus. Pisa-Roma.
Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities. Leiden.
Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean. Warsaw.
Prague Egyptological Studies. Prague.
Probleme der Ägyptologie. Leiden.
Philippika. Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen. Wiesbaden.
Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava. Leiden.
H. Ranke, 1935. Die Agyptischen Personennamen.
Glückstadt.
Quaderni del Museo Egizio. Torino
Répertoire d’épigraphie méröitique. Corpus des inscriptions publiées, I, II, III. Paris.
Revue d’Égyptologie. Paris-Louvain.
Religions in the Graeco-Roman World. Leiden.
Rivista del Museo Egizio. Torino
Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization. Cracovie.
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur. Hamburg.
Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo. Cairo
Studi del Museo Egizio di Torino. Torino.
Sudan Notes and Records. Khartoum.
Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae. Berlin.
UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles.
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens. Leipzig-Berlin-Hildesheim.
K. Sethe, 1903-33. Urkunden. Leipzig.
Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts (ÖAW).
Vienne.
Vestnik Drevnej Istorii. Moscou-Saint-Pétersbourg.
A. Erman, H. Grapow, 1926-61. Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache 1-7. Leipzig
Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. Leipzig-Berlin.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze:
Considerations about the Materiality and Value ofContainers for Animal Mummies kept in the Museo
Egizio, Turin
Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

Introduction
The Museo Egizio in Turin preserves a significant collection of more than
200 animal mummies and 95 containers for faunal remains. In 2016, Museo
Egizio started the Turin Animal Mummy Project in collaboration with Egyptologists, conservators, and natural scientists, directed by Salima Ikram. The goalof the project is a comprehensive documentation, study, restoration, and publication of all animal mummies and faunal remains as well as all other artefacts being part of the animal mummy phenomenon and kept in the Turincollection.1 The present paper particularly focuses on the animal mummy containers in Turin. These are made in different designs and of different materials.2 Each container is the result of particular production processes that depend on the material and all of its economic implications. The concept of“functional materialism”, coined by Kathlyn M. Cooney3 for describing therole and social understanding of funerary goods in the Ramesside period, can– with certain adjustments – also be utilised for addressing the animal
mummy containers. Materiality, material choices, uses, functions, and valuesof funerary goods made for humans were most likely in the same way the
results of cultural negotiations driven by socio-economic differences and circumstances as they were in regard to animal mummy coffins. The present paper aims at providing an overview of the relevant animal mummy containers
in the Turin collection. In doing so, it will address the economic implicationsof the various materials used for making such coffins,4 as this topic is – particularly due to the lack of relevant sources5 – only rarely addressed in studies
1 Ikram et al. (eds.) forthcoming.
2 For an overview of animal mummy containers, see, e.g., Fitzenreiter 2013, 131–135.
3 Cooney 2007a; 2007b.

4 See Bussi 2019 for an economical perspective on the different animal species.
5 See below.

32

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchettiof the phenomenon of animal mummies, in which the interpretation of thecult of the sacred animals is mainly at the centre.6

Brief History of the Collection of Animal Mummies in Turin
The oldest part of Museo Egizio’s animal mummy collection, around 20
pieces, was already in Turin in the 18th century. They were gathered by Vitaliano Donati, professor of botany at the University of Turin, who was tasked
by Carlo Emanuele III, Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, to go to Egypt inorder to increase the number of Egyptian artefacts for the Turin collections.7
The purchase of the collection of Bernardino Drovetti by Carlo Felice, Dukeof Savoy, Piedmont and Aosta and King of Sardinia, in 1824 adds about 80
more items to the register of animal mummies and coffins.8 For all these acquired objects, no records of their provenance exist, which is usual for thetime. The same applies to the animal mummies which were acquired by thethen Regio Museo di Antichità ed Egizio before 1888 and being part of the socalled “Vecchio Fondo”. During the excavations of the Italian Archaeological
Mission under Ernesto Schiaparelli between 1903–20 and Giulio Farina between 1930–37, animal mummies and coffins were found at sites such as –from north to south – Heliopolis, Tebtunis, Asyut, the Valley of the Queens
and Gebelein.9 The last animal mummies and coffins reached the Museo
Egizio in the 21st century in the form of private donations.

Value of Materials and Material/Object Overview
Since the materials used for making animal mummy containers and theireconomic significance are the second main focus of the present paper, someshort remarks about materiality and values are appropriate, before the Turincollection is used as a brief case study. In 2015, Salima Ikram touched upon
the various materials used in embalming, wrapping, and boxing of votive
mummies and their economic value.10 Expenditures not only occurred, e.g.,
for rearing and procuring animals, sourcing natron for desiccation, making
oils and unguents for embalming, producing textiles (many of which were
6 Cf., e.g., Kessler 2005; Fitzenreiter 2013; Colonna 2021; Dosoo 2022.
7 Moiso 2022; on the early exploration of animal necropoleis, see Baber 2019.
8 On the Drovetti collection, e.g., Donatelli 2019.

9 Del Vesco and Moiso (eds.) 2017; Oliva and Borla 2019.
10 Ikram 2015.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

33

simply re-used) for wrapping, remunerating the embalmers, excavating thecatacombs, maintaining temples and cult places, etc. But also the different materials sourced and employed as well as the time and effort spent for making
animal mummy containers are part of the economic impact that the ritual useof sacred animals and the mummification and deposition of millions of animals had on both state and local levels of economy.11
Although it would be pivotal at this point to offer a comprehensive discussion of costs and prices regarding the animal mummy containers and theirdifferent materials, the lacking data for assessing a) the costs of sourcing thevarious materials, b) the price of the materials, c) the fabrication costs, and d)
the end price of the finished animal mummy container in the Late and GraecoRoman Periods hampers such an undertaking. The discussion about costs andprices of animal mummy containers will thus inevitably remain superficial.
In the following, however, several benchmarks from earlier periods are mentioned to elucidate some general trends in terms of the mean economic valueof the materials ceramic, wood, stone, and metal. Regarding prices, they weregenerally indicated by value equivalencies in weights of copper or silver,measured in deben or kite.12
In the Ramesside period at Deir el-Medina, ceramic vessels seem to havecost far less than 1 deben.13 Smaller wooden boxes, potentially similar in size
to the little wooden animal mummy containers, would cost 1 to 3 deben, whilelarger chests were priced at around 10 deben.14 Wooden statues, which mightloosely be compared to more elaborate wooden theriomorphic animal coffins,
could be bought for between 5 to 15 deben.15 Human coffins of the Ramessideperiod, which greatly exceed the complexity and size of their animal counterparts dating to the 1st millennium BC, could cost between 10 to much morethan 100 deben in copper.16 Prices for stone objects are rare, whereas the symbolic, functional, and aesthetic value of stone construction materials can beaddressed.17 At Deir el-Medina, stone vessels appear cheaper than their metal
11 In recent treatments of the pharaonic economy such as Muhs 2016 and Müller-Wollermann

2021, sacred animal cults and the animal mummy industry as well as their economic impact
are not addressed.
12 Muhs 2016.
13 Janssen 1975, 407–408.
14 Janssen 1975, 197–208.
15 Janssen 1975, 246–248.
16 Cooney 2007a; 2007b, 278–279; 2021, 46.
17 Loth 2007.

34

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

counterparts.18 Metal vessels were valued by their weight (which also indicated their price), which, depending on their size, was between 2 to 70 deben.19
Whereas the barter of goods was a common form of economic transactionin pharaonic Egypt,20 money barter, which is the exchange of goods based ona fixed accounting unit, also played a key role.21 Texts dating to the Third Intermediate Period provide information about commercial transactions in relation to funerary goods, namely the sale of a set of 401 shabtis made infaience.22 The payment to the producers is set in silver, but no specific price isdetailed. Nevertheless, these texts attest to the fact that shabtis were commodities and could be bought for a price by private customers. The Archive of
Hor23 and the Prinz-Joachim-Ostraka,24 being the two main textual sources
about the animal cult and animal mummy deposition, offer insights into theorganisation of rearing, embalming, and burying the sacred animals, but notabout prices or values of the mummies, or their different containers. While
many details, particularly of the ibis cult, the breeding and feeding the birds
and their mummification as well as deposition are known,25 there is no documentary data relative to the sale or monetary value of animal mummy coffins:“specifics concerning the potential purchase of votive items (e.g., mummies
or bronzes) are unknown”.26 Due to the lack of pertinent evidence, the discussion cannot be advanced at this point. The value gradation of the materials
used to make animal mummy coffins proposed by Ikram,27 additionally informed by the relative value of the different materials as seen in the documentation, particularly of the New Kingdom,28 will therefore be followed in thesubsequent paragraphs.
Ceramic vessels, probably made by local pottery workshops by the millions specifically for bird mummies, can be identified as the cheapest option.29
18 Janssen 1975, 415.
19 Janssen 1975, 408–435; cf. also the monetary evaluation of the grave goods of Kha and Merit[TT 8] by Tosi 1999 using the metal vessels as a starting point.
20 Müller-Wollermann 1985.
21 Nur el-Din 1994.
22 Poole 2005; Warburton 2007; Miniaci 2014.
23 Ray 1976.
24 Preisigke and Spiegelberg 1914.
25 See Smelik 1979 and Scalf 2015 for detailed overviews.
26 Scalf 2015, 369.
27 Ikram 2015.

28 Janssen 1975.
29 For an overview on ceramic production, see Bourriau et al. 2000.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

35

Next are containers in wood, of which fewer were made or might have survived.30 Given the overall scarcity of this renewable resource, the many distinct types, and the various degrees of quality and decoration, wooden containers represent a higher level of artisanship and therefore seem to be morecost-intensive for those who commissioned them. Containers made in stone
for animal mummies rank 3rd in terms of costs.31 Usually, local limestone wasworked, most likely by the same masons who were involved in excavating theunderground catacombs. While both material and labour were relatively
cheap, the varying levels of execution of details and any decoration of thelimestone performed by more skilled artisans added to the economic value ofthe containers. The most expensive material choice was bronze.32 Bronze wasused to cast various types of boxes surmounted by animals and, most prominently, hollow figures of animals to be used as containers for faunal remains.33
The collection of animal mummy containers in the Museo Egizio will now
be used for a brief numbers game, which also aims at underlining which materials were typically used for which animal mummies (Tab. 1). It should be
kept in mind, however, that the numbers shown in Table 1 are an archaeological artefact, which originates in the highly selective approach of collecting faunal remains in the past and thus does not represent securely provenanced artefacts or ensembles thereof. As is known from the catacombs of Saqqara or
Tuna el-Gebel, raptor and ibis mummies were most frequently buried in ceramic vessels.34 Indeed, in the Turin collection, such ceramic vessels are only
known for potting bird, most probably ibis mummies. In contrast, the variety
of wooden containers used for a more diverse number of creatures is striking.
Wood was used for coffins of varied sizes, designs, and quality levels for almost all the species listed here, except for hybrid creature coffins,35 which are
only known in bronze. In the Turin collection, stone is only attested for a naomorphous ichneumon box and two figures of Osiris standing attached to the
30 On wood and wood working, see, e.g., Gale et al. 2000; Leospo 2001.
31 On stone and stone working see, e.g., Aston et al. 2000; Stocks 2022.
32 On bronze, casting methods, and metal resources, see, e.g., Schorsch 2007; Auenmüller et

al. 2019; Masson-Berghoff and Pernicka 2019.
33 For such artefacts, see also Charron 2012; Thum 2012; Weiß 2012; Masson-Berghoff and

O’Flynn 2019.
34 Davies and Smith 2005; Nicholson 2022; von den Driesch et al. 2005.
35 Whose figures consist of a winding eel body, a cobra hood, and a human head that is often

surmounted by a double or atef crown: Myśliwiec 1981; Grenier 2002, 181–183; MassonBerghoff and O’Flynn 2019.

Tab. 1: Overview of the individual creatures and their respective containers broken down by the four main material categories: ceramic, wood, stone, and bronze. Unique crea-ture–form–material combinations are highlighted in grey. The complete
object data of the relevant pieces, including provenance, date, faunal remains, species identification, and methods of analysis
can be found in Ikram et al. (eds.) forthcoming

36
Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

37

front of a hollow obelisk, in which faunal remains were once stored. Interestingly, the combination Osiris and obelisk is the only design made in threematerials: wood, stone, and bronze. Bronze was finally used to cast hollow cat
or falcon figures as well as several other box-type coffins surmounted by falcons, shrews, lizards, and hybrid creatures.
Several animal mummies or parts thereof in the Turin collection such as
baboons (Cat. 2345/1 & 2) or cattle (Cat. 2343/1–2 & 2344) are preserved without containers, either because they were not deposited in such a device,36 or
the content has been removed from the original containers.37 The Turin collection offers thus only a – however still very detailed – glimpse into the different
practices of potting, packing, or boxing animal mummies. In the following,
chronological, archaeological, and sociological considerations – which would
allow to identify different boxing practices in particular periods, at certain
places or on behalf of various customers – are left aside, since the focus is on
the different materials, methods of production, and their economic implications.

Ceramic Containers for Animal Mummies
The animal mummy container type which is attested in the millions in thefalcon and ibis catacombs of North Saqqara38 is only represented by five unprovenanced exemplars in the Turin collection (Cat. 3506/1–3 [2 x ibis and 1
chick], Cat. 3507 [ibis] & Cat. 3508 [ibis]; Fig. 1): the bird mummy vessel.39
Three of the five conical jars are still sealed with a lid. These containers, whichwere most likely purpose-made by local potteries that also produced all othernecessary ceramics for the priests and temples associated with the catacombs,
have been identified as the most cost-effective option, especially for boxingbird mummies.40 Their ceramic fabric is a coarse Nile C with many inclusionsof sand, limestone, and a high amount of straw temper. At Tuna el-Gebel,
36 This applies for most of the cat and dog mummies; for unpotted ibis mummies see Nichol-son 2019.
37 For wooden baboon coffins, see, e.g., Bongrani Fanfoni 1978; Zaghloul 1994; Ebeid 2018; fora wooden theriomorphic coffin for a baboon, see D’Auria et al. 1988, 231.
38 Nicholson 2005; Davies and Smith 2005; Hölzl 2018; Nicholson 2022.

39 For some parallels, see, e.g., Ikram and Iskander 2002; Raven and Taconis 2005, 288–291.
40 Ikram 2015.

38

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

such lidded vessels –which were meant for one
bird mummy only – areknown as “type MB 1b2”
and mainly occur in the
30th Dynasty,41 providing
a close typological indication for dating the Turinpieces. Their provenanceremains to be determined.
The immense numberof such vessels and theirtypological uniformity intandem attest to a veritablemass production requiring
vast resources, not only ofFig. 1: The bird mummy vessels Turin Cat. 3506/1–3
clay and temper but also
(Late to Ptolemaic Periods). Photo Museo Egizio, Turin.
fuel, as well as large
workshops with an extensive labour force, which had to be remunerated by thestate-run animal necropolis institutions.42 The production of this type of animal
mummy container in such vast numbers, however, corroborates in turn thatthese are the most inexpensive solutions for boxing animal mummies. In addition to the said bird mummy vessels, also clay coffins imitating the shape of anibis as well as larger ceramic handmade boxes in the style of stone coffins, into
which wooden animal mummy containers were placed, are, e.g., known from
Tuna el-Gebel.43

Wooden Containers for Animal Mummies
Wooden containers for faunal remains can be ranked second in economic
value. Their material quality, production, and finishing, however, are quite
diversified. While the primary material of wood alone constitutes a very
41 von den Driesch et al. 2005; Steinmann 2005.
42 For a recent discussion of pottery production and economy, see Doherty 2020; for a pottery

workshop at Tuna el-Gebel, see Lembke 2008; and for pottery production in temple contexts,
see Ballet 2002.
43 von den Driesch et al., 2005; Steinmann 2005; Schlüter 2020.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

39

volatile economic factor (depending on the different tree species, wood
sourced from far away or freshly cut, its processing as one-piece or in the formof smaller composite elements, the usage of different joining techniques or the
re-use of old wood), a coating with paste and the presence – and execution
quality – of decoration and inscriptions also add to the economic value of theartefact. Since a wood species identification has not been undertaken on the
animal mummy coffins in Turin, questions about the provenance and qualityof the wood and the economic implications of these two factors cannot currently be addressed. Regarding their final placement, (decorated) wooden
containers were often placed in larger stone or ceramic boxes, as is, e.g.,
known from Tuna el-Gebel.44 In these cases, the two materials contribute to
the expenditures for, and the value of, the respective mummy and its deposition. The wooden coffins for faunal remains in the Turin collection appear inseveral main design types (key examples in Figs. 2 & 3) and thus, at least
partly, represent the known spectrum of such objects. Without any claim tocompleteness, the various forms can be divided into the following designgroups:A) rectangular coffin (Fig. 2-A: cat coffin Cat. 2450, 44.5 x 18.8 x 10.3 cm)B) qeresu-coffin (Fig. 2-B: qeresu-coffin of a cat Cat. 2371, 49.8 x 24.7 x 23.5cm)C) mummiform coffin with animal head (Fig. 2-C: falcon coffin Cat.
2374/1, 49 x 15 x 14 cm)D) theriomorphic container without base (Fig. 3-A: fish coffin Cat. 2390,
11 x 8.4 x 2 cm)E) theriomorphic container on base (Fig. 3-B: cat coffin Cat. 2358, 43.4 x
37.5 x 18 cm)
F) (rectangular) box surmounted by animal (Fig. 3-C: fish coffin Cat.
2393/1, 32.5 x 9.5 x 9.1 cm; D: shrew coffin Cat. 2399, 13.8 x 5.9 x 4.5 cm;
E: snake coffin Cat. 2402/1, 15 x 8 x 8 cm)G) singular obelisk on base (Fig. 3-F: Cat. 2407, 37 x 26 x 10.50 cm)
H) Osiris seated or standing in front of an obelisk (Fig. 3-G: Cat. 2418, 14.7
x 7.5 x 5 cm)

44 von den Driesch et al. 2005; Steinmann 2005; Schlüter 2020.

40

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

Fig. 2: Selection of wooden animal mummy
coffins in the Turin collection (Late to Ptolemaic Periods). Photos Museo Egizio, Turin.

Fig. 3: Selection of wooden animal
mummy coffins in the Turin collection(Late to Ptolemaic Periods). Photos
Museo Egizio, Turin.

All these wooden animal mummy containers are not only typologicallydifferent from each other but were also manufactured using varied woodworking methods. Dimension and complexity – both in terms of the artefact
as well as the size and number of wooden elements used – represent the baselayer of their cost and value. Considering the wood and its workmanship asa first criterion, several technological approaches are represented in the Turinassemblage. Small boxes with a relief representation of the creature positioned on top are often made from one piece of wood. These seemingly inexpensive artefacts might, however, be more costly, since the animal had to be
carved from the wooden block with quite an amount of waste and offcuts.
The lids for sealing the hollowed-out interior cavities with the mummy packages and any extensive parts of the creatures, which had to be individually
carved, were, if required, added to the core piece.
Theriomorphic or mummiform coffins were often created with two halves
for the body, either roughly carved or shaped with lots of attention to detailaccording to the animal in question. The mummy package was usually placed
inside the two halves, which could be fixed to a base of various forms anddimensions. Further details or necessary constructional elements were joined
as separate wooden parts which, in the case of animal extremities or bodyparts, also needed to be skilfully carved from pieces of wood. Larger rectangular coffins were made of several wooden pieces, depending on the availability of panels large enough and the constructional complexity of the container type, which is the case particularly for the qeresu-coffins, whose upper
part is rather elaborate due to its four corner pillars and canopy construction.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

41

The different methods of joining – e.g., butt, bridle, and mitre joint, or withsmall dowels or via the mortise and tenon-technique – also contribute to theexpenses for and the value of the artefact.
Besides the size, number and joinery of wooden elements, the applicationof a coating of white paste (either plaster, gesso, or stucco) literally adds another layer of work, material, and value to the containers. As the coatings have
not yet been analysed to allow for an identification as plaster, gesso or stucco,
the term paste is used here.45 The paste layer is usually only applied to theouter surfaces; in the case of smaller animal mummy containers, the interior
cavities are also often plastered. In the case of several pieces, the paste is the
only decorative treatment they received. In most cases, however, the paste
acts as primer for painted ornamental decoration, ritual scenes, and/or inscriptions.46 Another element adding an economic value is the presence of
painted decoration. In many cases it is absent or reduced to a few details. In
others, however, the use of colour demonstrates a more complex process withthe use of multiple colours on a grouted surface, the rendering of even verysmall details or, vice versa, the lack of care in applying the colour with evident
traces of dripping. The naturalistic enhancement of individual details of theanimal’s appearance is particularly widespread in fish coffins, where the eyes,
fins and scales are painted. In other cases, any naturalistic renderings are practically absent, except for iconographical details that were part of the conventional representation of the respective animal or its divine counterpart.
Finally, the presence of gilding on wooden animal mummy coffins can beconsidered as an additional economic factor.47 Gilding, for instance, occurs ona theriomorphic coffin for a cat (Cat. 2361) where the animal’s head is enhanced by gold paint.48 Another example is a small mummiform falcon coffin(Cat. 2375) where the head and the double crown of the raptor are gilt, most
likely in order to emphasise its identification as a divine entity, either Horusor Sokar. The largest object group with gilding are the Osiris figures seated or
standing in front of an obelisk, which acted as a container for faunal remains.49
The symbolic value of gold as flesh of the gods50 was likely the key impetus for
45 On stucco and plaster, see, e.g., Godin 2000.
46 On various painting techniques on wood and stone, see, e.g., James 1988.
47 On gilding e.g., Hatchfield 1991; Gale et al., 2000, 367; Medina Sánchez 2013; Vigorelli et al. 2021.
48 Pubblico 2017, 308–309, pl. CLXIV; see also Siegmann 1999 for another example.
49 E.g., Cat. 2408, Cat. 2409, Cat. 2412, Cat. 2418 & Cat. 2419; on their particular meaning see,e.g., Satzinger 1998; Musso and Petacchi 2017; Guidotti 2021.

50 See, e.g., Bulsink 2015; Ziegler 2018.

42

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

Fig. 4: The qeresu-coffin Cat. 2371 for a cat mummy,
commissioned by Herisenef (Late to Ptolemaic Period). Photo Museo Egizio, Turin.

gilding these objects.
The sporadic presenceof gold and gilding,however, suggests that
this feature, which emphasised the divine nature of the represented
entities, was reserved
only for certain objects.
They were thus likely
commissioned by particular clients with thenecessaryfinancialmeans or made by specific workshops with access to this resource.

The higher economic value of all these individual materials, practices, andparts of the so-called chaîne operatoire for making wooden animal mummy containers is difficult to determine. Does the type of wood, carpentry, or the presence of elaborately painted decoration further enhance the value of the artefact?
Often, the elements with an apparently high economic value come together inparticular artefacts. The qeresu-coffin for a cat (Cat. 2371; Fig. 4), which was not
only visually inspected, but also analysed via CT scans, will be used as a casestudy.51 The trough is made of five parts: one bottom board into which the fourside panels are set. The short sides are clamped in between the panels of thelong sides. Four mortises are cut on the long sides to accommodate the narrow,round-topped dowels of the lid. The lid itself is composed of 13 parts: the twolower panels of the long sides are wedged-in by the two lower short sideboards. The lower short side boards are each topped by a curved piece of wood.
The vault is made of three panels: the two inclined side parts rest on the central
rectangular bar. The four corner pillars are angled at the base to fit onto thecurved and inclined outer panels of the lid.
All surfaces of the coffin are plastered, while only the outer ones are decorated with paint. Colours were determined by autopsy only. On the long

51 Pubblico 2017, 324–328, 478–481, pls. CLXXIII–CLXXV; cf. the details of human coffin con-struction in Dawson 2018.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

43sides of the box, the white colour of the central rectangle was applied first,
followed by the red colour for the remaining surface. On the short sides, thecolour and decoration are the same as on the long ones with the addition of a
black-painted inscription inside a rectangle. On the lid, the yellow rectangle
on the long sides was painted first, followed by the red that covers the rest of
the surface. The central rectangle was then outlined in a lighter shade of red.
On the vault, the yellow of the four text columns was painted first, followedby the black of the texts and the colours making up the two central pictorial
representations.
The texts contain a dedication to the divine cat by a certain Herisenef, sonof the priest and god’s father of Amun of Karnak, Nesmin, who appears in
the centre with his head shaved and his arms raised in adoration. He wears
sandals and a long skirt, girded by a fringed knotted band at his waist. In frontof him, at a certain distance, sits a black cat. Both figures were outlined in red,followed by the contour lines and details applied in black. On the short sides,
more texts are present in the central bands enclosed by yellow rectangles. A
sun disk emitting sunrays downwards, from which two uraei hang, appears
on one side. Here, the colours were added to the plaster base in this order:
yellow, black, red; most of the pictorial elements are outlined in black. On the
opposite side, a horizontal line delimits an upper lunette where red, white,and green curved bands run parallel to the lid vault, representing the roof ofa naos. In the lower part, two facing wedjat eyes above a neb-sign appear on
either side of two vertical lines. Here, the yellow colour was applied first, followed by red. The wedjat- and neb-signs were outlined in black. The pupils
were then added, followed by the thickly applied green sections. In contrast
to the other sides, the contour lines were not done as the last step, as they
underlie paint layers that were subsequently added.
Several people with the name Herisenef are known from Late Period toPtolemaic Period Theban epigraphical sources,52 however, none of them canbe securely identified as the person who commissioned the cat coffin Turin

52 See, e.g., Clarysse 1987; Coulon 2001; Gill 2019.

44

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica FacchettiCat. 2371. Ann-Katrin Gill53
has suggested that theHerisenef of the Turin animalcoffin could be identical toHerisenef I, who is known
from papyrus Turin Cat. 2117,
the statue Cairo TR 18/12/24/2
from the Karnak cachette, several administrative texts from
Thebes, and the demotic documents of the so-called Archive of Teos and Tabis. If thiswere the case, the Heriseneffrom the Turin cat coffin could
be properly dated to year 6 ofFig. 5: The opened fish coffin Cat. 2389 (1880–1640 Alexander the Great (327/6
calBC) with its barbel or perch mummy (830–540 BC), as Herisenef I appears incalBC) inside. Photos Museo Egizio, Turin.
a house-sale record (pBrussels
8252) with that very date.54 If
this were not the case, it still remains likely that the Herisenef of the Turin cat
coffin belongs to that Theban family, in which certain male names were transmitted throughout the generations. Regardless of the exact identification of
the coffin’s ordering customer, the very name Herisenef55 is related to the period around the time of Alexander’s conquest of Egypt.
This date and the above prosopographical considerations have wider implications. While the prosopographical data suggests dating the cat coffin to
the late 4th or early 3rd century BC, the radiocarbon date 770–430 calBC obtained from the coffin during the Turin Animal Mummy Project does not exactly help to pinpoint its chronology, since its lower date range falls out of thelarger period established by prosopographical means. This issue could be explained in two ways: 1) the prosopographical reasoning is incorrect and theHerisenef of the Turin cat coffin dates earlier to within the period of 770–430
calBC; 2) the prosopographical reasoning is correct and the coffin was madefrom reused pieces of wood that were cut during the earlier period. A third
53 Gill 2019, 3 [including the potential family tree].
54 Depauw 2000, 81.

55 Lüddekens et al. 1991, 751–752.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

45

option might accommodate both scenarios: assuming an actual date of thewood closer to the lower range of the radiocarbon age would allow to identify
the Turin Herisenef as an (as-of-yet unidentified) early member of the Theban
Herisenef-Nesmin family.
As already mentioned above, an essential element for understanding the
economic value of a wooden coffin is whether the wood was freshly purposecut for it, or whether old available parts or timber were re-used for assembling
the piece.56 An example for the use of an old piece of wood is the fish coffin
Cat. 2389 (Fig. 5). The wood has been radiocarbon-dated to 1880–1640 calBC,
while the mummy inside was dated to 830–540 calBC. The clear chronologicaldifference thus suggests that those who were tasked with cutting this rather
simple container used old available timber. Further studies of this regard
would be necessary to discern whether this was a singular case, or if a pattern
emerges, necessitated by the high demand of wooden containers for animal
mummies.

Stone Containers for Animal Mummies
In terms of the containers made in stone, Museo Egizio’s collection has
three exemplars of two very particular types. While simple limestone sarcophagi, customised for the individual animal species in terms of size andinner cavities, were, for example used at Saqqara for falcon burials,57 at Tunael-Gebel for ibis and occasionally other mummies as well58 or, made fromhard- and sandstone, on Elephantine for the burials of the sacred rams,59 nosuch piece is part of the collection in Turin. Small sarcophagi of diverse levelsof workmanship made for ibis or falcon mummies are, however, known inother museums.60 Elaborately painted rectangular or naomorphous limestone
sarcophagi are attested, e.g., for cats (Brooklyn 37.1841Ea) or falcons (Louvre
N 2662), whereas ibis mummies were sometimes interred in limestone coffinsin the stylised form of an ibis (e.g., Louvre E 3067). Simpler rectangular andlidded boxes with an image of the creature they were intended to contain positioned on top are known, e.g., for scarabs (Louvre N 3357, from the Saqqara
56 On reworking and reusing old wood for human coffins, see, e.g., Dawson and Turmezei

2021.
57 Davies and Smith 2005.
58 Thissen 1991; von den Driesch et al. 2005; Kessler 2010; Ebeid 2020.
59 Delange and Jaritz 2013.

60 E.g., Durham EG727, Louvre N 354 & AF 448 [Saqqara Serapeum].

46

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

Serapeum), shrews (CG 29888, probably from Saqqara, and CG 29815, probably from the Asasif), and lizards (CG 29817, probably from Abydos).61
In Turin, two Osiris figures standing in front of a hollow obelisk (Cat. 2413
& 2414 [both are empty]), and a small painted hollow naomorphous box witha shrew on top of it (Cat. 2422 [empty too])62 represent the material stone
within the group of animal mummy containers (Fig. 6). The two hollow stoneobelisks fronted by a figure of Osiris reflect, both in terms of iconography andfunction, the many wooden representatives of the same type.63 The small
shrew coffin is the stone link between the wooden and bronze coffins madefor the same purpose. As the three Turin stone coffins for animal mummies
are rather small and made of (most likely locally procured) limestone, theirproduction was not particularly time- and resource-intensive, but still required the skilled hand of artisans who not only carved the relief but also – inthe case of the shrew coffin Cat. 2422 – painted the artefact following the relevant artistic conventions.

Fig. 6: The Osiris figures in front of an obelisk Turin Cat. 2413 & Cat. 2414 and thepainted naomorphous box with a lateral opening and a small shrew figure on top
Cat. 2422 (Late to Ptolemaic Periods). Photos Museo Egizio, Turin.

61 Ikram and Iskander 2002.

62 Cf. Ikram 2005 for a loose parallel.
63 See above.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

47

Metal Containers for Animal Mummies
So-called bronze
votive coffins represent a particularmateriality within
the object group ofanimalmummy
64
containers. As theterm and its use imply, these artefacts
arehollow-castbronze devices used
as receptacles for Tab. 2: List of the bronze votive coffins in the Turin collection
faunal remains. Alt- according to their typehough the archaeological provenance of the Turin bronze votive coffins is largely unknown, circumstantial evidence allows to generally identify their findspots as the animal
necropoleis at Saqqara, Sais, and Bubastis,65 which were intensely targeted
early on by antiquities robbers and dealers. The Turin collection comprises
most of the design types which are also known from these sites and othermuseum collections.66 While there is a general typological uniformity, eachobject is a unique artefact, being the result of individual choices – both artistic
and technological – on the part of those who were tasked to produce it. The
uniqueness of each bronze coffin lies in fact that the direct lost-wax method
was used, which does not require the use of piece-moulds.67
The Turin collection of bronze votive coffins is comprised of 26 pieces (Tab.
2 & Fig. 7). Shrew or ichneumon figures standing on plinths (Cat. 927–931) are
difficult to attribute to the bronze coffin category, as it is not clear whether
they are stand-alone animal figures, fragments of bronze coffins or were sliding-in metal parts of wooden boxes. The small hollow cat heads (Cat. 894–895;
Suppl. 29117) were either stand-alone votives, too, or parts of composite

64 Charron 2012; Thum 2012; Weiß 2012; Masson-Berghoff and O’Flynn 2019.
65 For those sites and the bronze votive coffins found there, see esp. Weiß 2012.
66 E.g., Grenier 2002; Thum 2012.

67 On the differences between the direct and indirect lost-wax casting methods, see, e.g.,

Craddock 2015.

48

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

figures consisting of a wooden base and body and a bronze head.68 As such,they would represent an intermediary material group, in which wood andmetal are combined. Taking a more detailed – but still rather superficial – lookat these pieces in terms of their economic implications, several object-related
criteria can be considered. Size, weight, and overall volume are the initial indices of paramount importance for assessing their value. Only the parameterof size shall be briefly addressed here: the height of the cat figures ranges fromaround 35 to 11 cm, the length of the falcon coffins is from 17 to 6 cm and thelength of the shrew boxes, from 14 to 5 cm. By putting these dimensions into
the context of manufacture and expenditure of material in the lost-wax
method for casting hollow objects,69 one realises immediately that the larger
the artefact, the more material, resources, time, skill, and hands had to be employed. Among the key materials needed for creating such objects are e.g.,beeswax for the wax model, purpose-made ceramic material(s) for both thecasting core and the mould layers, small iron wire for the core supports andthe required bronze charge, next to all the working tools, furnace installations
and fuel resources necessary for producing the artefacts.

Fig. 7: Selection of bronze votive coffins in the Turin collection (Late to Ptolemaic Periods). A: cat coffin Cat. 867; B: cat box Cat. 892; C: shrew box Suppl. 18099; D: falcon
box Cat. 2382); E: falcon box Cat. 2405; F: lizard/gecko box Cat. 2397; G: shrew box
Cat. 926; H: falcon coffin Cat. 980 and I: hybrid creature box Cat. 2400/1. Photos Museo
Egizio, Turin.

68 See, e.g., CG 29778: Gaillard and Daressy 1905, 134.
69 For this method, see, e.g., Rama 1995; Sias 2005; Campbell 2015.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

49

The more elaborate the object to be cast was, the more time, resources andwork stages were needed as part of the chaîne operatoire, which includes: making a casting core, creating the wax model including the gating system, modelling decorative details, fitting the iron core supports, adding the outermould layers, firing and dewaxing the mould, preparing and casting thebronze charge, destroying the mould and cleaning and finishing the object. It
is worth noting that most bronze containers were cast as one-piece objects ina highly skilled fashion, so that no additional time, effort, or resources for further producing additional elements were needed. Since decorative details
such as the plumage of the falcons or inscriptions were almost always incisedin the original wax model, more costly post-casting work could also be
avoided. The few attested inscriptions mention the object’s customer only byname and filiation, so that no further prosopographical appraisal of their profession or status is possible.70 The incision of the inscription on the original
wax model suggests that the bronze workshops were most likely directly
commissioned by the customers to make the very product they desired.
The stages of work outlined above, and their successful execution, relied
not only on skill and knowledge, but also on the access to and availability ofseveral resources such as beeswax, fuel, clay, sand, organic and inorganic temper, but most of all, copper, tin, and lead to alloy and prepare the bronze
charge.71 Based on the compositional analysis of bronzes from Naukratis andTell Defenneh,72 it has been evidenced that the copper deposits from Faynan
or from north-western Anatolia might have been sourced as the main metal
ingredient. The lead seems to originate particularly from Laurion in Attica, as
well as the northern Aegean and/or Anatolia.73 The multiplicity of sources reflects the enormous complexity of international trade in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 1st millennium BC, which has wider implications beyond the
production methods for understanding and quantifying the huge metal demand during the Late Period and beyond, which is evidenced in the vast
number of bronze votive figures and animal mummy containers.

70 Generally on those texts, De Meulenaere 1990; Weiß 2012, 482–486; on small divine statuary

in bronze with inscriptions naming their donors, see Hill 2019.
71 Cf., e.g., Rademakers and Rehren 2016; Rademakers et al. 2018.

72 Masson-Berghoff et al. 2018; Masson-Berghoff and Pernicka 2019.
73 See also Schwab and Willer 2016 for another data set.

50

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

Discussion
The choice and use of materials for animal mummy containers represent
key elements in the economy of outfitting animal mummies. Alongside theuse of dead animals to begin with, the tools for their evisceration, the natronfor their desiccation and removal of fat, anointing them with oils and resins,
wrapping them in linen bandages, and manufacturing burial containers in thematerials and forms discussed here all contribute to the effort of embalming
and boxing animal mummies.74 This process could have been undertakenwith utmost care and using the costliest materials, or, hastily and cheap, sothat the costs for each mummy and its container could vary considerably.
Many animal mummies were not interred in special containers, suggesting alower price and overall production value, and some were often deposited inlayers on the ground, each layer separated by matting.75 However, bird, feline
and canine mummies were often sophisticatedly wrapped with linen bandages, creating very colourful geometrical patterns on the front.76 This quite
costly and skilful treatment could be understood as an alternative to placing
an animal mummy in a coffin. Using the Turin animal mummy container collection as a case study, wood seems to have been the preferred material for
producing containers for the largest number of species (Tab. 1). The material
bronze ranks second in its use for making coffins for animals. Ceramic andstone are underrepresented in the Museo Egizio, clearly a result of its collection and related excavation history and not a reflection of the archaeologicalevidence.
More than a million bird mummies were produced,77 most of which were
deposited without special containers or in ceramic vessels. Less frequently,
ibis mummies were also deposited in stone coffins. Against this enormous
number, the rarer wooden coffins, which could additionally be placed intostone sarcophagi, and bronze containers stand out, which were also used forboxing more species. In this context, a more precise understanding of thevalue of the material and of its working would be key to addressing further
economic implications. Within the different material categories, a stark scaling in terms of the value of the coffin becomes apparent, determined by the

74 Ikram 2015.
75 S. Ikram, personal communication.

76 See, e.g., Tarek et al. 2019; Tamburini et al 2021.
77 See, e.g., Kessler 2005; Ikram 2015, 7; Nicholson et al. 2021, 12–13.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

51size and quality of execution. Once larger collections of such containers andmore studies of the economy of the 1st millennium BC with a focus on the
animal mummy and animal mummy container industry are published, it
might be feasible to study the value and choice of material more precisely.
The aim would be to find out if there are some standard designs and sizes andwhether material, size and other categories related to the manufacture of theobjects can be used to say more about the social background of the people
who commissioned the individual pieces.
In view of the above considerations, it is pivotal to bear in mind that these
economic observations are primarily established according to a modern economical yardstick, which is not part of the Egyptian mindset. Cooney’s conceptualisation of the “functional materialism” of Ramesside period humancoffins can be made fruitful here.78 These had to fulfil a variety of roles, notonly as containers protecting the dead body, but also as artefacts that wereimbued with magic, symbolic, and social significance. This meaningfulness
even led to a “sociocultural pressure to purchase the most impressive arrayof funerary equipment – to the very limits of one’s financial ability”.79 While
animal mummies and their containers surely had a quite different culturaland ritual significance, their donation and deposition – as private votive objects or as state-mediated offerings to the gods – were likely following culturally negotiated rules of decorum, status, and prestige as well. One might evensuspect that there was some competition between the various donors or sponsors of the animal mummy coffins in terms of material, quality, and value.
This competition materialised in the wide range of differing coffins, from thecheapest variants to the ostentatious and pricey ones. But did the Egyptians
differentiate between products of different quality, and if so, how? Or did
functionality take precedence over aesthetic quality? A coffin was probably
valued more for its ritual function than for its aesthetics80 and – in the case of
the animal mummy containers – the mere act of ritually depositing them in
the animal necropolis was key to activate their functionality, regardless of
their artistic or aesthetic qualities.
However, the facts that the animal mummy containers come in these varying materials and that they represent a plethora of gradations in terms ofworkmanship, quality and features speak for a deliberate choice regarding
78 Cooney 2007a; 2007b.
79 Cooney 2007b, 273.

80 Cooney 2007a, 177–182.

52

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

execution, prestige and value by the entities that commissioned them. The
reasons for the selection of the different materials cannot be addressed here
in more detail. One might think of prize, chronology, location, and socioeconomic background of the customers. Evidence from Tuna el-Gebel suggeststhat special individual animals were buried in more elaborate coffins.81 Furthermore, it seems possible that the cheaper forms of animal mummy coffins– which are also the ones encountered in the masses – were in the hands ofthe priests and the state in order to maintain the animal cult and the related
rituals. In contrast, the more elaborate and often also inscribed animal
mummy containers made of wood, stone, or bronze might have been gifts
from individuals to the respective temples and catacombs, to mark a donation
or economic benefaction to the respective temples or ritual settings, as it has
been argued for small bronze statues of divinities.82
The fact that votive animal mummies quite often do not contain complete
mummified animals, but only parts thereof or nothing at all83 suggests thatthese pieces still retained their ritual value and communicative significance.84
A part of an animal was either sufficient to represent the whole creature, or
the mere act of ritually depositing such a package induced its agency. In thisregard, it seems that quality understood in the modern sense of the term was
not decisive. The aesthetic aspect, however, was surely not neglected and was
not only influenced by the fashion and tastes of the time, but also by individual decisions and the social standing of those who commissioned the individual animal mummy containers. Certain materials might have been more appropriate for particular creatures than others, and particular material choices
and combinations might have been favoured by the commissioning institutions or individuals, for whom quality and value may have been a way ofcommunicating and affirming their status before both the community and thegod(s).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the organisers of the 3rd International Symposium
on Animals in Ancient Egypt, the Middle Nile and their Hinterlands as wellas the editors of the proceedings for allowing us to present, discuss and
81 Kessler 2010.
82 Cf., De Meulenaere 1990; Hill 2019.
83 Ikram and Iskander 2002.

84 On animal mummies as ritual communicative devices, Bleiberg 2013.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

53

publish our research. We also want to thank the two anonymous reviewers
for their constructive critique and helpful suggestions. All members of the Turin Animal Mummy Project team are given thanks for the great collaborative
work on these fascinating artefacts. Finally, we want to extend our thanks toFederico Poole for Egyptological support, particularly in the study of the inscriptions on the wooden coffins, and to Shenali Boange for polishing ourEnglish.

Bibliography
D. Arnold, J. Bourriau, 1993. An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery.
SDAIK 17, Mainz.
B. G. Aston, J.A. Harrell, I. Shaw, 2000. Stone, in P. T. Nicholson, I. Shaw
(eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, 5–77. Cambridge.
J. Auenmüller, G. Verly, F.W. Rademakers, 2019. Bronze Casting Artefacts
from the Qubbet El-Hawa – Moulds, Materials and Experimental Methods, in G. Verly, F.W. Rademakers, F. Téreygeol (eds.), Studies in Experimental Archeometallurgy. Methodological Approaches from Non-Ferrous Metallurgies (Monographies Instrumentum 60), 141–63. Dremil-Lafage.
T. T. Baber, 2019. Early Travellers and the Animal “Mummy Pits” of Egypt:
Exploration and Exploitation of the Animal Catacombs in the Age of Early
Travel, in S. Ikram, S. Pasquali, S. Porcier (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water,and Sky: Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 67–86. Leiden.
P. Ballet, 2002. Temples, potiers et coroplathes dans l’Égypte ancienne, in M.-F.
Boussac, M. Gabolde, G. Galliano (eds.), Autour de Coptos: Actes du colloque organisé au Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon (17-18 Mars 2000), 147–59. Paris.
E. Bleiberg, 2013. Animal Mummies: The Souls of the Gods, in E. Bleiberg, L.
Bruno, Y. Barbash (eds.), Soulful Creatures: Animal Mummies in Ancient
Egypt, 63–105. Brooklyn, NY.
L. Bongrani Fanfoni, 1978. Due elementi lignei di sarcofagi di babbuini, OrAnt
17, 197–98.
J. Bourriau, 1981. Umm el-Ga’ab: Pottery from the Nile Valley before the Arab Conquest. Catalogue of the exhibition organised by the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, 6 October to 11 December 1981. Cambridge.

54

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

J. Bourriau, P.T. Nicholson, P.J. Rose, 2000. Pottery, in P.T. Nicholson, I. Shaw
(eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, 121–47. Cambridge.
M. Bulsink, 2015. Egyptian Gold Jewellery: With a Catalogue of the Collection ofGold Objects in the Egyptian Department of the National Museum of Antiquities
in Leiden. PALMA 12, Turnhout.
S. Bussi, 2019. Économie du culte des animaux sacrés en Égypte hellénistiqueet romaine, in S. Ikram, S. Pasquali, S. Porcier (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky: Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 119–26. Leiden.
J. Campbell, 2015. Complete Casting Handbook. Metal Casting Processes, Metallurgy, Techniques and Design. Amsterdam.
A. Charron, 2012. Les bronzes “reliquaires” d’animaux à la Basse Époque, inChr. Zivie-Coche, I. Guermeur (eds.), ‘Parcourir l’éternité’: Hommages à Jean
Yoyotte, Vol. 1 (BEHE Sciences Religieuses 8), 281–304. Turnhout.
W. Clarysse, 1978. Notes de prosopographie thébaine, 6. Une famille de pastophores thébains, CdÉ 53, 239–43.
A. Colonna, 2021. Religious Practice and Cultural Construction of Animal Worshipin Egypt from the Early Dynastic to the New Kingdom: Ritual Forms, Material
Display, Historical Development. Archaeopress Egyptology 36, Oxford.
K. M. Cooney, 2007a. The Cost of Death: The Social and Economic Value of Ancient
Egyptian Funerary Art in the Ramesside Period. EU 22, Leiden.
K. M. Cooney, 2007b. The Functional Materialism of Death in Ancient Egypt:
A case study of funerary materials from the Ramesside period, in M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Das Heilige und die Ware: Eigentum, Austausch und Kapitalisierung im Spannungsfeld von Ökonomie und Religion (IBAES 7), 273–99. London.
K. M. Cooney, 2021. Coffin Commerce: How a Funerary Materiality Formed Ancient Egypt, Cambridge Elements: Elements in Ancient Egypt in Context.
Cambridge.
L. Coulon, 2001. Un serviteur du sanctuaire de Chentayt à Karnak: La statue
Caire JE 37134, BIFAO 101, 137–52.
P. Craddock, 2015. The Metal Casting Traditions of South Asia: Continuity
and innovation, Indian Journal of History of Science 50, 1, 55–82.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

55

S. D’Auria, P. Lacovara, C.H. Roehrig, 1988. Mummies & Magic: The Funerary
Arts of Ancient Egypt. Boston.
S. Davies, H.S. Smith, 2005. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The
Falcon Complex and Catacomb. The Archaeological Report. EES-ExMem 73,
London.
J. Dawson, 2018. How to Make an Egyptian Coffin: The Construction and Decoration of Nespawershefyt’s Coffin Set. Cambridge.
J. Dawson, T. Turmezei, 2021. Recut, Refashioned, Reused: CT Scanning andthe complex inner coffin of Nespauershefyt, in K.M. Cooney, A. Amenta,
R. Sousa (eds.), Bab el-Gasus in Context: Rediscovering the Tomb of the Priestsof Amun, 485–510. Rome.
P. Del Vesco, B. Moiso (eds.) 2017. Missione Egitto 1903–1920: L’avventura archeologica M.A.I. raccontata. Modena.
E. Delange, H. Jaritz, 2013. Elephantine XXV: Der Widderfriedhof des Chnumtempels, AV 105, Wiesbaden.
H. De Meulenaere, 1990. Bronzes égyptiens de donation, Bulletin des Musées
Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire 61, 63–81.
M. Depauw, 2000. The Archive of Teos and Thabis from Early Ptolemaic Thebes: P.
Brux. Dem. Inv. E. 8252-8256. MRE 8, Turnhout.
S. K. Doherty, 2020. Investigating Dynastic Egyptian Pottery-Making: Archaeological and Ethnographical Considerations, in A.K. Hodgkinson, C.L.
Tvetmarken (eds.), Approaches to the Analysis of Production Activity at Archaeological Sites, 122–40. Oxford.
L. Donatelli, 2019. Drovetti e la raccolta di antichitá: Scavi, acquisti e viaggi
nell’alto e basso Egitto (1816–1821), in R. Binaghi, L. Donatelli (eds.),
Quando l’Egitto venne a Torino: La collezione, il viaggio, gli uomini e l’Accademia delle Scienze, 79–90. Torino.
K. Dosoo, 2022. Living Death and Deading Life: Animal mummies in GraecoEgyptian magic and ritual, in J.-C. Coulon (ed.), Magikon Zōon : Animal etmagie dans l’antiquité et au moyen âge (Bibliothèque d’Histoire des Textes),
339–418. Paris.

56

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

A. von den Driesch, D. Kessler, F. Steinmann, V. Berteaux, J. Peters, 2005.
Mummified, Deified and Buried at Hermopolis Magna: The Sacred Birds
from Tuna El-Gebel, Middle Egypt, Ä&L 15, 203–44.
M. Ebeid, 2018. Wooden Boards with Religious Texts, Written in Hieroglyphic, Hieroglyphic-Hieratic and Hieratic, from the Tuna al-Gebel Necropolis in the al Ashmunein Magazine, in K. Donker van Heel, C.J. Martin, F.A.J. Hoogendijk (eds.), Hieratic, Demotic and Greek Studies and Text
Editions: Of Making Many Books There Is No End. Festschrift in Honour of Sven
P. Vleeming (P.L.Bat 34), 101–14. Leiden.
M. Fitzenreiter, 2013. Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten, Ägyptologie undKulturwissenschaft 5. München.
Cl. Gaillard, G. Daressy, 1905. La faune momifiée de l’antique Égypte: Nos 2950129733 et 29751-29834, CG 25. Le Caire.
R. Gale, P. Gasson, N. Hepper, G. Killen, 2000. Wood, in P.T. Nicholson and
I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, 334–71. Cambridge.
A. K. Gill, 2019. The Glorifications of Herisenef in the Museo Egizio (P. Turin
Cat. 2117 (R 08)), RiME 3. doi.org/10.29353/rime.2019.2124.
F. T. E. Godin, 2000. The Multiple Use of Stucco and Plaster in Classical Antiquity, Essays on Christian Art and Culture in the Middle East 3, 63–79.
J.-C. Grenier, 2002. Les bronzes du Museo Gregoriano Egizio. AegGreg 5, Cittàdel Vaticano.
M. C. Guidotti, 2021. Unpublished Images of Osiris in the Egyptian Museumof Florence, in S. Ikram, M. Franci, I. Morfini (eds.), Rethinking Osiris: Proceedings of the International Conference, Florence, Italy 26-27 March 2019, 35–
40. Roma.
P. Hatchfield, 1991. Ancient Egyptian Gilding Methods, in D. Bigelow and
C.E. Hutchins (eds.), Gilded Wood: Conservation and History, 27–47. Madison, CT.
M. Hill, 2019. Small Divine Statuettes: Outfitting religion, in A. MassonBerghoff (ed.), Statues in Context: Production, Meaning and (Re)Uses (BMPES
10), 35–49. Leuven.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

57

R. Hölzl, 2018. Die Ibis-Tonkegel der Wiener Sammlung und ihre Bedeutung
im Rahmen der Tierverehrung im Alten Ägypten, in R. Hölzl, M.
Neumann, S. Haag, V. Novak (eds.), Der vergessene Papyrus: Eine Ausstellung des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, 8. Mai bis 16. September 2018, 12–
25. Wien.
S. Ikram, 2005. A Monument in Miniature: The Eternal Resting Place of a
Shrew, in P. Jánosi (ed.), Structure and Significance: Thoughts on Ancient
Egyptian Architecture (UZK 25), 335–40. Wien.
S. Ikram, 2015. Speculations on the Role of Animal Cults in the Economy ofAncient Egypt, in M. Massiera, B. Mathieu, F. Rouffet (eds.), Apprivoiser lesauvage / Taming the Wild (CENiM 12), 211–27. Montpellier.
S. Ikram, N. Iskander, 2002. Catalogue général of Egyptian Antiquities in the Cairo
Museum. Nos. 24048 - 24056; 29504 - 29903 (Selected); 51084 - 51101; 61089:
Non-Human Mummies. Cairo.
S. Ikram, S. Aicardi, F. Facchetti (eds.), forthcoming. The Animal Mummies ofthe Museo Egizio, Turin. SMET, Modena.
H. James, 1988. Painting Techniques on Stone and Wood, in C.E. Brown, S.C.
Watkins (eds.), Conservation of Ancient Egyptian Materials: Preprints of theConference organised by the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, Archaeology Section, Held at Bristol, December 15-16th, 1988, 55–59. London.
J. J. Janssen, 1975. Commodity Prices from the Ramessid Period. An Economic Studyof the Village of Necropolis Workmen at Thebes. Leiden.
D. Kessler, 2005. Tierische Missverständnisse: Grundsätzliches zu Fragen des Tierkultes,
in M. Fitzenreiter (ed.), Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich: Beiträge eines Workshops am 7.6. und 8.6.2002 (IBAES 4), 33–67. London.
D. Kessler, 2010. Ibis-Vögel mit Eigennamen: Tiere des Festes und des Orakels, in Chr. Leitz, H. Knuf, D. von Recklinghausen (eds.), Honi soit qui mal
y pense: Studien zum pharaonischen, griechisch-römischen und spätantikenÄgypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef Thissen (OLA 194), 261–72. Leuven.
K. Lembke, 2008. Was unter dem Sand liegt: Die Grabungskampagne des Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museums in Tuna el-Gebel 2007, aMun – Magazin fürdie Freunde ägyptischer Museen und Sammlungen 36, 4–9.
E. Leospo, 2001. The Art of Woodworking. QuadMusEg. Turin.

58

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

M. Loth, 2007. Werte von Materialien: Bau- und Denkmalsteine, in M. Fitzenreiter(ed.), Das Heilige und die Ware: Eigentum, Austausch und Kapitalisierung im Spannungsfeld von Ökonomie und Religion (IBAES 7), 203–25. London.
E. Lüddeckens, W. Brunsch, H.-J. Thissen, G. Vittmann, K.-Th. Zauzich 1991.
Demotisches Namenbuch I. Fasc. 10. Wiesbaden.
A. Masson-Berghoff, D. O’Flynn, 2019. Absent, Invisible or Revealed “Relics”?
X-Radiography and CT Scanning of Egyptian Bronze Votive Boxes from
Naukratis and Elsewhere, BMSAES 24, 159–75.
A. Masson-Berghoff, E. Pernicka, 2019. Origins of Metals for Countless
Bronzes, in A. Masson-Berghoff (ed.), Statues in Context: Production, Meaning and (Re)Uses (BMPES 10), 53–72. Leuven.
A. Masson-Berghoff, E. Pernicka, D. Hook, A. Meek, 2018. (Re)Sources: Origins of Metals for Countless Bronzes, in A. Masson-Berghoff (ed.), Statues
in Context: Production, Meaning and (Re)Uses (BMPES 10), 53–72. Leuven.
A. Masson-Berghoff, E. Pernicka, D. Hook, A. Meek, 2018. (Re)Sources: Origins of Metals in Late Period Egypt, JAS-Rep 21, 318–39.
M. Medina Sánchez, 2013. Las Técnicas de Dorado y Plateado en los Ataúdes
Egipcios, Boletín de la Asociación Española de Egiptología 22, 91–113.
G. Miniaci, 2014. The Case of the Third Intermediate Period “Shabti-Maker (?)
of the Amun Domain” Diamun / Padiamun and the Change in Conceptionof Shabti Statuettes, JEA 100, 245–73.
B. Muhs, 2016. The Ancient Egyptian Economy 3000-30 BCE. Cambridge.
R. Müller-Wollermann, 2021. Einführung in die altägyptische Wirtschaft. EQA
13, Münster.
S. Musso, S. Petacchi, 2017. The Osirian Obelisk-Shaped “Reliquaries”: New
Evidence from European Collections, in K.A. Kóthay (ed.), Burial and Mortuary Practices in Late Period and Graeco-Roman Egypt: Proceedings of the International Conference held at Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 17-19 July 2014,
337–45. Budapest.
K. Myśliwiec, 1981. Aal oder Schlange? – Atum oder Meresger?, MDAIK 37,
377–82.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

59

P. T. Nicholson, 2005. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The
Cults and Their Catacombs, in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine Creatures: Animal
Mummies in Ancient Egypt, 44–71. Cairo.
P. T. Nicholson, 2019. The North Ibis Catacomb at Saqqara, in S. Ikram, S.
Pasquali, S. Porcier (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky: Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 251–58. Leiden.
P. T. Nicholson, 2022. Sacred Animals at Saqqara, Heritage 5, 2, 1240–52.
P. T. Nicholson, S. Ikram, S. Mills, 2021. The Catacombs of Anubis at North
Saqqara: An Archaeological Perspective. BMPES 12, Leuven.
M. A. Nur-el-Din, 1994. Terms of “Payment” in Demotic, in Sh. Allam (ed.),Grund und Boden in Altägypten (Rechtliche und Sozio-Ökonomische Verhältnisse): Akten des Internationalen Symposions, Tübingen 18.–20. Juni 1990, 285–
88. Tübingen.
C. Oliva, M. Borla, 2019. The Conservation of Animal Mummies: Problems andPossible Solutions, in S. Ikram, S. Pasqual, S. Porcier (eds.), Creatures of Earth,
Water, and Sky: Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 259–65. Leiden.
F. Poole, 2005. “All That Has Been Done to the Shabtis”: Some Considerations on
the Decree for the Shabtis of Neskhons and P. BM EA 10800, JEA 91, 165–70.
F. Preisigke, W. Spiegelberg, 1914. Die Prinz-Joachim-Ostraka: Griechische unddemotische Beisetzungsurkunden für Ibis- und Falkenmumien aus Ombos.
Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Straßburg 19, Straßburg.
M. D. Pubblico, 2017. Il culto di Bastet in Epoca Tarda e Greco-Romana attraverso
la documentazione archeologica e testuale [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Naples.
F. W. Rademakers, T. Rehren, 2016. Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Assessing
Technological Variability in Ancient Metallurgical Crucible Assemblages,
JAS-Rep 7, 588–96.
F. W. Rademakers, T. Rehren, E.B. Pusch, 2018. Bronze Production in Pi-Ramesse:
Alloying Technology and Material Use, in E. Ben-Yosef (ed.), Mining for Ancient Copper: Essays in Memory of Beno Rothenberg, 503–25. Philadelphia.
J.-P. Rama, 1995. Le bronze d’art et ses techniques. Paris.
M. J. Raven, W.K. Taconis, 2005. Egyptian Mummies: Radiological Atlas of theCollections in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. PALMA 1, Turnhout.

60

Johannes Auenmüller & Federica Facchetti

J. D. Ray, 1976. The Archive of Ḥor, Excavations at North Saqqâra 1: Documentary Series 2. London.
H. Satzinger, 1998. Osirianische Obelisken in der Wiener Sammlung, in W.
Clarysse, A. Schoors, H. Willems (eds.), Egyptian Religion: The Last Thousand Years. Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur: Part I (OLA
84), 413–23. Leuven.
F. Scalf, 2015. Resurrecting an Ibis Cult: Demotic votive texts from the Oriental
Institute Museum of the University of Chicago, in F. Haikal (ed.), Mélanges
offerts à Ola el-Aguizy (BdÉ 164), 361–88. Le Caire.
K. Schlüter, 2020. Von der Nische zur Kultstelle: Die Ablage der Osiris-Tiere
im Tierfriedhof von Tuna El-Gebel, in M.C. Flossmann-Schütze, F. Hoffmann, A. Schütze (eds.), Tuna El-Gebel – Eine ferne Welt: Tagungsband zur
Konferenz der Graduade School ‘Distant Worlds’ vom 16. bis 19.1.2014 in München (TeG 8), 269–86. Vaterstetten.
D. Schorsch, 2007. The Manufacture of Metal Statuary: “Seeing the Workshops of the Temple”’, in M. Hill, D. Schorsch (eds.). Gifts for the Gods: Images from Egyptian Temples, 189–99. New Haven.
R. Schwab, F. Willer, 2016. Die Zusammensetzung und mögliche Herkunft
der Gusslegierungen, in M. Fitzenreiter, F. Willer, J. Auenmüller (eds.),
Materialien einer Gusswerkstatt von der Qubbet el-Hawa, Bonner Aegyptiaca,
71–81. Berlin.
F. R. Sias, 2005. Lost-Wax Casting: Old, New, and Inexpensive Methods. Pendleton.
R. Siegmann, 1999. Eine Katze für das Neujahrsfest des Königs Amasis? Dervergoldete Katzensarg aus der ägyptischen Sammlung des Musée d’Ethnographie in Neuchâtel (CH), AW 30, 5, 441–49.
K. A. D. Smelik, 1979. The Cult of the Ibis in the Graeco-Roman Period: With
special attention to the data from the Papyri, in M.J. Vermaseren (ed.),Studies in Hellenistic Religions (EPRO 78), 225–43. Leiden.
F. Steinmann, 2005. Tuna el Gebel: Die Tongefäße, in M. Fitzenreiter (ed.),Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich: Beiträge eines
Workshops am 7.6. und 8.6.2002 (IBAES 4), 99–109. London.
D. A. Stocks, 2022. Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt. 2nd edition. London.

Ceramic, Wood, Stone & Bronze

61

D. Tamburini, J. Dyer, M. Vandenbeusch, M. Borla, D. Angelici, M. Aceto, C.
Oliva, F. Facchetti, P. Davit, M. Gulmini, 2021. A Multi-Scalar Investigation of the Colouring Materials Used in Textile Wrappings of Egyptian Votive Animal Mummies, Heritage Science 9, article no. 106.
A. Tarek, M. Abdel-Rahman, N. Mohamed, A. Khairy, A. Abdellatif, 2019.
Study of Different Wrapping Types on Ibis Mummies from Tuna-El-Gebel,
Hermopolis, in S. Ikram, S. Pasquali, S. Porcier (eds.), Creatures of Earth,
Water, and Sky: Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 315–21. Leiden.
H.-J. Thissen, 1991. Demotische Inschriften aus den Ibisgalerien in Tuna ElGebel: Ein Vorbericht, Enchoria 18, 107–13.
J. Thum, 2012. Creatures Compartmentalised: Establishing a Typology for the Ancient Egyptian Bronze “Reliquaries” in the British Museum, London [MPhil dissertation]. Oxford.
M. Tosi, 1999. Il valore in “denaro” di un corredo sepolcrale dell’antico Egitto,
Aegyptus 79, 1–2, 19–29.
L. Vigorelli, A. Re, L. Guidorzi, T. Cavaleri, P. Buscaglia, M. Nervo, F. Facchetti, M. Borla, S. Grassini, A. Giudice, 2021. X-Ray Imaging Investigationon the Gilding Technique of an Ancient Egyptian Taweret Wooden Statuette, Journal of Imaging 7, 11, 229.
D. A. Warburton, 2007. Work and Compensation in Ancient Egypt, JEA 93,
175–94.
K. Weiß, 2012. Ägyptische Tier- und Götterbronzen aus Unterägypten: Untersuchungen zu Typus, Ikonographie und Funktion sowie der Bedeutung innerhalb
der Kulturkontakte zu Griechenland. ÄAT 81. Wiesbaden.
El-H. Zaghloul, 1994. An Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Text on Two Wooden
Fragments from the Mallawi Museum, MDAIK 50, 307–8.
Chr. Ziegler (ed.) 2018. L’or des pharaons: 2500 ans d’orfèvrerie dans l’Égypte ancienne. Paris.

Gift to Sobek
Preliminary Results of the Analysis of a Young Crocodile Mummy in the Allard Pierson
Ben van den Bercken, Marinus Hoogmoed, Roel Jansen,
Nick Lobé, Mario Maas & Zosja Stenchlak

Introduction
In 2018 the Allard Pierson – Collections of the University of Amsterdam
acquired the mummy of a young crocodile at an auction of Bonhams London(Fig. 1, inventory number APM17925).1 For the Allard Pierson this was a welcome addition to the small collection of animal mummies that was then used
to illustrate religious beliefs in the later periods of ancient Egyptian history.
Before including the mummy in the permanent exhibition which was renewed in 2019-2020, the Allard Pierson decided to more thoroughly analyze
and investigate its animal mummies. This process started in summer 2021
when the thirteen mummies in the collection were CT-scanned and x-rayedin the Amsterdam University Medical Centers (Amsterdam UMC). Most ofthese mummies had never been investigated before. Research questions focused on species identification, pathology of the individual animals, conservation and restauration issues, and questions related to the process of mummification.

Fig. 1: Allard Pierson crocodile mummy APM17925, length 107 cm. Photo Allard
Pierson, Collections of the University of Amsterdam.

1 Bonhams London, Antiquities Auction, Catalogue, Thursday 5 July 2018, 138.

64

van den Bercken & alii

Preliminary results were presented in a small exhibition in which the museum visitor could also participate by digitally unwrapping the mummy andformulating research questions. After the exhibition, analyses continued, andthe combined effort of radiological, taxonomic and Egyptological expertise
enabled the project team to present some of the preliminary results at the
ISAAE3 conference.

Provenience and provenance
The provenance history recorded for the crocodile mummy when it entered the Allard Pierson collection traced it back to the Cabinet of Curiosities
of Walter Potter (1835-1918), a taxidermist and collector who lived his whole
life in the village of Bramber, Sussex, UK.2 His Victorian cabinet consisted ofhumanized animal dioramas, including the famous ‘Death and Burial of Cock
Robin’. The cabinet also included more conventional taxidermic specimens aswell as curiosities varying from ethnographic and Victorian objects, to archeological artefacts. All these were exhibited mostly in Victorian display cases
in a small building behind the inn of Potter’s father. After Potter’s death in1918 the contents of the cabinet moved several times, as described by Pat Morris.3 Subsequent owners moved the collection, and in some cases, added objects to the collection.4 In 2001 the then owners of the collection retired, and it
could no longer be kept together. At an auction by Bonhams in 2003 the objects were dispersed throughout England and the world.5 The crocodile
mummy was sold again in 2004 at Christie’s London and then again by Bonhams London in 2018.6 On all occasions the mummy was accompanied by aVictorian black metal and glass display case,7 and reported to have a nowmissing old label with the text:“Ancient Egyptian mummified crocodile. Found at Kam On in Egypt, circa
2000 BC. Sacred to the God Sobeh and worshipped in cities that depended onwater, such as the oasis of Crocodilopolis.”

2 Van Haarlem 2020, 27; Morris 2013, 2–8.
3 Morris 2013, 8–17.
4 Personal communication with Dr. Pat Morris (May–June 2022). See also ivi, 8.
5 Bonhams London, The sale of the Contents of Mr Potter’s Museum of Curiosities in Bram-ber, Sussex and then Arundel, Catalogue, 23–24 September 2003.
6 Van Haarlem 2020, 27.

7 Images exist of the case mounted against a wall in the building where the collection was

between 1988 until 2001. Presently, the case is also kept in the collection of the Allard Pierson.

Gift to Sobek

65

If authentic, then this information seems to relate the crocodile to Kom Ombo,
though it does not indicate the context in which it went from Egypt to Britain. The
mention of 2000 BC is also remarkable as most mummified crocodiles date fromthe Ptolemaic and Roman periods, though animal mummies from other sites
have also wrongly been attributed to the same period in the 19th century.8 The
2003 Bonhams auction catalogue indicates that the collection at that time included
multiple crocodiles that were all dated from late 19th until early 20th century AD.9
It was not uncommon for a mummified crocodile to be displayed together withmounted/taxidermined specimens.10
Based on a study of the different surviving catalogues associated with thecollection, it seems as if the crocodile mummy was not part of the original
Potter collection but might have been added to it between 1972 and 1986 by
Mr. James Cartland, a Brighton antiques dealer who acquired the Potter collection in 1972. However, as we cannot be certain about whether earlier catalogues give an overview of the complete collection, it is not impossible that themummified crocodile entered Potter’s collection pre-1972 or was even addedby Potter himself. It is known that, after the opening of a new museum building at Bramber in the 1880s, Potter’s reputation encouraged people to bringmaterial to him, both deceased favorite pets, but also interesting material for
his cabinet. This too is the time when animal mummies arrived in Englandfrom Egypt in large numbers,11 and it is possible that the crocodile was eitherpurchased by Potter or gifted to him at this time. Further archival research
will hopefully reveal more information.

Description of the wrappings
This young crocodile has been wrapped spirally within an apparently single broad band of textile with frayed sides.12 The weave type is a simple tabby
weave which is uniform throughout.13 The wrapping started at the head andmoved to the tail end, as indicated by the overlap. An occasional fold in theband of textile points towards a less systematic wrapping process. At several
8 Cooke 2015, 51.
9 Bonhams London, The sale of the Contents of Mr Potter’s Museum of Curiosities in Bram-ber, Sussex and then Arundel, Catalogue, 23–24 September 2003, lots 19, 581 and 618.
10 Cooke 2015, 49.
11 Ivi, 51.

12 See Incordino and Oliva 2021, 144.
13 Van ‘t Hooft 1994, 16–17.

66

van den Bercken & alii

locations the textile is damaged. This may have occurred through wear, e.g.,on the protruding parts like joints (proper left and right front legs and, proper
right back leg), but also inflicted damage, for example, a small hole at theheight of the proper right lower right back.
Several cords, presumably of plant fibers but still to be analyzed, are tiedaround the bandaged mummy. Three similar type thicker cords (diam. 5 mm),spun in an S-turn, are: 1) around the neck with a tightened double flat knot on
the neck leaving some spacing and then a second double flat knot; 2) on thepelvis, knotted on the underside, and; 3) on the tail with a double flat knot near
the proper right underside. Three thin cords (diam. 1 mm), spun in a Z-turn,are: 1) tightly bound around the neck and fixed by overlap without knot(s); 2)
remains on the thick thread at the pelvis; and 3) around the tail without visible
knot(s). Based on their strongly regular spiraling and less worn character it iscurrently believed that all these cords are later additions to the mummy, possibly to stabilize it. No other stabilizing has been detected except for a small pin
or needle inside the mummy in the proper left rear paw area, clearly a modern
addition.
The skull of the crocodile is no longer attached to the spine and is held inplace by the textile which has strongly frayed edges on the proper right side.
The neck area is damaged, and the textile is much more frayed in this location
than in other areas. In general, it can be concluded that the wrappings in thehead area are loose and no longer fully encompass the remains within (bones
are visible). Hence there is direct access from the outside to the skull and neckarea of the crocodile.

Gift to Sobek

67

Radiological analysis
The radiological analysis of the 107 cm longcrocodile resulted in several interesting observations. First of all, it wasestablished that the skull
was no longer in an anatomical connection as it
was upside down in relation to the rest of thebody, and the three anterior neck vertebrae (C1C3) are missing (Fig. 2).
On the remaining bones
no injuries related to thedetachment of the skull
could be observed so far.
The small postoccipitalscales seem to be missing. The nuchal scales
are present, suggestingthat only a small part of
the neck skin is missing.
No incision to remove
viscera has been observed yet and the presence of high density
rounded objects (gastroliths, presumably small
pebbles) in the digestive tract seems to indicate that the viscera were left in place(Fig. 3).14 The belly and chest area show ‘folded’ skin, which may be due toshrinking related to the drying process. The animal still has all its legs, which
are stretched posteriorly alongside the body and tail. Both the neck and pelvis
area show distortion and/or damage (Fig. 4). Currently, it cannot be assessed
14 Anderson and Antoine 2019, 35 n. 5.

68

van den Bercken & alii

whether this was ancient or modern. A small fragment of the tail, the length of
2,5 vertebrae, is preserved separate from the rest of the tail.

Morphological analysis of the skull
The skull is in a good condition and shows
only slight damage (Fig. 5). In the premaxilla theanterior wall of the alveola of the first tooth andthe tooth itself are missing. The second small
tooth on both sides is clearly visible. The left andright mandible halves have both fallen apart (notbroken) into their constituent parts. The left maxilla bears 16, the right one 17 teeth of variable
length of which the first five (including the missing first one) teeth are separated from the remainder by a large diastema in which fits the
fourth tooth of the lower jaw. The lower jaw isincomplete. It is represented by six carefully separated parts (dentary, angular and splenial ofeach side), which together form the anterior partof the lower jaw. The left dentary bears 12 teeth, Fig. 5: 3D Cinematic Renthe right one 11. Three of the lower jaw bones dering of the crocodile skull(right dentary, left angular and left splenial) are, and three fragments of thelike the skull, still within the mummy wrap- lower jaw. Photo Amsterpings, while the other three lower jaw bones are dam UMC.
currently not within the mummy, but preserved
separately. The posterior (articulating) parts of the lower jaw (articular, supraangular, coronoid from both sides) are missing. All the individual bones of
the anterior lower jaw are complete and suggest that the lower jaw has carefully been completely macerated into its composing parts. What happened tothe missing posterior part of the lower jaw remains a mystery.

Conclusion and future research
After the acquisition of the crocodile mummy by the Allard Pierson in
2018, it has been subjected to radiological scanning to find out more about its
current state of preservation and answer some of the most basic questions
about its condition. The mummy seems to have had a turbulent history, which

Gift to Sobek

69

has left it in a very fragile state. Its possible role in a cabinet of curiosities,
where objects were sometimes (frequently) touched and sometimes damaged,
might be a reason for this state.15 Radiology revealed the state of preservationand provided information that the skull is currently upside-down in relation
to the rest of the body, vertebrae C1-C3 were missing, and that the animal had
not been eviscerated as the stomach contents were in situ. Further analyses ofthe data generated by the scanning process possibly will provide more information about the mummy. The results from the morphological analysis will
be related to an ongoing DNA-analysis which has recently proved pivotal indistinguishing Crocodylus suchus from Crocodylus niloticus in mummified specimens and nuancing both our understanding of the species’ dispersal in Africa
as well as ancient choices for ‘mummy material’.16

Bibliography
J. Anderson, D. Antoine, 2019. Scanning Sobek. Mummy of the Crocodile
God, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water, andSky. Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 31–37. Leiden.
A. Cook, 2015. Auctions and air raids: Liverpool’s animal mummy collection,
in L. McKnight, S. Atherton-Woolham, Gifts for the Gods. Ancient Egyptian
animal mummies and the British, 48–53. Liverpool.
W. van Haarlem, 2020. De mummie van een krokodil, Allard Pierson Magazine
122, 27.
E. Hekkala, M. Aardema, A. Narechania, G. Amato, S. Ikram, M. Shirley, K.
Vliet, S. Cunningham, M. Gilbert, O. Smith, 2020. The secrets of Sobek – Acrocodile mummy mitogenome from ancient Egypt, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 33, 1–10 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep. 2020.102483,
08/06/2022].
E. Hekkala, M.H. Shirley, G. Amato, J.D. Austin, 2011. An ancient icon reveals
new mysteries: Mummy DNA resurrects a cryptic species within the Nilecrocodile, Molecular Ecology 20 (20), 4199-4215. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1365-294X.2011.05245.x]

15 Morris 2013, 12.
16 Hekkala et al. 2020, Hekkala et al. 2011, Porcier et al 2019.

70

van den Bercken & alii

P. van ‘t Hoofd, M. Raven, E. van Rooij, G. Vogelsang-Eastwood, 1994. Pharaonic and Early Medieval Egyptian textiles. Leiden.
I. Incordino, C. Oliva, 2021. Brief Notes about a Mummified Crocodile fromthe National Archaeological Museum (MANN) of Naples, Italy, in S.
Ikram, J. Kaiser, S. Porcier (eds.), The Ancient Egyptians & the Natural World.
Flora, Fauna & Science, 141–145. Leiden.
P. Morris, 2013. Walter Potter’s Curious World of Taxidermy. London.
S. Porcier, C. Berruyer, S. Pasquali, S. Ikram, D. Berthet, P. Tafforeau, 2019.
Wild crocodiles hunted to make mummies in Roman Egypt: Evidence
from synchrotron imaging, Journal of Archaeological Science 110, 1–8[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019.105009, 08/06/2022].

The Faunal Remains from the “Economic Annexes”
at the Temple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep II(Luxor, West bank)Fabio Bona

Introduction
In the last twenty years research undertaken by the Centro di Egittologia F.
Ballerini has revealed the complex history of the area occupied by the Templeof Millions of Years of Amenhotep II in Western Thebes, which underwent an
intensive funerary use and reuse from the Middle Kingdom up to Ptolemaic
times1. During the excavation of the tombs and the “economic annexes” many
animal bones were recovered.2
The goal of the work is to understand as much as possible, through thestudy of a limited amount of faunal remains, about the forms of management
and exploitation of food resources during the “life” of the temple and during
subsequent modifications of the area.
The osteological finds were collected during the excavation of various fillings of floor layouts and reconstruction of the wall structures of the so-called“economic annexes” located in the southern sector of the Temple of Millions
of Years temple of Amenhotep II.

Materials and Methods
The animal bones consist of 1,123 specimens collected during field excavations in 2013/2014, 2014/2015 and 2019/2020 (Tabs. 1 & 2). The bones represent
three classes of vertebrate: mammal, bird and fish. Fragments of shells offreshwater clam are present too. The finds without clear stratigraphic indications were not used for this work. The ceramics finds are still being studied.

1 Sesana 2010; Sesana and Quirino 2010; Consonni et al. 2017; Sesana et al. 2020.
2 Bona et al. 2019; Bona et al. 2021; Sesana et al. 2020.

Tab. 1: Faunal distribution of the fillings of rooms (=Amb.)
4, 8, 10, 15 and 17.

Tab. 2: Faunal distribution of the fillings of rooms (=Amb.)
18, 22, 23 and 27.

72
Fabio BonzaThe Faunal Remains from the “Economic Annexes”

73

The identification of the bones collected during the excavations was conducted in the field, mainly using published osteological images.3 In addition
to identifying species, anatomical element, age, and sex, the bones were examined to identify traces of butchery, burning and various other taphonomic
processes. The nomenclature used for domestic mammals follows Gentry etal.4 The following parameters were calculated: NISP (Number of Identifiable
Specimens) and MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) for each taxon. The
MNI estimates were calculated following Bökönyi, Klein and Cruz-Uribe and
De Grossi Mazzorin.5
Distinction between sheep and goats was made primarily using the criteriaof Boessneck et al. and Prummel and Frisch.6 Sexing was based on morphological characteristics of the horns in sheep7 and the presence of baculum indogs. The tooth-wear stage of the domestic mammals was recorded following
Payne and Grant.8 The fusion stages of post-cranial bones were observed andrelated to age ranges following Barone.9 Measurements of skeletal elements
were taken following Von den Driesch.10 The sizes of the animals were estimated using the parameters proposed by Matolcsifor cattle (Bos taurus),11
Teichert for sheep (Ovis aries),12 and Koudelka and Harcourt for dogs (Canisfamiliaris).13

Stratigraphic evolution of the walled structures of the southern
sector of the Temple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep II
The stratigraphic situation of the so called “economic annexes” is complicated as a result of centuries of work of restoration and sometimes of rebuilding. The stratigraphic sections, drawn along the walls of selected rooms, allow
us to understand these numerous phases of renovation of buildings and tounderstand the construction phases and thus the chronology of the deposition
3 Barone 1995; Pales and Garcia 1981; Pales and Lambert 1971; Cohen and Serjeantson 1996.
4 Gentry et al. 2004.
5 Bökönyi 1970; Cruz-Uribe 1984; De Grossi Mazzorin 2008, with references.
6 Boessneck et al. 1964; Prummel and Frisch 1986.
7 Boessneck et al. 1964.
8 Payne 1973; Grant 1982.
9 Barone 1995.
10 Von den Driesch 1976.
11 Matolcsi 1970.
12 Teichert 1975.

13 Koudelka 1884; Harcourt 1974.

74

Fabio Bonzaof the bones. Excavations revealed the differences in the use-phases when thearea was reorganised.
From a stratigraphic point of view, we see a FIRST PHASE that involves
the creation of a first Dakka layer (Dakka 3 -Fig. 2) (compacted silty sedimentforming a stabilised walking surface and, in some cases, functioning as a basesupporting an unfired brick floor) directly on the bedrock (Gebel, a cemented
heterometric coarse gravel body resulting from the accumulation of depositsof coarse materials coming from the nearby Theban Mountain by means ofgravitational accumulation). Some perimeter walls, made of unfired bricks, of
structures abutting the external wall of the mud brick temple that was built
directly on the Gebel, are associated with this first Dakka. This phase likely
represents the earliest work related to the construction of Amenhotep II’s temple. In Amb. 22 and Amb. 17, from Dakka 3, some animal bones have beencollected.
Subsequently, in PHASE TWO, the area was levelled, with much use oflarge fragments (up to, and over, 15 cm) of yellow sandstone, probably wastefrom the working of stone material to produce the columns, statues, and otherarchitectural features that, today, have almost completely disappeared.14 The
unfired bricks retaining wall of the inner temple enclosure also rests on thisinfill. During this phase the built area of the southern part of the “Economic
Annexes” grows considerably. The arenaceous infill contains ceramic and animal remains (Dakka 2 and Filling 2, 2b and 2c).
PHASE THREE and PHASE FOUR, probably close together in time, see
the further northwards expansion of the buildings and a more pronounced
internal subdivision of the space, often reducing the dimensions of the rooms.
In the sediments that characterized these phases some animal bones are present, mainly in Dakka 1 and Filling 2a.
PHASE FIVE is limited to a few changes, probably almost contemporaneous with PHASE THREE and PHASE FOUR.
PHASE SIX, on the other hand, sees a distinct – and later – layout of thestructures with functional infilling to change several internal spaces andthe realisation of new walls that have, at the base of the foundation, tensof centimetres of heterogeneous infill, often made up of large deposits ofash (e.g., north wall of room 23). Few animal remains come from Filling 1,
1a, 1b and 1c.

14 Sesana 2010.

The Faunal Remains from the “Economic Annexes”

75

Fig. 1: Plan of the Temple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep II where the distribution of rooms are underline in red.

At this point in our research, we do not have enough evidence to be certain, but it seems that there may have been a PHASE SEVEN, perhaps contemporary with the reorganisation of the internal courtyard, which involved
the construction of a Third Intermediate Period (beginning of the first millennium BC) pylon, a levelling of the walls and the construction of an inclined
surface leading up to the courtyard level (Figs. 1 & 2)

Faunal remains
Several fillings for the preparation of floors yielded remains of animals,
probably consumed during the lifetime of the Temple of Millions of Years ofAmenhotep II and beyond. Unfortunately, with the data currently available
we are not able to verify any association between the animal skeletal remains
and the ovens present in some of the rooms that were investigated. The animal remains represent at least four taxa: Mammals, Birds, Fish and Mollusks.

76

Fabio BonzaThe best represented mammal taxon are cattle (Bos taurus). The cow bone remains were usually modified by man variously: cuts and/or dismembering and fire (burnt bones, sometimes
heavily burned) (Fig. 3-C). The age of the cattle
span from young calf to adult individual. All thebone remains are, in average, also heavy fragmented. The characteristics of the bovine remains are described, where possible, below
rooms by rooms and in consideration of the stratigraphy.
Amb 8. Dakka 1: the scattered remains are
attributable to two individuals, one adult(more than 40-48 months) and one young (lessthan 15-18 months). Dakka 2: the two individuals detected was both younger than 48
months.
Amb. 10. Dakka 1: the remains allowed to
identify two different individuals, one juvenile
and the second older than 24-30 months.
Amb. 17. Dakka 1: at least two individuals,
one juvenile and one older than 20-24 months.
Filling 1a: one individual younger than 20-24
months. Dakka 2 + Filling 2: at least one individual younger than 36 months.
Amb. 22. Dakka 2: the Bos finds coming Fig. 2: Matrix of the southernfrom this dakka allow us to estimate the pres- area of the Temple of Millions
ence of at least three individuals, one very of Years of Amenhotep II.
young, 1 younger than 24-30 months and one
older than 24-30 months. Dakka 3: the remains testified the presence of onevery young individual.
Amb. 23. Filling 1b: we have remains attributable to an animal of less than
42 months. Filling 2: we have few fragments of a very young individual.
Dakka 2+Filling 2: the cow bones allow to detect the presence of one adultindividual.
Among the other mammal taxa, it is possible to note the scarse presence ofovicaprids, small equids (probably attributable to the genus Asinus, according

The Faunal Remains from the “Economic Annexes”

77

to the small dimensions of the remains of an adult individual older than 5
years), dogs and pigs (Tab. 1 & 2). A fragmented pig skull shows clear tracesof butchery (Fig. 3-D).
Another taxon numerically relevant is that of Aves where the genus Anseris the only one clearly determined.
Animal typical of aquatic environment are also present like fishes, at leastcatfish, and freshwater clams (Unionidae family).
From the taphonomical point of view, as briefly discussed above, it is important to underline that a large number of remains, from all the taxa, show
human modifications like butchery marks and exposure to fire (Fig. 3). Animal activities on bones, as carnivore punctures, have been also detected (Fig.
3-E).

Fig. 3: Some selected bones
modified by human and animal activities. A- Bos taurus,
fragment of ileus with traceof butchery (RF21 – 099,
Amb. 10 Dakka 1). B- Ansersp., fragment of humerus
with traces of disarticulation(RF21 – 210, Amb. 22 Dakka
3). C- Some burned bones<largely attributable to Bos
taurus (Amb. 8 Dakka 2). DSus domesticus, neurocranial
fragment of with traces of the
impact of a heavy tool usedin breaking open the skull tohave access to the brain(RF21 – 138, Amb. 8 Dakka
2). E- Bos taurus, juvenile
proximal phalanx with carnivore punctures (RF21 – 198,
Amb. 22 Dakka 3)

78

Fabio Bonza

Conclusions
The life of a religious community such as that of the Temple of Millions ofYears of Amenhotep II was characterised by multiple activities that were also
linked in various ways to the surrounding social fabric.
There were activities strictly linked to worship that were the prerogativeof the priests alone and also activities related to the administration of the religious estate, which implied the presence of scribes who took on management roles. Within the complexes were found the many schools where lessons
in writing were given and where the management skills necessary to the functioning of the pharaonic state structure were taught.
Of equal importance were all the activities undertaken by specialised personnel involved in the provision and preparation of food for both the religious
and non-religious staff linked to the temple, activities that took place in specific places within the temple compound. It is known that these structures alsofunctioned as warehouses and that the pharaohs themselves guaranteed regular supplies of food to entire villages such as, for example, that of the socalled “tomb builders” at Deir el Medina. A striking example of these relationships is provided by the protest on the part of the inhabitants of the villageof Deir el Medina during the 29th year of the reign of Ramesses III: they presented themselves at the south entrance to the Temple of Millions of Years ofThutmose III to claim their food supplies that had been promised but not yet
delivered (the “Strike Papyrus”, in the Egyptian Museum of Turin). Beyond
official documents, these “economic” activities also left physical traces of thework of the temple kitchens: the bones of butchered (and often burned) animals. These remains are mostly found in refuse pits or mixed with the sediments used as wall filling or in the layers beneath floors, either during initialconstruction work or during structural reorganisations of the temples.
It is to this last case that the finds presented in the current project pertain.
Because of the long history of the site and past clandestine excavations and/or
little attention being paid to the naturalistic aspects of the deposits, much ofthis information has been lost. The CEFB excavations allow us to study how
many of these finds remained in their original stratigraphic position and tounderstand the ways that these animal resources, both vertebrate and invertebrate, were used in the kitchens of the Temple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep II. For the reasons laid out above, the sample is small but, for the understanding of such previously little-studied aspects of the archaeology of thearea, every new piece of evidence that can be used in future work is

The Faunal Remains from the “Economic Annexes”

79

important. Absolute dating of the deposits is not yet available (studies of thepottery are underway), but we are looking at fills that date from the middleof the 18th Dynasty through to the Late and Ptolemaic Periods.
Among the faunal remains there are aquatic animals such as molluscs andNile fish and also domestic land animals such as cattle, pigs, ovicaprids,
horses and poultry (there is no evidence of game animals). Poultry and cattle
are very common but ovicaprids, pigs and equids seem to have been little
exploited. Unlike tomb contexts in the same area, ovicaprids are little seen in
the context of the “economic annexes” of the Temple of Millions of Years ofAmenhotep II. Instead, we see animals that are not documented in rituals related to the sphere of the dead specifically in the area of the temple of Amenhotep II,15 animals such as pigs, equids, and poultry. As mentioned above,
there are plenty of mollusc (Unionidae) remains and remains of freshwater
fish, among which are undoubtedly those of the Nile catfish (Synodontis batensoda).
Acknowledgements
I want to thank the president of the CEFB prof. A. Sesana and the arch. E.
Negri for giving me the opportunity to study the material described in thiswork. I also thank all the volunteers in the last 20 years who have made it
possible to carry out a high-level work at the area of the Million Years Templeof Amenhotep II.
I thank Craig Alexander for assistance with the English text.

Bibliography
R. Barone, 1995. Anatomia comparata dei mammiferi domestici. I. Osteologia. Bologna.
J. Boessneck, H-H. Müller, M. Teichert, 1964. Osteologische Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen Schaf (Ovis aries Linné) und Ziege (Capra
hircus Linné), Kühn-Archiv 78, 1/2, 5-126.
F. Bona, A. Consonni, T. Quirino, A. Sesana., 2019. Interpreting the Faunal
Remains from the Tombs at the Temple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep
II in Western Thebes: Funerary Practices, Ritual Practices or, Perhaps,
15 Bona et al. 2019; 2021

80

Fabio Bonza

Something Else?, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures ofEarth, Water, and Sky. Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 99-107.
Leiden.
F. Bona, G. Bellandi, L. Cavallini, A. Consonni, T. Quirino, A. Sesana, 2021.
Humans and Animals Together in the Journey to the Afterlife. The Burial
in Area R11 under the Temple of Millions of Years of Amenhotep II, Luxor,
West Thebes – Italian Archaeological Project, in S. Ikram, J. Kaiser, S. Porcier. (eds.), The Ancient Egyptians and the Natural World. Flora, Fauna, andScience. (Sidestone Press), 31-44. Leiden.
A. Consonni, T. Quirino, A. Sesana, 2017. Before and After the Temple: The
Long-Lived Necropolis in the Area of the Temple of Millions of Years ofAmenhotep II – Western Thebes, in M. C. Guidotti, G. Rosati (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of the Egyptologists, Florence 2330 August 2015, 112-119. Oxford.
J. De Grossi Mazzorin, 2008. Archeozoologia, lo studio dei resti animali in archeologia. Bari.
A. von den Driesh, 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Cambridge.
A. Gentry, J. Clutton-Brock, C. P. Groves, 2004. The Naming of Wild AnimalSpecies and Their Domestic Derivatives, JAS 31, 645-651.
A. Grant, 1982. The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic
Ungulates, in B. Wilson, C. Grigson, S. Payne (eds.), Aging and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, 91-108. Oxford.
R. A. Harcourt, 1974. The Dog in Prehistoric and Early Historic Britain, JAS 1(2), 151-175.
R. G. Klein, K. Cruz-Uribe, 1984. The Analysis of Animal Bones from ArcheologicalSites. Chicago.
F. Koudelka, 1884. Das Verhältnis der ossa longa zur skeletthohe bei den Saugetieren, Verhandlung des Naturforschung Vereines in Brünn 24, 127-153.
J. Matolcsi, 1970. Historische Erforschung der Körpergröße des Rindes auf
Grund von Ungarischem knocken material, Zeitschrift für Tierzüchtung undZüchtungsbiologie 87, 89-137.

The Faunal Remains from the “Economic Annexes”

81

L. Pales, M. A. Garcia, 1981. Atlas ostéologique pour servir à l’identification desmammifères du Quaternaire. Vol. II. Tête, rachis, ceintures scapulaire et pelvienne (Carnivore et Homme, Herbivores). Paris.
L. Pales, Ch. Lambert, 1971. Atlas ostéologique pour servir à l’identification desmammifères du Quaternaire. Vol. I. Membres (Herbivores et Carnivores). Paris.
S. Payne, 1973. Kill-Off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles from
Asvan Kale. Anatolian Studies 23, 281-303.
W. Prummel, H-J. Frisch, 1986. A Guide for the Distinction of Species, Sex and
Body Size in Bones of Sheep and Goat, JAS 13, 567-577.
A. Sesana, 2010. Le temple d’Amenhotep II à Thèbes-Ouest: du passé au présent, in C. Leblanc, G. Zaki (eds.), The Temples of Millions of Years and The
Royal Power at Thebes in the New Kingdom. Science and New Technologies Applied to Archaeology. International Symposium (Luxor, 3-5 January 2010). Memnonia II, 73-79. Cairo.
A. Sesana, F. Bona, G. Bellandi, M. Cavaciocchi, L. Cavallini, M-L. Mesiano,
E. Negri, M. Ravaglia, L. Zito, 2020. Il Tempio di Milioni di Anni di Amenhotep II a Tebe Ovest – Luxor. Risultati preliminari delle campagne discavo 2017-2020, RISE VIII, 194-213.
A. Sesana, T. Quirino, 2010. La missione italiana di scavo presso l’area delTempio di Milioni di Anni di Amenhotep II, Luxor – West Bank, RISE IV,
321-342.
M. Teichert, 1975. Osteometrische Untersuchungen zur Berechnung der Widderisthöhe bei Schafen, in A. T. Clason (ed.), Archaeozoological Studies,
51-69. New York.

Wandering Falcons:
On the Referent and Meanings of Nemty Hieroglyphs( / , G7A / G7B)
Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo

Introduction
Since its beginnings, Egyptology has been compelled to combine data fromarchaeological, textual, and iconographic evidence with natural science disciplines such as botany, zoology, and mineralogy to better understand the cultural realities of ancient Egypt. More recently, in the framework of (Human)Animal Studies (or Anthro(po)zoology),1 truly multidisciplinary data andmethods have begun to be applied to Egyptological studies in a comprehensive, coherent, and systematic way, mainly implementing studies on animal
ethology and studying the ways by which the ancient Egyptians thought andrepresented the animal world.2
In this paper, I analyse the hieroglyph of the falcon perched on a concave
element,(G7A), and its main variant,(G7B), where the concave element rests on a kind of platform, to try to discern its probable referents andmeanings. To do so, I will focus mainly on the earliest forms of these hieroglyphs, documented in the fourth and third millennia BC.3
Before studying these signs, it is necessary to outline some general aspectsof the species belonging to the genus Falco in the Nile Valley and its surrounding areas, for which up to eleven species are currently known.4 Among theresident species are the Barbary falcon (Falco pelegrinoides), the Lanner falcon(Falco biarmicus) and the Common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus). Migratory species, which are larger in number, include the Peregrine falcon (Falco
1 E.g., DeMello 2021; Kalof 2017; Marvin and McHugh 2014; Turner et al. 2018; Waldau 2013.
2 E.g., Evans 2010; Massiera et al. 2015.
3 See Appendix.
4 Beaman and Madge 1998, 205-6, 207-12, 213-4; Cade 1982, 58-71, 80-7, 112-6, 122-5, 132-41,

144-7, 164-7, 184-8; Cramp 1980, 278-9, 282-300, 302-50, 361-82; Ferguson-Lees and Christie
2001, sp. nos. 275, 277, 289, 291-2, 294-5, 305-6, 309-10; Goodman and Meininger 1989, 199211; Houlihan 1986, 46; Nicoll 1919, 57-9; Podgórski 2010, 68-9; Vernus and Yoyotte 2005, 369.

84

Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo

peregrinus), the Eleonora’s falcon (Falco eleonorae), the Sooty falcon (Falco concolor), the Red-footed falcon (Falco vespertinus), the Saker Falcon (Falco cherrug), the Lesser Kestrel (Falco naumanni), the Merlin (Falco columbarius) and the
Hobby (Falco subbuteo). Among these, the Sooty falcon and the Merlin also
breed in Egypt.
The earliest representations of falcons in the Nile Valley are attested on
several stone figurines from the elite cemetery HK6 at Hierakonpolis,5 dated
to the Naqada IC-IIA period,6 and, somewhat later, on two D-Ware vases
dated to the Naqada IIC-D period.7 At around the beginning of the Naqada
III period, the number of examples increases, as the types and materials of
their supports and contexts diversify.8 From then they also appear as hieroglyphic signs,9 either in the royal tomb U-j at Abydos and rock-art stations,10
or transcribing early royal names together with phonetic signs and a palacefaçade in the first srxw.11 Under Aha’s reign, a new type of falcon emerges, nolonger crouching in a horizontal position, but standing upright and at an
oblique angle. Later, in the Old Kingdom, this latter type of falcon sign retains
these same morphological features and undergoes a great expansion, appearing in gods’ names, the royal titulary, and private names, titles, and epithets.

Previous readings and meanings of Nemty’s nameRegarding the hieroglyphs that are the subject of this paper, G7A ()

and G7B (), so far studies on them have only partially focused on theirvisual referent and their meaning as an image since attention has been mainly
centred on their phonetic reading.12
Until the work of Berlev in the late 1960s, the reading of Sethe and

5 Hendrickx et al. 2011; Patch 2011, 44-6.
6 Hendrickx et al. 2011, 130-2, fig. 3-7.
7 BM EA 36328: Hendrickx et al. 2011, 132-3, fig. 8; MMA 15.2.34: Patch 2011, 76-7, 251, fig. 12(cat. 75).
8 Hendrickx et al. 2011, 133-48, fig. 9-18.
9 Kahl 1994, 513-8; Regulski 2010, 118-20, 418-30.
10 Dreyer 1998, 68-9, 84-6, 126-8, 184, fig. 47-8, 79, pl. 32; Regulski 2010, 118.
11 Hendrickx et al. 2011, 139-44; Ikram and Rossi 2004.

12 E.g., Gardiner 19573, 468; Hannig 1995, 1049; Kahl 1994, 517; Regulski 2010, 120; Schweitzer

2005, 275.

Wandering Falcons

85

Gardiner13 as antj, whose etymology they linked to the noun ant “claw, talon”,14
had been commonly followed.15 Thus interpreted, the sign would mean “theone with claw(s)”, or “the one (equipped) with claw(s)”, with reference to oneof the most defining anatomical parts of falcons as predators.
Later, Berlev16 suggested that these hieroglyphs should be read as Nmtj. He
based his hypothesis on several texts from the Middle Kingdom (stelae
Guimet C 13 = Louvre E 20162, Leiden 21 and Hermitage 1063, and Wadi
Hammamat’s inscription G 68),17 which provide the phonetic rendering of thelogogram. This better substantiated reading is also supported by several instances of a spell of the Coffin Texts18 and another inscription from the Wadi
Hammamat.19 As these analyses suggest,20 the word’s etymology seems to derive from the verb nmt “to go, to stride through”21 or the noun nmt “stride”22rather than the verb nmj “to travel, to traverse”.23 Nemty would thus be construed as a “wandering” falcon.

Evidence for Nemty hieroglyphs in the fourth and third
millennia BC
The first attestation of an image like the hieroglyph for Nemty appears in
the Naqada II period, on some D-Ware vases, where it surmounts standards
carried on ships [Appendix 1-2]24 (Fig. 1). In the Naqada III period it is firstused as a hieroglyph in texts on some labels in tomb U-j at Umm el-Qaab [34], and later also in inscriptions on stone vessels [8-17] and seal impressions[21]. This use coexists since then with its use in predominantly visual compositions, mainly on cosmetic palettes [18], mace-heads [20], rock-drawings [19],and sculpted stone vessels [6-7]. From Naqada IIIC-D, as clearly shows doc.
13 Gardiner 1910, 50-8.
14 Wb. 1, 188.1-7; TLA 38130.
15 E.g., Otto 1975; Wilkinson 1999, 279-80.
16 Berlev 1969.
17 Brovarski 1987, 29-30; Graefe 1980, 2-26.
18 CT 43, VI 7d and 16h (B9C, B14, B1C): Graefe 1980, 9, 16-7; Meeks 1976, 91, n. 32; cf. Van

der Molen 2000, 228 (5).
19 Koschel 2000.
20 Berlev 1969; Meeks 1976, 91, n. 32.
21 Wb. 2, 270.4-21; TLA 84490.
22 Wb. 2, 270.22; TLA 84500.

23 Wb. 2, 265.5-13; TLA 84130.
24 All references within square brackets refer to the appendix.

86

Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo[20], the heights of the two
extremities of the curved element are levelled, which isthe common shape from theSecond Dynasty onward,
when a vertical support for
it is first attested [22]. By the
middle of the Old Kingdom,
this type of sign was alreadyfully standardised [23-91].
From the Fourth Dynasty
onward, the curved element
was usually supported byseveral vertical elements
constituting a base, whichfrom the Fifth Dynasty onwards is more square or recFig. 1: Detail of a D-ware base showing a standard tangular, sometimes with
with the Nemty’s sign on top (MMA 20.2.10, late one or more semicircles on
Naqada II). Source: www.metmuseum.org (CC0).
either side (see below).

Interpretations of Nemty hieroglyphs:
the previous hypotheses
Up to now, three interpretations of the visual referent of Nemty hieroglyphs have been proposed: 1) falcon on a boat; 2) falcon on a crescent; 3)falcon holding a throw-stick. They should be discussed to better understandthe nature and meaning of these signs.
The most widespread interpretation of Nemty hieroglyphs is that they depict a falcon on a boat.25 It has been presented in the greatest detail by Oleg
Berlev,26 who based his hypothesis on the concave shape of some of the boats
in the hieroglyphic repertoire and the relationship between the probable etymology of Nemty’s name as “wanderer”. Nevertheless, this interpretation canbe questioned in some points. First, the raptor is not represented either inflight or on a standard, as is usual in sacred barks, but standing or walking.
25 E.g., Gardiner 19573, 468; Graefe 1980, 25; Seyfried 1984, 464; Wilkinson 1999, 279.
26 Berlev 1969.

Wandering Falcons

87

Furthermore, in a single case from Saqqara dating to the Sixth Dynasty [61],there are two examples with a rudder and two without on the same monument, a false-door stela. This unique variant could be explained by a partial
confusion with the hieroglyph(G10), the logogram for the theonym Sokar,27 especially common in the area of Memphis,28 and with which Nemty is
exchanged in two variants of the “palanquin song” outside the Memphitearea [77, 88]. It could also be argued that in a much later text, The Contendingsof Horus and Seth in Papyrus Chester Beatty I, the god Nemty appears as a boatman in charge of taking the gods to the “Middle Island” (5.4, 5.6, 7.12, 7.13,
8.1).29 However, it is dated to the Twentieth Dynasty, so it is very late in termsof determining the origin of the sign, and the role of Nemty as a ferryman
could be due to a later “nautical” reinterpretation of the hieroglyph.30 Moreover, in almost all the evidence from the fourth and third millennia BC, thehieroglyph does not display any nautical element – rudders, oars, prow-mats,sail or masts – nor have the water line, in the keel area, as in most of the boat
hieroglyphs from the Thinite period and the Old Kingdom. Furthermore, unlike other boat signs from the fourth and third millennia BC, it lacks the horizontal deck in the area where the bird is located.31 In this sense, in the earliest
evidence, the painted vessels from the Naqada II period [1-2], the shape of thecurved element of the sign on standards differs greatly from the boats where
it is located. This contrasts even more if we compare the Nemty hieroglyphs
with the well-known monogram of the falcon god Sokar (, G10) on his

characteristic vessel, the Henu-bark (, P60B),32 and other falcons on boats,such as those attested, for instance, in the Pyramid Texts.33 Besides, the root nmt
is not attested as a nautical term.34
Other scholars have summarily described the shape of the concave element of the hieroglyph as a crescent (, N11)35 or an object resembling a

27 E.g., Brovarski 1987, 29; Gardiner 19573, 468.
28 E.g. Begelsbacher-Fischer 1981, 185-90.
29 Gardiner 1932, 37-60.
30 Cf. Berlev 1969, 14-5.
31 E.g., Gardiner 19573, 498-9; Regulski 2010, 168-70, 578-80; Schweitzer 2005, 385-6.
32 Cf. Scheele-Schweitzer 2014, 421-2 (no. 1553), 630 (no. 2988).
33 E.g. Anthes 1957, 82-3, fig. 1-2.
34 Cf. Jones 1988.

35 E.g., Allen 2014, 479.

88

Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo

sickle (, U1).36 Certainly, the sign reminds one of the representations of thelunar crescent, although less so the agricultural tool. However, it is not until
the Middle Kingdom that the moon sign appears inverted in the position that
it is assumed to be in the Nemty signs; it is written thus in a few proper namesof individuals, and always with the small semicircle in its central part (,37
N62A). This makes it difficult, therefore, to identify the concave part of the
Nemty hieroglyph with a lunar crescent.38 Moreover, as far this author knows,
Nemty does not exhibit any direct connections with the moon.
Recently, Regulski39 and Hendrickx, Friedman and Eyckerman40 havetaken up the hypothesis of Helck41 that identifies the concave element as athrow-stick. Certainly, this hypothesis evokes other falcons wielding weapons with their talons, such as mace-and-shield hieroglyphs or a harpoon.42
However, in documents such as the Louvre’s fragment of the Hunters’ Palette[18] the shape of the tip of the throw-sticks differs from the Nemty sign of thestandard carried by one of the hunters, which, furthermore, has a striped surface. This detail is absent from their weapons, which are more L-shaped compared to the uniform curve described under the falcon, and have a prominent,
bulbous tip (Fig. 2). Moreover, the shape of the alleged throw-stick is very
blurred in the other contemporary examples mentioned above [1-6, 8-17 and20-21], which makes this possibility rather unlikely.

36 Regulski 2010, 120.
37 García Fernández 2021, 870-1.
38 Cf. Der Manuelian 2003, 202-3; Regulski 2010, 148, 515.
39 Regulski 2010, 120.
40 Hendrickx, Friedman and Eyckerman 2011, 144-6.
41 Helck 1950, 129.

42 Hendrickx et al. 2011, 144-5.

Wandering Falcons

89Fig. 2: Fragment of the Hunters’ Palette (Louvre E 11254, early Naqada III period).
Source: Unknown artist - Mbzt 2011, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index. php?curid=17165184.

A new analysis of the Nemty hieroglyphs
The doubts about the three previous identifications of the Nemty hieroglyphs that are stated above call for a different and plural approach to interpreting these glyphs. This should consider the morphology of the curved element diachronically, information relating to the god Nemty, and the ethology
and life cycle of falcons.
Firstly, apart from onomastics [22, 25-26, 29-30, 32-36, 40-41, 45, 57-63, 6667, 70-72, 74-76, 78-83, 89-91],43 toponyms [23-24, 27, 31, 38-39, 43] and somecourtly [42, 44, 46-56] and priestly titles [28, 64-65, 68, 84] and epithets [69, 73,
85-87], the theonym Nemty [37, 77, 88] does not appear in texts until the emergence of the Coffin Texts, where it appears in two spells. One of them, CT 942,
which is very lacunary and is only documented in two versions, reads:
Xao.n=s jArtj-Nmtj
DbA Hr=s [...] wny
She has shaved the malar stripes (?) of Nemty,
adorned her face […].
(CT 942, VII 156f-g (P.Gard.III, P.Gard.IV))
Here the female individual, whose identity is unknown, is said to have
43 Hlouchová 2016, 73, 75.

90Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo

shaved or cut off Nemty’s two “malar stripes” (jArtj,)44 (rather than“braids”)45 that are typical of falcons’ faces.46
More important is CT 473, a hunting-net spell.47 Here Nemty appears in
two passages. At the end of the text the deceased says on several occasions
that he will rush very aggressively into various parts of the net that seeks totrap him in the form of several deities, Nemty among them:xAbs.n=j m Nmtj Hr jb=s
xAbs.n=j m Nmtj Hr tpwj=s
As Nemty I have attacked on its48 middle,
as Nemty I have attacked on its two tops.
(CT 473, VI 16g-h (B9C, B1Y, B1C))
A second passage, which appears before, is more relevant. It shows thedeceased announcing to the hunters that he will not fall into their trap because
he knows their names, which he enumerates and identifies with several gods.
One of them reads:
n-ntt wj rx.kw rn n(j) Snw=s
Snw fdw pw (j)m(j)w jbTt-%bk
Hr-sA gAbt-Nmtj
because I know the name of its netting:they are the four hairs that are in the trap of Sobek,
upon the down of Nemty.
(CT 473, VI 7b-d (B9C, B1Y, B6Bo, B1C))
Meeks (1977, 80, n. 2) has suggested that the word gAbt, (), clas-sified with the hieroglyph of the hair (, D3), should be translated as“down” or “fuzz” (“petit poils, duvet”). This allusion to Nemty’s down could
likely be related to the name of a medicinal plant, Swt-Nmtj “Nemty’s

44 van der Molen 2000, 14 (4).
45 Wb. 1, 32.3; TLA 20780.
46 E.g., Cade 1982, passim; Cramp 1980, 278.
47 E.g., Bidoli 1976.

48 The suffix pronoun =s in both sentences refers to the trap.

Wandering Falcons

91

feather/plumage” ([pEbers49
22.12]), which is an ingredient of kyphi.50 This phytonym has been identified
with Camel grass (Cymbopogon schoenanthus (L.) Spreng), which is an aromatic plant whose spikelet-like flowering form has white villous pedicels witha fuzzy appearance between the protruding leaves and sepals (Fig. 3).51
If it is considered that infant falcons,
covered with down,52 are represented
by the signs of the crouching falcon (, G11 etc.),53 and, besides, that
Nemty always appears in the hieroglyphs representing him as a standing
falcon, with its plumage already formed– as the rendering of the wing shows – itis likely that the falcon depicting Nemty
represents a young falcon. In that sense, Fig. 3: Flower of Camel Grass
Nemty is not an infant because his (Cymbopogon schoenanthus (L.) Spreng),as
Swt-Nmtj“Nemty’splumage is already formed,54 but he is namefeather/plumage”
inancient
Egyptian
young because gAbt means “down” andtexts.
Source:http://www.atlas-sayoung falcons still have a bit of downhara.org/ [11/12/2022].
over their formed plumage when they
are around thirty days old (Fig. 4),55 in a way similar to the flowers of Camel<<<
grass, which have their leaves and sepals under the fluff of their flowers.

49 Wb. 4, 425.15; TLA 861518.
50 Graefe 1975.
51 Germer 1985, 226-7; 2008, 245-6; Manniche 1999, 15-6, 55, 152, 154.
52 E.g., Cade 1982, 48; Monneret 2004, 122-5, 129-35.
53 I have presented this hypothesis in a paper currently in press.

54 This would also explain the allusion to the “malar stripes” of Nemty in CT 942.
55 See, e.g., Cade 1982: 48-9; Monneret 2004, 125.

92

Francisco L. Borrego GallardoWith this idea inmind, and before addressing the ethology ofyoung falcons, whichmoult their down for
their first plumage, it isworth asking about thenature of the concave element under the standing bird, looking forsomething that can explain the graphic variability between the earliest cases, where one of
the sides is much higher[7, 18-19], and those fromthe Protodynastic period
onwards, which are
more symmetrical [1-6,
8-17, 20-21]. The explanation for this element islikely to be found in falcons’ habitat.
In this respect, theFig. 4: Fledged chick of Eleonora’s falcon (Falco eleonorae) of 28 days old, walking around the nest. Source: Te- work of Linda Evans56 onlailia et al. 2013, fig. 9.
the SdSd of Wepwawet,
which she has convincingly proposed to identify with the den or lair of several species of canids
inhabiting the Nile Valley, is very inspiring. Her hypothesis suggests that certain elements of hieroglyphs and animal emblems, especially those of sacredanimals, may also reproduce spaces, as is the case, for example, with hieroglyphs depicting ducks in a marsh (, G49;, G49D).57 As for Nemty
hieroglyphs, it is necessary to look for a spatial feature that could explain boththe first concave form with a raised side and the more symmetrical concave
56 Evans 2011.
57 Gardiner 19573, 473; Schweitzer 2005, 296.

Wandering Falcons

93

form attested since the second half of the Protodynastic period. At this point,
it is essential to consider the ethology of falcons, particularly that of those
breeding in the Nile Valley. Bearing in mind that falcons generally nest innatural or self-excavated concavities in cliff shelters and close to the rockface,58 it is reasonable to assume that the early forms with a raised end would
represent the concave nest59 next to the rock face of the cliff shelter where theyplace the eyrie. The fact that the shape of Nemty hieroglyph tends towards
symmetry over time is probably due to that the signs of the nests (, G48)
becomes standardised around the same time.60 It represents a concavity of thesame shape as that found in Nemty hieroglyph, which is a feature that appears both in hieroglyphic signs and in contemporary and later reliefs andartefacts.61 The question that emerges is how to explain this in light of the data
concerning Nemty. The answer could lie, again, in the ethology of young falcons.
When fledgling falcons lose their down and have fully formed their plumage at the end of their growth, and before they start to fly fully alone, they
spend their time walking around the nest and its surroundings in the nearby
crags and branches, returning to the nest to be fed and to sleep.62 This coming
and going from the nest is reminiscent of the meaning of the verb nmt fromwhich Nemty takes its name, as a falcon “wanderer” in its own nest or, at
most, between the nest and its immediate surroundings. During this period,
they are exercising their wings to be able to begin to fly in the following weeks– cf. the Middle Kingdom variants where the falcon is shown spreading its
wings,63 and their aggressive character is accentuated, as they contend with
their brothers for the prey brought by their parents and even snatch it fromthem,64 which agrees very well with the aggressive character presented by
Nemty in some passages of the Coffin Texts.

58 E.g., Cade 1982, 70, 86, 114, 136-8, 146; Cramp 1980, 290, 309, 335, 339, 379; Monneret 2004, 110-2.
59 Berlev (1969, 16) rejects this possibility without discussing it in detail.
60 Regulski 2010, 126, 456.
61 E.g., Bailleul-LeSuer 2012, 151-2; JE 62072: Desroches-Noblecourt 1963, pl. xlvii. The depic-

tion of the “two fledglings / chicks” (TAwj) of Atum as a pair of standing falcons on a nest
) in the temple of Hibis (Davies 1953, pl. 3, 6th register, far left) stands out.

62 Cf. e.g., Monneret 2004, 134-5, 137-9.

63 E.g., Berlev 1969, II.10-11, II.14-15, II.52.
64 E.g., Cade 1982, 48-9; Monneret 2004, 136.

(

94

Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo

In the case of the variant of G7B (Fig. 5), the platform supporting the nest
appears to be made of poles [28, 35, 44, 51, 64-65, 77, 87-88], or as a block withvertical stripes, slightly reminiscent of that seen in mat hieroglyphs [23, 28,
43, 50, 73, 76, 80, 89],65 perhaps indicating that the nest is sometimes dug in aground covered with vegetation. Other instances show the lower element
more like a block or a platform [27, 31, 33-34, 41, 45-46, 66, 68, 72, 91], with apossible reference to the occasional use of tree trunks and elevated elements[22, 32, 36, 40, 47, 61, 81] for nesting by falcons. Others still appear as a building [25-26, 29-30, 37, 58, 83] or as a knobbed element, reminiscent of the sign
showing a vertical crenelated wall or enclosure [38-39, 48-49, 52, 59, 63, 69-71,
82, 84-85, 86].66 The latter may have to do with the fact that falcons nest not
only on cliffs, but also at the top of, or in recesses in, buildings and, to a lesser
extent, in trees. Thus, in a Middle Kingdom variant of the hieroglyph, the nest
is located at the top of a palace-façade.67 This could be related to spell CT 148’s
mentioning of the first flight of Horus, which he makes swA.t(j) Hr znbw-HwtJmn-rn “after passing over the battlements of the Mansion of The Hidden ofName” (II 220a).

Fig. 5: Main forms of G7A and G7B during the Old Kingdom. Source: Berlev 1969, pl. i

65 E.g., Dobrev et al. 2011, 43; Goedicke 1988, 31; Regulski 2010, 170-1, 584-7.
66 E.g., Dobrev et al. 2011, 40; Goedicke 1988, 29; Regulski 2010, 160, 562-3.
67 Spencer 1982, 23-4, fig. 2, pl. i.2.

Wandering Falcons

95

Conclusions
To conclude, it is possible to make several observations about the referents
and meanings of the Nemty hieroglyph. First, the identifications of the lower
concave element of the Nemty hieroglyph as a boat, a crescent or a throwstick present difficulties that make them unlikely within the body of evidence.
They are more likely a concave nest.
Moreover, an analysis considering the etymology of the theonym, its firsttextual evidence, the set of the earliest attested signs, and the ethology andlife cycle of falcons in the Nile Valley makes it possible to put forward a new
hypothesis: the Nemty hieroglyph represents a young falcon standing in its
characteristic concave nest, either on a cliff or on a platform, showing it as a
specimen that has just formed its first plumage and that, with the remains of
its down still on it, wanders, walks and exercises around the nest and its surroundings to begin its training in flight.
Furthermore, the occasional confusions of the Nemty hieroglyphs withothers, such as those related to Sokar (G10 and P60B), and the reinterpretations of their form and features from the end of the Old Kingdom suggest thatat least since that time the original referents of the signs were no longer
known. This aspect undoubtedly requires a separate and more detailed analysis.
Finally, this new proposal for identifying the nature of the Nemty hieroglyph should be contrasted in future studies with the characteristics associated with this deity to know their possible implications for exploring his personality and specificity in the religious and ideological spheres of ancient
Egyptians.
Appendix. Attestations of Nemty hieroglyphs in the fourth and third Millennia
BCE68[1] D-Ware vase. Late Naqada II. MMA 20.2.10: Graff 2009, 173 (N5o), 271(no. 232); Patch 2011, 70-2, 250 (cat. 71).
[2] D-Ware vase. Late Naqada II. Oxford AM E.2877: Graff 2009, 173 (N5o),301 (no. 323).
[3] Label. Tomb U-j (Abydos). Naqada IIIA1: Dreyer 1998, 126, 127, 142,
fig. 79, pl. 32 (no. 110).

68 The documents cited by Berlev (1969) are referred by his code between curly brackets.

96

Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo[4] Label. Tomb U-j (Abydos). Naqada IIIA1. Berlin ÄM 15467: Dreyer
1998, 134-5, 142, 184, fig. 82, pl. 35 (no. X187).
[5] Fragment of furniture (?). Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIIC-D(?). UC 14869: Bussmann 2010, doc. H2187.
[6] Limestone vase. Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIIC-D (?). Oxford AM E.347: Bussmann 2010, doc. H5027.
[7] Chlorite vessel. Naqada IIIC-D (?). Louvre E.27202): Hendrickx et al.
2011, 144, fig. 17.
[8] Calcite vessel. Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIIC-D (?). UC
14951: Bussmann 2010, doc. H4066; Kaplony 1968, 14 (doc. 13).
[9] Calcite vessel. Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIIC-D (?). UC
14952: Bussmann 2010, doc. H4071; Kaplony 1968, 14 (doc. 5); Petrie 1937, pl.
xvi.196.
[10] Calcite vessel. Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIIC-D (?). UC
14962: Bussmann 2010, doc. H4078.
[11] Calcite vessel. Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIIC-D (?). Oxford
AM E.121: Bussmann 2010, doc. H4064; Kaplony 1968, 14 (doc. 11), 16 (3A).
[12] Calcite vessel. Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIIC-D (?). Oxford
AM E.4008: Bussmann 2010, doc. H4010; Kaplony 1968, 14 (doc. 11), 16 (3C).
[13] Calcite vessel. Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIIC-D (?). Cambridge E.24.1898: Bussmann 2010, doc. H4068; Kaplony 1968, 14 (doc. 1).
[14] Calcite vessel. Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIIC-D (?). Cambridge E.99.1898: Bussmann 2010, doc. H4049; Kaplony 1968, 14 (doc. 15), 16 (3B).
[15] Calcite vessel. Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIIC-D (?). Chicago OIM: Kaplony 1968, 14 (doc. 12).
[16] Calcite vessel. Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIIC-D (?). Philadelphia E.3855: Bussmann 2010, doc. H4085; Kaplony 1968, 14 (doc. 10).
[17] Calcite vessel. Naqada IIIC-D (?). Private collection: Kaplony 1968, 14,
pl. 1, 14 (3).
[18] Hunters’ Palette. Naqada III. BM EA 20790 + 20792 + Louvre E 11254:
Patch 2011, 140-3, 254-5, fig. 38 (cat. 115).
[19] Rock drawing, Qena-Quseir road, Qef el-‘Iglûl: Winkler 1938, 22-3, pl.
xix (3).
[20] King Scorpion’s Macehead. Hierakonpolis, Main Deposit. Naqada IIICD. Oxford AM E.3632: Bussmann 2010, doc. H5054.
[21] Seal impression. First Dynasty, reign of Aha. Saqqara mastaba S.3357:
Emery 1939, 32-3, fig. 35; Kaplony 1963, pl. 28 (72).

Wandering Falcons

97[22] Hetepnemty’s copper jar (name). Qau el-Kebir. Late Second Dynasties:
Brunton 1927, 17-8, pl. 18 (no. 10).
[23] {A.IV.1} Domains’ procession, Snefru’s “stone temple”. Dahshur.
Early Fourth Dynasty: Fakhry 1961, fig. 18.
[24] {A.IV.2} Khenuka’s domains’ procession. Tehna. Late Fourth Dynasty:
Fraser 1902, 76.
[25] Petety’s tomb (name: Neferhernemty). Giza. Fourth-Fifth Dynasty:
Hawass 2004, fig. 4.
[26] Petety’s tomb (name: Nesnemty). Giza. Fourth-Fifth Dynasty: Hawass
2004, fig. 7.
[27] Domains’ procession (domain: Mr-Nmtj-%AHw-Ra), Sahura’s causeway.
Abusir. Early Fifth Dynasty: Khaled 2020, 157, pl. ii.
[28] {A.I.4, A.II.8} Tjenti’s false-door stela (title: wab-Nmtj). Saqqara. Fifth
Dynasty. CG 57136, 57138 and 57140-1: Mariette 1885, 88-9.
[29] {A.II.1} Nefernemty’s mastaba (name). Saqqara. Fifth Dynasty: Mariette 1885, 297-8.
[30] {A.II.1} Nefernemty’s statue (name). Saqqara. Fifth Dynasty. CG 123:
Borchardt 1911, 93-4, pl. 27; PN I 69.25.
[31] {A.IV.3} Nomes’ procession, Nyuserra’s sun temple. Abu Ghurob.
Mid-Fifth Dynasty: Nuzzolo 2018, 190-1, fig. III.63.a.
[32] Rock inscription (name: Nemtyiu). Wadi Maghara. Late Fifth Dynasty:
Gardiner et al. 1955, 61, pl. 7 (no. 13).
[33] {A.II.4} Seshemnefer ii’s mastaba (name: Hetepnemty). Giza. Late Fifth
Dynasty: Junker 1953, 143, 145, fig. 61, pl. xviii.b; PN I 70.2.
[34] Perneb’s mastaba (name: Nynemty). Saqqara. Late Fifth Dynasty.
MMA 13.183.3: Williams 1932, pl. x.
[35] Nefernemty’s tomb (name). Sharuna. Late Fifth Dynasty: Schenkel
and Gomaà 2004, 130, pl. 77.
[36] Wenis’ funerary temple (name: Nemtyiu). Saqqara. Late Fifth Dynasty: Labrousse et al. 1977, 108-9, fig. 99.
[37] Writing board (theonyms’ list). Giza. Fifth-Sixth Dynasties. JE 37734:
Brovarski 1987, 29-30 (no. 2), pl. i.
[38] Writing board (domain: Jrt-Nmtj). Giza. Fifth-Sixth Dynasties. JE
37734: Brovarski 1987, 46-7, pl. i.
[39] Writing board (domain: [...]t-Nmtj). Giza. Fifth-Sixth Dynasties. JE
37734: Brovarski 1987, 46-7, pl. i.

98Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo[40] {A.II.6} Ptahhotep’s tomb (name: Nemty[…]). Saqqara. Fifth-Sixth
Dynasties: LD Erg. xliii.
[41] Wehemka’s tomb (name: Neferhernemty). Saqqara. Fifth-Sixth Dynasties: Kayser 1964, 24-5.
[42] Anonymous tomb (title: a-Nmtj). Abusir. Late Fifth Dynasty-early Sixth
Dynasty: Bárta 2011, 19, fig. 11.
[43] {A.II.7} Mereruka’s domains’ procession (name: Wnjs-%anx-Nmtj).
Saqqara. Early Sixth Dynasty: Duell 1938a, pl. 49 (no. 7).
[44] {A.III.1} Mereruka’s false-door stela (title: a-Nmtj / a-HoAt-Nmtj). Saqqara.
Early Sixth Dynasty: Duell 1938a, pl. 62 (no. 12, 25).
[45] Mereruka’s false-door stela (name: Nemtyiu). Saqqara. Early Sixth
Dynasty: Duell 1938a, pl. 98-9 (no. 6).
[46] {A.III.2} Mereruka’s false-door stela (title: a-Nmtj). Saqqara. Early Sixth
Dynasty: Duell 1938b: pl. 113 (no. 3).
[47] {A.III.3} Mereruka’s false-door stela (title: a-Nmtj). Saqqara. Early Sixth
Dynasty: Duell 1938b: pl. 179, 182.
[48] {A.III.5} Mereruka’s false-door stela (title: a-Nmtj). Saqqara. Early Sixth
Dynasty: Duell 1938b: pl. 180 (no. 4).
[49] {A.III.4} Mereruka’s false-door stela (title: a-Nmtj). Saqqara. Early Sixth
Dynasty: Duell 1938b: pl. 181-2 (no. 4).
[50] {A.III.6} Mereruka’s false-door stela (title: a-Nmtj). Saqqara. Early Sixth
Dynasty: Duell 1938b: pl. 183.
[51] {A.III.7} Mereruka’s funerary chamber (title: a-Nmtj). Saqqara. Early
Sixth Dynasty: Duell 1938b: pl. 212.
[52] {A.III.8} Mereruka’s temenos wall (title: a-Nmtj). Saqqara. Early Sixth
Dynasty: Duell 1938b: pl. 218.
[53] Mereruka’s tomb’s entrance (title: a-Nmtj). Saqqara. Early Sixth Dynasty: Duell 1938b: pl. 204.
[54] Kagemni’s mastaba (title: a-Nmtj). Saqqara. Early Sixth Dynasty: Firthand Gunn 1926, 132 (no. 14).
[55] Tjetju’s false-door stela (title: a-Nmtj). Saqqara. Early Sixth Dynasty:
Firth and Gunn 1926, 153-4 (no. 43), pl. 61.
[56] {A.III.9} Tjetju’s mastaba (title: a-Nmtj). Saqqara. Early Sixth Dynasty:
Firth and Gunn 1926, 154, pl. 38.
[57] Nyankhnesut’s mastaba (name: Nynemty). Saqqara. Early Sixth Dynasty. Berlin ÄM 99/66: Málek 1980, 203-4, fig. 2.

Wandering Falcons

99[58] Nyankhnesut’s mastaba (name: Nynemty). Saqqara. Early Sixth Dynasty.
Cleveland
1930.736:
Málek
1980,
204;
https://clevelandart.org/art/1930.736 [10/31/2022].
[59] Nyankhnesut’s mastaba (name: Nynemty). Saqqara. Early Sixth Dynasty.
Cleveland
1930.737:
Málek
1980,
204;
https://clevelandart.org/art/1930.737 [10/31/2022][60] Nykauisesi’s mastaba (name: Nynemty). Saqqara. Early Sixth Dynasty: Kanawati and Abder-Raziq 2000, pl. 48.
[61] Ankhmanemty’s false-door stela (name). Saqqara. Sixth Dynasty. CG
1508: Borchardt 1937, 213-4, pl. 44.
[62] Nemtyiu’s false-door stela (name). Tura. Sixth Dynasty. TR
31.12.28.12-4: Gunn 1929, 92.
[63] {A.II.3} Nyankhnemty’s false door stela (name). Giza. Sixth Dynasty:
Junker 1943, 239-40, fig. 101.
[64] Metjenti’s tomb (title: Hm-nTr-Nmtj). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty (?): Schenkel and Gomaà 2004, 138, Beilage 10.
[65] Metjenti’s tomb (title: sHD-Hm(w)-nTr-Nmtj). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty (?):
Schenkel and Gomaà 2004, 138, Beilage 10.
[66] Metjenti’s tomb (name: Nefersutnemty). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty (?):
Schenkel and Gomaà 2004, 140, fig. 10, Beilage 10.
[67] Iuhi’s tomb (name: Nefernemty). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty (?): Schenkel
and Gomaà 2004, 146, pl. 94.
[68] Iuhi’s tomb (title: (j)m(j)-r(A)-Hm(w)-nTr-Nmtj). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty(?): Schenkel and Gomaà 2004, 146, pl. 94.
[69] Iuhi’s tomb (epithet: jmAxw xr Nmtj). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty (?): Schenkel and Gomaà 2004, 145, pl. 92-3.
[70] Nemtyqaf’s tomb (name). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty (?): Schenkel and
Gomaà 2004, 127-8, pl. 73.
[71] Nemtyqaf’s tomb (name). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty (?): Schenkel and
Gomaà 2004, 127, pl. 71-3.
[72] Nemtyqaf’s tomb (name: Nemtyshepses). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty (?):
Schenkel and Gomaà 2004, 128, pl. 71-3.
[73] Bekheni’s tomb (epithet: jmAxw xr Nmtj). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty (?):
Schenkel and Gomaà 2004, 173, pl. 130.
[74] Khuennemty’s tomb (name). El-Hawawish. Sixth Dynasty (?): Kanawati 1987, fig. 3.

100

Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo[75] {A.II.14} Merenra’s burial chamber (praenomen: Nemtyemsaf).
Saqqara. Mid-Sixth Dynasty: Pierre-Croisiau and Mathieu 2019, passim.
[76] {A.II.2} Nebi’s doorjamb (name: Nemtyemhat). Saqqara. Mid-Sixth
Dynasty. CG 1525: Borchardt 1937, 226; PN I 69.21.
[77] {A.I.3} Song. Pepyankh-Heni-Kem’s tomb. Meir. Late Sixth Dynasty:
Altenmüller 1984-5, 21; Blackman and Apted 1953, pl. 31.
[78] {A.II.13} Nemtyemsaf’s false-door stela (name). Saqqara, Neit’s
chapel, Pepy II’s funerary complex. Late Sixth Dynasty: Jéquier 1933, 55, fig.
32.
[79] {A.II.13} Merynemty’s false-door stela (name). Saqqara, Neit’s chapel,
Pepy II’s funerary complex. Late Sixth Dynasty: Jéquier 1933, 55, fig. 32.
[80] {A.II.11} Pepy II’s decree (name: Nemtyemsaf). Giza, Menkaura’s funerary complex. Late Sixth Dynasty: Goedicke 1967, 148-51, fig. 12.
[81] {A.II.5} Nemtyiu’s inscription (name). Hatnub. Late Sixth Dynasty:
Anthes 1928, 20, pl. 10 (no. 3).
[82] {A.II.9-10} Nemtyemdjeref’s painted burial chamber (name). Saqqara.
Late Sixth Dynasty: Maspero 1889, 199, pl. v.
[83] {A.II.12} Squeeze of a stone altar of Nyankhnemty from an antiquities
dealer (name). Sixth Dynasty (?): Urk. I 165.9; PN I 171.5.
[84] {A.I.2} Isi’s false-door stela (title: jmj-rA-Hm(w)-nTr Nmtj). Deir elGebrawi. Sixth Dynasty: Davies 1902, pl. xxi.
[85] {A.I.1} Henqu’s tomb (epithet: jmAxw xr Nmtj). Deir el-Gebrawi. Sixth
Dynasty: Davies 1902, pl. xxiv (l. 2); Urk. I 76.11.
[86] {A.I.5} Ankhpepy’s tomb (epithet: jmAxw xr Nmtj). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty: Schenkel and Gomaà 2004, 114, pl. 56-7.
[87] Ankhpepy’s tomb (epithet: jmAxw xr Nmtj). Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty:
Schenkel and Gomaà 2004, 193, Beilage 14.
[88] Song. Ankhpepy’s tomb. Sharuna. Sixth Dynasty: Schenkel and
Gomaà 2004, 195, Beilage 15.
[89] Nemtywer’s false-door stela (name). Giza. Sixth Dynasty (?). Oxford
AM 1885.504: Bland and Málek 1977.
[90] Weta’s false-door stela (name: Nyankhnemty; doubtful). Giza. Sixth
Dynasty. CG 1479: Borchardt 1937, 166.
[91] Execration text (name: Nemtyiu). Giza. Sixth Dynasty: Abu Bakr andOsing 1973, 107, pl. xliii (no. 100).

Wandering Falcons

101

Acknowledgement
The author wishes to thank one of the anonymous reviewers for the valuable observations and comments.

Bibliography
A.M. Abu Bakr, J. Osing, 1973. Ächtungstexte aus dem Alten Reich, MDAIK
29 (2), 97-133.
J.P. Allen, 2014. Middle Egyptian. An Introduction to the Culture and Language ofHieroglyphs. Third Edition. Cambridge.
H. Altenmüller, 1984-5. Das “Sänftenlied” des Alten Reiches, BSEG 9-10, 1530.
R. Anthes, 1928. Die Felseninschriften von Hatnub nach den Aufnahmen Georg
Möllers. UGAÄ 9, Leipzig.
R. Anthes, 1957. Die Sonnenboote in den Pyramidentexten, ZÄS 82, 77-89.
R. Bailleul-LeSuer (ed.), 2012. Between Heaven and Earth. Birds in Ancient Egypt.
OIMP 35, Chicago.
M. Bárta, 2011. A new Old Kingdom rock-cut tomb from Abusir and its
Abusir-Saqqara context, in N. Strudwick, H. Strudwick (eds.), Old Kingdom, New Perspectives. Egyptian Art and Archaeology 2750-2150 BC, 9-21. Oxford and Oakville.
M. Beaman, S. Madge, 1998. The Handbook of Bird Identification for Europe andthe Western Palearctic. London.
B. Begelsbacher-Fischer, 1981. Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des Alten Reiches
im Spiegel der Privatgräber der IV. und V. Dynastie. OBO 37, Freiburg andGöttingen.
O. Berlev, 1969. «Сокол, плывущий в ладье», иероглиф и ьог. VDI 107, 330.
D. Bidoli, 1976. Die Sprüche der Fangnetze in den altägyptischen Sargtexten.
ADAIK 9, Glückstadt.
A.M. Blackman, M.R. Apted, 1953. The Rock-Tombs of Meir. Part V. ASE 28,
London.

102

Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo

L. Bland, J. Málek, 1977. Nemtywer, the Beholder of the Beauty of his Lord
(Ashmolean Mus. 1885.504), OLP 8, 119-23.
L. Borchardt, 1911. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée Égyptien du Caire. Nos 1-1294. Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten.
Teil 1. Berlin.
L. Borchardt, 1937. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée Égyptien du Caire. Nos 1295-1808. Denkmäler des Alten Reiches (ausser den Statuen).
Teil 1. Berlin.
E. Brovarski, 1987. Two Old Kingdom Writing Boards from Giza, ASAE 71,
27-52.
G. Brunton, 1927. Qau and Badari I. ERA 29, London.
A. De Buck, 1935-61. The Egyptian Coffin Texts. 7 vols., Chicago.
R. Bussmann, 2010. Die Provinztempel Ägyptens von der 0. bis zur 11. Dynastie.
Archäologie und Geschichte einer gesellschaftlichen Institution zwischen Residenz und Provinz. PdÄ 30, Leiden-Boston.
T.J. Cade, 1982. The Falcons of the World. London.
S. Cramp (ed.), 1980. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North
Africa. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Volume II · Hawks to Bustards. Oxford, London and New York.
N. de G. Davies, 1902. The Rock Tombs of Deir el Gebrâwi. Part II.- Tomb of Zau
and Tombs of the Northern Group. ASE 12, London.
N. de G. Davies, 1953. The Temple of Hibis in El Khārgeh Oasis. Part III. The Decoration. PMMAE 17, New York.
M. DeMello, 2021. Animals and Society. An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. Second Edition. New York and Chichester.
C. Desroches-Noblecourt, 1963. Toutankhamon. Vie et mort d’un pharaon. Paris.
V. Dobrev, M. Verner, H. Vymazalová, 2011. Old Hieratic Palaeography I. Builders’ Inscriptions and Masons’ Marks from Saqqara and Abusir. Prague.
G. Dreyer, 1998. Umm el-Qaab I. Das prädynastiche Königsgrab U-j und seine
frühen Schriftzeugnisse. AV 86, Mainz.
P. Duell, 1938a. The Mastaba of Mereruka. Part I. Chambers A 1-10. OIP 31, Chicago.

Wandering Falcons

103

P. Duell, 1938b. The Mastaba of Mereruka. Part II. Chambers A 11-13. Doorjambs
and Inscriptions of Chambers A 1-21. Tomb Chamber. Exterior. OIP 39, Chicago.
W.B. Emery, 1939. Excavations at Saqqara 1937-1938. Ḥor-Aḥa. Cairo.
A. Erman, H. Grapow (eds.), 1926-61. Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache. 5
vols., Berlin.
L. Evans, 2010. Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art. Representations of the Natural
World in Memphite Tomb Scenes, ACES 9, Oxford.
L. Evans, 2011. The shedshed of Wepwawet: An Artistic and Behavioural Interpretation, JEA 97, 103-15.
A. Fakhry, 1961. The Monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur. Volume II. The Valley
Temple. Part I.- The Temple Reliefs. Cairo.
J. Ferguson-Lees, D.A. Christie, 2001. Raptors of the World. London.
C.M. Firth, B. Gunn, 1926. Excavations at Saqqara. Teti Pyramid Cemeteries. Le
Caire.
G. García Fernández, 2021. El dios luna Iah en la onomástica del antiguo
Egipto, in A.J. Domínguez Monedero, C. del Cerro Linares, F.J. Villalba
Ruiz de Toledo, F.L. Borrego Gallardo (eds.), Nomina in aqua scripta. Homenaje a Joaquín María Córdoba Zoilo, 859-877. Madrid.
A.H. Gardiner, 1932. Late Egyptian Stories. BiAe 1, Bruxelles.
A.H. Gardiner, 19573. Egyptian Grammar. Being an Introduction to the Study of
Hieroglyphs. Third Edition, Revised. Oxford.
A.H. Gardiner, T.E. Peet, J. Černý, 1955. The Inscriptions of Sinai. London.
R. Germer, 1985. Flora des pharaonischen Ägypten. SDAIK 14, Mainz.
R. Germer, 2008. Handbuch der altägyptischen Heilpflanzen. Philippika 21, Wiesbaden.
H. Goedicke, 1967. Königliche Dokumente aus dem Alten Reich. ÄA 14, Wiesbaden.
H. Goedicke, 1988. Old Hieratic Paleography. Baltimore.
S.M. Goodman, P.L. Meininger (eds.), 1989. The Birds of Egypt. Oxford and
New York.

104

Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo

E. Graefe, 1975. Der Drogenname šwt-Nmtj, GM 18, 15-20.
E. Graefe, 1980. Studien zu den Göttern und Kulten im 12. und 10. oberägyptischen
Gau (insbesondere in der Spät- und Griechisch-römischen Zeit). Freiburg.
G. Graff, 2009. Les peintures sur vases de Nagada I – Nagada II. Nouvelle approchesémiologique de l’iconographie prédynastique. Leuven.
B. Gunn, 1929. Additions to the collections of the Egyptian Museum during
1928, ASAE 29, 89-96.
R. Hannig, 1995. Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch (2800-950 v. Chr.).
Mainz.
Z. Hawass, 2004. The tombs of the pyramid builders – The tomb of the artisan
Petety and his curse, in G.N. Knoppers, A. Hirsch (eds.), Egypt, Israel, and
the Ancient Mediterranean World. Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford, 2139. PdÄ 20, Leiden-Boston.
W. Helck, 1950. Das Horusgeleit, ArOr 18 (3), 120-42.
S. Hendrickx, R. Friedman, M. Eyckerman, 2011. Early Falcons, in L.D. Morenz and R. Kuhn (eds.), Vorspann oder formative Phase? Ägypten und derVordere Orient 3500-2700 v. Chr., 129-62. Philippika 48, Wiesbaden.
M.P. Hlouchová, 2016. Old Kingdom sun cult on the basis of theoforic anthroponyms, PES 17, 67-78.
P.F. Houlihan, 1986. The Birds of Ancient Egypt. Warminster.
S. Ikram, C. Rossi, 2004. An Early Dynastic Serekh from Kharga Oasis, JEA 90,
211-15.
D. Jones, 1988. A Glossary of Ancient Egyptian Nautical Titles and Terms. London.
H. Junker, 1943. Gîza VI. Die Maṣṭabas des Nfr (Nefer), Ḳdfjj (Kedfi), KꜢḥjf (Kaḥjef)und die westlich anschlieSenden Grabanlagen. Wien.
H. Junker, 1953. Gîza XI. Der Friedhof südlich der Cheopspyramide. Ostteil. Wien.
J. Kahl, 1994. Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.-3. Dynastie.
GÖF IV 29, Wiesbaden.
L. Kalof (ed.), 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies, New York.
N. Kanawati, 1986. The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish. The Cemetery of Akhmim.
Volume VI, Sydney.

Wandering Falcons

105

N. Kanawati, M. Abder-Raziq, 2000. The Teti Cemetery at Saqqara. Volume VI.
The Tomb of Nikauisesi. ACER 14, Warminster.
P. Kaplony, 1968. Steingefässe mit Inschriften der Frühzeit und des Alten Reichs.
MonAeg 1, Bruxelles.
H. Kayser, 1964. Die Mastaba des Uhemka. Ein Grab in der Wüste. Hannover.
M.I. Khaled, 2020. Abusir XXVI. The Funerary Domains in the Pyramid Complexof Sahura: An Aspect of the Economy in the Late Third Millennium BCE. Prague.
K. Koschel, 2000. Ein altes Problem und ein Graffito im Wadi Hammmamat:ʿnti oder nmtj?, GM 175, 9-12.
A. Labrousse, J.-P. Lauer, J. Leclant, 1977. Le temple haut du complexe funéraire
du roi Ounas. BdE 73, Le Caire.
K.R. Lepsius, 1859. Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Ergänzungsband.
Berlin.
J. Málek, 1980. The Provenance of Several Tomb-Reliefs of the Old Kingdom,
SAK 8, 201-6.
L. Manniche, 1999. Egyptian Luxuries. Fragrance, Aromatherapy, and Cosmetics
in Pharaonic Times. London.
P. Der Manuelian, 2003. Slab Stelae of the Giza Necropolis. New Haven and Philadelphia.
P. Der Manuelian, 2003. Slab Stelae of the Giza Necropolis. New Haven and Philadelphia.
A.F. Mariette, 1885. Les mastaba de l’Ancien Empire. Paris.
G. Marvin, S. McHugh (eds.), 2014. Routledge Handbook of Human-Animal Studies. Abingdon and New York.
G. Maspero, 1889. Trois années de fouilles dans les tombeaux de Thèbes et deMemphis, MMAF 1 (2), 133-242.
M. Massiera, B. Mathieu, F. Rouffet (eds.), 2015. Apprivoiser le sauvage / Taming
the Wild. CENiM 11, Montpellier.
D. Meeks, 1976. Notes de lexicographie (§ 2-4), RdE 28, 87-96.
D. Meeks, 1977. Notes de lexicographie (§ 5-8), BIFAO 77, 79-88.

106Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo

R. van der Molen, 2000. A Hieroglyphic Dictionary of Egyptian Coffin Texts. PdÄ
15, Leiden, Boston and Köln.
R.-J. Monneret, 2004. El halcón peregrino. Barcelona.
M.J. Nicoll, 1919. Handlist of the Birds of Egypt. Cairo.
M. Nuzzolo, 2018. The Fifth Dynasty Sun Temples. Kingship, Architecture and Religion in Third Millennium BC Egypt. Prague.
E. Otto, 1975. Anti, in W. Helck, E. Otto (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie. Band I.
A – Ernte, 318-20. Wiesbaden.
D.C. Patch, 2011. From Land to Landscape, in D.C. Patch (ed.), Dawn of Egyptian Art, 21-81. New York.
W.M.F. Petrie, 1937. The Funeral Furniture of Egypt with Stone and Metal Vases.
London.
I. Pierre-Croisiau, B. Mathieu, 2019. Les textes de la pyramide de Mérenrê. Édition,
description et analyse. MIFAO 140, Le Caire.
T. Podgórski, 2010. Some Remarks on the Problem of the Horus Falcon Identification, SAAC 14, 67-72.
H. Ranke, 1935. Die ägyptische Personennamen. Band I. Verzeichnis der Namen.
Glückstadt.
I. Regulski, 2010. A Palaeographic Study of Early Writing in Egypt. OLA 195,
Leuven.
K. Scheele-Schweitzer, 2014. Die Personennamen des Alten Reiches. Altägyptische
Onomastik unter lexikographischen und sozio-kulturellen Aspekten. Philippika
28, Wiesbaden.
W. Schenkel, F. Gomaà, 2004. Scharuna I. Der Grabungsplatz. Die Nekropole.
Gräber aus der Alten-Reichs-Nekropole. Mainz.
S. Schweitzer, 2005. Schrift und Sprache der 4. Dynastie. Menes 3, Wiesbaden.
K. Sethe, 1903-33. Urkunden des Alten Reichs. Leipzig.
K. Sethe, A.H. Gardiner, 1910. Zur Vokalisation des Dualis im Ägyptischen.
Der Name von Gebelên und der Name des Gottes Antaios, ZÄS 47, 42-59.
K.J. Seyfried, 1984. Zu einer Darstellung des gottes ανταιος, SAK 11, 461-72.

Wandering Falcons

107

A.J. Spencer, 1982. First and Second Owners of a Memphite Tomb Chapel, JEA
68, 20-6.
S. Telailia, M. Saheb, L. Boutabia, M.-A. Bensouilah, M. Houhamdi, 2013.
Breeding Biology of Eleonora’s Falcon, Falco Elenonorae Gené, 1839 (Accipitriformes Falconidae), in Northeast Algeria at Sérigina Island, Biodiversity
Journal 4 (1), 117-24.
L. Turner, U. Sellbach, R. Broglio (eds.), 2018. The Edinburgh Companion to Animal Studies. Edinburgh.
P. Vernus, J. Yoyotte, 2005. Bestiaire des Pharaons. Paris.
P. Waldau, 2013. Animal Studies. An Introduction. Oxford and New York.
T.A.H. Wilkinson, 1999. Early Dynastic Egypt. London and New York.
C.R. Williams, 1932. The Decoration of the Tomb of Per-nēb. The Technique and theColor Conventions. New York.
H.A. Winkler, 1938. Rock-Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt. I. Sir Robert Mond
Desert Expedition. Season 1936-1937. Preliminary Report. ASE 26, London.

Food for Thought:
Considering the Presence of Zoomorphic
Figurines in Predynastic Egyptian Burials
Elizabeth Brice1

Introduction
The study of the function and significance of artefacts in burial assemblages provides us with glimpses into a culture’s funerary beliefs and broader
socio-cultural concerns. The interpretation of Predynastic Egyptian funerary
customs is no different as evidence from cemeteries constitutes the bulk of the
excavated data.2 Zoomorphic figurines are an interesting yet uncommon category of artefacts that have been found in burials dated between Naqada IA–
IID (ca. 3,800-3,325 BC). They are generally understood to have functioned as
replicas of the real animal; although, the corpus of animal figurines have notyet been studied together to examine the validity this hypothesis, particularly
in light of the diversity of animals that are represented.
This argument is re-visited from a folk taxonomic and anthropological approach to suggest that this interpretation is, in fact, plausible, and is one ofseveral possible explanations for Predynastic zoomorphic figurines that havebeen proposed to date. In this paper, clay figurines from burial contexts arecompared with contemporary faunal remains from both domestic and funerary assemblages to understand the extent to which the real animals represented in the figurine corpus were actually being used by communities andthe possible ways that their remains could be utilised. Within this socio-cultural context, it is argued that zoomorphic figurines were possibly informed
by a Predynastic folk taxonomy of consumption and resources that substituted a figurine for the real animal and its benefits for the deceased in the

1 This research was generously supported by Macquarie University through an AustralianGovernment Research Training Program Scholarship. I am grateful to the two anonymous
reviewers, the editors, Madeline Bowers, Linda Evans, Gemma Green, Katie Shead and Yann
Tristant for their feedback on various drafts which has helped to improve this paper. Allerrors that remain are my own.
2 Hendrickx and van den Brink 2002, 346; Tristant 2004, 3.

110

Elizabeth Briceburial context, functioning in parallel to the deposition of complete and partial remains of animals.

Evidence
Zoomorphic figurines have been recovered from both settlements andcemeteries across Upper Egypt. Within funerary contexts, there are examples
made from clay, various stone materials, ivory, and ‘vegetable paste’.3 The
focus of this paper, however, is specifically concerned with the substantial
corpus of clay figurines in burials as the material and contextual similarities
within this sub-group suggests that they may have a shared function. In total,
there are 101 clay zoomorphic figurines reported from burial contexts that aredated between Naqada IA–IID. These have been excavated from merely 12
cemeteries in the region, representing a small proportion of the over 60 cemeteries that were used during the early-mid Predynastic period (Tab. 1).4 Further, an overwhelming majority of the figurines, 90 in total, were excavatedfrom just four sites: Abydos Cemetery U, el-Amra cemeteries A and B, andAbadiya Cemetery B, suggesting that the deposition of clay zoomorphic figurines in burials was possibly a regional product of the Abydos region.
Among the figurines that could be identified, there are representations of
cattle, hippopotamuses, birds, turtles, tortoises, fish, pigs, and crocodiles,
which are known to have inhabited Upper Egypt during the 4th millennium
BC and feature in other Predynastic Egyptian visual and material culture.5
However, this group of animal figurines does not reflect the species interredin Predynastic graves; for instance, dogs, goats, and sheep are seemingly

3 In addition to the clay figurines in funerary contexts, there are flint figurines associated withaboveground funerary architecture at HK6 (Friedman and Nagaya 2021), a corpus of pinklimestone figurines representing hippopotami (Droux 2011), and a few examples of figurines
made using other materials, such as ivory, ‘vegetable paste’ and other stone materials. While
the first two have been analysed, there is currently no published research that examines theentire corpus of Predynastic zoomorphic figurines. An examination and comparison of thematerial and contextual features of the entire funerary corpus of animal figurines, conducted
as part of my PhD research, suggests that the smaller collection of figurines produced in othermaterials likely had different social contexts and functions to the clay figurines examined inthis paper.
4 Hendrickx and van den Brink 2002, 348-65.
5 Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2010; 2012; 2015. All except the tortoise are attested in a combination of sources, such as faunal remains, two- and three-dimensional media, and as a material for the production of artefacts.

el-Badari, cem 3800 (Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928)
Nag ed-Deir, cem 7000 (Lythgoe and Dunham 1965)
Mesheikh, cem 2000 (Fisher 1913)
el-Mahâsna, cem H (Ayrton and Loat 1911)
Abydos, cem Φ (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902)
Abydos, cem U (Peet 1914; Dreyer et al. 1998; Dreyer et al. 2000;
Dreyer et al. 2003)
el-Amra, cem A (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902)
el-Amra, cem B (Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902)
el-Amra, unspecified
Hiw, cem R (Petrie and Mace 1901)
Abadiya, cem B (Petrie and Mace 1901)
Armant, cem 1400-1500 (Mond and Myers 1937)
Hierakonpolis, HK6 (Adams 2000)

Food for Thought
111

Cattle
0
0
4
0
1
5
12
12
4
0
0
0
1

Bird
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0

Fish
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1

Pig
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

Hippopotamus
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
3
0
0

Turtle
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

Tortoise
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Crocodile

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

Unidentifiable

0

0

1

0

3

12

0

5

0

0

2

0

0

Unidentifiable
quadruped

0

3

0

1

0

6

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

Tab. 1: Table overview of the zoomorphic figurines according to the animals represented and cemeteries from which they were excavated.

112

Elizabeth Briceunrepresented or potentially unidentified within the figurine corpus yet their
physical remains are present in burial contexts.
It has been possible to interpret the subject matter of 64 figurines, while
the other 37 figurines have been broadly designated as unidentifiable (Fig. 1).
The use of ‘unidentifiable’ as a category is unavoidable as the evidence issometimes ambiguous in form or only partially preserved.6 However, it mustalso be considered that at least some were deliberately ambiguous to refer toseveral different animals, whether taxonomically related or unrelated.
Among the figurines that could be identified, there are representations of cattle, hippopotamuses, birds, turtles, tortoises, fish, pigs, and crocodiles, which
are known to have inhabited Upper Egypt during the 4th millennium BC andfeature in other Predynastic Egyptian visual and material culture.7 However,this group of animal figurines does not represent all of the species found inburials; for instance, dogs, goats, and sheep are seemingly unrepresented or
potentially unidentified within the figurine corpus yet their remains wereplaced in burial contexts.
The process of identifying the animals represented in the figurines is alargely interpretative process that relies on a comparative analysis between
physical form of the real animal and the written and visual documentation of
the artefacts, including archaeological reports that describe or name the figurine and often provide photographs or drawings as a supplement; further
publications of the material by excavators; museum publications that include
descriptions or images of the evidence; and online museum catalogues. The
final identification is ultimately up to the individual interpreter. However, theuse of as many different sources can provide the interpreter with several perspectives on the same object.

6 In some cases, the figurines were recorded in archaeological reports as animal figurines but

were not sufficiently well-preserved for the excavators to propose an animal identification.
7 All except the tortoise are attested in a combination of sources, such as faunal remains, two-and three-dimensional media, and as a material for the production of artefacts. Hendrickx
and Eyckerman 2010; 2012; 2015.

Food for Thought

113

Fig. 1: Bar graph showing the total number of each identified animal in the corpus ofPredynastic zoomorphic figurines made of clay in burial contexts.

Existing researchMore recently, scholars have started to consider the function and significance of zoomorphic figurines across both settlements and cemeteries.8 In
some cases, these interpretations are formulated as separate to that of anthropomorphic figurines in light of a growing understanding that the archaeological category of ‘figurine’ does not imply homogeneity in terms of the purpose
and use of figurines. Instead, several interpretations or ‘taxonomies’ specificto animal figurines have been raised, including animal figurines as substitutes
for the real animal;9 as religious ritual objects, either images of a deity10 or exvoto offerings;11 or as expressions of an elite ideology.12
While the interpretation of figurines is diverse, reflecting the visual, material, and contextual variation within the corpus, zoomorphic figurines in burial contexts share several similarities and are often described as symbolic replicas.13 Both Hartung and Hendrickx proposed variations of this same interpretation, contending that zoomorphic figurines replaced the real animal in
the burial context to provide ongoing sustenance for the deceased.14 Such aninterpretation may be compared with that of small, clay cattle figurines fromdomestic assemblages, particularly el-Mahâsna, Zawaydah and Armant,
8 Hendrickx 2002, 276-77; Anderson 2006, 258-59; 2011, 25; Hartung 2011, 489; Di Pietro 2017,154; 2019, 56; Brice 2021, 103-5.
9 Hendrickx 2002, 276-77; Anderson 2007, 41; Hartung 2011, 489; Brice 2021, 103-5.
10 Anderson 2006, 258-59; 2011, 25.
11 Di Pietro 2017, 154; Friedman and Nagaya 2021, 345.
12 Anderson 2006, 258-59; 2011, 25; Hartung 2011, 491.
13 Hendrickx 2002, 276-77; Hartung 2011, 489.
14 Ibid.

114

Elizabeth Brice

which may have functioned as replicas of slaughtered or live cattle.15 However, there are some caveats to both Hendrickx and Hartung’s arguments.
Firstly, Hartung suggested that while some animals from Cemetery U at Abydos are replicas of the slaughtered animal, others such as the hippopotamus
and cattle were instead possibly motivated by an elite ideology.16 Hendrickx,
on the other hand, recognised that several animals would be dangerous andunhelpful for the deceased in the burial context, such as hippopotamuses andcrocodiles, and consequently argued that the deceased could not derive any
benefit from their inclusion in the burial.17 While it is certainly true that seemingly dangerous animals are represented in the zoomorphic figurine assemblage, their presence in some Predynastic burials suggests that there was amulti-faceted understanding of these animals that encompassed more thanjust the danger that they posed.18
As a result, it is important to posit the motivations underlying the creationof animal figurines based on an analysis of the suite of animals that are represented, particularly in terms of a possible link or shared characteristic. The
idea that zoomorphic figurines acted as replicas of the real animal, possibly
in tandem with the interments of whole and partial animal remains, is one
possible hypothesis that may provide a cohesive explanation for many of theanimals that have been identified to date.

Folk taxonomies
Folk taxonomies reflect how “each culture distinguishes groups of animals
and plants as part of a larger conceptual ecosystem”.19 Today, there is the Linnaean taxonomy that uses morphological and DNA relations between organisms as its basis (Fig. 2). While we may argue that the Linnaean taxonomy isan empirical classification of all living organisms, it is only one taxonomy and

15 Anderson 2007, 41; Brice 2021, 103-5.
16 Hartung 2010, 111; 2011, 470, 491.
17 Hendrickx 2002, 276-7.
18 Droux 2021, 303.

19 VanPool and VanPool 2009, 529.

Food for Thought

115

Fig. 2: A graph illustrating the main taxonomic ranks of the Linnaean system by
Annina Breen via WikiCommons (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
International).

does not reflect how other cultures, past and present, organise their own taxonomic systems, which often develops from their unique cultural, geographical, and environmental contexts.20 Therefore, the cultural significance of animals must be considered within the context of each specific culture to understand how they organised living organisms into their own taxonomies rather
than solely through the Linnaean system.
Anthropological and archaeological research has established that taxonomies are culturally constructed and formulated through lived experiences.21
Rather than being epistemologies like the Linnaean taxonomy, they are a relational ontology that “help people understand their place in the world relative to objects and entities with which they interact”.22 While originally developed for ethnography and anthropology, this type of research has been
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.; Binnberg 2017; Phaka et al. 2019; Brémont et al. 2020; Caplan, Maley and McCormack

2020.

22 Zedeño 2009, 407.

116

Elizabeth Briceapplied more recently to ancient cultures.23 However, there are very few
works that apply this approach to the study of Predynastic Egypt.24
The use of ethnosemantics could be a useful method to explore the representation of animals in the Predynastic visual record given that iconographic
studies have already recognised that some animals were used in similar scene
contexts to express socio-cultural concepts. It has been suggested that Predynastic populations recognised that some animals had similar characteristics
or behaviours and they appropriated these into their visual culture to express
human concepts or concerns.25 The most widely discussed example within a
Predynastic context is the animal iconography of power that used representations of dogs, bulls, lions, and African wild dogs exerting dominance andforce over other animals, including humans, in conjunction with depictions ofinterpersonal violence.26 While these animals are unrelated in the Linnaean
taxonomy, they are often interpreted as animal agents of power and dominance. Therefore, we may understand this arrangement of animals as a Predynastic folk taxonomy that was developed to express power and dominancethrough equally powerful, but unrelated, animals in a similar way to the representation of humans exerting their power over others and the natural worldthat occurred contemporaneously.
If Predynastic Egyptian communities did, indeed, construct taxonomies,
such as a taxonomy of power, it may be useful to examine the corpus of clay
zoomorphic figurines from burial contexts through this approach to determine whether their selection and production was also based on a similar principle of shared traits. This paper argues that a taxonomy of food and resources
may be the unifying theme across the corpus of clay zoomorphic figurines
from burials.

Analysis of zoomorphic figurine subjects
Zooarchaeologists have suggested that fishing and breeding of livestock
were the dominant animal-based components of the Predynastic subsistence
strategy.27 Remains of wild animals, including hippopotamuses, birds, turtles,
and crocodiles, which are identified among the clay figurines from funerary
23 VanPool and VanPool 2009; Binnberg 2017; Brémont et al. 2020.
24 Brémont et al. 2020, 83-85.
25 Hendrickx 2006; 2010; Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2010; 2012; 2015.

26 Hendrickx 2006; 2010; Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2010, 122-7; 2015, 201-202.
27 Lesur 2013, 46.

Food for Thought

117

contexts, are also attested in small quantities, inferring that they were alsoutilised to a lesser extent.28 While the seven animals discussed in this paper
are attested in faunal data from domestic contexts, it is important to emphasise that the total zooarchaeological assemblages from these settlements arecomprised of many more animals; thus, it is not argued here that the zoomorphic figurines represented all components of the Predynastic subsistence
economy.29
The zooarchaeological record, both from domestic and funerary contexts,
are useful sources for comparison with the corpus of zoomorphic figurines as
we may use it to better understand how animals were used in these different
settings, and the relationships between them and Predynastic populations,which can help to situate the clay animal figurines within a social context.
However, there are several inherent limitations impacting the interpretation of Predynastic slaughter and consumption patterns that must be considered. First, the data are not representative either by contexts within a settlement, as many are selectively excavated, or on a broader geographical scale,as there are only a few, more recent excavations that have conducted extensive faunal examinations as part of their analyses.30 Thus, while the results
across these sites are mostly comparable, their broader regional applicability
is unclear. Secondly, the bones of smaller animals, particularly fish and birds,
are more susceptible to taphonomic processes and destruction in the archaeological record than larger animals, which would inherently bias the interpretation of the dietary significance of the former animals and those that arealike.31 Finally, while the sample of evidence from selected contexts at a small
number of sites provides a window of understanding into slaughter and consumption patterns, we do not, for example, have evidence for satellite processing of faunal remains, such as fish along the riverbank or large prey at thekill site.32 However, despite these limitations, faunal data is still an important
28 The data for faunal remains from domestic assemblages is derived from analyses under-

taken at el-Mahâsna (Rossel 2007), Naqada (Gautier and Van Neer 2009), Armant (Boessneckand von den Driesch 1994), Adaïma (Van Neer 2002) and Hierakonpolis (Linseele, Van Neerand Friedman 2009). Cf. Linseele, Van Neer and Friedman 2009, 112-3.
29 Cf. Linseele, Van Neer and Friedman 2009, 112-3.
30 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1994; Van Neer 2002; Rossel 2007; Gautier and Van Neer
2009; Linseele, Van Neer and Friedman 2009.
31 Brewer and Friedman 1989, 1-2; Rossel 2007, 107; Gautier and Van Neer 2009, 34; Linseele,
Van Neer and Friedman 2009, 115, 119.
32 Lupo and Schmitt 2016, 188-9.

118

Elizabeth Brice

repository to consult in conjunction with visual media to understand how
Predynastic populations utilised animals in different contexts spanning daily
life to the funerary domain.
CattleThe significance of cattle is evident when examining the faunal remains
and the diverse collection of two- and three-dimensional media. Figurines ofcattle were the most popular identifiable figurine, with 39 attested in burial
contexts. Many were executed in a realistic-stylised form that represented several key characteristics of the domestic species, such as their bodily proportions, horns, and painted decoration representing a piebald coat. 28 cattle figurines were from the Predynastic cemeteries at el-Amra alone,33 many ofwhich were interred in groups of up to four with some even joined together
on a large, rectangular clay base. All twelve figurines from Cemetery A wereidentified as cattle, and although the zoomorphic figurines from Cemetery B
were slightly more varied, cattle were still dominant, and of the nine otherfigurines, seven have been categorised as unidentifiable due to a lack of documentation.
In addition to the socio-cultural significance of cattle, such as the possibility that they acted as ‘mobile wealth’, that has been interpreted from the Predynastic evidence,34 the resources and by-products that cattle produce are also
numerous. The most well-known resources are meat and milk; however, almost the entire animal has valuable by-products and raw materials whose use
is well-attested from anthropological and archaeological sources. For example, hides from slaughtered cattle can be crafted into garments, furnishings,
and funerary wrappings; hairs can be used to manufacture rope and string;and their sundried dung can be used as fuel and a mosquito repellent.35 Thus,
it is possible that cattle had a multi-layered significance that included theircommodification as livestock, the utilisation of their by-products as well as
the projection of socio-cultural concepts onto the animal to express their relative importance to Predynastic communities.

33 Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902, 16-20.
34 Wengrow 2001; Lesur 2019, 106; Hendrickx, Förster and Eyckerman 2020.

35 Evans-Pritchard 1953, 181; Ikram 1995; Edwards 2004, 57; Russell 2012, 18; Lesur 2013, 46;

Vella Gregory 2021, 214.

Food for Thought

119

Birds
Birds are less visible in Predynastic faunal assemblages,36 but featureprominently across several media throughout the Predynastic period, including Decorated (D-ware) vessels, palettes, and amulets.37 Six bird figurines
were exclusively excavated from burials in Cemetery B at Abadiya.38 These
were stylised in form and only impart the basic features of the animal, including the avian shape with a pointed tail and beak, and often the indication ofwings, either protruding out or modelled as raised arches of clay on eitherside of the body. They were not made with sufficient anatomical details to
associate with a particular family, genera, or species of bird; however, thismay have been an intentional under-differentiation to refer more generally tobirds.39
The underrepresentation of birds in the faunal record may, at least partially, be attributed to taphonomic processes; although, the lack of evidence
for domesticated birds during this period may also indicate that they were
simply not widely consumed.40 Despite this, there is still evidence for the useof bird by-products during the Predynastic period, including ostrich eggs,
which were kept intact and inscribed on the outer face or fragmented to manufacture beads; and feathers, which are possibly shown adorning the headsof individuals in two-dimensional media.41 Thus, while there is currently little
in the faunal data to suggest that birds were regularly captured for consumption, there is evidence for the use of other bird products, supporting the ideathat Predynastic communities found practical uses for them that may havebeen beneficial to associate with the deceased.
Fish
Fish were another important fixture of the Predynastic subsistence strategy based on the vast quantity of remains recovered from Predynastic domestic assemblages. Although, their dietary significance does not appear to havecarried over into Predynastic visual culture as there are very few
36 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1994, 183; Van Neer 2002, 527-9; Gautier and Van Neer

2009, 34; Linseele, Van Neer and Friedman 2009, 119.
37 Ciałowicz 1991: 28-30; Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2012, 40.
38 Petrie and Mace 1901, 32-3; Payne 1993, 20-1.
39 VanPool and VanPool 2009, 534.
40 Gautier and Van Neer 2009, 34; Linseele, Van Neer and Friedman 2009, 119.

41 Friedman 2007, 12; Gautier and Van Neer 2009, 34; Hendrickx 2011, 252; Hendrickx andEyckerman 2012, 25; Ali Toybou 2019, 25.

120

Elizabeth Bricerepresentations of fish in other media,42 and only two clay figurines representing fish.43 The complete figurine from Abadiya is a realistic-stylised representation that may to represent either the Nile tilapia or Nile perch.44 Only thetail of the fish figurine from Hierakonpolis was preserved, so it has not beenpossible to comment on the style or compare with real fish.45
The dynamics of the Nile created shallow and deep-water environmentsthat hosted different species of fish throughout the year.46 Fish in shallow waters could be caught by hand, particularly in small ponds or pools of water
when spawning occurred, while watercraft and nets were generally needed
to catch fish living in deeper channels of the river.47 Despite shallow-water
fish being more accessible, as they required less equipment to access andcatch, there is, on the whole, a greater quantity of deep-water fish in the zooarchaeological record.48 While their main product is meat, anthropologicalsources indicate that fish organs and bones can also be used in a variety ofprocesses, from craft production to health.49 Within a Predynastic context, several bone awls at el-Mahâsna were found to have been made from Latidae,
Clariidae and Mochokidae specimens, likely used for textile manufacturing at
the site.50
Pigs
Similar to birds, there is an apparent disconnect with pigs during the Predynastic period when comparing the zooarchaeological and visual evidence.
They are present in faunal assemblages, yet they are seemingly absent within
the visual culture of the period, with only three tentatively identified pig figurines and some unprovenanced pig figurines made with ivory.51 The two
figurines from el-Amra that possibly represent pigs were stylised-abstracted
forms that have triangular shaped ears overhanging a face with an elongated42 Jurgielewicz 2020.
43 Petrie and Mace 1901, 32; Adams 2000, 26-7.
44 Petrie and Mace 1901, 32.
45 Adams 2000, 26-27.
46 Van Neer 2004, 253.
47 Ivi, 261.
48 We must consider whether evidence for fish from shallow water environments has been

lost due to the types of satellite processing described earlier. Brewer and Friedman 1989, 77;
Rossel 2007, 212; Linseele, Van Neer and Friedman 2009, 115-17, 132.
49 Olden et al. 2020, 454.
50 Anderson 2006, 211.
51 Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902, 16-7; Peet 1914. 15; Payne 1993, 21; Lorre 2021.

Food for Thought

121

snout and a barrel-shaped body; unfortunately, they lack other features, suchas legs or a tail to identify them more confidently as pigs.52 In contrast, the pig
figurine from Abydos was more realistic-stylised thanks to the presence oflegs in addition to the aforementioned pig features noted from the el-Amra
examples.53
Despite their apparent absence from the visual record, pigs formed another important part of the Predynastic subsistence strategy as a livestock animal, although it is to a lesser extent than goats, sheep, and cattle.54 They are
known to be lower maintenance as they reproduce at a faster rate than otherlivestock and produce many offspring each time; have low-maintenance land
requirements as they do not need dedicated grazing space; and can subsist onorganic refuse from human settlements for feed.55 Meat is the primary productfor human use; however, their hairs may also be used as bristles in brushes,
their phalanges can be processed into glue, and their skins into leathers.56
Hippopotamuses
The visibility of the hippopotamus in Predynastic visual culture is unparalleled among wild animals during the fourth millennium BC.57 Hippopotamus figurines are the second-most popular identified animal in the clay figurine corpus. However, evidence for their physical remains in settlement contexts, which barely exceed twenty specimens across Predynastic settlementswith faunal data, does not mirror their prominence in the representational
sphere.58 This lack of physical remains is in direct contrast to both the prevalence of hippopotamus hunting in Predynastic visual media, and the large

52 Randall-MacIver and Mace 1902, 16-7; Payne 1993, 21.
53 Peet 1914, 15. There is a second figurine from this burial that has comparable facial featureswith a different bodily shape and no legs that has been classified as unidentifiable in thisanalysis; however, it is possible that it was intended to represent the same animal. Unfortunately, it is poorly documented with only one side profile image and has not been traced toa museum collection.
54 Van Neer 2002, 530-1; Rossel 2007, 144-7; Gautier and Van Neer 2009, 38; Linseele, Van Neerand Friedman 2009, 128; Lesur 2013, 46.
55 Ikram 1995, 31-2; Lesur 2019, 107-8.
56 Ikram 1995, 32; Rossel 2007, 146.
57 Droux 2021, 302.
58 Rossel 2007, 148-9; Linseele and Van Neer 2009, 124.

122

Elizabeth Bricequantity of hippopotamus canines which would have been taken from thecarcasses once the animal was slaughtered.59
Within a Predynastic Egyptian context, consumption has generally not
been discussed as part of hippopotamus hunting since the strongest evidence
for hunting comes from two-dimensional media rather than faunal remains.
However, the consumption of hippopotamus and the harvesting of other byproducts must be considered given the collective effort that is known to havebeen expended to successfully hunt and kill an adult hippopotamus and thelarge quantity of meat and other by-products that could be yielded from asingle carcass.60 Modern accounts even note that hippopotamus meat is appetising and comparable to lean beef.61 Thus, while hippopotamus remains arepoorly attested in Predynastic settlements, it is possible that their remains
were not transported to settlements as a whole, but instead as portions of only
the useable products or their larger bones were cleaned from settlement areas,
either or a combination of these two hypotheses may provide some explanation for the inconsistency in the faunal data when it is compared to their prominent representation as a hunting subject in visual media.62
Turtles
Softshell turtles (Trionyx tringuis) inhabited the Egyptian Nile Valley during antiquity and were represented in Predynastic visual and material culture,including in Nilotic scenes on White cross-lined (C-ware) ceramics63 and figurative greywacke palettes.64 One figurine from Cemetery B at Abadiya has aflattened carapace that is characteristic of a softshell turtle.65 There are also
three Testudines figurines from U-395 at Cemetery U, Abydos66 which havedomed carapaces that more closely resemble a tortoise. Although no species
59 Krzyszkowska and Morkot 2000, 320-1; Hendrickx and Eyckerman 2011, 498; Brémont

2018, 85.
60 Ikram 1995, 22; Lupo and Schmitt 2016, 186. Today, hippopotamus hunting is still legal in

at least seven countries in Africa and the illegal hunting of hippopotamuses is practiced more
widely as part of the ‘bushmeat’ trade in sub-Saharan Africa (Neilsen and Meilby 2015, 64).
Further, several Nilotic populations are known to have hunted and consumed hippopotamuses (Seligman and Seligman 1932, 39, 136).
61 Eltringham 1999, 122.
62 Lupo and Schmitt 2016, 189-90.
63 Droux 2020, C-0020, C-0024, C-0171.
64 Fischer 1968, 24-5; Ciałowicz 1991, 20.
65 Petrie and Mace 1901, 32; Payne 1993, 22.
66 Dreyer et al. 2000, 58; Hartung 2011, 476.

Food for Thought

123

of tortoise has been attested in faunal assemblages at any Predynastic site in
Middle or Upper Egypt, nor have any been identified in any visual culture todate,67 there are species of tortoise that are known to have inhabited Egypt
since antiquity, such as the African spurred tortoise which still inhabits desert,
scrub, savanna, and grassland environments in sub-Saharan Africa.68
Of the reptiles attested in Predynastic faunal assemblages, the softshell turtle comprises the largest proportion of the identified specimens, which suggests that the red meat and fat was consumed by Predynastic communities.69
While some settlements contain a large quantity of softshell turtle specimens,
inferring that they were a targeted species,70 only a limited number of specimens were identified at other sites which suggests that, in other cases, turtles
were accidentally caught as by-catch in fishing nets.71 Later evidence from
Egypt and ethnographic parallels reveal that it is possible to use their eggs,
bones, and carapace shell in a variety of ways in addition to consuming theirmeat.72
Crocodiles
Finally, the Nile crocodile was visible in both the Predynastic zooarchaeological and, to a lesser extent, the visual record, mostly in Nilotic scenes on Cware vessels. The evidence from these two sources suggests that the crocodile
was primarily considered a hunting target. Two crocodile figurines were excavated in an incomplete state of preservation, one from Cemetery 3800 at elBadari73 and another solely consisting of a curved tail from Cemetery B at Abadiya.74
67 Boessneck 1988, 111.
68 Further research is needed to reconcile the clear tortoise shape of the carapaces on thesefigurines with the apparent absence of this animal in the Predynastic archaeological record.
69 Fischer 1968, 6; Boessneck 1988, 110-1; Linseele, Van Neer and Friedman 2009, 118; Çakırlar,

Koolstra and Ikram 2021, 128.
70 Rossel 2007, 160; Linseele, Van Neer and Friedman 2009, 118; Van Neer and De Cupere2021, 6.
71 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1994, 183; Gautier and Van Neer 2009, 34; Van Neer 2002,

545.
72 De Meyer et al. 2005, 69; Çakırlar, Koolstra and Ikram 2021, 128. An exceptionally large

softshell turtle carapace was identified from an early burial at Helwan, demonstrating theuse of turtle skeletal elements in Lower Egypt during the late 4th-early 3rd millennium BC(Saad 1947, 108-9, pl. XLVII).
73 Brunton and Caton-Thompson 1928, 51.
74 Petrie and Mace 1901, 32; Payne 1993, 22.

124

Elizabeth Brice

Similar to the softshell turtle, there is considerable variation in the quantities of crocodile remains found in Predynastic settlements. Most notably,
there were almost 200 specimens identified at HK29A, Hierakonpolis,75 yet
fewer than 10 combined from el-Mahâsna76 and Adaïma,77 and no remains
were recorded at Naqada, Armant or HK11. Thus, it is possible that the hunting and consumption of crocodile was regionally specific, or the remnants ofbutchering activities have not survived in the archaeological record at somesites. Nonetheless, the white flesh of the crocodile is edible when handled andcooked properly, their skin can be used as a leather material to produce garments and shields, and some cultures use their blood and fat.78

Comparison with whole and partial faunal remains in burial
contexts
The interment of whole and partial animal remains in burials is anothercomparative corpus of particular interest for this analysis given the sharedfocus on animals in the funerary domain. For the most part, the remains ofanimals in Upper Egyptian burials, either as partial remains as well as wholeremains, were co-interred with the deceased within the grave; however, instances of independent animal burials have also been noted in the region.79
Overall, the evidence suggests that animal remains were relatively uncommon funerary accompaniments in Upper Egyptian burials,80 and there arevery few instances where zoomorphic figurines and animal remains co-occurred in the same burial. Since it is generally understood that animal

75 Linseele, Van Neer and Friedman 2009, 118; Friedman 2021, 4; Van Neer and De Cupere2021, 6.
76 Rossel 2007, 162.
77 Van Neer 2002, 527.
78 Boessneck 1988, 110; Ikram 2010, 89; Pooley 2016, 400.
79 Flores 2003, 63; Van Neer, Linseele and Friedman 2004; Van Neer, Linseele and Friedman

2017; Van Neer and de Cupere 2021, 6-8. There are two poorly documented contexts from
Upper Egypt that Flores tentatively noted as evidence for independent animal burials in theregion (Flores 2003, 69). To this we may also add more recent discoveries from HK6 at Hierakonpolis, which has evidence for many independent animal burials clustered around someof the tombs within the cemetery (Van Neer, Linseele and Friedman 2004; 2017; Friedman etal. 2017), and the six animal burials, one pig and five dogs, recorded within the settlement
area at Adaïma (Van Neer 2002, 533).
80 Flores 2003.

Food for Thought

125

interments, particularly livestock species, functioned as provisions for the deceased,81 we may compare the species with the figurines.
The practice of interring partial remains of animals, while still relatively
uncommon, appears to have occurred more frequently than the burial ofwhole animal remains. Whole animals have been identified in a small numberof burials (Naqada IA–IID) at many Upper Egyptian cemeteries, primarily
consisting of small quadrupeds (gazelle/ovicaprid), and dogs, in addition to
the diverse menagerie of largely complete animal specimens at HK6, Hierakonpolis.82 The interment of partial remains of animals, in contrast, has beenrecorded in greater quantities from cemeteries across Middle and Upper
Egypt: Matmar (10 burials), Mostagedda (7 burials), Badari (3 burials), Nag
el-Deir (11 burials), el-Mahâsna (7 burials), Cemetery U, Abydos (98 burials)
el-Amra (21 burials), Abadiya (2 burials), Naqada (4 burials), and Armant (3burials).83 Most interestingly, the recovered body parts consisted of bones
from the legs, shoulders, skulls, and jaws, none of which would be considered
traditionally ‘fine’ cuts of meat. Ovicaprids largely dominate this category offunerary remains; however, partial remains of cattle were also identified inmeaningful quantities.
The presence of whole and partial animal remains, particularly ovicaprids
and cattle, is currently understood as either an expression of wealth, symbolising the “flock”, or as “a source of sustainable sustenance in the afterlife”.84
Given that ovicaprids were smaller than other livestock, it may have been
more spatially and economically viable to place whole animals of these81 Flores 2003, 56; Van Neer, Linseele and Friedman 2004, 119; Hartung 2016, 287.
82 Flores 2003, 83-8, 91-2, 102-9; Van Neer, Linseele and Friedman 2004; Van Neer, Linseele

and Friedman 2017; Van Neer and de Cupere 2021, 6-8. These sparse findings contrast significantly with more recent findings from the ongoing excavations at HK6 where they continue
to uncover new animals, particularly large wild and domestic species, interred in pit burials,
which are unattested elsewhere in Upper Egypt during this period, making this an unparalleled menagerie (Van Neer, Linseele and Friedman 2004, 72-73; Van Neer, Linseele and Friedman 2017; Van Neer and De Cupere 2021, 6-8).
83 von den Driesch and Peeters 2000, 86-89; Flores 2003, 103-9. It must be emphasised that thisis most likely an underrepresentation of the quantity of partial animal remains in burials asreports from cemetery excavation from the late 19th-early 20th century did not publish every
burial. Thus, it is highly likely that further graves were also found to include whole or partial
animal remains but were not published. Furthermore, the description of partial animal remains within these earlier reports are are not specific because excavations lacked any systematic analysis of zooarchaeological remains beyond estimating the size of the animal and possible suborder (i.e., ruminants).
84 Flores 2003, 56; Hartung 2016, 287.

126

Elizabeth Bricespecies in burials to embody this concept of wealth or sustenance. This may
explain the apparent absence of ovicaprid clay zoomorphic figurines in burials. If their physical remains, partial or whole, could be placed with the deceased then it was not necessary to produce a miniaturised form.
Zoomorphic figurines, then, may have acted as symbolic replica of animals
that were either too large or less accessible for the living community to prepare for funeral proceedings and burial. The chosen medium possibly depended on the size, value, and expendability of the animal to the living community. Small animal portions and animal figurines may have been a moreconvenient way to provide sustenance for the deceased through symbolicmeans rather than placing a complete animal carcass in the small burial space.
This concept is particularly well-exemplified by the possibly ‘slaughtered’ figurines from Abydos, such as the cattle figurines from U-239 and U-560,85
which convey the concept of a food offering in a figural form without needing
to place any real portions of meat in the grave.
Thus, it is possible that zoomorphic figurines addressed pragmatic sustenancerequirements for the deceased in a miniaturised clay form. This mirrors the interpretation of other Predynastic material culture found in burials, such as palettes,
pottery, and personal adornments. These objects had a use for the living population, given that many have signs of use-wear and their function within the burial
context could be considered parallel to their previous use life with possible symbolic dimensions added to address their new ritualised context.86 Neither zoomorphic figurines nor animal remains could be considered ‘staples’ in the Predynastic funerary repertoire, yet it is possible that their presence in this context was
motivated by a desire to provision or sustain the deceased with animal-based
food sources, either presented as the real animal or a figural form made from clay.
It would not be unreasonable to suggest that this was done to provide familiar orsimilar food and animal-based resources to those they enjoyed in life presented
either as whole, partial or miniaturised animal remains.

Conclusion
This paper has presented the hypothesis that clay zoomorphic figurines in
Predynastic burials were motivated by a folk taxonomy of consumption andresources that was intended to replace real animals in a funerary context as
85 Dreyer et al. 1998, 84; 2000, 60; Hartung 2011, 470.
86 Stevenson 2008, 5.

Food for Thought

127

sustenance and resources for the deceased. The figurine corpus has been compared with the zooarchaeological record from both domestic and funerarycontexts in light of an anthropological focus on the use of animals, particularly
the products that can be taken from them, dead or alive, and transformed into
food, raw materials and objects.
Cattle figurines are the most popular identifiable figurine in burial contexts and are accompanied, to a much lesser extent, by an array of animals,
including fish, birds, hippos, pigs, turtles, and crocodiles. As these animals allprovide humans with viable food and by-products, it can be argued that theirpresence in burials was intended to act as provisions for the deceased; although, it is also possible that only a subset of these figurines were intended
to fulfil such a purpose, and others were interred to serve the deceased inother ways. It is argued here that the production of zoomorphic figurines may
have served a parallel function to the interment of whole and partial remainsof real animals, mainly ovicaprids/gazelles as well as cattle. These provided
the living with several options, in terms of animal and medium, for how they
could provision the deceased with animal-based sustenance. When these two
types of animal manifestations in funerary contexts are compared, it is evident
that they do not overlap, but instead complement each other to closely mirror
many, but not all, of the animals found in the Predynastic faunal record.

Bibliography
B. Adams, 2000. Excavations in the locality 6 cemetery at Hierakonpolis 1979-1985(BAR International 903). Oxford.
H. Ali Toybou, 2019. L’exploitation de l’autruche dans l’Égypte ancienne: l’exemple des perles en coquille d’œuf d’autruche, in S. Ikram, S. Pasquali, S.
Porcier (eds.), Creatures of earth, water, and sky: Essays on animals in ancient
Egypt and Nubia, 25-30, Leiden.
D. A. Anderson, 2006. Power and competition in the Upper Egyptian Predynastic:
A view from the Predynastic settlement at el-Mahâsna [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Pittsburgh.
D. A. Anderson, 2007. Zoomorphic figurines from the Predynastic settlement
at el-Mahâsna, Egypt, in Z. A. Hawass, J. Richards (eds.), The archaeology
and art of ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor (CASAE 36,
Vol. 1), 33-54. Cairo.

128

Elizabeth Brice

D. A. Anderson, 2011. Evidence for early ritual activity in the Predynastic settlement at el-Mahâsna, in R. Friedman, P. Fiske (eds.), Egypt at its Origins
3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July – 1st August 2008 (OLA
205), 3-29. Leuven.
E. R. Ayrton, W. L. S. Loat, 1911. Pre-dynastic cemetery at El-Mahasna (EEF 31).
London.
J. Binnberg, 2017. Animal identification in iconography: An interdisciplinary
approach combining zoology, anthropology and archaeology, in R. O’Sullivan, C. Marini, J. Binnberg (eds.), Archaeological approaches to breaking
boundaries: interaction, integration and division. Proceedings of the Graduate Archaeology at Oxford Conferences 2015-2016 (BAR International 2869), 279–89.
Oxford.
J. Boessneck, 1988. Die Tierwelt des alten Ägypten: untersucht anhand kulturgeschichtlicher und zoologischer Quellen. München.
J. Boessneck, A. von den Driesch, 1994. Tierknochenfunde aus dem
negadezeitlichen Fundplatz MA 21/83 bei Armant, in B. Ginter, J. K.
Kozłowski, Predynastic settlement near Armant (Studien zur Archäologie
und Geschichte Altägyptens 6), 183-89. Heidelberg.
A. Brémont, 2018. Des éléphants, des hippopotames et des mouflons : Trois
hypothèses de marqueurs animaux d’identités régionales pendant les périodes de Nagada I-II, Archéo-Nil 28, 69-98.
A. Brémont, Y. Boudes, S. Thuault, M. Ben Saad, 2020. Appréhender les catégories zoologiques en anthropologie historique : Enjeux méthodologiqueset épistémologiques, Anthropozoologica 55, 5, 73-93.
D. J. Brewer, R. Friedman, 1989. Fish and fishing in ancient Egypt. Warminster.
E. Brice, 2021. Forming the herd: A re-examination of Predynastic bovine figurines from settlement contexts, Archéo-Nil 31, 83-110.
G. Brunton, G. Caton-Thompson, 1928. The Badarian civilisation and prehistoricremains near Badari (BSAE & ERA 46), London.
C. Çakırlar, F. J. Koolstra, S. Ikram, 2021. Tracking turtles in the past: zooarchaeological evidence for human-turtle interactions in the ancient Eastern
Mediterranean, Antiquity 95, 379, 125-41.

Food for Thought

129

A. Caplan, J. M. Maley, J. E. McCormack, 2020. Bridging biology and ethnohistory: A case for collaboration, Ethnohistory 67, 3, 355-82.
K. M. Ciałowicz, 1991. Les palettes égyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et dans décoration : Études de l’art prédynastique (Studies in Ancient Art and Civilisation 3). Kraków.
M. De Meyer, W. Van Neer, C. Peeters, H. Willems, 2005. The role of animals
in the funerary rites at Dayr al-Barshā, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 42, 45-71.
G. A. Di Pietro 2011. Miscellaneous artefacts from Zawaydah (Petrie’s South
Town, Naqada), in R. Friedman, P. Fiske (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic
and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July – 1st August 2008 (OLA 205), 5979. Leuven.
G. A. Di Pietro, 2017. Beyond the bounds of domestic life? Naqada: Aspectsof the settlement in the middle-late 4th millennium BC, in B. MidantReynes, Y. Tristant (eds.), E. Ryan (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 5: Proceedingsof the Fifth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early
Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo, 13th-18th April 2014 (OLA 260), 145-63. Leuven.
G. A. Di Pietro, 2019. Miniaturisation in early Egypt, in J. Davy, C. Dixon(eds.), Worlds in miniature: Contemplating miniaturisation in global material
culture, 39-60. London.
G. Dreyer, R. Hartmann, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, H. Köpp, C. Lacher, V. Müller, A. Nerlich, A. Zink, 2003. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im
frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof 13./14./15. Vorbericht, MDAIK 59, 67-138.
G. Dreyer, U. Hartung, T. Hikade, E. C. Köhler, V. Müller, F. Pumpenmeier,1998. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen Königsfriedhof 9./10. Vorbericht, MDAIK 54, 77-167.
G. Dreyer, A. von den Driesch, E-M Engel, R. Hartmann, U. Hartung, V. Müller, J. Peters, 2000. Umm el-Qaab: Nachuntersuchungen im frühzeitlichen
Königsfriedhof 11./12. Vorbericht, MDAIK 56, 43-129.
K. M. Ciałowicz, 1991. Les palettes égyptiennes aux motifs zoomorphes et sans décoration : Études de l’art prédynastique (Studies in Ancient Art and Civilisation 3), Krakow.

130

Elizabeth Brice

X. Droux, 2011. Twinned hippopotamus figurines of the Predynastic period,in R. Friedman, P. Fiske (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third
International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic
Egypt”, London, 27th July – 1st August 2008 (OLA 205), 349-77. Leuven.
X. Droux, 2020. Predynastic Online Database, <www.ponda.org/object/>.
X. Droux, 2021. A hippopotamus in a dish : Predynastic bowl Cairo Museum
JE 85928 and aspects of hippopotamus symbolism in Predynastic Egypt, in
N. Buchez, Y. Tristant (eds.), O. P. Rochecouste (coll.), Égypte antérieure :Mélanges de préhistoire et d’archéologie offerts à Beatrix Midant-Reynes par sesétudiants, collègues et amis (OLA 304), 303-23. Leuven.
D. N. Edwards, 2004. The Nubian past: an archaeology of the Sudan. London.
S. K. Eltringham, 1999. The hippos: Natural history and conservation. London.
E. E. Evans-Pritchard, 1953. The sacrificial role of cattle among the Nuer, Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 23, 3, 181-98.
C. S. Fisher, 1913. The Harvard University Museum of Fine Arts Egyptian expedition, work of 1912 at Gizeh and Mesheikh, Bulletin of the Museum ofFine Arts 11, 62, 19-22.
H. G. Fischer, 1968. Ancient Egyptian representations of turtles. New York.
D. V. Flores, 2003. Funerary sacrifice of animals in the Egyptian Predynastic period(BAR International Series 1153). Oxford.
R. Friedman, 2007. A short history of ostrich eggs, Nekhen News 19, 12.
R. Friedman, 2021. The world of animals at Hierakonpolis, Nekhen News 33, 34.
R. Friedman, K. Nagaya, 2021. Fine lithic products from Hierakonpolis, in N.
Buchez, Y. Tristant (eds.), O. P. Rochecouste (coll.), Égypte antérieure : Mélanges de préhistoire et d’archéologie offerts à Beatrix Midant-Reynes par ses étudiants, collègues et amis (OLA 304), 341-68. Leuven.
R. Friedman, W. Van Neer, B. De Cupere, X. Droux, 2017. The elite Predynastic cemetery at Hierakonpolis HK6: 2011-2015 progress
report, in B.
Midant-Reynes, Y. Tristant (eds.), E. Ryan (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 5: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic
and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Cairo, 13th-18th April 2014 (OLA 260), 231-289.
Leuven.

Food for Thought

131

A. Gautier, W. Van Neer, 2009. Animal remains from Predynastic sites in the
Nagada region, Middle Egypt, Archeofauna 18, 27-50.
U. Hartung, 2010. Hippopotamus hunters and bureaucrats: Elite burials at
Cemetery U at Abydos, in F. Raffaele, M. Nuzzolo, I. Incordino (eds.), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology: Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology, Naples, June 18th-20th 2008, 107-20. Wiesbaden.
U. Hartung, 2011. Nile mud and clay objects from the Predynastic Cemetery
U at Abydos, in R. Friedman, P. Fiske (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and
Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July – 1st August 2008 (OLA 205), 467-96.
Leuven.
U. Hartung, 2016. Chronological aspects of the development of funeral equipment in Cemetery U at Abydos (Umm el-Qa’ab), in M. D. Adams (ed.), B.
Midant-Reynes, E. M. Ryan, Y. Tristant (coll.), Egypt at its Origins 4. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference “Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, New York, 26th – 30th July 2011 (OLA252), 271-98. Leuven.
S. Hendrickx, 2002. Bovines in Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic iconography, in F. Hassan (ed.), Droughts, food and culture: Ecological change
and food security in Africa’s later prehistory, 275-318. New York.
S. Hendrickx, 2006. The dog, the Lycaeon pictus and order over chaos in Predynastic Egypt, in K. Kroeper, M. Chłodnicki, M. Kobusiewicz (eds), Archaeology of early northeastern Africa: In memory of Lech Krzyżaniak (Studies
in African Archaeology 9), 723-49. Poznań.
S. Hendrickx, 2010. L’iconographie de la chasse dans le contexte social prédynastique, Archéo-Nil 20, 106-33.
S. Hendrickx, 2011. Hunting and social complexity in Predynastic Egypt, Bulletin des Séances 57, 237-63.
S. Hendrickx, E. C. M. van den Brink, 2002. Inventory of Predynastic and Early
Dynastic cemetery and settlement sites in the Egyptian Nile Valley, in E.
C. M. van den Brink, T. E. Levy (eds.), Egypt and the Levant: Interrelations
from the 4th through the early 3rd millennium B.C.E, 346-98. London.

132

Elizabeth BriceS. Hendrickx, M. Eyckerman, 2010. Continuity and change in the visual representations of Predynastic Egypt, in F. Raffaele, M. Nuzzolo, I. Incordino(eds.), Recent discoveries and latest researches in Egyptology: Proceedings of theFirst Neapolitan Congress of Egyptology, Naples, June 18th-20th 2008, 121-44.
Wiesbaden.
S. Hendrickx, M. Eyckerman, 2011. Tusks and tags: Between the hippopotamus and the Naqada plant, in R. Friedman, P. Fiske (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3: Proceedings of the Third International Conference “Origin of the State.
Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, London, 27th July – 1st August 2008
(OLA 205), 497-570. Leuven.
S. Hendrickx, M. Eyckerman, 2012. Visual representation and state development in Egypt, Archéo-Nil 22, 23-72.
S. Hendrickx, M. Eyckerman, 2015. Les animaux sauvages dans l’Égypte prédynastique, in M. Massiera, B. Mathieu, F. Rouffet (eds.), Apprivoiser le sauvage / Taming the wild (CENiM 11), 197-210. Montpellier.
S. Hendrickx, F. Förster, M. Eyckerman, 2020. Le taureau à l’époque prédynastique et son importance pour le développement de l’iconographie
royale – avec un excursus sur l’origine de sceptre hèqa, in. S. H. Aufrère(ed.), Les taureaux de l’Égypte ancienne : Publication éditée à l'occasion de la 14e
rencontre d'Egyptologie de Nîmes, 33-73. Nîmes.
S. Ikram, 1995. Choice cuts: Meat production in ancient Egypt (OLA 69). Leuven.
S. Ikram, 2010. Crocodiles: Guardians of the Gateways, in Z. A. Hawass andS. Ikram (eds.), Thebes and beyond: Studies in honour of Kent R. Weeks, 85-98.
Le Caire.
A. Jurgielewicz, 2020. The iconography of fish in the Nagada culture, Âgypten
und Levante / Egypt and the Levant 30, 399-414.
O. Krzyszkowska, R. Morkot, 2000. Ivory and related materials, in P. T. Nicholson, I. Shaw (eds.), Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, 320-31.
Cambridge.
J. Lesur, 2013. Des animaux et des hommes en Égypte au Néolithique et Prédynastique : les apports de l’archéozoologie, Archéo-Nil 23, 33-54.
J. Lesur, 2019. La faune prédynastique est-elle « africaine »?, Archéo-Nil 29,
101-13.

Food for Thought

133

V. Linseele, W. Van Neer, 2009. Exploitation of desert and other wild game inancient Egypt: the archaezoological evidence from the Nile Valley, in M.
Herb, F. Förster, N. Pöllath, H. Reimer (eds.), Desert animals in the eastern
Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an interdisciplinary ACACIA workshop held at the University of Cologne, December 14-15, 2007, 47-78. Cologne.
V. Linseele, W. Van Neer, R. Friedman, 2009. Special animals from a special
place? The fauna from HK29A at Predynastic Hierakonpolis, JARCE 45,
105-36.
C. Lorre, 2021. Sous la protection de nout?, in in N. Buchez, Y. Tristant (eds.),
O. P. Rochecouste (coll.), Égypte antérieure : Mélanges de préhistoire et d’archéologie offerts à Beatrix Midant-Reynes par ses étudiants, collègues et amis
(OLA 304), 551-60. Leuven.
K. D. Lupo, D. N. Schmitt, 2016. When bigger is not better: The economics ofhunting megafauna and its implications for Plio-Pleistocene hunter-gatherers, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44, 185-97.
A. M. Lythgoe, D. Dunham, 1965. The Predynastic cemetery N 7000: Naga-edDêr (University of California Publications: Egyptian Archaeology 7).
Berkeley.
R. L. Mond, O. H. Myers, 1937. Cemeteries of Armant I (EES 42). London.
M. R. Neilsen, H. Meilby, 2015. Hunting and trading bushmeat in the Kilombero Valley, Tanzania: Motivations, cost-benefit ratios and meat prices,
Environmental Conservation 42, 1, 61-72.
J. D. Olden, J. R. S. Vitule, J. Cucherousset, M. J. Kennard, 2020. There’s more
to fish than just food: Exploring the diverse ways that fish contribute tohuman society, Fisheries 45, 9, 453-64.
J. C. Payne, 1993. Catalogue of the Predynastic Egyptian collection in the Ashmolean
Museum. Oxford.
T. E. Peet, 1914. The cemeteries of Abydos, Part II: 1911-1912 (EEF 34). London.
W. M. F. Petrie, A. C. Mace, 1901. Diospolis Parva: the cemeteries of Abadiyeh andHu. 1898-1899 (EEF 20). London.
F. M. Phaka, E. C. Netherlands, D. J. D. Kruger, L. H. Du Preez, 2019. Folk
taxonomy and indigenous names for frogs in Zululand, South Africa,

134

Elizabeth Brice

Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 15, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002019-0294-3.
S. Pooley, 2016. A cultural herpetology of Nile crocodiles in Africa, Conservation and Society 14, 4, 391-405.
J. C. Quinton, 1995. Examination and conservation of a Predynastic Egyptian
animal figure group in low fired clay, in C. E. Brown, F. Macalister, M. M.
Wright (eds.), Conservation in ancient Egyptian collections: Papers given at theconference organised by the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, Archaeology Section, and International Academic Projects, held at London, 20-21 July
1995. 119-26. London.
D. Randall-MacIver, A. C. Mace, 1902. El Amrah and Abydos, 1899-1901 (EEF23). London.
S. Rossel, 2007. The development of productive subsistence economies in the Nile
Valley: Zooarchaeological analysis at el-Mahâsna and South Abydos, Upper
Egypt, [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. Boston.
N. Russell, 2012. Social zooarchaeology: humans and animals in prehistory. Cambridge.
Z. Y. Saad, 1947. Royal excavations at Saqqara and Helwan (1941-1945) (ASAE,
suppl. Cahier 3). Cairo.
C. B. Seligman, B. Z. Seligman, 1932. Pagan tribes of the Nilotic Sudan. London.
A. Stevenson, 2008. Predynastic burials, in. W. Wendrich (ed.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2m3463b2> (accessed
25 October 2022).
Y. Tristant, 2004. L’habitat prédynastique de la Vallée du Nil : vivre sur les rives dunil aux V et IV millénaires. (BAR International Series 1287), Oxford.
W. Van Neer, 2002. Le matériel faunique, in B. Midant-Reynes, N. Buchez(eds.), Adaïma I : Économie et habitat (FIFAO 45), 521-65. Le Caire.
W. Van Neer, 2004. Evolution of prehistoric fishing in the Nile Valley, Journalof African Archaeology 2, 2, 251-69.
W. Van Neer, V. Linseele, R. F. Friedman, 2004. Animal burials and food offerings at the elite cemetery HK6 at Hierakonpolis, in S. Hendrickx, R.
Friedman, L. Ciałowicz, M. Chłodnicki (eds.), Egypt at its Origins: Studies
in Memory of Barbara Adams, Proceedings of the International ConferenceFood for Thought

135“Origin of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August – 1st September 2002 (OLA 138), 67-130. Leuven.
W. Van Neer, V. Linseele, R. Friedman, 2017. More animal burials from thePredynastic elite cemetery of Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt): the 2008 season, in M. Mashkour, M. Beech (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East (Vol.
9), 388–403. Oxford.
W. Van Neer, B. De Cupere, 2021. Animals for food, prestige and ritual: evidence off the bone from Hierakonpolis, Nekhen News 33, 5-9.
C. S. VanPool, T. L. VanPool, 2009. The semantics of local knowledge: Usingethnosemantics to study folk taxonomies represented in the archaeologicalrecord, Journal of Anthropological Research 65, 529–54.
I. Vella Gregory, 2021. Re-examining Jebel Moya figurines: new directions for
figurine studies in Sudan, Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 56, 2, 193218.
D. Wengrow, 2001. Rethinking ‘Cattle cults’ in early Egypt: towards a prehistoric perspective on the Narmer Palette, Cambridge Archaeological Journal
11, 1, 91-104.
M. N. Zedeño, 2009. Animating by association: Index objects and relationaltaxonomies, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19, 3, 407-17.

Animals Remains from the Egyptian Collection of
the Civic Archaeological Museum of Milan:
Conservation and Study Project
Sabrina Ceruti & Cinzia Oliva

Introduction
The Egyptian Collection of the Civic Archaeological Museum of Milan holds
a number of mummified remains, both human and animals. With the exceptionof a very few mummies which had been on display in the past (either in the permanent Egyptian display – more or less continuously until 2017, when this was
closed for a complete refurbishment – or in temporary exhibitions), most of them
have always been kept in storage. The reasons for this choice have been different:
they surely included ethical considerations, and also the lack of exhibition spacewithin the galleries, yet the primary factor was their state of conservation. Indeed,most of these mummified remains are in less-than-optimal condition, particularly
the animal ones, which in some cases show the loosening of the outer layers of
the wrappings. Over time, as new and higher standards of preservation and display of such organic material became established (including from an ethical viewpoint), the gallery’s old showcases (dating from the 1970s) were deemed nolonger suitable for the proper preservation of these remains, as were their storage
condition in the warehouse. Therefore, as part of the ongoing project of refurbishment of the permanent Egyptian display – presently closed and expected to reopen within some years, still on its historical premises of the Sforza Castle – themuseum’s curatorial team decided to turn its attention also to this group of longneglected artefacts.
Concerns about the overall conditions of the mummies and, in some cases,
even the uncertainty about the nature and state of conservation of the organic
remains ‘hidden’ under the layers of bandages, deterred the museum curatorsfrom putting them on display without a renewed study and conservation assessment. The project has involved non-invasive diagnostic methods, such as digital
imaging, thus minimizing invasive analyses of such fragile materials. The possibility of more hands-on investigation has been considered only as a possible further diagnostic step on the basis of the results of non-invasive techniques. Beyond

138

Sabrina Ceruti & Cinzia Oliva

the obvious purposes of the scholarly research on ancient Egyptian mummification, and the socio-religious aspects related to this practice (on which new attention has emerged in the past two decades, particularly on the practice of animal
mummification),1 one of the main goals of such a diagnostic approach has been
to envisage the more suitable method of preserving the remains themselves inclimate-controlled storage, as well as best display them to the public, both in thepermanent gallery or in temporary exhibitions.
Starting from 2016, the museum curatorial team thus developed the project
Egyptian Mummies between Archaeology and Science, devoted to the analysis,
conservation and study of the human and animal mummies in the Milanesecollection. The project was financed by the Municipality of Milan with theparticipation of Regione Lombardia.
As part of this broader undertaking, the animal remains underwent their firstcomprehensive diagnostic study and preservation campaign. Only one of themummies had a previous X-ray (taken by its former private collector, and transferred to the museum along with it), otherwise the bundles had never been Xrayed nor CT-scanned, and thus they have never been looked at inside.
For the imaging, the project gained the collaboration of the Department of
Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences of the University of Milan, La Statale. Due to budget constraints, it was decided to proceed only with the CTimaging, whose complete data could have been manipulated to obtain 3D images, which have now become an appealing educational method of presenting mummies to the public as well.2 The mummies were CT-scanned at the
University Veterinary Hospital of Lodi, all but one (Inv. no. E 0.9.41452, possibly an ibis), that, unfortunately, was still inaccessible at the time the scans
had been scheduled and executed. Computed tomography was conducted using a General Electric Bright Speed Elite 16 slices scanner (GE, Madison, WI).
The conservation was entrusted to Cinzia Oliva.3

The animal mummies collection: composition and provenance
The Milanese animal mummy collection consists of twenty-three specimens, all supposedly of the votive mummy type, that is manufactured as
1 Ikram 2005a; Ikram 2005b; McKnight 2010; McKnight, Atherton-Woolham 2015; Ikram 2019.
2 McKnight 2010, 26-32, and 114 for critical appraisals on computed tomography applied toanimal mummies; cf. also Ikram 2019, 182-183; Anderson, Antoine 2019.

3 See below, under the mummy conservation paragraph.

Animals Remains from the Egyptian Collection of Milan

139

offerings to the gods.4 Specifically, there are: eight crocodiles, one of which is
the hind part of one adult/juvenile specimen, and the others are seven baby
crocodiles; eight birds; two fish; three cats; one dog; and, lastly, one small
mammal, possibly a shrew(?) or a small rodent similar to a shrew.
Of them, only the seven baby crocodiles come from documented excavations.
They were unearthed in Achille Vogliano’s brief excavation campaign in 1934 at
the Graeco-Roman crocodile necropolis of Tebtynis (Fayyum), south of the maincity temple dedicated to the crocodile god, worshipped under his local form ofSoknebtynis. Unfortunately, we know nothing more about their discovery, for
Vogliano’s report about his activity at the necropolis is lacking in detail. As a papyrologist, the attention he paid to the necropolis was first and foremost targetedat the inscribed material, as he himself admitted5. The purpose of his activity
there, was not to find mummies but inscribed papyri reused in the making of theanimal wrappings. This was a well-documented practice, especially in the
Graeco-Roman period for adult crocodiles, which where, in many cases, very
carefully and aesthetically wrapped.
All the other mummies are from private collections, with no ascertainable
provenance, nor a (more or less reliable) claimed provenance. Only the adultcrocodile (Inv. no. E 0.9.41398; total length preserved: 1 m) was accompaniedwith a label declaring it to have been brought from Upper Egypt. Several Upper Egyptian sites are associated with the cult of the crocodile: the caves of esSamun (al-Maabda) and the cemetery of al-Shutb near Kom Ombo being themost relevant sites, but crocodiles have been found also at Thebes, Esna,6 elKab,7 and Aswan.8 Therefore, under the general statement ‘Upper Egypt’ of
its label, remains highly speculative the exact provenance of this crocodile, as
too the specific context of its ‘discovery’, because so far, we have failed to findarchive data concerning the mummy’s accession to the museum9.
4 For the different types of animal mummies see Ikram 2005a; Ikram 2019, 181-182.
5 Vogliano 1937, 16. Lise 1979, cat. 21-26, records “Sei (sic) mummie di piccoli coccodrilli, 20-

25 cm (inv. E 997/1-6), without any other information nor reference to their discovery at
Tebtynis, of which he, evidently, had no knowledge. The seven mummies (accessioned to themuseum on 8/24/1937) are recorded in Vogliano's unpublished list of finds from the 1934
Tebtynis campaign. On some inaccuracies in Vogliano’s report on his work at the crocodile’s
necropolis, cfr. Gallazzi 2003, 170-171.
6 Ikram 2005a, xviii-xx.
7 Gautier 2005, 144.
8 De Cupere et al. 2023.
9 The overall reliability of the label is also questionable. More precisely, it reads: “MUMMIE DI
COCCODRILLO PORTATE DALL’ALTO EGITTO E DONATE DAL NOB. D. GIULIO VENINI (Crocodiles’

140

Sabrina Ceruti & Cinzia Oliva

Mummy conservation
Animal mummies are complex artefacts made mainly from organic remains: textiles, mostly realized with a plain weave technique in linen fromflax fibres, skeletal remains or more complete remains of animals, and sometimes anomalous material used for stuffing and producing the proper shapeof the animal (reeds, sand and mud, wooden sticks and papyrus). Of course,
there are also embalming and mummification residues that impregnate boththe textiles and the animals.
The combination of the natural oxidation and degradation of the cellulose
fibres with the embalming agents can lead to a general breakdown of the textile structure, especially in the presence of severe thermo-hygrometric variations which can occur during improper display or storage conditions. Finally,
the three-dimensional shape of the animal mummies can contribute to theirgeneral decay.
A further reason for degradation is due to the kind of mummification techniques applied and the thoroughness of the work. For bigger animals the mummification method used was similar to that of human bodies, but in smaller animals the process could have been greatly simplified and the results could affectthe final artefact.10 We have some examples in the Milanese baby crocodiles,
roughly wrapped in a single bandage and sometimes made stiffer trough the inclusion of a wooden stick. When wrappings are fragile and brittle and no longer
strongly connected with the body, the bandages could unravel and expose thebundle’s contents, affecting their cohesion and the integrity of the mummy itself.
The majority of the Milanese mummies are wrapped in undyed linen fabrics, sometimes kept in place only by means of strings or linen threads tightly
turned around the body. In most cases we found a very fragile state of conservation, with detached textile fragments that led to a loss of organic parts(Fig. 4a).
mummies brought from Upper Egypt and donated by Nob. D. Giulio Venini)”, thus mentioning diverse crocodiles, and not just one. But no other crocodile mummies have ever beenfound at the museum other than this adult/juvenile specimen and the seven baby crocodiles
that are certainly from Tebtynis. The Museum’s archives record in 1867 the donation of asmall collection of Egyptian objects by Giulio Venini/o – a military nobleman, who wasawarded the title of earl –, but a/the crocodile mummy (or more than one) is not mentioned
among them. However, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the (putative?) companionsof this survivor gone destroyed and lost during their museum history (unknown to date),leaving no further traces of them.
10 Ikram 2005b; McKnight 2010.

Animals Remains from the Egyptian Collection of Milan141

The storage conditions play a fundamental role in the good conservationof such organic material. Adverse conditions, like environmental fluctuationsin temperature and humidity, or the presence of unsuitable materials for storage (acidic card-board for boxes, woollen padding, etc.) could deeply interact
with the natural degradation of the artefacts. For example, the baby crocodiles
were conserved in ordinary tissue paper in a cardboard box, as far as we knowboth of the acid type.
The main goal of the project was to stabilize the general state of conservationof the artefacts, removing the agents of decay, without adding anything that
could irreversibly affect the fibres and organic remains in the future.
The work started with preliminary cleaning operation, in order to allow
visual access of the materials and the study of the textiles and bandages of themummies. We are all aware that cleaning is always an irreversible processthat can result in a loss of information, but it could prove to be fundamental
in removing the dangerous deposits and possible agents of further degradation.11 The cleaning allowed us to proceed with the technical study of the textile wrappings, of which we recorded in a card all the technical elements, likefibres, torsion, types of weaving and the presence of any stitching traces. It
then allowed us to proceed with the diagnostic analyses.12
The careful vacuum cleaning of the surface was carried out using a surgicalvacuum cleaner and, sometimes, when the vacuum treatment was not sufficient
in removing impregnated dirt from the fibres, we used the gentle action of vulcanised sponges which helped to remove dirt. The sponges were latex and additive free and they were tested specifically for treatments such as this.
Loose and twisted fragments have been put in place with the help of an
ultrasonic-humidifier, with cold steam in order to re-hydrate the fibres andlet them recover their original shape and position on the mummy. The following step was to provide adequate support for the wrappings and sometimes
to the artefact as a whole.
Regarding the consolidation techniques of the artefacts, the main distinction in the methodology was determined by the future life of each animal:some of them were in such poor condition that it was decided they would
have been impossible to exhibit in the museum and their greatest interest remained in the fact that they were case studies, so the main goal was to allow
full access to the materials in the future for further studies and diagnostic
11 Oliva, Borla 2019.
12 See below.

142

Sabrina Ceruti & Cinzia Oliva

tests. For the mummies to be exhibited we opted for a method that respects
the artefact and makes it ‘readable’ and accessible to the public. To hold loose
and detached fragments in position we have used a fine nylon net, properly
dyed to match the colour of the ancient material, sewn onto itself using a
curved surgical needle in order not to sew through the original material. The
choice of nylon net is justified because it is a transparent fabric, which is easy
to manipulate, with non-fraying edges and it is elastic enough to follow thethree-dimensional shape of the bodies of the mummies13. The crocodiles still
wrapped in their original bandages were protected locally by a nylon net,
sewn onto itself in order to keep fragments in place and to keep the head in
the original position. For the two crocodiles which was already unwrapped,
it was decided to keep all the elements visible and parted: the bandages, themummified animal and the broken stick, originally used to strengthen the organic remains (Fig. 1). The bandages were protected with a local support ofnylon netting, while the sticks and the body were secured to the support by a
few stitches of fine polyester thread.
To allow handling during storage and display of the artefact, it was decided
to create a flat and light support, made from a sheet of Correx (a twin-walled
polypropylene sheet) covered with polyester wadding and a linen fabric; a threedimensional support was also inserted under the head and tail sections of thecrocodile, in order to completely sustain the body and to follow its irregular profile, which is probably due to the original embalming techniques and, possibly,
to the decay of materials that occurred over the course of time.

Fig. 1: Baby crocodile Inv. Nr. E 0.9.41168, after conservation. Photo © C.
Oliva.
.
13 Oliva 2016.

Animals Remains from the Egyptian Collection of Milan143

For those objects which arecase studies andwill never be on
display, it was decided to makepermanent supports that will allow for the handling and provide
Fig. 2: Raptor Inv. nr. E 0.9.41355: example of passive
easy access to theconservation. Photo © C. Oliva.
materials in the
future. To keep everything in place, the mummies were locally or totallywrapped in nylon net, which was kept in place by cotton tapes. The cotton
tapes can easily be opened, the nylon protection removed and the artefacts
can be study, analysed and sampled in the future. The aforementioned supports were made from a sheet of Plastazote®, to which the artefact was secured by cotton tapes, protected underneath by strips of soft Plastazote, so as
to avoid too much tension on the organic remains (Fig 2).
In case of mummies with fractured but joinable parts, it was decided not
to use any adhesive substance, so as to avoid contamination for future analyses. For this reason, the animals were conserved using passive conservation
methods. To fully support the curved body underneath, carefully shaped
Plastazote was used to accommodate and support the animal. The brokenparts of the animal were kept in place using Teflon tape.
We tried to avoid as much as possible the use of metal pins to secure thethree-dimensional insertions wherever possible, thus preventing any chemical reactions occurring in the future. After testing several materials, we opted
for bamboo sticks, and cotton and Teflon tape.
The animals were then stored in acid free cardboard boxes, custom madefor each animal on their proper dimensions (Fig. 3). The baby crocodiles werestored in two boxes made by several drawers, each draw having a side thatcan slide open and a removable tray, which can be used for display and storage.

144

Sabrina Ceruti & Cinzia Oliva

Fig. 3: Cat Inv. nr. E 0.9.41364 after restoration, stored in acid free cardboard box. Photo© S. Ceruti.

Imaging of the mummies: some preliminary results
The imaging of the mummies made it possible to verify the state of preservation of the skeletons and soft tissues. It even allowed, in some cases, to reevaluate old (mis)interpretations of the remains, helping to identify the animal species. In general, the mummies of birds (except for two, highly damaged also from the outside) and fish are the better preserved under the wrappings, the mammals being the more compromised.
Some investigations are still in progress, such as the identification of thecause of death, the treatment of the bodies during the mummification process,and, in some cases, the identification of the species. For this reason, only an
overview of the CT-scans results will be provided below.
The seven birds examined, so far interpreted as two ibises and five falcons,
are actually six raptors and one ibis (Inv.no. E 0.9.41366): one bundle, previously thought to be an ibis and published as such,14 is actually a raptor (Inv.
14 Tiradritti 1999, cat. 55.

Animals Remains from the Egyptian Collection of Milan

145

no. E 1997.02.17). As for the other ‘falcons’, only one is actually so, and possibly a Falco peregrinus (E 1997.02.19),15 while the others have to be labelled moregenerally as raptors, the proper species being still under investigation (Inv.
no. E 0.9.41353-55;16 E 0.9.41365).
The two fish (Inv. no. E 0.9.41329;17 E 1997.02.1818) were both found to be
catfish of the genus Clarias, although it is very difficult to recognize the correct
species because of the high similarity between them19.
Five of the seven baby crocodiles from Tebtynis (range from c. 27 to 31 cm
in length) are still entirely wrapped (Inv. no. E 0.9.41357-41361): under the
bandages, some of them were found to have their heads detached from therest of the skeleton, and with part of the body missing. The two others (Inv.
No. E 0.9.41168; E 0.9.41356),20 presently unwrapped, are otherwise in an almost perfect state of conservation: the bandages of Inv. no. E 0.9.41168 are still
fully preserved (Fig. 1), so it must have been unwrapped after its arrival in
Milan.
The analysis of the mammals has revealed more surprises than expected.
One of the cats (Inv. no. E 0.9.41362)21 is an adult feline (age estimated byteething): its skeleton shows multiple skull and jaw fractures, possibly due toa violent death, that is the method of killing (by strangulation) to make amummy, as has been found with other examples.22 One of the other two catsturned out to be a ‘false mummy’,23 with only a fragment of the feline vertebral column inside (Inv. no. E 0.9.41364), and the second one a highly damaged specimen, with a very fractured, almost powdered skeleton (Inv. no. E
2009.01.01)24. All cat mummies show a cylindrical shape: the felines were

15 Tiradritti 1999, cat. 50 (with erroneus Inv. no.); Ceruti, Provenzali 2020, cat. 2.20.
16 Lise 1979, cat. 18-20.
17 Lise 1979, cat. 17; Ceruti, Provenzali 2020, cat. 2.17.
18 Tiradritti 1999, cat. 56 (with erroneus Inv. no).
19 Giorgio Chiozzi, personal communication.
20 Ceruti, Provenzali 2020, cat. 2.11; see also supra footnote 5.
21 Lise 1979, cat. 27-28; Ceruti, Provenzali 2020, cat. 2.5.
22 Armitage, Clutton-Brock 1980, 187; Armitage, Clutton-Brock 1981, 195; Ikram, Iskander

2002, 8-10; Raven, Taconis 2005, 240, 253, 258; Zivie, Lichtemberg 2005, 117-118; McKnight2010, 43; Pubblico 2022, 3-6.
23 For the type, see Ray 1976, 143; Kessler 1989; Ikram 2005a, 14; Raven, Taconis 2005, 240;
McKnight 2010, 81-87.
24 The mummy was accompanied with an old X-ray (1975), which the radiologist tentatively
interpreted as a falcon mummy.

146

Sabrina Ceruti & Cinzia Oliva

wrapped with the hind limbs folded upwards and the forelimbs stretcheddown along the torso.
The most interesting result was that of a bundle, 20 cm long, with very
damaged wrappings and to the touch, apparently containing almost pulverized remains, which had been labelled as a “small animal” (mammal) in themuseum’s historical catalogue, from the 1970s (Inv. no. E 0.9.41363)25. The
scans revealed a highly fragmented skeleton, with a multi-fractured skull, ofa young dog (age by teething and by the incomplete skeletal development
evidenced by caudal vertebrae: Fig. 4a-b). This result was indeed highly suspected (and expected): upon closer observation of the mummy’s external
shape, the bundle actually appeared to be very similar to the millions of dog
mummies unearthed at various sites scattered throughout Egypt.26
The most intriguing case study was that of a very small mummy, broken in
two fragments (5 and 1,84 cm long, respectively), contained in a wooden box(L. 10 x H. 4,6 x W. 5,1 cm) with a sliding lid, evidently a coffin, once supposedly
decorated with the carved image (now lost) of its content (Inv. no. E
1998.03.265).27 The two mummy fragments did not seem to have an obvious
joining point, and it was even unclear whether they belonged together, hence,in this case, the CT-scan results were highly anticipated. Unfortunately, thepoorly preserved content of the bundle itself together with the limited value ofroutine tomography imaging for very small specimens,28 for now has left ourquestions unanswered. The imaging examination could not involve a scannerwith micro-CT technology, which would have been more suitable (and desirable) for such a small bundle.29 Thus, whether it is possible to recognize in theCT-scans the (long-nose?) skull of a small animal, and so, tentatively identify it
as a species of soricidus/shrew, or possibly a similar-looking rodent, still remains
unclear. For their association with the nocturnal manifestation of the sun god,
shrews played an important role in the cult of sacred animals, particularly fromthe Late Period onwards, and many mummy containers (both wooden andlimestone) with, or without their mummified remains, have been recovered inseveral sites.30 As the long, narrow imprint of the figurine (probably wooden,
25 Lise 1979, cat. 27-28 (recorded along with the cat now Inv. no. E 0.9.41362) .
26 Dunand, Lichtenberg 2005; Dunand et al. 2015, 2017, 2019; Ikram 2013, 2014; Ikram et al.

2013; Kitagawa 2013, 2016; Nicholson et al. 2015.
27 Ceruti, Provenzali 2020, cat. 2.28b.
28 McKnight 2010, 114.

29 Cf. Panzer et al. 2020; O’Mahony et al. 2020.
30 Brunner-Traut 1965; Ikram 2005c, 316-317; Woodman, Ikram, Rowland 2021; Onderka 2022.

Animals Remains from the Egyptian Collection of Milan147

Fig. 4a-b: Young dog Inv. nr. E 0.9.41363: (a) before conservation (Photo © S. Ceruti);(b) CT-scan with bones.

as the box) previously glued on the coffin lid seems to be quite consistent with
the image of a shrew, it is tempting to think of this Milanese coffin as the ultimately resting place of such a small mammal.31
The curatorial team decided not to proceed further in the clinical diagnostics, and to not sample for invasive analyses, such as radiocarbon dating (14C).
This decision was taken to maintain the good conservation state of the bestpreserved mummies, and not to cause further decay in the more damaged
ones.
The last phase of the project – which we hope to be carry out in the near
future – will be to realize a three-dimensional presentation of the mummies,
thus gaining the possibility of virtually displaying them to the public, in cases
where their physical display will not be possible or appropriate, due, again,
to ethical and preservation reasons or lack of space in the future new Egyptian
exhibition gallery.
31 Ikram 2005c.

148

Sabrina Ceruti & Cinzia Oliva

Concluding remarks
The Milanese animal mummies are an antiquarian collection, basicallycomprising items that reveal the curiosity for the ancient Egyptian culture of
the travellers or amateurs who bought them as souvenirs on the antiquities
market, and thus shares this characteristic with many others Egyptian collection around the world.
Even if the stimulus for the establishment of the animal mummies’ study
and conservation project was a practical one – that is, to stabilize the largely
compromised state of preservation of the artefacts – it made it possible for themuseum to better understand this group of remains, and also expanded thedataset of other Egyptian Animal Mummy projects,32 thus further contributing to our understanding of divine cult and the religious practice of animals
worship in ancient Egypt.33
Acknowledgement
The authors are deeply grateful to Anna Provenzali, chief curator of the
Civic Archaeological Museum, for involving us from the very beginning in
the project presented in this paper, and thus granting permission to introduce
it within the Symposium. Our thanks go to the staff of the Department of Veterinary Medicine & Animal Sciences of the University, Milan / University Veterinary Hospital, Lodi, specifically to Davide Zani and Jessica Bassi, and finally to Giorgio Chiozzi (Civic Museum of Natural History, Milan) for his
early advice on CT scans of birds and fish, and to Alessandro Pubblico (Veterinary Medicine, Naples). Thanks are also to the anonymous reviewers fortheir suggestions to improve this presentation.

Bibliography
J. Anderson, D. Antoine, 2019. Scanning Sobek. Mummy of the Crocodile
God, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water andSky. Essay on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 31-37. Leiden.

32 An updated overview in Ikram 2019, 184-85; cf. also McKnight 2010; McKnight, Atherton-

Woolham 2015.

33 Lastly, Colonna 2021.

Animals Remains from the Egyptian Collection of Milan

149

P. L. Armitage, J. Clutton-Brock, 1980. Egyptian mummified cats held by the
British Museum, MASCA. Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 1, 185188.
P. L. Armitage, J. Clutton-Brock, 1981. A Radiological and Histological Investigation into the Mummification of Cats from Ancient Egypt, JAS 8, 185196.
E. Brunner-Traut, 1965. Spitzmaus und Ichneumon als Tieres der Sonnengottes, NAWG 7, 123-163.
S. Ceruti, A. Provenzali (ed.), 2020. Sotto il Cielo di Nut. Egitto divino (Exhibition
catalogue). Milano.
A. Colonna, 2021. Religious Practice and cultural Construction of Animal Worshipin Egypt from the Early Dynastic to the New Kingdom. Ritual forms, material
display, historical development. Oxford.
B. De Cupere, W. van Neer, V. Barba Colmenero, A. Jiménez Serrano 2023.
Newly discovered crocodile mummies of variable quality from an undisturbed tomb at Qubbat-al-Hawā (Aswan, Egypt), PLoS ONE 18(1)[https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279137].
F. Dunand, R. Lichtenberg, 2005. Des chiens momifiés à el-Deir. Oasis deKharga, BIFAO 105, 75-87.
F. Dunand, R. Lichtenberg, C. Callou, 2015. Dogs at el Deir, in S. Ikram, J.
Kaiser, R. Walker (eds.) Egyptian Bioarchaeology. Humans, Animals, and theEnvironment, 169-176. Leiden.
F. Dunand, R. Lichtenberg, C. Callou, S. Letellier-Willemin, 2017. El-Deir Nécropole IV. Les Chiens d’El Deir. Paris.
F. Dunand, R. Lichtenberg, C. Callou, S. Letellier-Willemin, 2019. Des chiens
et des bandelettes, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures ofEarth, Water, and Sky. Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 145-153.
Leiden.
C. Gallazzi, 2003. La prima campagna di Vogliano in Egitto. Gli scavi diTebtynis e gli acquisti di papiri, in C. Gallazzi, L. Lehnus (eds.), Achille
Vogliano Cinquant’anni dopo, Quaderni di Acme 59, 131-195. Milano.
A. Gautier, 2005. Animals Mummies and Remains at the Necropolis of El-Kab,
Archaeofauna 14, 139-170.

150

Sabrina Ceruti & Cinzia Oliva

S. Ikram, 2005a. Divine Creatures. Animal Mummies, in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine
Creatures. Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt, 1-15. Cairo.
S. Ikram, 2005b. Manufacturing Divinity. The Technology of Mummification,in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine Creatures. Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt, 16-43.
Cairo.
S. Ikram, 2005c. A monument in miniature. The eternal resting place of ashrew, in P. Jánosi (ed.), Structure and significance. Thoughts on Ancient
Egyptian Architecture, UZK 25, 315-320. Wien.
S. Ikram, 2013. A curious case of Canine Burials at Abydos, in M.C. Flossmann-Schütze, M. Goecke-Bauer, F. Hoffmann (eds.), Kleine Götter – Grosse
Götter. Festschrift für Dieter Kessler zum 65. Geburstag, 265-271. Vetterstetten.
S. Ikram, 2014. Canine Cults in Kharga Oasis: The Dogs of Dabashiya, in G.
Tallet, Ch. Zivie-Coche (eds.), Le myrte et la rosa. Mélanges offerts à Françoise
Dunand par ses élèves, collègues et amis, CENiM 9, 349-355. Montpellier.
S. Ikram, 2019. Shedding New Light on Old Corpses. Development in the
Field of Animal Mummy Studies, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.),
Creatures of Earth, Water and Sky. Essay on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 179-191. Leiden.
S. Ikram, N. Iskander, 2002. Non-Human Mummies. Catalogue Général of Egyptian Antiquities in the Cairo Museum, Nos. 24048-24056; 29504-29903 (selected); 51084-51101; 61089. Cairo.
S. Ikram, P. Nicholson, L. Bertini, D. Hurley, 2013. Killing Man’s Best Friend,
ARC 28/2, 48-66.
D. Kessler, 1989. Die heiligen Tiere und der König, I: Beiträge zur Organisation,
Kult und Theologie der spätzeitlichen Tierfriedhöfe, ÄAT 16. Wiesbaden.
C. Kitagawa, 2013. Tombs of Dogs in Gebel Asyut al-gharbi (Middle Egypt,Late to Ptolemaic/Roman period): preliminary result on the canid remains,in B. De Cupere, V. Linseele, S. Hamilton-Dyer (eds.), Archaeozoology of the
Near East X. Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South Western Asia and Adjacent Areas, ANES Supp. 44, 343-356.
Leuven.
C. Kitagawa, 2016. The Tomb of Dogs at Asyut. Faunal Remains and Other Selected
Object. The Asyut Project 9. Wiesbaden.

Animals Remains from the Egyptian Collection of Milan

151

G. Lise, 1979. Museo Archeologico. Raccolta Egizia. Milano.
L. M. McKnight, 2010. Imaging Applied to Animal Mummification in Ancient
Egypt. Oxford.
L. M. McKnight, S. Atherton-Woolham (eds.), 2015. Gifts of the Gods. Ancient
Egyptian Animal Mummies and the British. Liverpool.
P. T. Nicholson, S. Ikram, S. Mills, 2015. The Catacombs of Anubis at North
Saqqara, Antiquity 89, 645-661.
C. Oliva, M. Borla, 2019. The Conservation of Animal Mummies. Problems
and Possible Solutions, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creaturesof Earth, Water and Sky. Essay on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 259266. Leiden.
C. Oliva, 2016. The Conservation of Egyptian Mummies in Italy, Techne 44,
122-26.
P. Onderka, 2022. A Shrew Mummy in the Collection of the Náprstek Museum, Annals of the Náprstek Museum 43/2, 183-190.
T. O’Mahoney, L. Mcknight, T. Lowe, M. Mednikova, J. Dunn, 2020. A machine learning based approach to the segmentation of micro CT data inarchaeological and evolutionary sciences, bioRxiv [https://doi.org/10.1101/
859983 (pre-print)].
M. D. Pubblico, 2022. Making a Cat Mummy. Some Case Studies from ItalianCollections, Archeologie fra Oriente e Occidente CISA 1, 1-13.
J. D. Ray, 1976. The Archive of Hor, EES Texts from Excavations 2. London.
M. J. Raven, W.K. Taconis, 2005. Egyptian Mummies. Radiological Atlas of theCollections in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leida. Turnhout.
F. Tiradritti (ed.). 1999. Il cammino di Harwa. L’uomo di fronte al mistero: l’Egitto(Exhibition catalogue). Milano.
A. Vogliano, 1937. Papiri della R. Università di Milano, Volume I. Milano.
N. Woodman, S. Ikram, J. Rowland, 2021. A New Addition to the Embalmed
Fauna of ancient Egypt: Güldenstaedt’s White-toothed Shrew, Crocidura
gueldenstaedtii (Pallas, 1811) (Mammalia: Eulipotyphla: Soricidae), PLoS
ONE 16(4): e0249377 [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249377].

152

Sabrina Ceruti & Cinzia Oliva

N. Woodman, S. Ikram, J. Rowland, 2022. Environmental implications of Ptolemaic Period Rodents and Shrews from the Sacred Falcon Necropolis ad
Quesna (Egypt) (Mammalia: Muridae and Suricidae), BMC Ecology and
Evolution 22(1):148 [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-022-02101-x].
A. Zivie, R. Lichtemberg, 2005. The Cats of the Goddess Bastet, in S. Ikram(ed.), Divine Creatures. Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt, 106-119. Cairo.

Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt:
A Comparison between Animal Iconography and Faunal Remains of the Bagrus Fish
Ramona D’AlfonsoIntroduction
In analysing Egypt's extensive artistic heritage, the iconography of the Old Kingdom stands out for its rural and naturalistic imagery. The concentration of animal andplant species here reaches high levels, both in terms of quantity and quality of representation. These images have attracted much attention in the last century and havebeen systematically investigated as a source of important information. The reliefs havebeen analysed numerous times by recently introducing concepts that allow for moreaccurate interpretations. In the challenging attempt to read these images, the intra-cultural perspective of the emic approach plays a key role1.
Researchers have been aware of the presence of decorum within Egyptianart for decades. As Baines defines decorum as a set of rules establishing what
can be represented and how it can be represented.2 Moreno Garcia offers afurther clarifying definition:“Par ailleurs, l’art égyptien était l’expression des valeurs et de la vision du monde del’élite, de telle sorte que le «réalisme» et le «naturalisme» tant des images individuelles que des compositions obéit, en fait, à des critères d’ordre idéologique qui articulent
l’interprétation du monde et la vision du rôle social d’une couche, minoritaire, de lapopulation égyptienne. L’iconographie présente donc une interprétation partielle, biaisée et standardisée de la réalité, tout comme les autobiographies dans le domaine littéraire ou les prétendus «portraits» dans la statuaire”.3

Despite the awareness that these images do not represent pure but rather
filtered reality, they are still sometimes riskily referred to as daily life scenes.
The filter that encodes these images has gained widespread recognition inrecent decades and the question here is to what extent it impacts the
1 “An emic approach, therefore, is a study from the culture system itself, using internal criteria and concepts,

while an etic one is from the outside via external criteria and general concepts.” van Walsem 2005, 49.

2 Baines 1990, 20.

3 Moreno Garcia 2006, 217-18.

154

Ramona D’Alfonsorepresentation of animals. Special attention needs to be paid to those species
which, unlike mammals, are often overlooked.
The present work analysed the fauna of Old Kingdom iconography andcompared it with faunal remains from the same era. The aim is to determine
whether the species depicted in art were the same as those in ancient Egyptian
daily life. Close attention is paid to fish and birds to add a different perspective to the current state of research. The finding of this study illustrates significant inconsistencies regarding the Bagrus catfish, which is absent from theiconography but frequently present in the faunal remains

Methods
The comparative analysis proposed in this research consists of two parts. The
first involved the study of Old Kingdom images. The reliefs were selected according to conservation parameters to collect complete and precise image samples. The
material was acquired from approximately one hundred and fifty structures andsubsequently divided according to the context. This includes slaughtering, fieldwork, orchards, feeding, hunting in the desert, offering bearers, fowling, fishing,and hunting in the marsh. As animals were the focus of the current research, representations that excluded animals were not examined. The repetition and standardisation of the pictures resulted in a vast and uniform catalogue of animal species.
Each species was carefully studied through its depictions and contexts. Their mention in Old Kingdom texts has also been subject to analysis.
The second focused on zooarchaeology. Unfortunately, not all excavation teams
include zooarchaeologists, which means that faunal remains are often unstudied.
To gather reliable and precise data, only archaeological excavations with zooarchaeologists were selected for the current research. Then, the present analysis offaunal remains is based on studies that produce comprehensive zooarchaeologicalrecords, such as those from the Old Kingdom sites of Ayn Asil,4 Al-Shaykh Saʿīd,5Elephantine,6 Buto,7 Kom el-Hisn,8 Khentkawes’ complex,9 and Heit el-Gurab.10

4 Lesur 2015.
5 Willems et al. 2009.
6 Hollmann 1990; Kaiser 1978; Kaiser 1981; Kopp 2009.
7 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1997.
8 Wenke, Cagle and Redding 2016, 139-204.
9 Tavares et al. 2014.
10 Redding 2010.

Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt

155

Taphonomic studies indicate that bones preserve differently, and that they
are affected by their size, density, the soil, and other taphonomic facts. Different environmental contexts, species variability and preservation conditions
are therefore considered in this research.
A similar attempt had already been carried out in the past, highlighting
the absence of the pig in Old Kingdom iconography. Volokhine conducted acomprehensive investigation into this and the relative inconsistency between
iconographies and zooarchaeological records.11 Despite similar approaches,
this paper considers other species that appear in iconographies, such as birds
and fish.
Comparing iconography and zooarchaeological records cannot be accomplished superficially. It would be limited to drawing up two simple lists ofanimals (in iconographies and archaeofaunal reports), comparing them andidentifying what is absent in what context. There may be some underlying
reasons behind what is not shown, which should be carefully investigatedas thoroughly as possible.
Each animal species should be considered individually, i.e., examining
their habitats, physical features, and behaviors. A study of their depiction inart and literature is also inevitable. An in-depth investigation remains essential in understanding the Egyptian's perception of each species and the possible religious associations.

Results
As mentioned earlier, research using a similar approach had already been
carried out and had led to significant outcomes regarding the conception of
the pig in ancient Egypt.12 The same result comes from this research, as thepig is one of the species absent from Old Kingdom iconography. Yet, it is not
the only one.13
Besides some physical remains of mammals which are absent from the archaeological sites apparently due to their peculiarly wild nature – e.g., Lion
(Panthera leo), Barbary Sheep (Ammotragus lervia), Egyptian Mongoose
11 Volokhine 2014, 81-92.
12 Ibid.
13 In the current survey, the pig (Sus sp.) is found in the following settlements: Elephantine(41 fr.), Buto (1268 fr.), Kom el- Hisn (716 fr.), Khentkawes complex (23 fr.), Heit el-Gurab(1000 fr.). Although important in the diet, it remains absent from Old Kingdom iconographies; see D’Alfonso 2020, 125-54.

156

Ramona D’Alfonso(Herpestes ichneumon), Common Genet (Genetta genetta) – the most glaring inconsistencies occur with regard to fish and birds.
In the swampland hunting scenes birds with distinctive colours andshapes are often identified, such as Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Kingfisher(Alcedo atthis), Pied Kingfisher (Ceryle rudis), Hoopoe (Upupa epops), and Golden
Oriole (Oriolus oriolus), as reported by Houlihan.14 Although ubiquitous in
iconographic contexts, their bones have not been found in Old Kingdom sites.
It may be reasonable to assume that food choices frequently fell on common
species such as duck or goose and left these wilder species aside. The colourful and showy nature of these species can easily be considered the main reason for their depictions in art. On the contrary, some birds are identified in
the archaeological context but absent in the iconography, such as Common
Coat (Fulica atra), Moorhen (Gallinula sp.), or Stork (Ciconia sp.). As anticipated by von den Driesch and Peters,15 the latter species is absent in Egypt
while has a higher occurrence on Elephantine Island due to its migratory
movements. For the galliform birds, on the other hand, there is a lack of imagery that matches the rarity of faunal finds.16
Within the aquatic sphere, significant data concern the Gilt-Head Bream(Sparus aurata) and the Bagrus catfish (Bagrus sp.).17 Sparus aurata appears withno less than 141 finds in settlement of Kom el-Hisn and is absent from theiconography. Its omission is justified through its marine and not riverine nature.18 As Kom el-Hisn is close to the Mediterranean Sea, and was even closer
at that time,19 the presence of this fish in the archaeological rather than in the
iconographic sample can be logically explained. However, there are notabledata concerning the Bagrus catfish. As shown in Tab. 1, the presence of thisfish has been identified in four of the seven settlements analysed, with anabundance of finds on Elephantine Island. Although the species is known to
14 Houlihan 1996, 93-131.
15 von den Driesch and Peters 2008.
16 Species absent from the iconography but present with a few bones remains, e.g., Common

Moorhen (Gallinula chlorophus) (1 fr. at Kom el-Hisn); Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) (1fr. at Heit el-Gurab); Common Coat (Fulica atra) (6 fr. at Kom el-Hisn and 34 fr. at Heit elGurab). All of them are absent from the other Old Kingdom sites surveyed; see D’Alfonso2020, 143-54.
17 Other inconsistencies concern some species such as Claroteid catfish (Auchenoglanis occidentalis and Clarotes sp.), and Polypterus (Polypterus bichir.), but their absence in the iconography matches their rarity in the osteological findings; see D’Alfonso 2020, 125-54.
18 Wenke, Cagle and Redding 2016, 153.
19 Ivi, 3.

Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt

Bagrussp.

Ayn
asil20

Al
Shayk
Said21041

Elephantine: Satettemple22+ B sector
XVIII231140 +
4514

157

Buto24

Kom
elHisn25

Kentkawes
complex,
Giza26Heit
elGurab,
Giza27070

0Attested28

Tab. 1. The number of bone fragments of the Bagrus sp. (NISP: Number of Identified
Specimens).

occur in the Egyptian riverine environment, it is missing from the iconographic context and there is no apparent or logical explanation for this discrepancy.29 Accordingly, the Bagrus here represents the most remarkable inconsistency between zooarchaeological records and Old Kingdom iconography.
As mentioned earlier, this research brings together zooarchaeological data
produced by various researchers, each using a separate sample recovery
method.30 Furthermore, one must also keep in mind the context of these archaeological finds since different animal taxa might be found, depending onwhether the site is a temple, a house, a slaughterhouse etc. The same applies
to habitats and geographic regions: each species has its natural and ideal

20 Lesur 2015, 37.
21 Willems et al. 2009, 27.
22 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1982, 105-8.
23 von den Driesch and Peters 2018, 147-50.
24 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1997, 210-6.
25 Wenke, Cagle and Redding 2016, 146-55.
26 Tavares et al. 2014, 36-9.
27 Redding 2010, 67-73.
28 number of findings not declared by the author; see Redding 2010, 67.
29 Brewer and Friedman 1989, 66.
30 Reitz and Wing 2008, 146-52.

158

Ramona D’Alfonsoenvironment. An analysis of these data reports by different zooarchaeologists
should take into account all the variables mentioned above.
It can be seen from Tab. 1 that the sites of Ayn Asil, Buto and the
Khentkawes complex do not yield any Bagrus osteofaunal remains. In Giza,
the Heit el-Gurab settlement contains Bagrus’ bones, although the NISP
(number of identified specimens) is unspecified.31 By contrast, there is an appreciable number of finds at Kom el-Hisn and Al-Shaykh Said, whereas Elephantine – with its two Old Kingdom survey areas – shows an abundance of
Bagrus remains, exceeding 5000 fragments.
The Satet temple area shows 1140 Bagrus bone fragments.32 The MNI (minimum number of individuals) is estimated at 130. It appears that fish of the
Bagrus catfish were laid intact in this area, probably after sacrificial meals.33
From the favourable state of preservation, the length of these specimens was
also estimated, with an average of about 95 cm. On the other hand, Area
BXVIII consists of settlement remains to the west of the Satet temple.34 Here,fish remains are far more numerous than mammals. Adding up the findings
from the various layers between the Second and Sixth Dynasties, the number
reaches no less than 4514 Bagrus fragments.35 Apart from considering the island environment, the temple context of these bones calls into question therelevance of this catfish.36

Discussion
To gain a deeper understanding of the reasons why Bagrus is absent from
iconographies, the scope of research must be widened. It is known from the

31 Redding does not report the precise number of Bagrus fragments found but stipulates aranking with marine species, from the most present to the rarely identified. The Bagrus ranks
seventh. The study is described as still incomplete and ongoing in the coming years; see Redding 2010, 67.
32 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1982, 118.
33 Ivi, 105.
34 von den Driesch and Peters 2018.
35 Ivi, 150.
36 Remains of similar species, such as Nile perch (Lates niloticus), are about half. No otherspecies (aquatic or not) reaches these amounts; see Boessneck and von den Driesch 1982; vonden Driesch and Peters 2018.

Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt

159

literature that the
Bagrus catfish (Fig. 1)
belongs to the family
Siluridae.37 Two species are present in the
Nile habitat: Bagrus
docmak and Bagrus
bayad.38
Accordingto
Brewer and FriedFig. 1: Bagrus docmac, Boulenger 1907, Pl. LVIII.
man, these two species can be easily distinguished by the differences in their caudal and dorsal
fins.39 Boessneck and von den Driesch point out the differences in the shapeof the skulls,40 as shown in Fig. 2. The species is characterised by its flattened
head, short dorsal fins, and long adipose dorsal fin.41 It also has four pairs ofbarbels: one nasal, one maxillary, and two mandibular. Adult specimens canreach a maximum size of 1 m. While the Bagrus bayad has a silver-grey colour
on its back and white on its belly, the Bagrus docmac has a greyish/olive blue
with a white belly; both may have gold/green highlights.42 As seen during anexperiment in captivity,43 the Bagrus spends almost all day hiding among therocks while it is active at night. It prefers deep, well-oxygenated waters andfeeds mainly on larvae, shrimps, small fish, and mollusks.44 Even today, it iscommonly known by Egyptian fishermen, who sell it at the market in quantities.45 Studies carried out by Van Neer attest its presence in Egypt since ancient times, in such large amounts that it was exported to the Levant and the
Red Sea.46 It is one of the most known fish in the Nile ecosystem.
37 Boulenger 1907, 323.
38 Boulenger also identifies Bagrus degeni, belonging to Victoria Lake; see Boulenger 1907, 331-

332.
39 Brewer and Friedman 1989, 66.
40 Boessneck and von den Driesch 1982, 105-8.
41 Boulenger 1907, 323.
42 Ivi, 324-30.
43 Ivi, 327.
44 Brewer and Friedman 1989, 66.
45 Sahrhage 1997, 59.
46 From the Iron Age to the Ptolemaic-Roman period, there are finds of the Bagrus from the

Nile in cities such as Caesarea, Tell Ashqelon, Tell Miqne, Berenike, Lachish, Tell Dor,
Kasarvit, Tell Malhata, Tell Miqne; see Van Neer et al. 2004, 108-17.

160

Ramona D’AlfonsoFig. 2: Skull of Bagrus
docmac (above) and
Bagrus bayad (below).
Boessneck and vonden Driesch 1982, Pl.
VIII.

Studying the characteristics of this species allows us to decipher Tab. 1 better.
The rocky, deep, and well-oxygenated habitat preferred by the Bagrus gives us
an insight into its prominent presence in Elephantine. The environment around
Elephantine island lends itself perfectly to the living conditions of this fish, flowing fast and creating many fluvial currents. Moreover, while other species enter
the floodplain every year to spawn, it stays in the main river for most of its lifetime, being very sensitive to the lack of oxygen.47 Whereas species such as Tilapia
fish (Tilapia sp.) or Clarid catfish (Clarias sp.) were caught in large quantities in theresidual pools after the flood, Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and Bagrus catfish(Bagrus sp.) hardly ever left the main riverbed.48 To spawn, they do not enter thefloodplain but lay their eggs in the main channel near the bank.49 These are cyclical behaviors that Egyptian fishermen knew well and on which they based theiractivities and yields.50
While it is possible to obtain a wide variety of information from the ecological and zoological sides, the same cannot be said for the iconographic one.
The Bagrus is absent from Old Kingdom iconography and its name in ancient
Egyptian is not known to date. Consequently, it cannot be identified in the
texts.

47 Van Neer 1994, 20.
48 Ivi, 20.

49 Ivi, 253.
50 Id. 1994, 21-22.

Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt

161

In previous studies, Bagrus has only been identified once in the tomb of
Ukh-Hotep at Meir, dated to the Middle Kingdom.51 A blurred and barely visible image of this figure has already been presented but without indicating
the room or wall of the tomb where it is located.52 So far, there is no clear
image of the Bagrus and no indication of where this image can be foundwithin the relevant publication.53
Through the methodological approach used in this study, a trained eye inthe recognition of animal species in Egyptian art has been developed. According to the author, the species can be found on the south wall of the outer room.
It is marked by the black circle in Fig. 3. Hunting takes place in a marsh, themost complete type of iconographic context related to animals. Although thestate of preservation of this tomb allows only the figures’ outlines to be distinguished, a previously unseen figure could be identified here.

Fig. 3: Tomb of Ukh-Hotep at Meir, XII Dyn. The outer room, south wall. Blackman
1915, Pl. VIII.

51 Brewer and Friedman 1989, 66.
52 Ivi, 66.

53 Blackman 1915.

162

Ramona D’AlfonsoEvery animal species – whether belonging to the aquatic or terrestrial
sphere – has precise contours that can be recognised through a trained study.
In this extensive research on the Old Kingdom iconography, the author has
never encountered the species highlighted in Fig. 3. Based on its physical characteristics, this new form looks indeed like that of a Bagrus.
As anticipated, there is only a single depiction of this species in all Egyptian art. However, the archaeological remains also outside Egypt demonstrate
a significant presence of Bagrus in everyday life. The question arises why
Bagrus is only depicted once in art, in a provincial tomb.
Thanks to the extensive fish study conducted by Gamer-Wallert,54 further
references to Bagrus and his presence in Egypt come up. Excavations undertaken by Loat in 1904 in the animal cemetery of Gurob, 19th dynasty55 seemto have uncovered five Bagrus docmak mummies. The three egg-shaped pitsthat contained them were identified as numbers 22, 23, and 39. Number 22
presents a specimen without any preservative, while number 23 presents a
Bagrus docmak wrapped in ashes (a common preservative). Pit number 39 isperhaps the most interesting, where three specimens were buried under layers of grass, ropes, sticks, and ashes. In this case, the mouths and body cavities
were also filled with ashes. These are the only Bagrus specimens, as the entire
cemetery has mainly Lates niloticus remains.
Looking for general information about the Bagrus, it turns out that thesemummies are just a few of their kind. Brier and Bennett reported information
on two mummies unfortunately without context.56 Their report states that themummies were received in 1976 and fully opened for an autopsy. The first
Bagrus bayad specimen shows several layers of reeds and cloth, with black circles painted at the eyes. It was not possible to tell whether the organs had been
removed, as the internal tissue had been devoured by fly larvae. Still attachedwere two barbels of around 32 cm and the brain remained undamaged aswell. The second specimen – received a few months after the previous one –is similarly described in terms of the mummification method. The pattern ofthe bands led the authors to conclude that they belonged to the Ptolemaic period. Five more mummies like these Bagrus were recovered a year later but
only had X-rays examinations. The authors stated that they left the

54 Gamer-Wallert 1970.
55 Loat 1904, 5-6.

56 Brier and Bennet 1979.

Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt

163

investigation of all these mummies open for future publications, which unfortunately have not been forthcoming.57
These remain the best-known, but perhaps not the only ones. Three mummies identified as Bagrus are listed in the British Museum catalogue. Labelledby the numbers EA35740, EA35741, and EA35742, these are more like mummies fragments from Thebes. Due to the poor state of preservation, there areunfortunately no pictures or other relevant information.58
Although devoid of any depiction or mention, various information about
this species can be gleaned. Before proceeding with the hypothesis concerning
the absence of the Bagrus, it is worth clarifying a few points.
Firstly, the art encountered in the tombs' reliefs presents a decorum: an art
that repeats itself with the same themes and styles. Copies and replicas areentered into a system of identification and legitimization.59
The figures are almost always identical and often arranged in the sameorder. As predicted by Moreno Garcia, it is a codified art and an active communication tool.60
In related studies, Davis also hypothesised that the canon in art represented historical events in a highly conventionalised way.61 Records gradually
become more abstract, generalised, or symbolic through transformations. It
arose with the emergence of central power and took the form of an ideologicalselection over pre-canonical alternatives.62 Even when the intention is to represent richness, aspects of nature cannot be represented entirely due to spaceissues. The straightforward conventional selection operation must therefore
be recognized.63 Thus, the canon is a selection of images that have a specificvalue in the eyes of the creator. The worth of images can certainly be subjective, which is where the importance of the emic approach mentioned in the
introduction returns.
Hence, these images constitute a filter of the creator's eye and a way inwhich the world can be controlled and mastered. Through these images,
knowledge of the Egyptian environment and the surrounding world is
57 Brier and Bennet 1979, 133.
58 British Museum n.d.
59 Kahl 2010.
60 Moreno Garcia 2006, 219.
61 Davis 1985.
62 The same happens in historical periods when the central power is less strong, the canon

ceases to be used, and new types of images emerge; see Davis 1985, 335-7.

63 Davis 1985, 363-5.

164

Ramona D’Alfonsoconveyed. In this regard, images define and circumscribe human knowledge.
An example can be given through one of the most common representations in
Old Kingdom iconography: trawl fishing. Through the investigation of thenumerous reliefs, it turns out that there is a repeating pattern among the fish
inside the net. The Mullet (Mugil sp.) is not always but often the first depicted,
with its snout upwards almost as if it wants to come out of the water. This
had already been noted by Elsbergen: the trawl net used for this type of intensive fishing is deployed on wide riverbeds and the people involved are
urged to move quickly.64 This speed would be justified by the short-lived passage of the Mugilids, who – migrating en masse at specific times of the year –become the main target of these fishing sessions. Evidence of this is also provided in the Chamber of Seasons of Niuserra, where the arrival of the Mugilids is not only announced but presided over by a government authority.65 It
could therefore be argued that these images capture some form of knowledge.
Secondly, the current study on Old Kingdom iconography reveals the detailed degree of observation that Egyptians had towards animals. Species intheir habitats were depicted with their features and behavior without any
need for descriptions. This can be seen in many scenes: e.g., goats climbing
trees, frightened herds crossing the river ford or mongooses trying to steal
birds' eggs. Even in aquatic contexts, it is possible to find remarkable details:
for instance, the depiction of the Upside-down catfish (Synodontis batensoda),
which – having its mouth on the underside of its skull – swims on its back totake advantage of the food on the water surface. These are actual animal behaviors that the Egyptians knew about.
Just as today, some animal manners are part of common knowledge. However, this specific knowledge involves many species that differ from eachother and belong to various ecosystems. If one thinks mainly of fish, these are
not easily seen by most people. These animals are primarily known to fishermen and those who encounter them daily. This attitude cannot be assumed tobe known by everyone; it arose as specific cultural and non-epistemic
knowledge belonging to specific groups of people.66

64 Elsbergen 1997, 21-3.
65 Seyfried 2019 vol. VII, 82.

Epistemic knowledge is institutionalised, universally recognised knowledge. It is aknowledge that has materiality, space and organisation; see Cancik-Kirschbaum, Kahl andLee 2018, 2.

66

Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt

165

Conclusion
While some scholars had already noted Bagrus' absence,67 the present
study specifically examined the iconography, explored the catfish's behavior
and clearly identified its single image.
Various reasons can be given for its absence in Egyptian iconography. As
some studies made clear, the most obvious answer could be deduced from thehabits of this fish: it is mainly nocturnal, spends most of its lifetime on thebottom and swim less in secondary channels.68 Being at greater depths andpreferring well-oxygenated waters, it was probably more difficult to notice.
As a result, it may have probably been forgotten when the catalogue of canonical figures was compiled or perhaps deliberately under-represented byother catfish, such as the Synodontis.
If one considers Davis' hypothesis, the canon presents historical events ina highly conventional manner. Records become gradually more abstract, generalised or symbolic through a series of transformations.69 Likely, Bagrus catfish might be simply absent at the time of this recording. However, as von den
Driesch also states, it is puzzling that it was not included in the canon later,
being a species of prime importance in the Nilotic habitat.70
From a religious perspective, it is possible to consider the nocturnal habitsof this fish and its feasible negative reputation. Just as the pig has habits that
exclude it from elite diet and iconography, the same could be applied to the
Bagrus. However, these are personal assumptions as no sources currently
confirm this.
Furthermore, the question of the seven mummies is a matter for investigation. From an ideological perspective, the absence of the Bagrus in the
iconographies is inconsistent with the previously mentioned mummies, particularly those found in the animal cemetery of Gurob. Animal mummies
were known to have been part of an entire economic system during the Late
Period; this may point to the Bagrus being wrapped by mistake or as a filler
out of abundance. Nevertheless, these mummies inevitably give rise to theidea that the species has a special value, so much so that it was buried in a
New Kingdom cemetery like other well-known sacred species. Similarly, the67 von den Driesch 1986, 17-25; Brewer and Friedman 1989, 66.
68 Boulenger 1907, 324-30; van Neer 1994, 20.
69 Davis 1985, 529.

70 von den Driesch 1986, 17-25.

166

Ramona D’Alfonso

Elephantine context can also be emphasised, where Bagrus osteo-faunal remains are identified as remnants of sacrificial meals.
Considering the canonical aspect of images and their selection, the fascinating question to ask is about knowledge. Since these species were known tofishermen, how did they come to be truthfully represented in elite art with
their related features and behaviors? Knowledge of a specific craft passed
through several levels of society, being successively filtered and codified inan elite context. A different setting from the one in which the knowledge wascreated.71
It is conceivable to state that this originates as specific cultural and nonepistemic knowledge, becoming institutionalised on tomb walls.72 It is notcomplete and pure knowledge but filtered and controlled by elites’ ideologies.73
Whether Bagrus was voluntarily excluded from this system is a question
we will continue to ask ourselves, hoping to find new insights to expand thecatalogue of possible answers. Firstly, the discovery of the name Bagrus in
ancient Egyptian might be helpful for the future of this research. This would
lead to identifying it in texts74 and understanding whether it was included in
the literature. Secondly, further investigations may focus on how the images
were acquired75 and how the knowledge about animals reached the elite andthe artists.

71 In this case, the transfer concerns the spatial and social dimension, with actors belonging

to distant social classes; see Cancik-Kirschbaum, Kahl and Lee 2018, 1-16.
72 Such knowledge – commonly passed down orally – is institutionalised through the elite

who fixed it within a system of images that describes the Egyptian world and the knowledge
they had of it. In this process, the specific cultural knowledge does not remain inscribedwithin the belonging social group but becomes a shared memory.
73 On the other hand, knowledge is always altered during transfer processes by adapting; see
Althoff, Berrens, and Pommerening 2019, 19. In the field of knowledge modification strategies, it would be interesting to understand the degree of consciousness of these modifications. Moreover, there are several factors to consider: who the mediators were (probably different from the actors who possessed the knowledge), the places of exchange, the routes oftransfer as well as the motivations; see Pommerening 2018.
74 As has already been done for other species.
75 For artists to be so precise in their representations, were animals observed dead or in theirnatural environment? This alluring question concerns how and where knowledge was exchanged.

Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt

167

Bibliography
J. Althoff, D. Berrens, T. Pommerening, 2019. The Construction and Transfer
of Knowledge in the Pre-Modern Era, in J. Althoff, D. Berrens, T. Pommerening (eds.), Finding, Inheriting or Borrowing?: The Construction andTransfer of Knowledge in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, 13-38. Bielefeld.
R. G. Bailey, 1994. Guide to the fishes of the River Nile in the republic of the
Sudan, J. Nat. Hist. 28, 937-70.
J. Baines, 2006. Restricted Knowledge, Hierarchy and Decorum: Modern Perception and Ancient Institution, JARCE 27, 1-23.
J. Baines, 2007. Visual and Written Culture in Ancient Egypt. Oxford.
S. Beck, 2019. The Transfer of Knowledge from Mesopotamia to Egypt, in J.
Althoff, D. Berrens, T. Pommerening (eds.), Finding, Inheriting or Borrowing?: The Construction and Transfer of Knowledge in Antiquity and the Middle
Ages, 13-38. Bielefeld.
A. M. Blackman, 1915. The rock tombs of Meir: Part. III: The tomb-chapel of UkhHotp son of Ukh-Hotp and Mersi. London.
J. Boessneck, 1981. Gemeinsame Anliegen von Ägyptologie und Zoologie aus derSicht des Zooarchäologen. München.
J. Boessneck, 1988. Die Tierwelt des alten Ägypten: untersucht anhand kulturgeschichtlicher und zoologischer Quellen. München.
J. Boessneck, A. von den Driesch, 1997. Tierknochenfunde, in T. von der Way(ed.), Tell el- Fara'în - Buto 1: Ergebnisse zum frühen Kontext. Kampagnen derJahre 1983-1989, 206-16. Mainz.
J. Boessneck, A. von den Driesch, 1982. Studien an subfossilen Tierknochen ausÄgypten, MÄS XL, 1982.
G. A. Boulenger, 1907. Zoology of Egypt: The Fishes of the Nile. London.
D. J. Brewer, 1989. Fishermen, hunters and herders: zooarchaeology in the Fayum,
Egypt (ca. 8200-5000 BP). BAR International Series 478, 1989.
D. J. Brewer, R.F. Friedman, 1989. Fish and Fishing in Ancient Egypt. Warminster.
B. Brier, M.V.L. Bennett, 1979. Autopsies on fish mummies: possible identification of the classical phagrus, JEA 65, 128-33.

168

Ramona D’AlfonsoBritish Museum. n.d. "EA35740". Accessed September 29, 2022.
E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, J. Kahl, E.J. Lee, 2018. The Epistemic Legacy: Studying the collection, preservation, and transfer of knowledge in premodern
societies, in E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, J. Kahl, E.J. Lee (eds.), Collect and Preserve: Institutional Contexts of Epistemic Knowledge in Pre-modern Societies,
Episteme in Bewegung IX, 1-22. Wiesbaden.
R. D’Alfonso, 2020. La zooarcheologia nell’Egitto dell’Antico Regno: un confronto
tra l’iconografia animale e i resti faunistici. [Unpublished Master Dissertation]. Pisa.
W. M. Davis, 1985. The canonical Tradition in Ancient Egyptian Art. Harvard.
A. von den Driesch, 1985. Der Fiederbartwels Synodontis schall als Lieferantvon Pfeilspitzen im alten Ägypten, Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums
in Wien. Serie B für Botanik und Zoologie 88./89, 305-8.
A. von den Driesch, 1986. Fische im alten Ägypten: eine osteoarchaeologische Untersuchung. Documenta Naturae 34, Munchen.
A. von den Driesch, J. Peters, 2008. Störche über Elephantine, in E. M. Engel,
V. Müller, U. Hartung (eds.), Zeichen aus dem Sand. Streiflichter aus Ägyptens Geschichte zu Ehren von Günter Dreyer, 661-79. Wiesbaden.
A. von den Driesch, J. Peters, 2018. Die Tierrestre, in R. Kopp (ed.), Elephantine XXIV: Funde und Befunde aus der Umgebung des Satettempels. Grabungen2006- 2009, Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 104, 145-52. Wiesbaden.
M. J. van Elsbergen, 1997. Fischerei im alten Ägypten: Untersuchungen zu denFischfangdarstellungen in den Gräbern der 4. bis 6. Dynastie. Abhandlungendes Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 14, Cairo.
R. Engelbach, 1924. The treasure of Athribis (Benha), Annales du Service desAntiquités de l'Égypte 24, 178-85.
I. Gamer-Wallert, 1970. Fische und Fischkulte im alten Ägypten. Ägyptologische
Abhandlungen 21, Leipzig.
S. Gerke, 2017. All Creatures Great and Small – The Ancient Egyptian Viewof the Animal World, in T. Pommering, W. Bisang (eds.), Classificationfrom Antiquity to Modern Times, 67-100. Berlin/Munich/Boston.

Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt

169

D. Goldsmith, 2019. Fish, fowl, and stench in ancient Egypt, in A. Schellenberg, T. Krüger (eds), Sounding sensory profiles in the ancient Near East, 33560. Atlanta.
A. Hollmann, 1990. Säugetierknochenfunde aus Elephantine in Oberägypten (8.
Bis 16. Grabungskampagne, 1978-1987). München.
P. F. Houlihan, 1986. The Birds of Ancient Egypt. Warminster.
P. F. Houlihan, 1996. A Guide to the Wildlife Represented in the Great
Swampland Scene in the Offering Chapel of Ti (No. 60) at Saqqara, GM
155, 19-53.
J. Kahl, 2010. Archaism, in W. Wendrich (ed.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology 1, 1-9. Los Angeles.
J. Kahl, 2018. The Egyptian Tomb as an Epistemic Site, in E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, J. Kahl, E.J. Lee (eds.), Collect and Preserve: Institutional Contexts ofEpistemic Knowledge in Pre-modern Societies, Episteme in Bewegung IX, 6583. Wiesbaden.
W. Kaiser et al., 1978. Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine: Seibter Grabungsbericht, MDAIK 33, 63-100.
W. Kaiser et al., 1981. Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine: Achter Grabungsbericht, MDAIK 36, 245-91.
P. Kopp, 2018. Elephantine XXIV: Funde und Befunde aus der Umgebung des Satettempels. Grabungen 2006-2009. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 104,
Wiesbaden
D. Laboury, 2013a. L’artiste égyptien, ce grand méconnu de l’Égyptologie, in
G. Andreu (ed.), L’art du contour. Le dessin dans l’Égypte ancienne, 28-35.
Paris.
D. Laboury, 2013b. De l’individualité de l’artiste dans l’art égyptien, in G.
Andreu (ed.), L’art du contour. Le dessin dans l’Égypte ancienne, 36-41. Paris.
D. Laboury, 2017. Tradition and Creativity. Toward a Study of Intericonicity
in Ancient Egyptian Art, in T. Gillen (ed.), (Re)Productive Traditions in Ancient Egypt, Proceedings of the conference held at the University of Liège, 6th8th February 2013, 229-58. Liège.
J. Lesur, 2015. Exploitation animale à l’Ancien Empire en Égypte: les apportsd’Ayn Asil (oasis de Dakhla), Anthropozoologica 50/1, 33-47.

170

Ramona D’Alfonso

C. Lèvêque, D. Paugy, G.G. Teugels, 1991. Annotated Check-list of the Freshwater Fishes of the Nilo-Sudan River Basins, Africa. Rev. Hydrobiol. Trop.
24(2), 131-54.
V. Linseele, W. van Neer, J. Bretschneider, 2013. The mysteries of Egyptian
Nile perch (Lates niloticus): The Case of Tell Tweini (Syria, Middle Bronze
Age - Iron Age), in B. De Cupere, V. Linseele, S. Hamilton-Dyer (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East X: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on the archaeozoology of South-Western Asia and adjacent areas, 209-26.
Leuven.
V. Linseele, W. van Neer, R. Friedman, 2009. Special animals from a special
place? The fauna from HK29A at predynastic Hierakonpolis, JARCE 45,
105-36.
L. Loat, 1905. Gurob. London.
P. der Manuelian, 1983. Prolegomena zur Untersuchung Saitischer Kopien,Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 10, 221-45.
J. C. Moreno Garcia, 2006. La gestion sociale de la mémoire dans l’Egypte duIIIe millénaire: Les tombes des particuliers, entre emploi privét et idéologie publique”, in M. Fitzenreiter, M. Herb (eds.), Dekoriete Grabanlagen im
Alten Reich: Methodik und Interpretation, Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie
und Sudanarchäologie 6, 215-42. London.
W. van Neer, 1989. Fishing along the prehistoric Nile, Late Prehistory of The
Nile Basin and The Sahara 1, 49-56.
W. van Neer, 1993. Fish remains from the last interglacial at Bir Tarfawi(Eastern Sahara, Egypt), in F. Wendorf, R. Schild, A.E. Close (eds.), Egypt
during the last interglacial: the Middle Paleolithic of Bir Tarfawi and Bir Sahara
East, 144-54. New York-London.
W. van Neer, 1994. La pêche dans le Nil égyptien durant la préhistoire, Archéo-Nil 4, 17-25.
W. van Neer, 1999. Fish remains from the late Predynastic site of Maadi,
Egypt, in C. Becker, H. Manhart, J. Peters, J. Schibler (eds.), Historia animalium ex ossibus: Beiträge zur Paläoanatomie, Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Ethnologie und Geschichte der Tiermedizin. Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch
zum 65. Geburtstag, 463-68. Rahden.

Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt

171

W. van Neer, 2004. Evolution of prehistoric fishing in the Egyptian Nile Valley, Journal of African Archaeology 2, 251–69.
W. Van Neer, O. Lernau, R. Friedman, G. Mumford, J. Poblóme, M.
Waelkens, 2004. Fish remains from archaeological sites as indicators offormer trade connections in the Eastern Mediterranean, Paléorient 30/1,
101-47
W. van Neer, A. Ervynck, 2004. Remains of traded fish in archaeological sites:
indicators of status, or bulk food?, in S.J. O'Day, W.van Neer, A. Ervynck(eds.), Behaviour behind bones: the zooarchaeology of ritual, religion, status andidentity. Proceedings of the 9th conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002, 203-14. Oxford.
D. Neuman, H. Obermaier, T. Moritz, 2016. Annotated checklist for fishes ofthe Main Nile Basin in the Sudan and Egypt based on recent specimen
records (2006-2015), Cybium: international journal of ichthyology 40, 287-317.
W. Pekkola, 1918. Seasonal Occurrence and Edibility of Fish at Khartoum,
Sudan Notes and Records 1/2, 88-98.
W. Pekkola, 1919. Notes on the habits, breeding and food of some White Nile
fishes, Sudan Notes and Records 2, 112-12.
T. Pommerening, 2018. Wer weiß was? Heilkundliches Wissen und Wissenstransfer zur Zeit der Pharaonen. in N. Reggiani, F. Bertonazzi (eds.), Parlare la medicina: fra lingue e culture, nello spazio e nel tempo, 147-80. Milano.
R. W. Redding, 2010. Status and Diet at the Workers’ Town, Giza, Egypt, in D.
Campana (ed.), Anthropological approaches to zooarchaeology, 65-75. Oxford.
E. Reitz, S.E. Wing, 2008. Zooarchaeology. Cambridge.
D. Sahrhage, 1997. Fischfang und Fischkult im alten Ägypten, Kulturgeschichte
der Antiken Welt 70, 1997.
W. Schürmann, 1982. Die Reliefs aus dem Grab des Pzramidenvorstehers Ii-nefret,Karlsruhe.
K. J. Seyfried, 2019. Jahreszeitenreliefs aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des Königs NeUser-Re, Berlin.
N. Staring, 2015. Contextualizing Old Kingdom Elite Tomb Decoration: Fixed
Rules versus Personal Choice, in P. Kousoulis, N. Lazaridis (eds.), Proceedingsof the tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, 1839-47. Leuven.

172

Ramona D’AlfonsoA. P. Tavares, D. M. Bailer-Jones, F. Sadarangani, H. Mahmoud, 2014. Excavations East of the Khentkawes Town in Giza. A Preliminary Site Report,
BIFAO 114, 519-62.
P. M. Vermeersch, W. van Neer, S. Hendrickx, 2004. El Abadiya 2, A Naqada
I Site near Danfiq, Upper Egypt, in S. Hendrickx, R. F. Friedman, K. M.
Ciałowicz, M. Chłodnicki (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of
Barbara Adams. Proceedings of the International Conference “Origin of theState. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Krakow, 28th August - 1st September 2002. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 138, 213-76. Leuven.
P. Vernus, J. Yoyotte, 2005. Bestiaire des Pharaons. Paris.
Y. Volokhine, 2014. Le porc en Égypte ancienne: mythes et histoire à l’origine desinterdits alimentaires. Liège.
R. van Walsem, 2005. Iconography of Old Kingdom Elite Tombs: Analysis andInterpretation: Theoretical and Methodological Aspects. Leiden.
R. J. Wenke, A. Cagle, R.W. Redding, 2016. Kom el-Hisn (ca. 2500-1900 v. Chr.):
An ancient settlement in the Nile Delta of Egypt. Atlanta.
H. Willems, S. Vereecken, L. Kuijper, B.Vanthuyne, E. Marinova, V. Linseele,
G. Verstraeten, S. Hendrickx, M. Eyckerman, A. Van den Broeck, W. Van
Neer, J. Bourriau, P. French, C. Peeters, V. De Laet, S. Mortier, Z. De Kooning , 2009. An Industrial Site at al- Shaykh Said/Wådi Zabayda, Ägypten
und Levante 19, 293-331.

The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture
Elena D’Itria

Introduction
The Kerma region is located in the centre of Nubia, 20 kilometres south of
the Third Cataract, a strategic point for controlling movement along the Nile
Valley. The region opens onto the vast floodplain of northern Sudan, whichreaches a width of 15–20 km and extends southward for over 200 km (Fig. 1).1

Fig. 1: Map showing the location of Kerma site. © www.kerma-doukkigel.ch.

1 Reisner 1923a, 1923b; Privati 1999; Bonnet, 2000; Bonnet, Valbelle 2014; Bonnet 2019; Wil-

liams 2021,179–200.

174

Elena D’Itria

G. A. Reisner, director of the Harvard-Boston Expedition, was the first to
excavate parts of the Kerma site, starting near the western Deffufa and theeastern necropolis between 1913 and 1916.2 He investigated the cemetery withthe royal tumuli and associated funerary chapels making exceptional discoveries, such as particularly rich grave goods and hundreds of human sacrifices.
Also, due to the presence of numerous Egyptian objects, including sculpturesin the large southern tumuli, such as the statues of the nomarchs of the XII
Dynasty (1985–1773 BC), Reisner erroneously interpreted Kerma as a Pharaonic settlement with an Egyptian garrison and governor. He theorised thatthe site was a Middle Kingdom (2055–1650 BC) Egyptian outpost that gradually declined due to the growing influence of the local population.3
In 1973, following a request for intervention by the Sudan Antiquities Service, the Mission of the University of Geneva, under the direction of Charles
Bonnet, worked for the first time in Kerma. Since then, archaeological investigations have continued to this day. Through the works of the Swiss Mission,
the site of Kerma was identified as the capital city of the powerful Kingdomof Kush, as mentioned in Middle Kingdom and early New Kingdom Egyptiansources.4 The Kingdom of Kush spread its political control over a vast territory extending from Lower Nubia and across the Kerma and Letti basins as
far upstream as the Fourth Cataract.5 The Swiss mission has concentrated its
efforts on excavating the capital, the city of Kerma, situated 1.5 km from thebanks of the Nile. The archaeological culture that flourished between 2500 and
1480 BC is named after the Kerma site.6 Excavations in the town have uncovered a complex of domestic, public, and religious buildings, of which the mostimpressive building is a massive mud brick temple known as the western Deffufa, which was the town’s main ritual structure. The original building having
been continually modified and enlarged over time and became a major religious compound comprising chapels, a ceremonial palace, and several workshops.7 Investigations have also focused on the excavations of the vast necropolis located in the desert, 6 km from the Nile. The eastern cemetery covers 90
2 Reisner 1923a, 1923b.
3 Minor 2018, 251–262.
4 Bonnet 2019; Williams 2021, 179–200.
5 Edwards 2004, 74–77.
6 Bonnet 1990; Privati 1999, 41–69; Bourriau 2004, 3–13. The chronology of Kerma culture isdivided into four phases: Ancient Kerma (2500–2050 BC), Middle Kerma (2050–1750 BC);Classic Kerma (1750–1480 BC); Final Kerma (1480–1050 BC).
7 Bonnet 2004.

The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture

175

hectares and contains over
30,000 burials.8 During theClassic Kerma (1750–1550
BC), pits are generally rectangular and the size of the principal burials is impressive.
The royal tombs excavated by
G. A. Reisner measure up to
90 m in diameter. Two large
funerary chapels, known as K
XI and K II, were built in association with the largest tumuli
K X and K III, in the southern
sector of the cemetery.9 Since
1977, the Swiss Archaeological Mission has excavatedover 280 burials. These arefound in 27 sectors and coveralmost all phases of theKerma civilisation (Fig. 2).
Excavations of Kerma sites
revealed that the subsistenceof the Middle Nile Valley
populations was strongly
linked to farming, and their Fig. 2: Plan of the Eastern Cemetery at Kerma, withphysical, social, and religious the location of the excavated sectors (after L. Chaix,
existence was inextricably J. Dubosson, M. Honegger 2012).
linked to livestock.10 The animal remains testify not only to the economic role of fauna for Middle Nile
Valley communities but also their importance in the beliefs and ideology. In
this paper, we shed new light on the role of animals in the Kerma civilisation,
where fauna, both domestic and wild, had an essential part in the symbolicand religious domain

8 Bonnet 2000.

9 Reisner 1923a, 61–121.
10 Chaix 1986, 1988, 1990.

176

Elena D’Itria

The role of animals in the economy of Kerma civilisation
Archaeozoological studies of numerous animal bones found in the ancient
town of Kerma show the importance of livestock, representing more than 95%
of the fauna.11 The abundance of animal remains discovered gives evidence ofthe town’s economy and shows domestic animals to be predominant.12 Hunting activities were rare, with only scarce remains of gazelles, hippopotami,
and small game of various sorts. The meat diet of the Kerma people was essentially based on cattle (Bos taurus L.) caprines, sheep (Ovis aries L.), and goat
(Capra hircus L.), some donkeys were also eaten.13 During the early phase of
the Kerma civilisation (Ancient Kerma period) cattle represented around 50%
of stock breeding, while caprines form 44%. These proportions changed as the
Kerma culture developed, and we can detect a shift in the importance of eachspecies during the Classic Kerma (1750–1550 BC). Cattle, most important during the early phase of the Kerma civilisation seem to lose importance for sustenance becoming more rare and precious. In contrast, a strong increase ofdomestic caprines is noted during the late Classic Kerma onward (around1750 BC) when sheep and goats became the principal source of protein.14 The
decrease in oxen is probably due to the more arid environmental conditionsof the second millennium BC.
The paleo-environmental indications given by pollen remains in ovicaprid
coprolites and other preserved plant remains suggest an arid environment,witha predominance of plants such as acacia, jujube, cassia, Urticaceae, Graminae andCyperaceae, and environmental conditions very similar to that of today.15 The
arid and sub-desert environment is more suitable for small ruminants thanlarge animals. Currently, in the area of the Middle Nile, cattle account for lessthan 5% of the domestic livestock, while nearly 90% are sheep and goats.16

The importance of livestock in the funerary practices
Animals had not only an economic role in the Kerma culture but remains
found in the necropolis show that they were also an essential part of the ritual

11 Chaix 1990, 1993a, 1994.
12 Id. 1990, 110–113.
13 Chaix et al. 2012, 189–190.
14 Chaix 1994, 105–110.

15 Chaix and Grant 1992, 61–66; 1993, 339–404.
16 Chaix and Grant 1992, 62–63.

The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture177

and religious life. From the beginning of Middle Kerma, towards 2000 BC,
complete sheep, goats, and occasionally dog skeletons within the tombs testify to the sacrifice of animals to accompany the dead. The deceased are generally placed on cattle skin, laid on the right side in a slightly flexed position
with the head to the east.17 The area reserved for various offerings was thenorth of the pit, where pottery, bread models, and many pieces of meat wereplaced.18 Probably funeral meals took place during the ceremonies, for a great
number of bowls were turned upsidedown on the ground close to the pit,
generally on the east side.
Numerous pieces of meat are often found beside the pottery vessels, andmost often, they come from conventional butchering of a few month-old
lambs placed in the north part of the pit. On the south border of the burial
mound, on the exterior of the grave, one finds the horns, frontal, and sometimes nasal bones of oxen skulls, attesting to the preparation of bucrania.19
The substantial number of bucranos near the tumuli of Middle Kerma not
only attests to the existence of large herds but also proves the symbolic role
carried out by these animals in the context of Kerma society and perhaps alsoof the religious imagination.20
In Kerma’s Eastern Cemetery, the first bucrania deposits appear during
Ancient Kerma. Relatively rare at this time, they become common during
Middle Kerma, when several hundreds can be found in front of the largest
tombs. During the Classic Kerma, bucrania were still deposited in front ofburials, but in lower numbers than in earlier periods. Even in the larger tombs,
measuring more than 30 m in diameter, only a few dozen were included. This
corroborates with the notion of the decline in stock breeding due to the increased aridity. Human demographic features and changing environmental
conditions resulted in cattle steadily becoming more rare, an indication thatthese animals were also becoming more precious.21
What is also interesting is that among the cattle remains found in the town,
horn cores – the parts that are found around the tombs – are more or less absent.22 Perhaps the funerary rituals included feasting, the animals slaughtered

17 Bonnet 2000.
18 Chaix and Grant 1992, 63.
19 Ivi, 63.
20 Chaix 2000b, 163; Dubosson 2021, 908–926.
21 Chaix et al. 2012, 192.
22 Chaix 1985, 33–38.

178

Elena D’Itria

and eaten in the town, while the skulls of the slaughtered beasts were placedaround the tomb to mark the size of the tribute rendered, and thus the deceased’s status.

Cattle as tribute
The bucranes were usually placed on the southern edges of the tumuli,
facing toward the burial pit, forming a vast crescent. Their lay-out suggests a
symbolic herd, with the oxen at the head followed by the cows, often together
with a small calf’s bucranium. It appears that the number of bucrania foundsurrounding the tombs relates to the richness of the other grave goods foundwithin the tomb and thus the deceased’s social status. Their numbers may be
explained by ceremonies in honour of the dead, as is currently in interlacustrine kingdoms and in Madagascar, where pastoralism has played an important role related to the wielding of power.23 In Kerma, like in these kingdoms, the sacrifice of these animals during particular ceremonies, notably
during funerals, must have corresponded to a demonstrationof power and a means of establishing one’s authority over analliance network.24 One large
tumulus was surrounded by
400 bucrania, a number estimated on the basis of partial excavation of the burial, smaller
tombs had fewer bucrania, andsome had none at all.25
The complete excavation of
tomb 115, where 129 bucrania
surrounded the burial, allowed
a detailed study of cattle bucrania (Fig. 3). They were placed
Fig. 3: Plan of grave 115, dated to Middle Kerma around the tomb as if they were(after L. Chaix, J. Dubosson, M. Honegger 2012). a living herd, 98 large males in
23 Chaix, Dubosson, Honegger 2012, 207–208.

24 Chaix, Dubosson, Honegger 2012, 209; Dubosson 2015: 239–244.
25 Chaix and Grant 1992, 63–64.

The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture

179

front, followed by 13 females, some of whom were accompanied by calves.
Skulls of calves, aged from newborn to ten months, have frequently beenfound behind those of a female skulls around other tombs too. The cattle’s age
range and the way that the bucrania were placed around the tombs suggest asimultaneous killing of a herd of animals at the time of an important personage’s of burial, although it is possible that the animals came from different
areas, as attested by isotope analysis of Middle Kerma cattle.26 The animals
killed seem to have included many that were productive, or in the case of thecalves, potentially productive.27
The 129 animals surrounding tomb 115, for example, would have requireda minimum of between 100 and 200 hectares to sustain them, and between 400
and 800 hectares would be required to feed the cattle whose remains were
found around some of the larger tombs. The Nile provides a long but very narrow and limited oasis through an extremely arid land. The relatively high proportion of cattle remains in the town and the vast number of animals that appear to have been slaughtered at the same time could be explained by the animals not having been locally raised.28 The distinctive diets of certain bovines
from the richest tombs dated to the Middle Kerma, highlighted by carbon/nitrogen isotope analyses, suggest different environments.29 Thus the cattle bucrania found around the Kerma tombs may not necessarily have been solely
from animals in local herds but may have been those of animals sent to Kermafrom many places within or beyond.30 This evidence suggests that cattle may
have been brought to the capital from other parts of the Kingdom as tribute on
the death of someone powerful or an important leaders. And also worth mentioning that bucrania are only attested at royal and courtly cemeteries at Sai andKerma,31 not in provincial ones. As recently suggested by Walsh, the Kerma
state did not appear intent on attaining centralaized control of marginal communities, as in the case of Al-Widay I and Mirgissa.32 Commensality, gift exchange, and trade offered particularly effective strategies to foster cooperative
relationships with these marginal communities without large scale expenditure

26 Emberling 2014,144.
27 Chaix and Grant 1992, 63.
28 Ivi, 64.
29 Iacumin et al. 2001, 41–46; Thompson et al. 2008, 376–387.
30 Emberling 2014, 134.

31 Minor 2012; Gratien 1986.
32 Walsh 2022, 195–220.

180

Elena D’Itriaof resources.33 Cooperative alliances would allow for the mobilization of resources, as in the case of herds. In this framework, entire herds sent to Kermafrom rural/marginal places, were slauthered and eaten in the town while thebucrania placed on the southern edges of the tumuli. However, it is also possible that special herds existed, for example, a herd entirely comprised of cattlewith forward-pointing horns. Such “royal” herds, belonging to the monarchhimself, would symbolise his power and special rank.34
In general, the number of bucrania is proportional to the dimensions of thetomb and symbolically represented the wealth and the power of the dead person. There was a clear connection existed between the deceased’ status andthe number of bucrania placed before his grave.35
Many examples of the role of cattle as symbols of power, as currency, or
as offerings at funerary celebrations can be found in the ethnographic literature.36 In central Sudan, people sacrifice cattle during funeral ceremonies, distributing various parts of the animals to the deceased’s friends and relatives,
while the forelegs are placed in the tombs. The horns, filled with cinders, areplaced above the tomb.37 The number of animals sacrificed is related to thesocial importance of the deceased and a means of establishing one’s authority
over an alliance network.

The symbolic role of the cattle
The Middle and Upper Nile culture’s whole existence, physical, social andreligious, was strictly tied to the livestock because it provided meat, milk, andskins. For this reason the livestock assumed a significant ritual value sharedby Nubian cultures since the fifth millennium.
Bucrania deposits in the funerary context are known in the Sudanese
tombs from the onset of the Neolithic period, around the time when the first
cattle burials were also noted38. The first known bucranium originated fromthe Kerma region and were found atop a child’s grave in the cemetery at el-

33 Walsh 2022, 215.
34 Chaix et al. 2012, 208.
35 Ivi, 194.
36 Ivi, 199–209; Dubosson 2015, 239–244.
37 Riefenstahl 1976.

38 The most ancient ox burial dates to circa 5400 BC, found in area E-94-1N at Nabta Playa insouthern Egypt. Brass 2007, 7–22.

The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture

181

Barga and dates to circa 5700 BC.39 This practice is well attested during thefifth millennium at Kadruka and the Selim Nasin, south of the Third Cataract,40 as well as at Kadada and el-Ghaba in Central Sudan during the fourth
millennium.41 Generally, one or two bucrania were placed within the grave,next to the deceased, together with other offerings and funerary goods. Whilevarious forms of cattle deposits are recorded in Egypt and Nubia, the presenceof bucrania is specific to Nubia.42 During the Kerma civilisation, as was thecase with the C Group and the Pan-Grave culture of Lower Nubia, bucrania(if present at all) were deposited on the ground’s surface, in front of the tumulus covering the grave.43
The livelihood of the Middle and Upper Nile communities, from the prehistoric periods until today, was strongly linked to the cattle, which were considered guarantors of life and connected to the idea of fertility. It is also likely
they represented a god or animal hypostases of one or more divinities.
Among the rare images of divinity attested to in Kerma is a goddess depictedwith a human body and the head of a cow, wearing a long wig, and seated ona throne. She appears on a sandstone comb for pottery found in a house in theancient city of Kerma and dated to the Middle Kerma.44 The hybrid nature ofthis iconography had a strong symbolic power, relating the figure of cattle tothat of a divinity conceived as a generous nurse. Also, people of the Kerma
civilisation associated the image of cattle with abundance and fertility, as in
Egypt, where the cow became the sacred animal to the goddess Hathor of
Memphis, a generous nurse who embodied the mother goddess.45 Already inAncient Kerma, a symbolism connected to cattle appeared, as evidenced by
an ivory amulet found in Sai representing a bovine head.46 These remains
show the special role of livestock, especially cattle, both in the economic andritual sphere, in the context of Kerma culture already at this early period.

39 Chaix et al. 2012, 192.
40 Salvatori and Usai 2002, 2–7; Reinold 2000.
41 Reinold 2008; Lecointe 1987, 69–87.
42 Wengrow 2001, 91–104.
43 Chaix et al. 2012, 192.
44 Bonnet 1990, 155 n. 34; Berlandini 1983, 33–50; Gratien 1986, 384, fig. 289.
45 Bonnet 1990, 89–91.

46 Gratien 1986, 58; Bonnet 1990, 185.

182

Elena D’Itria

The ritual role of sheep in Kerma civilitation
The special status of bovine may also be visible in differences in attitudes
to cattle and sheep within the funerary customs. The whole sheep were buried, sacrificed as food offerings to the dead. The living gained no apparent
benefit from their slaughter because these animals may have been more commonplace and more easily expendable and replaceable than cattle. Contrarily,
cattle meat, which was rarer and considered more important than sheep meat,seems to have been consumed by the living in the town, perhaps during ritual
feasts, before being offered as tribute to the dead.47
From the beginning of the Middle Kerma, many tombs contained complete
sheep burials, the high quality of preservation shows that they were complete,even including their skin and horn. These animals were probably buried alive,
generally placed at the southern sides of the grave pits, sometimes with a dog.
The goats found inside the graves were young males, usually less than two
years old, some wearing a spherical topknot of ostrich feathers on their heads.48
Several animals, especially sheep, were buried wearing decorative elementscharacterised by an ostrich feather disc placed between two horns and held
there by leateher thongs that passed through the horn sheath and ended insewn faience bead pendants.49 Spherical head ornaments on the rams and sheepin the tombs of Classic Kerma and the red ochre designs sometimes painted on
their bodies suggest that they had specific religious or symbolic significance,
probably associated with fertility and rebirth (Fig. 4).50 The spherical ornament
may have represented the sun disk, and this decoration can also be connected
to more than eighty rock engravings picturing such animals with disks on theheads that are recorded in the desert west of the Nile and across the Sahara.51
Thus, these tradition could also be associated with a clay C Group statuette representing a goat with a spherical ornament on its head found in the site of

47 Chaix 2003, 219–220.
48 Bonnet 1990, 90.
49 Chaix 1993b, 161–164.

50 Almansa-Villatoro 2018, 178-179
51 Camps 1980, 1–15; Muzzolini 1994, 247–271.

The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture

183

Aniba.52 These animals were possibly
placed in graves as offerings to the sun
god.
During the Classic Kerma, there isevidence of a ram cult in the Western
Deffufa as well as in some tombs. Halfway up the staircase of the Western
Deffufa, a long and narrow internalroom was built within its brickworkthat appears to have been the residence of a god, who may also have
had solar associations. A sacrificial
stone, and the remains of either sheepor goats, were found on the stairway
landing in front of the internal room of
the Deffufa. This area seems to haveconstituted a kind of shrine occupied
by a divinity, probably the sun, god
who possibly also assumed the formof a ram.53 In light of this, we can assume that caprovines represented theanimal hypostasis of the sun god. Recent research in Kerma suggests that
the Egyptians incorporated aspects of Fig. 4: Artist’s reconstruction of athe indigenous Nubian religion, such Kerma sacrificial lamb wearing aas the representation of Amun as ram spherical crown of ostrich feathers andan ornament horns of a ram found inor as a ram-headed man, into their
the eastern cemetery of Kerma, CE 8
own.54 After the conquest of Nubia, thetomb 81 (after Bonnet 1990).
New Kingdom pharaohs establishedthe religion of their supreme god Amun throughout Nubia, although the basisof this had already been established during the Egypt’s occupation of Nubia
in the Middle Kingdom. In his Nubian temples, Amun was increasingly represented as a ram or as a ram-headed man wearing a sun disk on his head.
The origin of this “southern” variation of Amun worship was suggested by
52 Wenig 1978, 129; Chaix 1993b, 161–164; Kendall 1997, 76.
53 Kendall 1997, 77.

54 Bonnet 2004, 158–159.

184

Elena D’Itria

the discovery of sacrificed lambs, ewes, and rams crowned with spherical objects made of ostrich feathers in Kerman graves, which led to the suggestionthat these animals may have inspired Amun’s new form.55 The result was that
the Egyptian Amun assumed ram form in Nubia and that this form of the
Nubian god became the Egyptian Amun.

The symbolic and religious role of fauna of Kerma civilitation
The frequency of the representations of animals in the religious and funerary contexts led us to discuss the non-economic aspects of fauna in this culture
and to suppose that animals played an important part in the symbolic andreligious domain.
Animals appear in multiple scenes of wall paintings in the royal funerarychapels,56 in the ivory inlays and the mica decorations that respectively decorated the funerary beds and the caps found in the richest private tombs of theClassic Kerma. Also, the feet of the funerary beds of the Classic Kerma represented the leg of a bovine.57
Numerous zoomorphic figurines represented the miniaturisation of bovines, cattle and goats were found in the city of Kerma, as well as in Gism elArba, a rural area 30 km to the south.58 There are two types of clay figurines:
the first can be considered “realistic” as opposed to the second more “schematic”. In the first case, the animal’s legs and some anatomical details are
made; the second is distinguished by the absence of legs and the cylindershaped body.59 Because these figurines were primarily found in the religious
and administrative sectors of the ancient city of Kerma, near the Deffufa, it has
been suggested that they could be associated with administrative practices
and used as livestock reckonting counters. Their association with hundredsof seal impressions support this hypothesis.60 However, some figurines havebeen found in the houses, in this case they could be used as children’s toys or
religious objects associated with the private cult. They could also represent
elements of magic related to fertility and prosperity.61
55 Bonnet 1984, 5–20; Id. 1990, 89–91; Kendall 1997, 76.
56 Bonnet 2000, 132, 163–174.
57 Id. 1990, 209, fig. 249.
58 Gratien 1998.
59 Chaix and Queyrat 2003, 63-66; Ferrero 1984, 21–25; Ferrero 1990, 132–136.
60 Chaix and Queyrat 2003, 65–66.
61 Ivi, 65.

The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture

185

The wall paintings of the royal funerary chapels KII and K XI were arranged according to a similar scheme: on the eastern wall, depictions of Nilotic scenes were concentrated, such as fishing, and scenes of boats with thecrew; on the western one, scenes associated with African livestock.62 The figurations of wild animals appear to express a desire to dominate the fauna,
which symbolised one of the most characteristic aspects of the environment.
The regular arrangement of animals in groups according to species, may recall
the concepts of the cosmic order, the ideology connected to the sovereign’scontrol of natural chaotic forces also proposed for some works of the Egyptian
proto-dynastic art.63 The depiction of powerful and dangerous animals suchas hippos, lions, crocodiles, and giraffes in long rows on the western walls of
the rooms and the intermediate corridor of K XI represented a long procession
directed towards the inside of the sanctuary. Due to the economic connotationof the fauna, the sovereign, depicting both wild and domestic fauna on thewall paintings of his funerary chapel, wants to symbolically represent his control and dominion over the whole territory, characterised by the presence of
all these animals.64
The arrangement of the animals in long rows on several registers characterised not only the royal chapels’ wall paintings but also the ivory inlays andmica decorations found exclusively in the richest private tombs of the Classic
Kerma.65 Therefore, we could consider the ivory inlays and the mica ornaments as insignia of rank used to legitimise the wearer’s role.66
It is also interesting to note that the wild animals depicted in the wall
paintings and represented on the ivory inlays and the mica decorations were
the same species found in the foundation deposits. According to the archaeozoological evidence, the most abundant remains of African wildlife bones
found in Kerma is the hippopotamus’. This large mammal was closely connected with the Nubian environment and was particularly popular for its
ivory and skin. The hippopotamus also undoubtedly had an ideological value
in Kerma, associated with rebirth and regeneration, no doubt because it lived
in the renewing waters of the Nile. This association between the hippopotamus and water is also evident from the red polished pitcher of the Classic
62 Bonnet 2000, 73–91, 132; Chaix 2000b 174; Minor 2012, 94–96.
63 Bonnet 2000, 101–102; Tӧrӧk 2008, 22; Williams 2006-2007, 409–410.
64 Bonnet 2000, 95; Tӧrӧk 2008, 22.

65 Reisner 1923b, 264–280; Minor 2012, 170–174.
66 Manzo 2011, 217.

186

Elena D’Itria

Kerma with a spout in the form of a hippopotamus head. Hippopotami werepart of the decorative depictions in faïence on the royal funerary chapel K XI’s
façade. Here, hippopotami are predominant in the second entrance room,
where forty-two red hippos march northward in rows on the western walland both stone doorjambs in the same chapel. If the full animal form of the
hippopotamus seems to occur only in the rulers’funerary complexes, the goddess Taweret was one of the most popular figurative representations attested
during the Classic Kerma. Taweret was depicted on private funerary bed inlays, mica appliqués, and amulets. Considered a powerful goddess of fertility,
she was probably incorporated into pre-existing local beliefs during the Classic Kerma.67
The hippopotamus and the crocodile, whose dermal plaques were found in
the city, were the only wild species not only represented by the amulets but also
by a large number of clay figurines and faïence statuettes found in Kerma, both
imported from Egypt and locally produced.68 The crocodile was drawn on small
ceramic vessels with spouts dating from Ancient to Classic Kerma, perhaps
used as baby bottles,69 engraved on some ostrich egg shells dated to Middle
Kerma,70 depicted in the paintings of the funerary chapel K XI, and reproducedby bone or ivory plates.71 In the eastern necropolis, along the walk that connected the funerary chapel K II to the royal mound K III, in front of the entrance
to the corridor of the mound, two large fragments of a glazed quartz crocodile
statue were discovered. The ivory inlays found in the ground of the burial
chamber of the minor mound K XV, dated to the beginning of the Classic
Kerma, represented two complete crocodiles, at least two turtles, three octopuses, and six to eight elephants.72 All these ivory inlays, as also suggested byReisner, were part of the decoration of the funerary bed of the main burial of
the K XV tumulus. Therefore, the animals reproduced on the funeral bed had
not only a decorative function but also a prophylactic one. The figurations ofhippos, turtles, frogs, crocodiles, flies, lions and scorpions, could be connected
to regeneration and fertility due to their association with water or its opposite,
the desert. Some of these creatures were also fierce beasts. They could play a

67 Minor 2018, 257; D’Itria forthcoming.
68 Bonnet 2000, 98.
69 Bonnet 1990, 161, n. 58; 222, fig. 290; Welsby and Anderson 2004, 88, fig. 70.
70 Bonnet 1993, 8, fig. 11; Chaix 2000b, 168, fig. 121.
71 Bonnet 2000, 85, fig. 62; Chaix 2000b, 168.

72 Reisner 1923a, 481–485; 1923b, 270; Bonnet 1990, 222, n. 290.

The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture187

further apotropaic function because if these dangerous creatures were propitiated, the danger would have been warded off.

Conclusion
Evidence is plentiful and shows that in Kerma the animals not only played
an important economic role but also served a social function and played an
important part in the ritual domain. Thus, the many decorative elements discovered on the Kerma site, such as the small figurines found in the ancient
city, the walls pantings decorating the large funerary chapels of the Eastern
cemetery, the ivory inlays and mica decorations, confirm the omnipresence of
the animal in this culture.
As at the capital of Kerma73 or the rural settlement of Gism el-Arba,74 theexploitation of the animal world is entirely based on stockbreeding of cattle
and caprines, forming more than 90% of the fauna.75 Since Middle Neolithic
times, cattle played an important role in the beliefs and ideology of these communities,76 this is regularly implied in the funerary tradition with bucrania
placed in or near the graves. More spectacular, however, is their use in funerary rituals, where hundreds of bucrania are placed in front of burials.77 During
the Middle Kerma period, hundreds of cattle were killed, and their bucrania
were deposited on the southern edge of some tombs relating to the society’s
increasing hierarchisation of the towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC.
Here, we witness to the emergence of indviduals or clans seeking to stand out
publicly by ostensibly exposing their wealth or social status. There is evidence
to suggest that cattle may have been brought to the capital from other part of
the Kingdom as tribute on the death of someone powerful or influential. Towards the end of Middle Kerma and especially in Classic Kerma, animal offerings are gradually replaced by human sacrifices which will multiply andbecome dominant in the southern sector of the necropolis.
Animals have played an important role not only in the economy of Kerma
but also in the ritual sphere. This importance is accentuated by the discoveryof several goats in the Kerma tombs from the Middle Kerma wearing peculiar
head ornaments. Such animals had been widely venerated by the North
73 Bonnet 2004.
74 Gratien 1998.
75 Chaix 2007, 120.

76 Chaix and Grant 1992, 61–66.
77 Chaix 2001, 364–370.

188

Elena D’Itria

African peoples since remote antiquity, and their meaning among the C
Group and Kerma peoples must have been profound.78 This could indicate
the sharing of ritual elements among different populations; probably, the cultof caprines was shared by people of Eastern Sahara, C Group, and Kerma culture.
Therefore, the symbolic value of fauna in the different contexts of Kerma
culture is indisputable but not concern only the Kerma civilisation. The symbolic role of animals has its roots in Neolithic times and Kerma shared ritualelements with different groups of people with which they interacted.
To conclude, the representation of animals in the different contexts also
reflects cultural contacts and interconnecting influences between various
groups of people in the Nile Valley. This study provide evidence for varying
trends and influences during the Bronze Age, allowing cultural contacts to be
traced when studying Nubia from a broader perspective.

Bibliography
M. V. Almansa-Villatoro, 2018. Reconstructing the Pre-Meroitic Indigenous
Pantheon of Kush, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 18, 167–189.
J. Berlandini, 1983. La déesse bucéphale: une iconographie particulière del’Hathor Memphite, BIFAO 83, 33–50.
C. Bonnet, 1984. Les fouilles archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan). Rapport préliminaire sur les campagnes de 1982-1983 et 1983–1984, Geneva 32, 5–20.
C. Bonnet, 1993. Kerma: rapport préliminaire sur les campagnes de 1991-1992
et 1992-1993, Genava 41, 1–33.
C. Bonnet (ed.), 1990. Kerma, royaume de Nubie, l’antiquité africaine au temps despharaons. Catalogue de l’exposition. Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, juine-novembre
1990. Geneva.
C. Bonnet, 2000. Edifices et rites funéraires à Kerma. Paris.
C. Bonnet, 2004. Le temple principal de la ville de Kerma et son quartier religieux.
Paris.
C. Bonnet, 2019. The black Kingdom of the Nile. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
78 Chaix 1993b, 161–164.

The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture

189

C. Bonnet, D. Valbelle, 2014. La ville de Kerma. Une capitale nubienne au sud del’Egypte. Lausanne.
J. Bourriau, 2004. Egyptian pottery found in Kerma Ancien, Kerma Moyen
and Kerma Classique graves at Kerma, in T. Kendall (ed.), Nubian Studies
1998, Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society of NubianStudies, 3–13. Boston.
M. Brass, 2007. Reconsidering the emergence of social complexity in early Saharan pastoral societies, 5000–2500 BC, Sahara 18, 7–22.
G. Camps, 1980. Le belier à sphéröide des gravures rupestres de l’Afrique duNird, Encyclopédie Berbére 26, 1–15.
L. Chaix, 1985. Quelques réflexions sur le bucrâne, Cahhiers du CEPOA 2, 33–38.
L. Chaix, 1986. Quatrième note sur la faune de Kerma, Geneva 34, 35–40.
L. Chaix, 1988. Le monde animal à Kerma (Soudan), Sahara 2, 77–84.
L. Chaix, 1990. Le monde animal, in C. Bonnet (ed.), Catalogue de l’exposition:
Kerma, royaume de Nubie, l’antiquité africaine au temps des pharaons. Muséed’Art et fd’Histoire, juine-novembre 1990, 108–113. Geneve.
L. Chaix, 1993a. The archaeozoology of Kerma (Sudan), in W. V. Davies, R.
Walker (eds.), Biological anthropology and the study of Ancient Egypt, 175–185.
London.
L. Chaix, 1993b. Les moutons décorés de Kerma (Soudan): problemès d’interprétation, Memorie della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali e di Storia Naturale
di Milano 26/2, 161–164.
L. Chaix, 1994. Nouvelles donnees de l’archeozoologie au nord du Soudan, in
C. Berger, G. Clerc, N. Grimal (eds), Hommages au Professeur J. Leclant. Bibliothèque d’Etudes. Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Vol. 2, 105–110.
Cairo.
L. Chaix, 2000a. Les animaux et les morts a Kerma (Soudan) entre 2500 et 1500
avant J. C. Faits archeologiques et interpretations, in L. Bodson (ed.), Cesanimaux que l’homme choisit d’inhumer. Contribution à l’étude de la place et durôle de l’animal dans les rites funéraires. Colloques d’histoire des connaissances
zoologiques, Vol. 11, 15–39. Liège.
L. Chaix, 2000b. La faune des peintures murals du temple K XI, in C. Bonnet,
D. Valbelle (eds.), Édifices et rites funéraires à Kerma, 163–174. Paris.

190

Elena D’Itria

L. Chaix, 2001. Animals as symbols: the bucrania of the grave KN24 (Kerma,
Northern Sudan), in H. Buitenhuis, W. Prummel (eds.), Animals and man in
the past. Essay in honour of Dr. A. T. Clason, emeritus professor of archaeozology,
364–370. Gronigen.
L. Chaix, 2003. La découpe de l’agneau: un rite funéraire à Kerma (Soudan) vers
2000 avant J.-C, Revue archéologique de Picardie Numéro spécial 21, 219–224.
L. Chaix, 2007. Contribution to the knowledge of domestic cattle in Africa: theosteometry of fossil Bos taurus L. from Kerma, Sudan (2050-1750 BC), in
G. Grupe, J. Peters (eds.), Skeletal series and their socio-economic context,120–
249. Rahden.
L. Chaix, A. Grant, 1992. Cattle in Ancient Nubia, Anthropozoologca 16, 61–66.
L. Chaix, A. Grant, 1993. Palaeoenvironmental and economy at Kerma, Northern Sudan, during the third millennium BC: archaeological and botanicalevidence, in L. Krzykaniak, M. Kobusiewicz (eds.), Environmental Change
and Human Culture in the Nile Basin and Northern Africa until the second Millenium BC, 399–404. Poznań.
L. Chaix, I. Queyrat, 2003. Les figurines animals dans la culture de Kerma,
Anthropozoologica 38, 63–66.
L. Chaix, J. Dubosson, M. Honegger, 2012. Bucrania from Eastern Cemetery at Kerma(Soudan) and the practice of Cattle Horn Deformation, Prehistory of Northeastern
Africa. New Ideas and Discoveries Studies in Africa Archaeology, 189–212. Poznań.
E. D’Itria, forthcoming. Kerma amulets: iconography and manufacture techniques, Kush 20.
J. Dubosson, 2015. Ethnoarchéologie du pastoralisme en Afrique de l’Est et
confrontations aux données archéologiques du royaume de Kerma (Soudan), in Preserving African Cultural Heritage. Actes de la Panaf et 20e conference de la afa à Dakar, 1-7 Novembre 2010. African Diaspora Archaeology Newsletter. Vol. 12, 239–244. Dakar.
J. Dubosson, 2021. Cattle Cultures in Ancient Nubia, in G. Emberling, B. B.
Williams (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Nubia, 908–926. Oxford.
D. Edwards, 2004. The Nubian past: an archaeology of the Sudan. London.
N. Ferrero, 1984. Figurines et modèles en terre mis au jour dans la ville deKerma, Geneva 32, 21–25.

The Valuable Role of Animals in the Kerma Culture

191

G. Emberling, 2014. Pastoral States: Toward a Comparative Archaeology of
Early Kush. Origini: preistoria e protostoria delle civiltà antiche 36, 125–156.
N. Ferrero, 1990. Miniature en terre, in C. Bonnet (ed.), Catalogue de l’exposition:
Kerma, royaume de Nubie, l’antiquité africaine au temps des pharaons. Muséed’Art et fd’Histoire, juine-novembre 1990, 132–136. Geneva.
B. Gratien, 1986. Saï I, La Nécropole Kerma. Paris.
B. Gratien, 1998. Gism el-Arab, un habitat rural Kerma. Campagnes 1995-1996
et 1996-1997, Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie
de Lille 19, 21–29. Lille.
P. Iacumin, H. Bocherens, L. Chaix, 2001. Keratin and N stable isotope ratios
of fossil cattle horn from Kerma (Sudan): a record of dietary changes, Il
Quaternario 14(1), 41-46.
T. Kendall, 1997. Kerma and the Kingdom of Kush 2500-1500 B.C.: The Archeological Discovery of an Ancient Nubian Empire. Washington.
Y. Lecointe, 1987. Le site neolithique d’El Ghaba: deux annees d’activite(1985–86), Archéologie du Nil Moyen 2, 69–87.
A. Manzo, 2011. Iconografia, religione e ideologia a Kerma, Alta Nubia, 20001400 a.C., in P. Buzi, D. Picchi, M. Zecchi (eds.), Aegyptiaca et Coptica: Studiin onore di Sergio Pernigotti. BAR International Series 2264, 209–224. Oxford.
E. J. Minor, 2012. The use of Egyptian and Egyptianizing material culture in
Nubian burials of the Classic Kerma period. Ph.D. diss. University of California, Berkeley. Unpublished.
E. J. Minor, 2018. Decolonizing Reisner: a case study of a Classic Kerma female
burial for reinterpreting early Nubian archaeological collections throughdigital archival resource, in M. Honegger (ed.), Proceedings of the ThirteenthInternational Conference for Nubian Studies, Neuchâtel, 1st-6th September 2014,
251–262. Louven.
A. Muzzolini, 1994. Les béliers sacrés dans l’art rupestre saharien, in C. Berger, G. Clerc, N. Grimal (eds.), Hommages au Professeur J. Leclant. Bibliothèque d’Etudes. Institut français d’archéologie orientale Vol. IV, 247–271. Cairo.
B. Privati, 1999. La céramique de la nécropole orientale de Kerma (Sudan):essai de classification, CRIPEL 20, 41–69.

192

Elena D’Itria

G. A. Reisner, 1923a. Excavations at Kerma, Parts IV, Harvard African Studies
6. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
G. A. Reisner, 1923b. Excavations at Kerma, Parts V, Harvard African Studies 6.
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
L. Riefenstahl, 1976. Les Nouba et les Nouba de Kau. Paris.
J. Reinold, 2000. Archéologie au Soudan: les civilisations de Nubie. Paris.
J. Reinold, 2008. La nécropole néolithique d’El-Kadada au Soudan central. Vol 1: lescimetières A et B du kôm principal. Paris.
S. Salvatori, D. Usai, 2002. The second excavation season at R12, a late neolithic cemetery in the Northern Dongola Reach, Sudan and Nubia 6, 2–7.
A. H. Thompson, L. Chaix, M.P. Richard, 2008. Stable isotopes and diet at Ancient Kerma, Upper Nubia (Sudan), Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 376–
387.
L. Tӧrӧk, 2008. The Depiction of the World in a Classic Kerma Mortuary
Chapel, in Á. Slabó, P. Vargyas (eds.), Cultus deorum. Studia religionum ad
historiam. Vol. 1: De Oriente antique et regione Danuvii praehistorica, 13–28.
Budapest, Verano.
C. Walsh, 2022. Marginal Communities and Cooperative Strategies in the
Kerma Pastoral State, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 9, 2, 195–220.
D. A. Welsby, J.R. Anderson (eds.), 2004. Sudan: Ancient Treasures. An Exhibition of Recent Discoveries from the Sudan National Museum. London.
D. Wengrow 2001. Rethinking “cattle-cults” in early Egypt: towards a prehistoric perspective on the Narmer palette, Cambridge Archaeological Journal
11,1, 91–104.
S. Wenig, 1978. Africa in Antiquity. The arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. The
catalogue. New York.
B. B. Williams, 2006-2007. The Adoption and Rejection of Egyptian Symbolic
Culture in Nubia, in B. Gratien (ed.), Mélanges offers à Francis Geus, 339–
410. Lille.
B. B. Williams, 2021. Kush in the Wider World during the Kerma Period, in G.
Emberling, B. B. Williams (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Nubia, 179–
200. Oxford.

Meroitic Lexemes Concerning Animals
Gilda Ferrandino

Introduction
The aim of this paper is to present a review and preliminary study of Meroitic lexemes concerning animals. While in the Egyptian context art and written sources reveal interesting information about animals, in Meroitic Nubia
the texts cannot at present support the analysis of the fauna and the relationship between some animals and the human community in Nubia during theMeroitic period, because of our scarce knowledge of Meroitic language. A different approach characterized by the comparison between iconography andtext may in some cases support the linguistic analysis of specific lexemes.
At present, the main information concerning fauna stems from animal remains in archaeological sites and iconography. During the Meroitic period,
animal images became increasingly frequent in Nubia and they had an importance for the public and individual religions. Unfortunately, not all theimages represented on walls, jewels, amulets, vessels as well as statues, in religious and funerary contexts, were accompanied by a legend or text describing the image indicating the animal’s name. It is known that many animals
were connected with different gods, such as the god Apedemak represented
with a lion-head, or the better-known Amon with a ram-head. In both cases,
the god’s name does not contain the name of the corresponding animal. It isthus difficult to reconstruct a list of Meroitic names of the most frequent andrepresented animals in Nubia.

List of words
Of the published list of thirty-nine Meroitic lexemes with a confirmed
meaning,1 less than ten words refer to animals. They are dime “cow”, xlbi
“bull”, wle “dog”, abese “gazelle”, *kele or *kere “hawk”, peke “snake”, abore“elephant”. The first three names present a convincing comparison of theNorth Eastern Sudanic (NES) languages, the linguistic family to which Meroitic belongs. The other lexemes provide acceptable correspondences.
1 Rilly 2010b.

194

Gilda Ferrandino

Fig. 1: Relief on the wall of the chapel of Beg.N. 11 at Meroe (Ph. Gilda Ferrandino).

As regards dime “cow” and xlbi “bull”, the words refer to cattle and arepresent in funerary and royal contexts. They appear together in the texts ofcommemorations of funerary offerings in the royal necropolis at Meroe: REM
0064 in Beg N. 19, REM 0070 in Beg. N.18, REM 0809 in Beg.N.2. These infrequent texts mention offerings that the family of the deceased had provided
the year after the burial and the cited animals were probably sacrifices. Sacrifices of cows and bulls are also represented on the walls of the funerary chapels at Meroe (Fig. 1).
The word xlbi appears in the royal texts REM 1044, 1221, 1228, 0094. Whilein the Taneyidamani inscription, REM 1044, the context may suggest offerings
made during the performance of some ceremonies, in REM 1221, 1228, and
0094 the lexeme is used in the royal title, with reference to the hypostasis ofAmon at Sanam, defined the “bull of Nubia”. The lexeme dime appears in
REM 1361D, the so-called Obelisk of Meroe, alluding to an offering, and inMeroitic Lexemes Concerning Animals

195

REM 408C a text engraved on the four faces of a block found in the temple ofApedemak M6 at Meroe.
The meaning of both dime and xlbi has been established by comparing theMeroitic lexemes with lexemes of languages that belong to the NES and withthe reconstructed form of the proto-NES (Rilly 2010b).
As far as the lexeme wle “dog” is concerned, it has been identified only in agraffito on the great enclosure at Musawwarat es-Sufra. The meaning of this lexeme has been deduced by the associated image and later confirmed by means of
linguistic comparison. The text containing the word is recorded as REM 1165 andstarts with a presentation sentence wle-qo “this dog”. The scene accompanying it
represents a dog chasing a hare. Unfortunately, the meaning of the text is not sofully clear as to allow us to try and infer its context. However, Rilly suggests it
may refer to a request to the god for a good sale or purchase of a hunting dog.
The lexemes abese, *kele or *kere, and peke were found in texts painted on
six wooden plaques of twenty-four (REM 1197, 1198, 1199, 2749, 2750, 2751)
which were part of cult practices, discovered in the outer hall of the temple atthe north of the cathedral at Qasr Ibrim in Lower Nubia. All six plaques werepainted with living animals: snakes, gazelles, and hawks. The animals face ayellow cup on a high base with two ladles hanging from the rim.2 In one exception, the gazelle faces a tree (REM 1198). In the case of the hawk (REM1197), the animal wears a double crown. All these plaques present a brief text
which starts using the structure X-qo-li “this X” where, according to Rilly, X isundoubtedly the name of the animal.
REM 1197
keqoli: yimkteni3 : srtneyi : mlilw : ptepl
ke-qo-li : yi-mkte-ni : sr-t-neyi : mli-l-w : pte-plhawk(?)-this-DET : PREF-mkte-ni : sr-t-V to be : N-DET-SUF : pte-V
REM 1198
abeseqo[li] : [y]imkteni[s] : slmtneyi : mlil : pitepl
abese-qo-[li] : [y]i-mkte-ni : slm-t-neyi : mli-l : pite-plgazelle-this-[DET] : PREF-mkte-ni : slm-t-V to be : N-DET : pite -V
2 Driskell, Adams, and French 1989.
3 The unknown word -mkte- might refer to the noun “goddess”. However, the meaning of thecomplex word, composed of the prefix yi-, which remembers the first person of the verbal
prefix, and the suffix -ni, is actually obscure.

196

Gilda Ferrandino

REM 1199
abeseqoli : yimkteni : mlilw : ptepl : htneyi
abese-qo-li : yi-mkte-ni :mli-l-w : pte-pl : h-t-neyigazelle-this-DET : PREF-mkte-ni : N-DET-SUF : h-t-V to be
REM 2749
pekeqoli yimk[teni : …]sl[ca2]w
peke-qo-li yi-mk[te-ni :] sl[ca2]w
snake(?)-this-DET : PREF- yi-mk[te-ni :] sl[ca2]w
REM 2751
pekeqoli : yimkteni : mlilwptepl : peke[le]peke-qo-li : yi-mkte-ni : mli-l-w-pte-pl : peke-[le]snake(?)-this-DET : PREF-mkte-ni : N-DET-SUF - pte-V : snake(?)-[DET]
The translation of these lexemes could thus be inferred from the association between iconography and text.4 There is uncertainty about the lexeme
referred to as hawk. The nominal syntagma is ke-qo-li. Since the Meroitic
words are rendered as CVC or VC, according to Rilly, the syllable might beassimilated with the initial -qo. Given this observation and linguistic comparisons, the lexeme might be *kele or *kere.5
As regards the word for snake, it has been recorded pete.6 However, analyzing the photos published in Hallof of the wooden plaques (REM 2749 and2751) the reading appears to be peke.7
According to Driskell et al., the animals represented on the plaques werechosen because of their association with the goddess Isis, likely adored in thesame temple.8
In the case of abese “gazelle”,9 the animal represented is female because of
the breasts. In one of the first natural histories, De Natura Animalium, Aelian(c. AD 175 - 235) describes the worship of Isis at Coptos and indicates the

4 De Voogt and Rilly 2012, 101-105.
5 Rilly 2010b, 411.
6 Rilly 2010b, 411; De Voogt and Rilly 2012.
7 Hallof 2016, 108-109.
8 Driskell et al. 1989.
9 Rilly 2010b, 411.

Meroitic Lexemes Concerning Animals

197

female gazelle as the pets of the goddess. In the same text, Aelian refers thatmale gazelles were used as a sacrifice.10
Gazelles were also represented as offerings by the Roman Emperor Tiberiuson the walls of the Isis temple at Philae. The offering of the same animal is represented on two blue and gold footed flute glasses from Sedeinga, dated in the 2nd
half of the 3rd cent. AD.11 The flutes are kept separately in the Sudan National
Museum of Khartoum and in the museum of the University of Pisa. The archaeological, iconographical, and epigraphical contexts suggest that the objects andthe gazelle are here associated with the funerary rites: the luxurious items were
found broken in a tomb; the upper panel brings a Greek inscription Pie zese(i)n“Drink to live” generally used on containers in a funerary context. Moreover, thetwo gazelles represent an offering to the god Osiris seated on his throne. The roleof the gazelles in offering gifts is firstly attested in the Egyptian context where
they are represented in tombs or found in offering lists.12
As for the “hawk” *kele or *kere, there are different references to the link
between this animal and Isis. In the Meroitic chamber at Philae, the scene ofthe procession represents priests wearing garments decorated with hawks.
Also, in the Amanikhabale stele, the king – offering the triple necklace to thegoddess Isis who wears the double crown – is represented with the image ofa hawk on his garment.13
The last lexeme is abore “elephant”. This word is not directly associatedwith an image. Rilly identified the word in the Meroitic toponym Aborepi referred to the archaeological site of Musawwarat es-Sufra. Here, many representations such as sculptures, graffiti, and reliefs show the elephant, indicating an important role attributed to this animal. Unfortunately, none is accompanied by a legend. The place name Aborepi is attested only in connection withthe god Apedemak, indicating his hypostasis, Apedemak Aborepi-te-li “Apedemak (who is) in Aporepi”. According to Rilly, the toponym seems to be composed of abore + pi14 “the place of the elephant” or similar (Figs. 2 & 3). Since
abore does not appear in any other contexts, the translation suggested by Rilly
is solely based on linguistic comparisons.

10 Strandberg 2009, 184.
11 Leclant 1973, 56-68.
12 Strandberg 2009, 101.
13 Pompei 2015.

14 It is compared with an Old Nubian word translated “be, stay”.

198

Gilda Ferrandino

Fig. 2: Elephant from Musawwarat es-Sufra (Ph.
Gilda Ferrandino).

Fig. 3: Relief on the column,
Lion temple at the Musawwarat es-Sufra (Ph. Gilda
Ferrandino).

There exists other two words anese “donkey(?)” (REM 1088, 1333) andmreke “horse” (REM 1088, 1333, 1321), found in a few Meroitic texts. The funerary texts REM 1088 and REM 1333 are attributed to the viceroy Abratoye,also known in graffiti from Philae, while REM 1321 is an ostracon found in abuilding of the settlement at Arminna West.15 In all these cases the lexemes
anese and mreke appear in texts without images. This complicates the identification of the semantic value of the words. However, already Carrier, quoting

15 Edwards and Fuller 2000, 80-82, 94.

Meroitic Lexemes Concerning Animals

Millet, suggested the meaning of horse formreke.16 Recently, Rilly confirmed the semantic value of the word on the base ofcomparative analysis17. About the word
anese the meaning is not assured. In a mostrecent paper, Rilly translated the word as
donkey.18

199

Tab. 1

Methodology
The Meroitic basic vocabulary is composed of thirty-nine lexemes with aconfirmed meaning. The limited number of known words is due to translationdifficulties. With the paucity of bilingual texts and the recent identification of
the linguistic macro-family to which Meroitic belongs, the strategies andmethods applied to the study of the Meroitic language are mainly the contextual analysis and the comparative method.
The contextual analysis encompasses the study of each inscription by considering its textual, archaeological, iconographical as well as social context.
From the textual point of view, each text is compared with other Meroitic texts
for the identification of similar elements and structures. This method supported Griffith in the decipherment and translation of some passages. The archaeological and iconographical context are useful because they give insight
into the text type, the general content and the words used.
The comparison method consists of finding idioms that show phonetic correspondences with idioms of other languages.19 The main purpose of thismethod is to establish the meaning of unknown Meroitic words or morphological elements. As Meroitic is the remote written language of its modern
sister languages, and no ancient NES language is attested beside it, one of thestrategies to study Meroitic is to proceed step by step with the linguistic analysis. Prior to any comparison with Meroitic, though, it is necessary to reconstruct the proto-lexicon and proto-morphology of the ancestor language,
based on the living sister languages. However, this work is still in its infancy,
16 Carrier 2001.
17 There is a video on Youtube (EPHE Méroïtique channel) about a conference of Rilly C.

dedicated to the analysis of the horse in Meroitic https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=mhlWNwKcHkE.
18 Rilly 2020, 25, 41.
19 Rilly 2010a.

200

Gilda Ferrandino

because many modern languages are not well described and analyzed. For
this reason, the application of the comparative method has to be supported
by contextual analysis and other internal methods aimed at paving the way
for linguistic comparison.
Another interesting method that has recently yielded good results is theparallel method. It is based on the comparison with texts written in different
languages such as Egyptian, Demotic and Greek, but with similar textual, archaeological and iconographical contexts. The use of royal Napatan texts written in Egyptian or the religious texts in Greek and Demotic have recently
proved effective in identifying sentences and words. In particular, the studyof the religious graffiti in Greek, Demotic and Meroitic, produced by pilgrims
who visited the main sanctuaries in Lower Nubia, has allowed the translationof Meroitic texts. The religious graffiti, written in different languages, accompany a representation of a pair of feet, symbolizing the arrival of the pilgrim
at the sacred place on foot. The texts in Greek and Demotic start indicating
the feet and the name of the pilgrim (“these feet of X”, where X is the name ofthe pilgrim). The parallel analysis with Meroitic graffiti allowed identifying
the same standardized structure and translation of the Meroitic texts.
The importance of the iconography in the analysis of the Meroitic words
is also attested by execration texts characterized by the representation of prisoners with the enemies’ name engraved on the bodies. In this case the representation of the prisoner, characterized by physical elements and specific garments, can support the correspondence between the ethnonym and the ethnic
group.

Conclusion
Of the seven lexemes shown here (Table 1), three present a convincing
comparison with NES languages. The others provide acceptable correspondence. In order to consider assured the meaning of a word, it is necessary totake into consideration different aspects that Rilly resumed in seven indexes:
syntactic and semantic compatibility of the word meaning with the whole
text; compatibility with other texts where the word appears; relation with the
iconography; compatibility with the cultural and archaeological context
where the text was found; text type compatibility. Furthermore, he also considered – where possible – the identification of an Egyptian etymon and theequivalence with a term in another language as in the case of parallel texts.

Meroitic Lexemes Concerning Animals

201

According to this method, an interdisciplinary study is the only way allowing
to get an understanding of the Meroitic language.
The study of animal names in Meroitic texts is interesting not only for
those interested in increasing the list of words as part of the basic vocabulary
but also for those who want to identify animals that are maybe not original tothe area. Moreover, the texts could reveal interesting information on the typeof relationship between animals and the human community during the Meroitic period, thus confirming or refuting, through the description of a rite or
the count of animals used for a given activity, what archaeology and iconography have shown.

List of abbreviations
ADJ
DET
N
PREF
SUF
V

Adjective
Determinant
Noun
PrefixSuffixVerb

Bibliography
C. Carrier, 2000. La stèle méroitique d'Abratoye (Caire, J.E. n°90008), Meroitic
Newsletter, 21-53.
A. De Voogt, C. Rilly, 2012. The Meroitic Language and Writing System.
Cambridge.
B. N. Driskell, N.K. Adams, P.G French, 1989. A newly discovered Temple at
Qasr Ibrim. Preliminary Report, Archéologie du Nil Moyen 3, 11-54.
D. N. Edwards, D.Q. Fuller, 2000. Notes on the Meroitic "Epistolary"
Tradition: new texts from Arminna West and Qasr Ibrim, Meroitic
Newsletter, 77-98.
J. Hallof, 2016. The Meroitic Inscriptions from Qasr Ibrim. III. Inscriptions on Stone,
Wood, Parchment and Gourd - Plates. Dettelbach.
J. Leclant, 1973. Glass from The Meroitic Necropolis of Sedeinga (Sudanese
Nubia), Journal of Glass Studies 15, 52-68.

202

Gilda Ferrandino

A. Pompei, 2015. Meroitic Priestly Long Garments Decorated by a Falcon or
Vulture, in M.H. Zach (eds.), The Kushite World. Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference for Meroitic Studies, Vienna, 1-4 September 2008, 565572. Vienna.
C. Rilly, 2010a. Towards the Translation of Meroitic Texts: Prospects andMethods. Between the Cataracts. Proceedings of the 11th Conference of NubianStudies Warsaw University, 27 August-2 September 2006. Part 2, Fascicule 2,731-746. Warsaw.
C. Rilly, 2010b. Le méroitique et sa famille linguistique. Louvain-Paris.
C. Rilly, 2020. Personal Markers and Verbal Number in Meroitic, Dotawo: A
Journal of Nubian Studies, 11-92.
Å. Strandberg, 2009. The gazelle in ancient Egyptian art: image and meaning.
Uppsala.

The Deformation of Cattle Hornsin the New Kingdom Period
Laura Harris1

Introduction
Since the Predynastic period cattle played an influential role in the society
and culture of ancient Egypt, a trend that continued through to the GraecoRoman period. Egypt was an agrarian society, and cattle were employedthroughout the pharaonic period for their draught power during the agricultural cycle.2 In addition, the food they provided from their bodies: meat, bonemarrow, fat and dairy products supported most of their nutritional requirements.3
For the Egyptians to adequately care for and manage cattle, handling in
the form of touch (by hand or via an object) or through vocalising was a necessity. Handling is still a requirement in modern agricultural practice in order for livestock to receive adequate care.4 However, for some cattle to fulfil
their intended role, they not only required handling, but their bodies had tobe physically modified. Modification is defined here as the physical alterationand manipulation of the body. It is often carried out intentionally, but it canalso be an unintentional bi-product of a handling practice. Modification canbe divided into two categories: invasive and non-invasive. Invasive modification is the physical alteration of an animal’s body, while non-invasive modification is the temporary alteration of the appearance of an animal’s body bydecoration or adornment. Every modification will potentially affect the animals physically and/or mentally in a positive or negative way, and so it will
to some extent affect the cattle’s general welfare.

1 This paper is derived from research from my Master’s and PhD thesis and formed part of abroader study on cattle modification and husbandry practices, which were conducted while
holding the Macquarie University Research Training Program Stipend Scholarship. I wish to
thank Linda Evans who advised and provided very useful comments and suggestions on thispaper.
2 Evans 2010, 64–6; Houlihan 1996, 17; Osborn and Osbornová 1998, 195; Swinton 2012, 70.
3 Ikram 1995, 8, 12, 175, 179; Lucas and Harris 1999, 330.
4 Beattie 1992, 65–7.

204

Laura Harris

Horn disbudding and the dehorning of cattle are examples of invasive
practices that are carried out today for the safety of farmers,5 being frequently
performed without anaesthetic and/or analgesics.6 The removal of the horns
reduces the likelihood that the animal will gore a handler (un)intentionally.
Evidence suggests, however, that horn modification is not a recent practice.
The focus of this paper is the invasive practice of horn deformation in theancient Egyptian context as depicted in two-dimensional art from the New
Kingdom period.

Horn Deformation
The majority of cattle
breeds today are horned,
with sizes ranging fromshort to long and occurring in a large variety ofshapes. Horns are normally symmetrical andgrow upward away fromthe face, with their form
varying depending on
the breed. The horns ofancient Egyptian cattle
also varied in size and(Fig. 1).
Fig. 1: Egyptian ox with lyre shaped horns. Temple of appearance
Ramses II, Abydos; photo by the author (2019).
Egyptologists have divided the animals into
three categories based on horn length: long horns, short horns and hornless(polled).7 Long horns are lyre or crescent in shape, and short horns are straight,
pointing upwards at approximately a 45° angle. Hornless cattle are animals thatwere born without horns (polled), or their horns had been artificially removed.
No examples of horn removal can be confidently identified in two-dimensionalart and therefore it is not possible to determine from the artistic representations
alone whether the animals represented were naturally hornless.
5 Knierim et al. 2015, 34.

6 Cozzi et al. 2015, table 2.
7 Boessneck 1988, 69–70; Brewer et al. 1994, 82–3; Ghoneim 1977, 49; Houlihan 1996, 11.

The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period

205

When the horn
shape differs greatly
from the characteristic
breed shape in art, thismay suggest artificial
deformation. The deformed shapes can bedivided into two categories:
asymmetricaland symmetrical. Withasymmetricallyshaped horns, one
horn usually remains
upright and/or backward, while the other Fig. 2: Nubian ox with asymmetrically shaped horns in
is forward and down- the Opet Festival. Courtyard of Ramses II, Luxor Temward or curves across ple; photo by the author (2018).
the head (Fig. 2). Symmetrical horns are equally distorted into an unnatural
position, such as forward pointing or horizontal.
The first artistic depictions of cattle with deformed horns are found in elite
tomb scenes dating to the Old Kingdom (c. 2686-2160 BC).8 These representations of horn deformation are not unique to Egypt. They are depicted in rockart throughout the Sahara region, with the earliest examples dating from theseventh millennium BC in Algeria and Libya.9 Furthermore, zooarchaeological evidence in the form of bucrania with modified horns has been found at
the sites of Kerma and Faras in Nubia.10

Horn Modification in the New Kingdom (c. 1550-1069 BC)
Two-dimensional art scenes in elite tombs from the Theban Necropolis
and Saqqara were examined that show cattle depicted with or undergoing aphysical modification. The study also included an evaluation of scenes in thefollowing New Kingdom temples: Luxor Temple, Temple of Ramses II at

8 For example, the Fifth Dynasty tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep (Moussa and Al-

tenmüller 1977; taf. 84.).

9 Chaix and Hansen 2003, 275, fig. 5; Dioli 2018, 7, fig. 5b.
10 Chaix et al. 2012, fig. 2 on 193; Hall 1962, 60.

206

Laura Harris

Abydos, Beit el Wali Temple, Temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu, Gempaaten Temple and Rwd-Mnw Temple. These provided additional information for the study, such as greater context and detail, which may have been
omitted from the visual record in elite tombs due to the limited space.
Seventy-nine cattle in the dataset (see Tab. 1) were found to have deformed
horns of either asymmetrical or symmetrical shape.11 Asymmetrically shapedhorns are the most frequently represented, making up 85% of the corpus. Cattle with deformed horns appear in eight scene types: within herds of Nubian
cattle, in Nubian tribute scenes, decapitated heads on offering tables, within
Egyptian herds, branding, fattening, pulling the funerary sledge, and in processions. One example of a hieroglyph (E1) with distorted horns also exists.
The majority of examples (37%) found are of decapitated heads that are depicted on offering tables, all of which occur in tombs in the Theban Necropolis.
It may be argued that these animals and the other images could be theresult of artistic variation, which was carried out to enliven a scene, break up
repetition, or due to space constraints on tomb walls, forcing artists to distortthe horns to fit the animal figures within a register. This argument has been
made by some scholars, such as Jean Leclant.12 However, if this was correctthen horn deformation should be represented more frequently, especially inherding scenes. In these scenes, herds contain between three and nineteen cattle and the animals are frequently depicted with the same features andpainted close together in order to fit inside the register. According to theabove criteria, horn deformation should be numerous, but from the 44 herds
that were examined, only ten contain one to three animals with deformed
horns, suggesting they are not an aesthetic choice.

11 Interestingly, one goat with asymmetrically deformed horns was found in TT 31 (Davies

1948, pl. XV.).

12 Leclant 1956, 131.

Tab. 1.1: Corpus of cattle with horn deformation from elite tombs in the Theban Necropolis and Saqqara.

The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period
207

Tab. 1.2: Corpus of cattle with horn deformation from temples in Upper Egypt.

208
Laura Harris

The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period

209

Regarding the examples of horn deformation on offering tables, there areno significant spaces
or gaps between the
animal heads andthe other items on
the tables. This could
be interpreted as
representing an artistic decision to
make the placement
Fig. 3: Offering table with two bovine heads. The leftof the offerings fit tohead is depicted with asymmetrically shaped horns andgether well. Howthe right has symmetrically shaped horns. Traced fromever, for one of the
Schott photograph no. 5561 by T. Nair.
heads, located in thetomb of Djeserkaresoneb (TT 38), there is another head adjacent to it with both horns symmetricaland upright, leaving a noticeable gap between it and the food above (Fig. 3).
This indicates that allowances were made for space to be available between
the offerings, and so heads with deformed horns may not be examples of aesthetic choice, but instead reflect genuine animal husbandry practices.

Purpose of Horn Deformation
Cattle with deformed horns in the above scene types can be divided into
two main contexts. Firstly, in scenes of Nubians bringing tribute to Egypt, andsecondly within Egypt where cattle are in herds or processions. The captions
that accompany these scenes provide no information about the animals with
deformed horns. Therefore, bucrania with artificially deformed horns from
Kerma and ethnographic studies about Nilotic “cattle cultures” were utilised
to aid in interpretations.

Cattle in Nubian Herds
Louis Chaix’s excavations at the Eastern Cemetery at Kerma found thatbucrania were placed in rows in front of medium to large tumuli, and they210

Laura Harris

are generally not included in the smaller burials.13 The bucrania came fromcalves and from adult female and male cattle. Bucrania with deformed horns
were specifically placed throughout the rows of bucrania with unmodified
horns.14 Chaix et al. believe these cattle had a special significance because they
were physically modified to distinguish them from other cattle, and they were
specifically placed amongst the rows of unmodified bucrania.15 Analyses of anumber of these bucrania dating from the Classic Kerma period (1750-1500
BC) determined that the animals were brought from outside of Kerma, suggesting that horn deformation was widely practiced throughout Lower Nubia
at this time.16 The ages and sex of the animals from whom the bucrania cameand the large numbers that were placed around the tumuli indicate that they
were from multiple herds, with each potentially having at least one animal
with deformed horns17. Chaix parallels the composition of the above herds,
including the presence of horn deformation, with the herds of Nilotic “cattle
cultures” where they use horn deformation to transform a young bull into afavourite ox (Fig. 4). The concept of favourite oxen is very complex, and in
brief it is linked to masculinity and identity, with each man forming a great
emotional connection to their animal.18

Fig. 4: Nuer favourite ox withasymmetrically shaped horns.
Reproduced from C. G. Seligman, 1932. Egyptian Influencein Negro Africa, in S. R. K.
Glanville (ed.), Studies Presented to F. Ll Griffith. London, pl. 74 [g].

13 Chaix et al. 2012, 192.
14 Chaix et al. 2012, 197.
15 Chaix and Hansen 2003, 272, 274–5; Chaix et al. 2012, 195–6, 208, fig. 8.
16 Iacumin et al. 2001, 42, 44–5; Thompson et al. 2008, 383, 385.
17 Chaix et al. 2012, 208.
18 Hazel 1997, 67–85.

The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period

211

In the current study, three examples were found of Nubians bringing
herds of cattle as tribute into Egypt, all of which come from elite Theban
tombs (TT 39, TT 78 and TT 100). These may represent family herds as only
small numbers of cattle are depicted. However, the surviving captions forthese scenes are all similar, providing an overall description, namely, that the
Nubians are either bringing tribute to the temple of Amun or to the king.
Therefore, based on their intended purpose as tribute, they are likely to represent individual animals chosen specifically for this purpose, rather than one
single herd taken from an individual owner. In each example, one or two animals are depicted with deformed horns.
In the tomb of Amenhotep called Huy (TT 40) and in three temple scenes
carved during the reign of Ramses II (courtyard of Ramses II at Luxor Temple;
Temple of Ramses II at Abydos, and Beit el Wali Temple), procession scenes
are depicted showing cattle as tribute or offerings for religious festivals, suchas the Opet festival (Fig. 2). Oxen with deformed horns that are labelled as
coming from Kush, are included in the procession. It is indicative of the animals’ significance that they are shown given as tribute by the Nubians andincluded in festivals. In addition, part of Egyptian artistic convention was todepict the most recognisable aspects of an object or activity.19 As only the Nubian oxen in the above temple and tomb scenes are depicted with deformed
horns, this may indicate that the Egyptians viewed this practice as Nubian.
Due to the similarities between the artistic representations, bucrania and ethnographic parallels, the Nubian cattle depicted with deformed horns may
possibly represent favourite oxen similar to that practiced by Nilotic cultures
today. Whether these animals had the same emotional significance cannot be
determined, but the effort taken to deform their horns suggests strongly thatthese animals may have held special importance for the Nubians.

Egyptian Cattle with Deformed Horns
Egyptian cattle with deformed horns are represented in nine herding
scenes (TT 39, TT 56, TT 76, TT 86, TT 90), TT 145, TT 201, BM EA37976 andLS 27) and six processional scenes (TT 40, TT 78, TT 82, TT 93, TT 100, TT 104).
In herding scenes, the number of cattle with deformed horns range from between one (most frequent) and three (least frequent). The small number ofoxen with deformed horns parallels the Nubian herds, bucrania and the
19 Schäfer 2002, 96–104.

212

Laura Harris

ethnographic evidence. These animals may have been favourite oxen as well,
but before this is discussed, previous suggestions by scholars will be addressed.
Calvin Schwabe provided two possible explanations for the purpose ofhorn deformation. Firstly, he proposed that horn modification was associatedwith cattle cults due to the tombs in which they are depicted being locatedclose to the cult centres of Ptah (Saqqara) and Hathor (Meir and Deir elBahri).20 The tombs in Schwabe’s dataset dating to the Old Kingdom are all
located in Saqqara. However, this geographic connection appears to be circumstantial as during that period, Saqqara was the designated burial site forthe elites of the central administration. Schwabe applied the same reasoning
to the New Kingdom examples. He believed horn deformation was represented because of the Theban necropolis’ connection with Hathor, but this site
too was the designated burial site for elites working in the central administration. Additionally, the scenes in which the cattle appear have no connection
with Hathor.
Secondly, Schwabe believed many of the representations of the cattle with
deformed horns came from Nubia and were favourite oxen, such as those by
the modern Nilotic Dinka peoples.21 Especially in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, Egypt had a very close connection with Nubia as Lower
Nubia was under Egyptian control.22 Temples were built at Semna, Kumma,
Faras, Kawa, and Abu Simbel, and Nubians were officials in the army. As aresult, cattle were entering Egypt through trade and tribute to become part of
Egyptian herds, and this included oxen with deformed horns. Consequently,
it is more likely that these are the animals represented in tombs.23 Schwabe’slatter interpretation will be further discussed below.
Essam Elsaeed and Hoda Khalifa believe horn deformation was themethod used to identify cattle for sacrifice, and the modification of the horn
shape resulted in a functional change that prevented fights during mating.24
The presence of an animal with deformed horns in an offering scene in thetomb of Haremheb (TT 78) supports this interpretation. However, this is not
the only bovine depicted in an offering scene in the tomb; another ox is shown
20 Schwabe 1984, 154.
21 Ivi, 153–6.
22 Shaw 2017, 85–7, 122.
23 Schwabe 1984, 156.

24 Elsaeed and Khalifa 2017, 169.

The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period

213

with unmodified, lyre shaped horns. In addition, out of the 191 horned cattle
depicted in processional scenes, only six, including the two Kushite cattle
noted above, have deformed horns. If horn deformation was to differentiate
cattle to be sacrificed it would be expected that all the horned cattle would
have deformed horns in processional scenes. Noura Seada has also put forth
the suggestion that horn modification was practiced for identification, but rather, to prove ownership, thus paralleling branding.25
An alternative interpretation is that the cattle may have been favourite
oxen for the Egyptians, like those of the Nubians. Herds of Egyptian cattle
either belonged to the tomb owner or were in his charge. Presumably, thetomb owner was unlikely to have been involved in the day to day running of
his herds. However, due to the importance of cattle in Egyptian society, it ispossible that he would have inspected his herds relatively frequently, during
which he may have chosen a young bull to have their horn(s) deformed. Someof the cattle with deformed horns are shown in processional scenes in which
they are brought as offerings to the tomb owner, and consequently Henri
Frankfort noted that their presence could be indicative of their great value tohim.26 It is also possible that the “favourite ox” may have belonged to theherdsman in charge of the herd or multiple herdsmen when more than one
ox is represented. Herdsmen would have spent a large amount of their timeout on the pastures with the cattle.27 This provides an alternative to Frankfort’s interpretation that the oxen were selected by the herdsmen to show theirrespect for the deceased tomb owner.
The Egyptian people were more or less consistently in contact with theregion of Nubia from the Predynastic period onwards,28 and artistic evidenceshows that they were aware of horn deformation from at least the Old Kingdom period. This suggests the Egyptians were familiar with the Nubian practice of horn deformation for special oxen during this time. If so, then they
possibly adopted this custom for their own herds, targeting favourite animals
or perhaps those intended for a specific purpose.
Alternatively, as Schwabe suggested, the animals depicted are actually
Nubian cattle that have been integrated into Egyptian herds. As discussed
25 Seada 2022, 85. At the time of writing the conference proceedings remains unpublished andthe evidence Seada put forth in support of her interpretation remains unknown.
26 Frankfort 1969, 165.

27 Ghoneim 1977, 39; Swinton 2012, 38–9.
28 Schwabe 1984, 155–6; Shaw 2017, 6–7, 20–3, 52–6, 76–7.

214

Laura Harris

above, horn deformation was associated with Nubia, at least by the Eighteenth Dynasty. After Nubian cattle were brought into Egypt as tribute, tax oras prizes from war, it is possible they were assigned to Egyptian herds ownedby the king, temples or officials throughout the country.
However, a combination of these interpretations could be correct. Favourite
oxen may have come from Nubia, while others had their horns deformed
within Egypt by the tomb owner or herdsmen. It is unlikely, from Egypt’s
long connection with Nubia, that none had their horns deformed on Egyptian
soil.

The Process of Horn Deformation
All the examples that have been found of horn deformation represent
adult or yearling cattle. No scenes depict the deformation process nor thetools used to re-shape the horns. However, bucrania with artificially deformed horns from Nubia and ethnographic studies of Nilotic cattle cultures
suggest possible methods.

Asymmetrically Shaped Horns
Twelve bucrania with asymmetrically shaped horns were found in
Kerma’s eastern cemetery (Grave 181, Sector CE19) and two of these date to
the Classical II period, which is contemporaneous with the early Eighteenth
Dynasty.29 Some of the bucrania from the total corpus have deep incisions on
the skull at the horn base.30 Bucrania with the same asymmetrical deformation
were also uncovered in the C-Group cemetery (24-E-3) at Faras.31 Based on thehorn shape, Hall believed this was due to artificial deformation.32 Louis Chaix,
who excavated the Kerma bucrania, drew parallels with the current practiceof deforming a young bull’s horns by Nilotic “cattle cultures”, such as the
Nuer and Dinka33. These parallels have also been drawn by other scholars.34

29 Chaix et al. 2012, 193; fig, 2.
30 Ivi, 199.
31 Hall 1962, 59–60.
32 Ibid.
33 Chaix 2017, 422; Chaix et al. 2012, 199.

34 Brown 1990, 64; Dioli 2018, 6–7; Elsaeed and Khalifa 2017, 170–2; Epstein 1971, 422; Gordon

and Schwabe 2004, 86; Schwabe 1984, 147–56; Seligman 1932, 460–1.

The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period

215

The Nuer, Dinka and Murle deform the horns of their favourite oxen by
cutting the horn core with a blade.35 The procedure begins with the selectedyoung bull being thrown and held on the ground using ropes, a man holding
his muzzle and another keeping the body steady.36 A specialist then presses aheated spear against the horn base near the skull, softening the sheath. Following this, a white-hot spear cuts deep oblique incisions reaching inside thehorn core, damaging the horn-producing tissue, which causes the horn togrow thereafter into the direction of the cut.37 These incisions can be seen in
the ancient bucrania.38 Thin streams of blood flow from the incisions, and sobark fibres are wrapped around the horn base to stop the bleeding.39 If thedesired angle is not reached the first time, the calf will have to endure morecuts and the removal of thin slices of horn.40 Unlike the alternate method,41
this procedure can be repeated until the desired shape has been reached.
Elsaeed and Khalifa state the Egyptians used a different cutting method,in which the horn was split into two parts in order for the horn to grow backwards,42 but unfortunately, they provide no evidence in support of this hypothesis.
Alternatively, the shape of cattle horns can be modified by fracturing theskull at the horn base using a shaped stone. All other Nilotic peoples whopractice horn deformation use this method, with the shape of the stone depending on the culture.43 The Pokot use a “ground-stone axe-hammer”, whichis carefully fashioned to be the appropriate shape, balance and weight.44 Before the skull is fractured, the Pokot smear the axe-hammer with cow dung toensure the bull remains in good health, eats well, to soften the blow and lessen
the pain, and to prevent sorcery.45 The efficacy of cow dung is uncertain, but
this nonetheless shows the Pokots’ concerns about the animals’ welfare and
35 Chaix et al. 2012, 206.
36 Evans-Pritchard 1937, 230; Schwabe 1984, 145.
37 Chaix et al. 2012, 199; Schwabe 1984, 145.
38 Chaix et al. 2012, 197, fig. 11.
39 Evans-Pritchard 1937, 230.
40 Evans-Pritchard 1937, 230.
41 See below.
42 Elsaeed and Khalifa 2017, 170.
43 The Nilotic cultures: Longarim (South Sudan; Kronenberg 1961, 271); Hamar, Bodi, Das-

sanetch, Mursi, Nyangaton (Ethiopia; Dioli 2018, 6); Turkana, Pokot (Kenya; Brown 1990, 57–67); Dodoth, Karamojong (Uganda; Thomas 1966 9; Gourlay 1999 91–2).
44 Brown 1990, 57–9.
45 Ivi, 62.

216

Laura Harris

health. An expert uses the stone/axe to pound around the horn bases in the
shape of a semi-circle creating fractures.46 The horns are then pulled andpushed until a crack is heard, signifying the separation of that side of the horncore from the skull. For asymmetrically shaped horns, the chosen horn is thenrepositioned to point downward and the other is pushed backward. To bend
the other horn backwards, the Pokot notch the horn tip and heat it with asmouldering piece of wood.47 Following this, a Grant’s gazelle (Nanger granti)
horn is fitted into the notched horn and used as a lever to push the horn backwards into position. Unlike the other Nilotic cultures, this method can only
be performed on adult cattle with fully grown horns. Multiple methods are
employed to keep the horn that is bent downward in place. For example, theTurkana notch the horn tip, tying a rope from it to a loop of hide attached tothe bull’s nose,48 while the Hamar cut the forehead of the animal and insert astick into the wound, whereby a rope is then tied from the stick to the horn.49

Health Effects of Horn Deformation
Short-term
The Nilotic horn deformation procedures not only includes the action of
cutting the horn or fracturing the skull, but also separating the animal fromtheir herd, throwing them to the ground, and restraint. Cattle are a herd species, living in groups as a form of protection against predators.50 Recent studies have shown that cattle form bonds with other animals within their herd
and have preferences with whom they graze.51 After cattle are separated fromtheir herd, this increases the intensity of their reaction to negative stimuli.52
When separating cattle, many people are often involved, and shouting canarise when the animals or people are not cooperating. The ears of cattle aresensitive to loud noises, such as shouting, and when they are exposed to it,
their stress levels increase and they become fearful.53

46 Chaix et al. 2012, 205.
47 Brown 1990, 62–3.
48 Dioli 2018, 6.
49 Chaix et al. 2012, 205–6; Dubosson 2018a, 850–1.
50 Doyle and Moran 2015, 40.
51 Phillips 2002, 102.
52 Ivi, 58.

53 Pajor et al. 2000, 98–9; Pajor et al. 2003, 103–4, 106.

The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period

217

Being thrown and bound are not experienced by cattle out in the fields,
and when they are confronted with this, they will struggle against the restraints in order to remain upright, causing further fear.54 The stress may result in lowered immune function, which can cause cattle to become highly
susceptible to illness.55
The horns of cattle begin to grow when calves are six to eight months old,and during this time the horn core is connected to the frontal sinus of theskull.56 This causes the horns to have blood vessels and nerves. If the Egyptians used a method to deform their cattle horns by fracturing the skull using
a stone or axe, this would have caused excruciating pain, blood loss and possibly death.57 The subsequent pushing and pulling of the horn to further
loosen it would have intensified the suffering. Furthermore, infection can result in the sinuses because they are connected to the horn cores.58
The alternative method of cutting the horns and skull using a spear isequally painful.59 Cutting the horn(s) to produce deep incisions into the horn’score severs the blood vessels and nerves causing blood loss and severe pain.60
Regarding the Nuer, Evans-Pritchard observed that the cuts caused blood tosquirt “in a thin stream into the air”.61
Long-term Health Effects
The long-term health effects of horn deformation are the same regardlessof the procedure, as they both result in a physical distortion. Horns are very
important to cattle, both physically and socially, as they are used for protection, to maintain or increase social standing, for thermoregulation, and forcourtship.62 Modifying the horn shape will thus affect an ox detrimentally. Itchanges the way the animal can fight and defend itself, which could result ingreater risk of injury. When horned cattle fight, their horns usually lock together, which results in a pushing contest, in which there is less chance of

54 Grandin and Deesing 2008, 12–3.
55 Grandin 2015, 70.
56 Beattie 1992, 65; Knierim et al. 2015, 30.
57 Chaix et al. 2012, 202; Windig et al. 2015, 1.
58 Windig et al. 2015, 1.
59 Although for an alternative view, see Elsaeed and Khalifa 2017, 170.
60 Pritchard 1940, 38; Schwabe 1984, 145; Knierim et al. 2015, 30.
61 Evans-Pritchard 1937, 230.
62 Li et al. 2011, 179, 182.

218

Laura Harris

physical damage than with goring.63 Also, pressure applied to the horns
causes pain, thus potentially lessening the length of the fight.64 Animals with
deformed horns cannot lock them, which can result in more injuries and anincrease in their severity.
Cattle with horns are usually dominant over hornless cattle. In a herd ofhorned cattle, an animal having a different shape, such as asymmetrical horns,
may affect the animal’s place in the herd’s hierarchy.65 When cattle produce athreat display, they arch their back, lower their head and turn one side of theirbody to face the perceived threat. The different horn shape may impact thereading of a threat display as the signals would appear different, especiallywith asymmetrical horns.66 This may result in more physical interactions.
Consequently, all of these factors could potentially have a negative impact onan ox’s ability to maintain dominant relationships within the herd.
In addition, cattle use horns for self-grooming and so changing a horn’s
shape can cause discomfort and a loss of health if they are no longer able togroom themselves effectively.67
Finally, there is a growing number of studies suggesting that horns areused by cattle as a thermoregulatory mechanism.68 Asymmetrically deformed
horns may reduce the effectiveness of the horn’s ability to reduce water loss
due to its abnormal orientation.

Conclusion
Bucrania from Kerma’s Middle and Classical periods and ethnographic
studies of Nilotic practices reveal two horn deformation methods, both ofwhich are very painful for the animals involved. If similar procedures were
employed by the ancient Egyptians, then tentative speculation about their attitude to animal welfare may be possible.
If a spear was used to cut the horn and the skull at the horn base there
would have been a large amount of blood. The Nuer acknowledge this andcompare horn deformation to the initiation into manhood, which all boys

63 Knierim et al. 2015, 30.
64 Beattie 1992, 67.
65 Bouissou 1972, 476; Grandin and Deesing 2008, 29.
66 Windig et al. 2015, 2.

67 Knierim et al. 2015, 31; Broom and Fraser 2015, 103.
68 Summarised in Knierim et al. 2015, 31–2.

The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period

219

must undertake.69 During the initiation, a boy will have six horizontal lines
cut on his forehead to the bone causing blood to stream down his face. If theEgyptians used a cutting method, they will have seen that blood flowed fromthe horns when they were making the incisions.
Alternatively, if, a stone or stone axe was used to fracture the skull at thehorn base, it too would have been extremely painful for the bull. The Hamar
and Pokot acknowledge the pain of the procedure, which they attempt tolessen by placing cow dung on the axe to reduce the blow’s force and when
the procedure is finished they cover the horn in dung to ease the pain.70 If theEgyptians used a similar method, the sound of the horn separating from theskull would have been heard by those present. They would have understoodthat fracturing the skull was painful due to the injuries sustained from herding cattle on pasture.71 Furthermore, similar types of injuries were sustainedby those engaged in military campaigns throughout Egypt’s history. It was
not until the New Kingdom that the country held a large standing professional army, and so it is likely that herdsmen were included amongst the men
called up for military service.72
The amount of pain the Egyptians were aware of regarding their cattle
would have depended on the reaction of the animals. However, some individuals may not have expressed the physical symptoms of pain, such aschanged behaviour or vocalising.73 Cattle view humans as predators because
we have forward-facing eyes like other predators, such as wolves and lions,and so showing any signs of injury or pain can be disadvantageous as it can
result in them attracting the attention of, and becoming a target for, predators.74 If their animals suppressed their pain and showed no visible signs during or after the deformation procedure, the physical discomfort caused by theprocess may not have been realised. Under these circumstances, the Egyptians
would not have been aware that the cattle were suffering and thus know theprocedure was severely affecting the animals’ welfare.
If the animal became ill or died as a result immediately after the deformation, the Egyptians may have discerned that it was a direct result of the

69 Evans-Pritchard 1940, 38, 249.
70 Brown 1990, 62; Dubosson 2018a, 851.
71 Kanawati and Evans 2014, 49; pl. 130 [d].
72 Shaw 1991, 25–6; Shaw 2017, 14.

73 Phillips, 2002, 58–9; Stafford and Mellor 2015, 98.
74 Broom and Fraser 2015, 88.

220

Laura Harris

modification, but, if the illness or death came months after, the correlation
will not have been recognised.
Equally, herdsmen may not have recognised the social effects of horn deformation, that is, the potential loss of social standing caused by the change
in horn shape. They may have observed this occurring, but it is unlikely thatthey will have understood its cause or psychological effects.
A reduction in the animals’ ability to fight may not have been viewed as anegative consequence, as it will have decreased the risk of injury for the herdsmen. Deformed horns may also have lessened an ox’s ability to protect itself
from wild animals. However, due to the near constant presence of herdsmen
when the herds were driven to pasture,75 the vulnerability of such animals
would have been unchanged.
If, like the Pokot and Hamar, the Egyptians attempted to reduce the pain
felt by their cattle by applying dung, it would suggest that the animals’ welfare was considered during the deformation procedure. However, such atreatment would only have provided a small amount of pain relief, if at all,but it still attests to a concern for their animals. The importance of the modification appears to have been deemed essential and more important than thepain inflicted on the cattle, suggesting, that the Egyptians chose their own interests over the welfare of their animals. As the Egyptians had greatknowledge of cattle, it suggests this decision was an educated one, similar tothat of Nilotic tribes, where the practitioners are aware of the pain that horn
deformation causes to their cattle, but they still choose to practice it.

Bibliography
W. A. Beattie, 1992. Beef Cattle: Breeding and Management, 4th edition. Balgowlah.
J. Boessneck, 1988. Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten: untersucht anhand kulturgeschichtlicher und zoologischer Quellen. München.
M. F. Bouissou, 1972. Influence of Body Weight and Presence of Horns on Social Rank in Domestic Cattle, Animal Behaviour 20:3, 474–77.
D. J. Brewer, D. B. Redford, S. Redford, 1994. Domestic Plants and Animals: The
Egyptian Origins. Warminster.
75 Brewer et al. 1994, 86.

The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period

221

D. M. Broom, A. F. Fraser, 2015. Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 5thedition. Wallingford-Boston.
J. Brown, 1990. Horn-shaping Ground-stone Axe-hammers, AZANIA 25:1, 57–
67.
L. Chaix, 2017. Cattle, a Major Component of the Kerma Culture (Sudan), in
U. Albarella, M. Rizzetto, H. Russ, K. Vickers, S. Viner-Daniels (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Archaeozoology, 414–26. Oxford.
L. Chaix, J. W. Hansen, 2003. Cattle with “Forward-Pointing Horns”: Archaeozoological and Cultural Aspects, in L. Krzyżaniak, K. Kroeper, M. Kobusiewicz (eds.), Cultural Markers in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa and Recent Research, 261–81. Poznań.
L. Chaix, J. Dubosson, M. Honegger, 2012. Bucrania from the Eastern Cemetery at Kerma (Sudan) and the Practice of Cattle Horn Deformation, in J.
Kabacińsk, M. Chłodnicki, M. Kobusiewicz (eds.), Prehistory of Northeastern
Africa: New Ideas and Discoveries, 189–212. Poznań.
G. Cozzi, F. Gottardo, M. Brscic, B. Contiero, N. Irrgang, U. Knierim, O. Pentelescu, J. J. Windig, L. Mirabito, F. Kling-Eveillard, A. C. Dockes, I.
Veissier, A. Verlarde, C. Fuentes, A. Dalmau, C. Winckler, 2015. Dehorning of Cattle in the EU Member States: A Quantitative Survey of the Current Practices, Livestock Science, 179, 4–11.
N. de G. Davies, 1948. Seven Private Tombs at Ḳurnah. London.
M. Dioli, 2018. Nomad aesthetic: Cattle Modifications Among the Northern
Turkana of North West Kenya, Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 8,
6, 1–10.
R. Doyle, J. Moran, 2015. Cow Talk: Understanding Dairy Cow Behaviour to Improve Their Welfare on Asian Farms. Clayton South.
J. Dubosson, 2014. Human ‘Self’ and Animal ‘Other’. The Favourite Animal
Among the Hamar, in F. Girke (ed.), Ethiopian Images of Self and Other, 83104. Halle.
J. Dubosson, 2018a. The Practice of Cattle Horns Deformation in Past and Present Societies. A Persistent Pastoral Tradition in Africa, in M. Honegger(ed.), Nubian Archaeology in the XXIst Century. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference for Nubian Studies (Neuchâtel, 1-6 September 2014), 845–
854. Leuven.

222

Laura Harris

J. Dubosson, 2018b. The Hamar: Living by, for and with the Cattle, in T. Clack,
M. Brittain (eds.), The River: Peoples and Histories of the Omo-Turkana Area,
123–32. Oxford.
J. Dubosson, 2018c. Cattle Horn-Shaping: A Millennium Tradition Amongst
North-Eastern African Pastoralists, in F. Girke, S. Thubauville, W. Smidt(eds.), Anthropology as Homage: Festschrift for Ivo Strecker, 389–408. Köln.
J. Dubosson, 2021. Cattle cultures in Ancient Nubia, in G. Emberling and B.
Williams (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Nubia, 908–26. Oxford.
E. Elsaeed, H. Khalifa, 2017. A Comparative Study of Modified Animal Horns
in Ancient Egypt and Modern African Tribes, in I. Micheli (ed.), Culturaland Linguistic Transition explored. Proceedings of the ATrA closing workshop
Trieste, May 25-26, 2016, 166–87. Trieste.
H. Epstein, 1971. The Origin of the Domestic Animals of Africa, Vol. 1. New York.
L. Evans, 2010. Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art: Representations of the Natural
World in Memphite Tomb Scenes. Oxford.
E. E. Evans-Pritchard, 1937. Economic Life of the Nuer: Cattle I, Sudan Notes
and Records 20, 2, 209–45.
E. E. Evans-Pritchard, 1940. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihoodand Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford.
H. Frankfort, 1969. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago-London.
W. Ghoneim, 1977. Die Ökonomische Bedeutung des Rindes im Alten Ägypten.
Bonn.
A. H. Gordon, C. W. Schwabe, 2004. The Quick and the Dead: Biomedical Theory
in Ancient Egypt. Leiden.
T. Grandin, 2015. How to Improve Livestock Handling and Reduce Stress, in
T. Grandin (ed.), Improving Animal Welfare, 2nd Edition. A Practical Approach, 69–795. Wallingford-Boston.
T. Grandin, M. Deesing, 2008. Humane Livestock Handling (Understanding Livestock Behavior and Building Facilities for Healthier Animals). North Adams.
K. Gourlay, 1999. The Making of Karimojong; Cattle Songs, in M. Floyd (ed.),Composing the Music of Africa: Composition, Interpretation and Realisation, 91–
105. Aldershot.

The Deformation of Cattle Horns in the New Kingdom Period

223

H. T. B. Hall, 1962. A Note on the Cattle Skulls Excavated at Faras, Kush X, 58–
61.
R. Hazel, 1997. Robes colorées et cornes déformés: Le pasteurs est-africains etleurs bœufs de parade, Anthropologie et Sociétés 21, 2-3, 67–85.
P. F. Houlihan, 1996. The Animal World of the Pharaohs. London.
P. Iacumin, H. Bocherens, L. Chaix, 2001. Keratin C and N Stable Isotope Ratios of Fossil Cattle Horn From Kerma (Sudan): A Record of Dietary
Changes, Italian Journal of Quaternary Sciences, 14, 1, 41–76.
S. Ikram, 1995. Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt. Leuven.
N. Kanawati, L. Evans, 2014. Beni Hassan. Volume 1. The Tomb of Khnumhotep
II. Oxford.
U. Knierim, N. Irrgang, B. A. Roth, 2015. To be or not to be Horned–Consequences in Cattle, Livestock Science 179, 29–37.
A. Kronenberg, 1961. The Longarim Favourite Beast, Kush IX, 258–77.
J. Leclant, 1956. La „Mascarade“ des bœufs gras et le triomphe de l'Égypte,
MDAIK 14, 128–45.
B-W. Li, H-P. Zhao, X-Q. Feng, 2011. Static and Dynamic Mechanical Properties of Cattle Horns, Materials Science and Engineering C 31, 2, 179–83.
A. Lucas, J. R. Harris, 1999. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. Mineola.
A. M. Moussa, H. Altenmüller, 1977. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep. Mainz am Rhein.
D. J. Osborn, J. Osbornová, 1998. The Mammals of Ancient Egypt. Warminster.
E. A. Pajor, J. Rushen, A. M. B. de Passillé, 2000. Aversion Learning Techniques to Evaluate Dairy Cattle Handling Practices, Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69, 89–102.
E. A. Pajor, J. Rushen, A. M. B. de Passillé, 2003. Dairy Cattle's Choice of Handling Treatments in a Y-Maze, Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80, 93–107.
C. Phillips, 2002. Cattle Behaviour and Welfare, 2nd edition. Oxford.
H. Schäfer, 2002, Principles of Egyptian Art. Oxford.
C. W. Schwabe, 1984. A Unique Surgical Operation on the Horns of African
Bulls in Ancient and Modern Times, Agricultural History 58, 2, 138–56.

224

Laura Harris

N. Seada, 2022. Those Are Mine: The Diversity of Animal Identification Methods in Ancient Egypt, in Current Research in Egyptology 2022 – Montpellier:Book of Abstracts, 85. Montpellier.
C. G. Seligman, 1932. Egyptian Influence in Negro Africa, in S. R. K. Glanville(ed.), Studies Presented to F. Ll Griffith, 457–62. London.
G. J. Shaw, 2017. War and Trade with the Pharaohs: An Archaeological Study ofAncient Egypt’s Foreign Relations. Barnsley.
I. Shaw, 1991. Egyptian Warfare and Weapons. Princes Risborough.
K. J. Stafford, D. J. Mellor, 2015. Painful Husbandry Procedures in Livestock and Poultry, in T. Grandin (ed.), Improving Animal Welfare, 2nd Edition.
A Practical Approach. Wallingford; Boston.
J. Swinton, 2012. The Management of Estates and their Resources in the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Oxford.
E. M. Thomas, 1966. Warrior Herdsmen. London.
A. H. Thompson, L. Chaix, M. P. Richards, 2008. Stable Isotopes and Diet
at Ancient Kerma, Upper Nubia (Sudan), Journal of Archaeological Science 35,
376–87.
J. J. Windig, G. Cozzi, I. Vessier, 2015. Introduction to the Special Issue on
Alternatives for Cattle Dehorning, Livestock Science 179, 1–3.

Wrapping it Up:
Animal Mummy Studies in 2022
Salima Ikram
The significance of animals in the lives, both practical and spiritual, haslong been established in Egyptological studies. The most striking roles thatanimals played in Egyptian religion was in the animal cults that flourishedduring the twilight of Egyptian history, finally ending during the Roman
domination with the advent of Christianity. In these cults an animal was worshipped as a physical manifestation of a god, such as the Apis Bull of Ptah,that was mummified upon its death and buried with great pomp and splendour. Offerings to the gods also took the form of their totemic creature, when
an animal was sacrificed, mummified, and given as a votive offering to a god,
and finally interred in a tomb of catacomb associated with the cult; thus, ibises
were given to Thoth and cats to Bastet. These number in the millions and arefound in animal cemeteries spread throughout the Nile Valley and the oasesof the Western Desert.1
Animal mummies have had a chequered career when it comes to their role
within Egyptology and the history of collecting. They have been used as fertilizer, fuel, ballast, as well as curiosities to be collected, displayed, and sometimes disposed of summarily.2 Antiquarian and Egyptological interest in animal mummies was limited and sporadic, though quite early on Pettigrew
made an initial study of animal cults.3 On the whole, animal mummies werecollected more as curiosities than as objects that could yield significant information about Egyptian religion, environment, trade, and economy.4 The firstserious interest expressed in animal mummies, aside from examining them as
examples of mummification5 and subjecting them to early tests in radiography,6 was by naturalists. This started with Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire
1 Kessler, 1986; Ikram 2015a, xvii–xx.
2 Daily Graphic, 12 February 1890; Punch, 15 February 1890; Malek 1993; McKnight and Ather-

ton-Woolham 2015; Ikram 2019.
3 Pettigrew 1834.
4 Ikram 2019; Barber 2019.
5 Pettigrew 1834.
6 Koenig 1896.

226

Salima Ikram(1772-1844), whose pioneering work in the 19th century on the morphology ofmummified crocodiles,7 the results of which were largely rejected at the time,
has led to new discoveries regarding ancient Egyptian fauna in the 21st century, using DNA analysis.8 Naturalists continued to be the driving force in thecollection and study of animal mummies from the late 19th to the early 20th
century.9 It was not until the late 1970s/early 1980s, with the Egypt Exploration Society’s work at the Animal Catacombs in North Saqqara, and the workof Dieter Kessler in Tuna el-Gebel, that Egyptologists took an interest in animal mummies, many with considerable reluctance, preferring to focus on thearchitecture and texts associated with the deposits, rather than the animals
themselves, with Kessler’s being a notable exception as his team regularly included archaeozoologists.10 After another hiatus, interest in animal mummies
and their associated cults was sparked by the work of Alain Charron and thisauthor. The work of the Animal Mummy Project (AMP) in Cairo, directed by
Nasry Iskander and this author, in addition to increasing scholarly interest in
the topic, also engaged public interest due to the television documentaries
that it inspired. One scholarly result of the AMP was the classification of animal mummy types, which were further refined over time (pets, food, sacred,votive, ‘guardian’, ‘amuletic’, amalgam/fake/false, and ‘other’).11 The publications resulting from the AMP together with media interest, served as an impetus for more scholarly work on animal mummies to be carried out in Egypt
as well as abroad. In addition, it has generated several exhibitions on animal
mummies, as well as conferences,12 including the one sponsoring this volume,
which is in its third iteration, and others that focus on a specific family ororder, the most recent of which (at the time of writing) is the Primates in Archaeology conference held in Konstanz in 2023.
Clearly, animal mummies are now more closely situated in the mainstream of Egyptology, as well as being the subject of increasing archaeozoological research as well as the types of analyses associated with generalmummy studies. Two main sources of evidence are responsible for alteringand expanding our views on animal mummies: museum research as well as
7 Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1807.
8 Hekkala et al. 2011; Heakkala et al. 2020; Hekkala et al. 2022; Ikram 2019; 2020.
9 Nicoletti and Postel 1994; Ikram and Helmi 2002; McKnight and Atherton-Woolham 2015;

Ikram 2019.
10 See Ikram 2019 for an overview of relevant publications.
11 Ikram 2019.

12 See Ikram 2019 for an overview.

Wrapping it Up

227

excavations of animal mummy deposits. In the case of the former, case studies
from museum collections where single (or small groups) of animal mummies
are examined radiologically and often archaeometrically for dating, DNA,and mummification materials, remain significant as they add to the corpus
and general information about animal mummies. The large-scale interdisciplinary studies of animal mummies, such as those at the Museo Egizio in Turin, the Musée des Confluences in Lyon,13 and the British Museum in London
that incorporate imaging, dating, textile and dye analysis, and the identification of mummification materials to create a broader diachronic, geographic,
and species understanding of animal mummies, as well as establishing standard descriptions for the bandaging.
Excavations that are yielding fresh, provenanced and well-documented
materials that can be used for a variety of studies relating to animal mummies
are key to furthering our understanding of animal cults as many of the mummies in museum collections are unprovenanced. On a basic level, the raw data
gathered from fresh excavations in terms of species, minimum numbers ofindividuals, age ranges, and state of health provide a deeper understandingof the relationship between humans and other animals, particular in terms ofanimal husbandry, veterinary knowledge, and Egyptian belief systems. For
example, at Quesna, raptor and shrew mummies are providing a greater insight into the attributes of the god Horus Khenti-Kheti, as well as the workingof the temple through the number of seal impressions found at doorways, inaddition to mummification technology and materials.14 At Saqqara, in the vicinity of Pepi I’s pyramid, a new deposit of cattle mummies is adding to ourknowledge of the different cults celebrated there, their location, and the animals used in these,15 while the Bubasteion excavations have yielded lions inaddition to other felines,16 raising further questions about the acquisition, careand use of wild animals in these cults. A rich deposit of fish mummies from
Oxyrhynchus has helped to clarify the fish cult there as well as provenancehitherto unprovenanced fish mummies in museums.17 Work at Sheikh Fadl,
under the direction of Christiana Köhler is revealing more about the canine

13 For example, Richardin et al. 2017; Porcier et al. 2019; Linglin et al; Bailleul-LeSuer 2019;

Bondetti et al. 2019.
14 Rowland et al. 2013; personal observation.
15 Charron et al. 2022.
16 Waziry 2023.

17 Van Neer and Gonzalez 2019.

228

Salima Ikram

cult there, and a wide range of data continues to be gathered from Tuna elGebel. At Abydos, in the temple enclosure of Rameses II, Sameh Iskander andhis team have uncovered a large deposit of rams (Fig. 1), sheep, cattle, dogs,
and goats that is raising questions about the different cults that flourished at
the site, the length of time that they were active, and the cemeteries associatedwith them;18 in addition, a new canine cemetery associated with the Senusert
III burial complex has been found by J. Wegner and his team.19 At Luxor’s
west bank in Dra Abu el-Naga a Ptolemaic period cemetery of ibises, raptors,
shrews, and snakes has been documented, together with some of the texts relating to the working and history of the cult,20 as well as a rare seventeenth
dynasty ram burial21 that extends animal burials in this area further backchronologically.

Fig. 1: Some of the rams found at Abydos excavated by the team of Sameh
Iskander in the area of the Ramesses II temple, photo Salima Ikram.

18 S. Iskander, personal communication and this author’s examination of these.
19 J. Wegner, personal communication.

20 Di Cerbo and Jasnow 2021; Bosch-Pusche and Ikram 2021; Ikram and Spitzer 2022.
21 Brink et al. 2021.

Wrapping it Up

229

Although not technically mummified, the deposits of different animals at
Hierakonpolis have led to a greater understanding of Egyptian fauna and thetrade of exotic animals in the Predynastic era,22 as have those found in the Red
Sea port at Berenike, that date to the Ptolemaic era, the other end of the Egyptian historical spectrum.23 A large deposit of crocodiles at Kubbet el-Hawa24
has led to the idea of a variety of cult activities in the area in the later periodsof Egyptian history, as well as augmented the earlier morphometric25 andDNA work of identifying different species of crocodile in the Nile that wereused in the animal cults.26
Furthermore, the remains of mummified animals are serving as proxies forunderstanding environmental and climatic change in Egypt. This is true particularly small mammals, such as shrews,27 which are now almost unknown
in Upper Egypt. This construct might be applied to other species.
In addition to the traditional technologies applied to the study of mummies (imaging, Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry, Fourier transform
infrared spectroscopy, aDNA, experimental work), proteomics as well as stable isotope analysis are being used to extract more information from these
artefacts, particularly in terms of understanding the sourcing (sometimes international) and rearing of the animals.28 Despite all the information that one
can derive through archaeometry, as demonstrated on examples from museum collections, it remains challenging to carry out sampling within Egypt
due to political issues, which unfortunately impedes the discipline. It is hopedthat in the future years these policies change—certainly efforts are being madein this direction by the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities.
As work on animal mummies continues some questions remain thatshould be in the forefront of our examination of these artefacts. One of theseis the dating of the mummies in order to establish the duration of time that an
animal necropolis was active and the diachronic range of this practice as thisstill remains a matter of speculation; thus, more large-scale radiocarbon efforts are required to address it. A fresh avenue of inquiry associated with the
22 For the most complete bibliography, please see the website for the mission (http://www.hi-

erakonpolis-online.org/index.php/join-us-now).
23 Osypiński and Osypińska 2019; Osypińska et al. 2020.
24 De Cupere et al. 2023.
25 Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1807.
26 Hekkala et al. 2011; Hekkala et al. 2020; Hekkala et al. 2022.

27 Woodman et al. 2021; Woodman et al. 2022; Woodman and Ikram 2021.
28 Dominy et al. 2020; Linglin et al. 2020.

230

Salima Ikram

mummies is the question of zoonotic diseases that might be identified by analysing the mummies. Another question involves the mechanism of the working of the cult and those who were involved in it. This includes issues of acquiring and caring for the animals, with some information about this being
gathered from the mummies themselves29 as well as from texts.30 The questionof who was consecrating the mummies and who were the priests/officiants ofthe cult, which is elucidated largely through texts, also remains in need offurther clarification. Some texts from the demotic corpus have been published,31 and it is hoped that remaining ones soon see the light of day and that
more are found in recent excavations as these contribute significantly to ourunderstanding of cult practices. The methods and materials used in the mummification of the animals are varied, and all of these need to be better catalogued. Such studies will contribute to establishing if the different materials
and/or techniques depend on whether the animals have fur, feathers, fins, or
scales, or if they are economic choices or ones depending on geographic location, specific ateliers, or related to specific time periods. Thus, while great advances are being made in animal mummy studies, many questions must still
be answered in order to fill in the lacunae regarding Egyptian religion, mummification, economy, trade, and the changing environment.

Bibliography
R. Bailleul-LeSuer, 2019. From Egyptology to Ornithology. The Cults of Sacred Falcons and the Musée des Confluences’ Raptor Mummies’, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, and S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky: Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 87–98. Leiden.
M. Bondetti, S. Porcier, M. Ménager, C. Vieillescaze, 2019. Une analyse chimique de la composition de baumes de momies animales égyptiennes conservée au musée des Confluences (Lyon, France), in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S.
Pasquali (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky: Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 109–119. Leiden.

29 Porcier et al. 2019; Linglin et al. 2020.
30 Ray 1976 remaining a classic.

31 Preisigke and Spiegelberg 1914; Hughes 1958; Ray 1976; Thissen 1991; Nur el-Din 1992;

Vittman 1995; Martin and Smith 2010; Smith et al. 2011; Ray 2011; 2013; El-Sayed 2019.

Wrapping it Up

231

F. Bosch-Pusche and S. Ikram, 2021. The Archaeology of the Area: An Overview, in T. Di Cerbo and R. Jasnow (eds.), On the path to the place of rest:
demotic graffiti relating to the ibis and falcon cult from the Spanish-Egyptian mission at Dra Abu el- Naga TT 11, TT 12, TT 399 and environs, 17–36. Atlanta.
K. Brink, K., S. Ikram, Z. Barahona-Mendieta, P. Frade, 2021. Mary Had a Little Ram: An Enigmatic 17th Dynasty Deposit in Dra Abu el-Naga, JARCE
57, 33–55.
A. Charron, M. Luret, X. Hénaff, 2022. Une nouvelle nécropole de bovidés à
Saqqarah, Bulletin de la Société d’égyptologie, Genève 33, 5–23.
N. J. Dominy., S. Ikram, G. L. Moritz, P. V. Wheatley, J. N. Christensen, J. W.
Chipman, P. L. Koch, 2020. Mummified baboons reveal the far reach ofearly Egyptian mariners, eLife 2020;9;e60860. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.60860
https://elifesciences.org/articles/60860.
É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1807. Description de deux crocodiles qui existentdans le Nil, comparés au crocodile de Saint-Domingue, Annales du Muséumd’histoire naturelle 10, 67-86.
E. Hekkala, M.H. Shirley, G. Amato, J.D. Austin, S. Charter, J. Thorbjarnarson,
K. A. Vliet, M.L. Houck, R. Desalle, M.J. Blum, 2011. An Ancient Icon Reveals New Mysteries: Mummy DNA Resurrects a Cryptic Species within
the Nile Crocodile, Molecular Ecology 20, 20, 4199–4215.
E. R. Hekkala, M. L. Aardema, A. Narechania, G. Amato, S. Ikram, M. H.
Shirley, K. A. Vliet, S. W. Cunningham, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, O. Smith,2020. The secrets of Sobek – A crocodile mummy mitogenome from ancient
Egypt, JAS Reports 33, 102483.
E. R. Hekkala, R. Colten, Se. W. Cunningham, O. Smith, S. Ikram, 2022. Using
Mitogenomes to Explore the Social and Ecological Contexts of Crocodile
Mummification in Ancient Egypt, Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural
History 63, 1, 3–14.
G. R. Hughes, 1958. A demotic letter to Thot, JNES 17, 1–12.
S. Ikram, 2015a. Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt. Cairo.
S. Ikram, 2015b. Speculations on the Role of Animal Cults in the Economy ofAncient Egypt, in M. Massiera, B. Mathieu, F. Rouffet (eds.), Apprivoiser lesauvage—Taming the Wild: Glimpses on the Animal World in Ancient Egypt,
CENIM 11, 211–28. Montpellier.

232

Salima Ikram

S. Ikram, 2019. Shedding new light on old corpses: developments in the fieldof animal mummy studies, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky: Proceedings of the International Symposium of
Animals in Ancient Egypt, 179–92. Amsterdam.
S. Ikram, 2020. Ancient Egyptian Fauna, in I. Shaw, E. Bloxham (eds.), Oxford
Handbook of Egyptology, 151–64. Oxford.
S. Ikram, A. Helmi, 2002. The History of the Collection of the Animal Mummies at the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, in M. Eldamaty, M. Trad (eds.), Egyptian Museum Collections, 563–68. Cairo.
S. Ikram, L. Bertini, 2021. The Fauna, in P. Nicholson (ed.), The Catacombs ofAnubis at North Saqqara: An Archaeological Perspective, 135–88. Leuven.
S. Ikram, M. Spitzer, 2022. The Cult of Horus and Thoth: A Study of Egyptian
Animal Cults in Theban Tombs 11, 12, and -399-, in J. Daujat, A. Hadjikoumis, R. Berthon, J. Chahoud, V. Kassianidou, J.-D. Vigne (eds.), Archaeozoology of Southwest Asia and Adjacent Areas XIII. Proceedings of the ThirteenthInternational Symposium, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus, June 7-10,
2017, 245–255. Bristol.
D. Kessler, 1986. Tierkult, in W. Helck, W. Westendorf (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie 6, 571–87. Wiesbaden.
W. J. A. Koenig, 1896. 14 Photographien mit Röntgen-Strahlen aufgenommen
im Physikalischen Verein zu Frankfurt a. M. Leipzig.
M. Linglin, R. Amiot, P. Richardin, S. Porcier, I. Antheaume, D. Berthet, V.
Grossi, F. Fourel, J.-P. Flandrois, A. Louchart, J. E. Martin, C. Lécuyer.
2020. Isotopic systematics point to wild origin of mummified birds inAncient Egypt, Science Reports 10, 15463. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598020-72326-7
J. Malek, 1993. The Cat in Ancient Egypt. London.
C. J. Martin, H.S. Smith, 2010. Demotic letters from the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara, in H. Knuf, C. Leitz, D. von Recklinghausen(eds.), Honi soit qui mal y pense: Studien zum pharaonischen, griechischrömischen und spätantiken Ägypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef Thissen, 85–97.
Leuven.
L. M. McKnight, S. Atherton-Woolham (eds.), 2015. Gifts for the Gods: Ancient
Egyptian Animal Mummies and the British. Liverpool.

Wrapping it Up233

M. A.A. Nur El-Din, 1992. Report on New Demotic Texts from Tuna el-Gebel,
in J.H. Johnson (ed.), Life in a Multi Cultural Society, 253–54. Chicago.
P. Osypiński, P. Osypiński, M. Osypiński, 2019. Excavation of the small animal cemetery at the Roman Red Sea harbor of Berenike in 2018 and 2019,
Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 28/2, 175–193.
M. Osypiński, M. Skibniewski, P. Osypiński, 2020. Ancient pets: the health,diet and diversity of cats, dogs and monkeys from the Red Sea port of Berenice (Egypt) in the 1st–2nd centuries AD. World Archaeology 52.4, 639–653.
DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2020.1870545.
F. Preisigke, W. Spiegelberg, 1914. Die Prinz-Joachim-Ostraka: Griechische unddemotische Beisetzungsurkunden für Ibis- und Falkenmumien aus Ombos.
Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Straßburg 19. Straßburg.
T. J. Pettigrew, 1834. A History of Egyptian Mummies and an Account of the Worship and Embalming of the Sacred Animal by Egyptians. London.
S. Porcier, C. Berruyer, S. Pasquali, S. Ikram, D. Berthet, P. Tafforeau. 2019. Wildcrocodiles hunted to make mummies in Roman Egypt: Evidence from synchrotron imaging, JAS 110, 105009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2019. 105009
J. D. Ray, 1976. The Archive of Hor. London.
J. D. Ray, 2011. Texts from the Baboon and Falcon Galleries: Demotic, Hieroglyphic andGreek Inscriptions from the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara. London.
J. D. Ray, 2013. Demotic Ostraca and Other Inscriptions from the Sacred Animal
Necropolis, North Saqqara. London.
P. Richardin, G. Louarn, D. Berthet, S. Ikram, S. Porcier, 2017. Cats, Crocodiles,
Cattle, and More: Initial Steps Toward Establishing A Chronology of Ancient
Egyptian Animal Mummies, Radiocarbon 59, 2, 595–607.
J. Rowland, J., S. Ikram, G. J. Tassie, L. Yeomans, 2013. The Sacred Falcon Necropolis of Djedhor(?) at Quesna: Recent Investigations from 2006-2012,
JEA 99, 53–84.
H. S. Smith, C.A.R. Andrews, and S. Davies, 2011. The Sacred Animal Necropolis
at North Saqqara: The Mother of Apis Inscriptions 1–2. London.
M. A. El-Sayed, 2019. Two Unpublished Baboon Coffin Lids in El-Ashmunein
Magazine, Medjat 15, 3–9.
H. J. Thissen, 1991. Demotische Inschriften aus den Ibisgalerien in Tuna el-

234

Salima Ikram

Gebel, Enchoria 18, 107–113.
W. Van Neer, J. Gonzalez, 2019. A Late Period fish deposit at Oxyrhynchus(el-Bahnasa, Egypt). Documenta Archaeobiologiae, 15, 311-342.
B. De Cupere, W. Van Neer, V. Barba Colmenero, A. Jiménez Serrano, 2023.
Newly discovered crocodile mummies of variable quality from an undisturbed tomb at Qubbat al-Hawā (Aswan, Egypt), PLoS ONE 18, 1,
e0279137.
G. Vittman, 1995. Zwei demotische Briefe an den Gott Thot, Enchoria 22, 169–
181
N. Woodman, S. Ikram, 2021. Ancient Egyptian mummified shrews (Mammalia: Eulipotyphla: Soricidae) and mice (Rodentia: Muridae) from the
Spanish Mission to Dra Abu el-Naga, and their implications for environmental change in the Nile valley during the past two millennia, Quaternary
Research 100, 21–31.
N. Woodman, S. Ikram, J. Rowland, 2021. A new addition to the embalmedfauna of ancient Egypt: Güldenstaedt’s White-toothed Shrew, Crocidura
gueldenstaedtii (Pallas, 1811) (Mammalia: Eulipotyphla: Soricidae), PLoS
ONE 16, 4, e0249377.
N. Woodman, S. Ikram, J. Rowland, 2022. Environmental implications of Ptolemaic Period rodents and shrews from the Sacred Falcon Necropolis at
Quesna, Egypt (Mammalia: Muridae and Soricidae), BMC Ecology and Evolution 22, 148.
M. Waziry, 2023. Vestiges of Ancient Egypt. The Bubasteiion Votive Cachette at
Saqqara. Houston/Cairo.

Mythical Animals of Kush.
Remarks on the Imaginary Creatures
and Religion in Kerma
Andrea Manzo

Introduction
The site of Kerma in Upper Nubia, 60 Kms upstreamof the Third Cataract of the
Nile (Fig. 1), gave its name toa culture active roughly between the mid-3rd and the
mid-2nd millennium BC.
Moreover, the region of
Kerma represented the corearea of a complex hierarchical social organization
which from ca. 2000 BC waslabelled as Kush in the Egyptian textual sources.1 This hierarchical society, whichfrom a certain point onward
was certainly a state, was apartner and a competitor of
Egypt on the Middle Nile foralmost 1000 years.2 The characteristics of the Kerma/Kushstate have recently been discussed3 showing that we may Fig. 1: Location of Kerma and of the regions andhave a case of an African sites mentioned in the text.
1 Török 2009, 86-87.
2 Ivi, 64-156.

3 See e.g., Emberling 2014.

236

Andrea Manzo“path to complexity” here, as those described for later phases by Susan Keech
McIntosh.4 Among the features that often characterize these complex African
societies are the light bureaucratic apparatus and the limited adoption of writing technologies. In the case of Kerma, king Kamose’s (c. 1550 BC) stela,erected at Karnak temple, mentions despatches sent to the ruler of Kush thatsuggests that letters in Egyptian were read (and likely written) in the royalcourt of Kush within the framework of diplomatic relations.5 However, thepresence of inscribed Egyptian objects in Classic Kerma funerary assemblages
cannot be regarded as definitive proof that access to Egyptian texts was widespread among the Kerma/Kush elite, as has sometimes been suggested.6 Nevertheless, an admittedly extremely limited number of other texts, which arealways related to and presumably written on behalf of the Kushite rulers, are
known.7 These other texts confirm that Egyptian texts were produced in Kush.
Therefore, their limited number can only be explained by the limits of ourpresent knowledge, with other texts still awaiting to be discovered, or, indeed,by the specific features of the Kerma/Kush state.
Be that as it may, the almost complete lack of textual sources largely compromises our possibility of reconstructing several aspects of the Kerma culture and religion is certainly one of these. As a consequence of this, the contribution of religious studies on Kerma/Kush to an understanding of the later
Kushite Napatan and Meroitic religion is very limited, the reconstruction of
the religion(s) of the regions South of the First Cataract before the Egyptian
conquest being almost completely based only on indirect evidence from
Egyptian sources, moreover those that mostly focus on Lower Nubia.8 At thesame time, the lack of textual sources increases the potential that an archaeological and iconographic approach can have for the study of the religion of
Kerma/Kush.9

4 McIntosh 1999.
5 Török 2009, 112-113; Cooper 2018, 154.
6 Cooper 2018, 149.
7 Ivi, 144.
8 See e.g., Almansa-Villatoro 2018, 170, 175-180, 185-186; see also Kuckertz and Lohwasser

2016, 26-27.

9 Kendall 1997, 76; Manzo 2008, 169, 2011, 209; Török 2009,140.

Mythical Animals of Kush

237

The Study of the religion of Kerma/Kush
Despite the paucity of textual evidence, insights into the religion of
Kerma/Kush can be obtained from monuments and material culture.10 The architectural features of the sacred buildings at Kerma provide evidence, as do
the decorative programs characterizing some of them. For example, it has
been pointed out that the functional role of the terrace on top of several Kerma
chapels and temples may suggest that the religion of Kerma/Kush had sky
and perhaps more specifically solar connotations, as is also possibly supported by the adoption of the winged sun disc as the decoration of the lintel
of chapel KII and of the vault of the funerary chamber of tumulus KIII.11 Thismay be also confirmed by the adoption of the pylon, which at least in Egypt
had a solar symbolism, yet in Kerma its addition served to monumentalize
the entrances of the main Classic Kerma religious buildings.12
A crucial contribution to the study of the religion of Kerma/Kush in archaeological terms is the research conducted by Charles Bonnet in the Eastern
Cemetery at Kerma. In this area of the site, he extensively excavated a large
mud brick structure, labelled KXI by Reisner, which turned out to be a royal
funerary chapel dating to Classic Kerma times (ca. 1750-1550 BC).13 As perhaps also Chapel KII, Chapel KXI featured a complex painted decorative program, which was discovered by George Andrew Reisner.14 However, these
decorations were largely overlooked by the American archaeologist.15 A largepart of the decorative program consists of representations of animals.16 Although no imaginary creatures occur amongst these, it will be referred to manytimes in this article for the purposes of comparing and for contextualizing therepresentations of imaginary creatures from other Kerma assemblages
roughly dating to the same period. The decorative program of KXI is of further importance because its study undertaken by Bonnet and Török certainly
represents a starting point in the use of an iconographic approach towards the

10 Howley 2017, 220-221.
11 Reisner 1923a, 136; Bonnet ed. 1990, 89; Kendall 1997, 23, 46, 65, 77-78; Bonnet 2000, 111-

112, 120, 132, figs. 86, 87, 139; id. 2004, 65, 152, 160; Manzo 2008, 11-12; see also Török 2009,
155; Minor 2014, 228-229, 231; Howley 2017, 221; Cooper 2018, 148-149.
12 Manzo 2008, 174-175.
13 Bonnet 2000, 54-102, see also id. 2004, 157.
14 Reisner 1923a, 265-271.
15 Bonnet 2000, 12, 65.
16 Ivi, 65-94.

238

Andrea Manzo

aim of providing insights into the religion and, broadly speaking, ideology of
Kerma/Kush.17
In KXI both domesticated and wild animals, such as cattle, hippopotamuses, giraffes, fish, birds and a crocodile are represented in ordered rows aswell as components of more complex scenes. Indeed, the ordered rows of animals in these representations recall aspects of Egyptian Pre- and Proto-dynastic art in terms of their general organization.18 Moreover, they also show
parallels with the decorative programs of the Fifth Dynasty Solar Temple of
Niuserra at Abu Gurob, the Sixth Dynasty funerary temples and the Eleventh
Dynasty Chapel of Neferu in the Temple of Mentuhotep II at Deir el-Bahari.19
It has therefore been suggested that they may refer to the capability of theruler of Kush to dominate the chaotic forces of nature, which are embodied
by the animals themselves, but also to guarantee thanks to the god(s) the ordered alternation of the seasonal cycles. Different, but not necessarily alternative, hypotheses can also be proposed: these representations may serve thefurther function of indicating the real, pretended or merely symbolic controlof the ruler over the different territories symbolized by the animals that lived
therein.20 Indeed, the rows of cattle may also refer to the fact that the powerof the ruler may be represented in this specific social context in terms of his
control of a large number of cattle, which is reflected in the hundreds of skullsof cattle, possibly sacrificed during funerary rituals, arranged around the tumuli of the high-ranking people at Kerma.21
A further feature of Kerman art that is possibly related to religion is clearly
represented by the rows of wild animals on the foot boards of the beds sometimes found in graves of the Classic period at Kerma, by the mica ornaments
originally decorating caps and possibly other garments, and by the largesized faïence sculptures and plaques from the same funerary contexts.22 In particular, many have remarked that the ivory inlays and the mica ornaments are
related to religion in several iconographic and stylistic features.23 Moreover,these representations also recall the rows of animals found on the decorations
17 Bonnet 2000, 95-102; Török 2009, 144-151.
18 Bonnet 2000, 76.
19 Ivi, 101-102.
20 Ivi, 95-96.
21 Ivi, 142.
22 Reisner 1923b 265-280; Bonnet 2004, 157; see also Wenig 1978, 38; Manzo 2011, 210; Howley

2017, 221.

23 Reisner 1923b, 272-273; Wenig 1978, 36; Wildung ed. 1997, 102; Manzo 2011, 210.

Mythical Animals of Kush

239

in funerary chapels KII and KXI,24 and their interpretations may be the same
proposed for the decorative programs of the funerary chapels.25 Indeed, when
considering the nature of the monuments and the objects characterized bythese decorations and the general contexts where the objects with these decorations were discovered, it is highly likely that the decorations had a religious
meaning.
It has been argued that in Classic Kerma times both the architectural andthe iconographic expressions of the Kerman/Kushite religion may have featured local traits and elements of Egyptian origin, without excluding the contribution of other traditions from African regions further to the south, east,
and west of Upper Nubia, that are unfortunately still very poorly known.26
Moreover, when considering the large number of representations of animals
in the art of Kerma, it has also been suggested that the gods of Kush may havebeen related to animals or animal hypostases.27 In the case of some Egyptianlike figurative elements, like the so-called Taweret, they may be more related
to the popular Egyptian religion rather than to the official one, as I have suggested elsewhere.28 Nevertheless, this remark should certainly be reconsidered in the light of recent reassessments of classes of materials like birthtusks.29 Indeed, elements, such as the so-called Taweret depicted on the birthtusks, have traditionally been regarded as expressions of popular religious
practices, but Quirke has recently demonstrated how they expressed concepts
and beliefs that are also widely found in the Egyptian elite sphere, as shownby the study of the contexts where the birth tusks were found.30 Finally, somespecific representations and the overall compositional pattern itself, which
consists of several parallel ordered rows of animals, may be deeply rooted in
the traditions of the Nile valley, as they already occur at the very end of the
4th-very beginning of the 3rd millennium BC.31

24 Bonnet ed. 1990, 89.
25 Manzo 2011, 216.
26 Bonnet ed. 1990, 89, 91; id. 2004, 157, 171; Manzo 2008, 174-176, 2011, 213-214; see also Reis-

ner 1923b, 5, 18; Wenig 1978, 31, 35-36.
27 Bonnet 2004, 157-158, 160.
28 Manzo 2011, 214.
29 This term has recently been proposed for the objects which have traditionally been labelled

as “magic wands”, see Quirke 2016. It is adopted in this article because I think it is moresuitable than the more traditional label.
30 Quirke 2016, 9, 573.
31 Török 2009, 150-151; Manzo 2011, 214-215.

240

Andrea Manzo

In this general context, a very specific group of representations that decorate the burial beds and the caps of the Classic Kerma period are what we cancall imaginary or fantastical creatures that do not exist in nature.32 This study
will provide an in-depth discussion of these creatures and aims to show
through an analysis of their various types that they have much to contributeto an understanding of the ideology of Kerma/Kush.

Imaginary creatures in Kerma art‘Imaginary creatures’ are animals that do not exist in nature and are often
amalgams of different animals or animals that are multi-headed. These aremost probably related to myths and religion. The various types of representations of imaginary creatures from Kerma, together with their dates and thecontexts where they were found, appear in Tab. 1.
The majority of imaginary creatures appear on footboards of funerary
beds. These were decorated on the inside, toward the bed’s occupant, with
only a couple of exceptions in which the decoration occurs both inside andoutside.33 Reisner had already stressed that these figurative inlays only occur
in the burials of the Kerman elite, while geometric inlays are more widelydistributed.34 Another location for such images is on leather caps, a typically
Nubian craft that is unparalleled in Egypt, featuring representations, made ofmica. 35 These caps also may have been painted as some of the mica representations show traces of colour.36 A further venue for the appearance of imaginary animals is as amulet-beads37 from funerary assemblages in the Classic
Kerma sector of the cemetery at Kerma.38 In addition, the ram-headed lion
statue is part of a series of zoomorphic statues decorating the royal funerarycomplex KIII.39 Imaginary creatures also decorate more mundane objects: ananthropomorphic cow decorates a stone potter’s comb, which may have been

32 Manzo 2011, 210-211.
33 Reisner 1923b, 266, 269; see also Wenig 1978, 35.
34 Reisner 1923b, 266.
35 Ivi, 19, 272; see also Bonnet ed, 1990, 219.
36 Bonnet ed, 1990, 218.
37 These are beads whose shape suggests that they may have also had the function of amulets,

which are a typical feature of the Kerma culture.

38 D’Itria forthcoming.

39 Reisner 1923a, 139-140; id. 1923b, 51; Bonnet 2000, 137.

241

Tab. 1Mythical Animals of Kush244

Andrea Manzo

anthropomorphic hippopotamus may have been at least partially similar tothat of Taweret in Egypt. Moreover, it is interesting that both the Kerma anthropomorphic hippopotamus at Kerma and Taweret in Egypt are found depicted on both beds and amulets.
It should be stressed that during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC
representations of imaginary creatures that potentially had an association
with the Egyptian Taweret are not exclusive to Kerma, but they also occur in
the Near East and in Crete, thus showing the wide diffusion of this specificiconography.49 In particular, among the ivory carvings from El-Jisr, a Palestinian site dating to ca. 1500 BC, are several Egyptianizing elements, where asimilar kind of representation to that at Kerma was also recorded.50 Parallels
have sometimes been drawn between this specific representation of hippopotamus at El-Jisr and the ones from Kerma.51
It is therefore highly likely that there was a direct link between the Egyptian goddess Taweret and the Kerman anthropomorphic hippopotamus. The
way the representation of this figure and perhaps the deity itself found their
way to Kerma may be traced through some of the Egyptian type birth tusksthat are found in the same general archaeological contexts (tumulus KIII andKX) where the representations of Kerma composite animals are concentrated.52 Indeed, Egyptian birth tusks very often include representations ofTaweret or, more appropriately, a hippopotamus-lion which has a mane and,sometimes, lion’s legs.53 However, these are not evident in the case of theKerma anthropomorphic hippopotamus. Sometimes, the hippopotamus-lionis shown on the Egyptian birth tusks with a crocodile on its back, and this isreminiscent of the dorsal crest that occasionally features on the Kerma anthropomorphic hippopotamus.54
The reference to the crocodile is indeed very appropriate, as, just like inthe case of the hippopotamus, in the Kerma culture the crocodile may haveheld more than one significance: on the one hand the obvious aggressive sideof its nature, and on the other a link to fertility and birth presumably due toits connection with water.55 The symbolic importance of the crocodile in the
49 Wengrow 2014, 63-64, 92, Fig. 6.1 a; Quirke 2016, 504, Fig. 5.116.
50 Barnett 1956, 672, Fig. 465.
51 Curran 1990.
52 Reisner 1923a, 140, 186; id. 1923b, 260-261, Pl. 53, 1; see also Bonnet ed. 1990, 210-211, n. 254.
53 Quirke 2016, 327-334.
54 Bonnet ed. 1990, 217.

55 See also Chaix 2000, 168.

Mythical Animals of Kush

245

ideological context of Kerma/Kush also finds support in the presence of aglazed quartz statue of a crocodile in the KII-KIII royal funerary complex,56
two clay statuettes of crocodiles in a foundation deposit in the sacred quarterof the city,57 a crocodile represented on a decorated ostrich eggshell from a
Middle Kerma house at Kerma,58 some amulets representing crocodiles,59 andsome ivory inlays representing crocodiles.60 Indeed, two crocodiles are incisedon a spouted bowl of the kind often found in the tombs of children and they
were perhaps used to feed babies.61 The presence of the crocodile on the bowl
may be interpreted both as a reference to it being an aggressive and therefore
protective animal, but also to it being a symbol of birth and fertility, especiallywhen considering its association with water. Perhaps for this reason modelledcrocodiles also decorate the body of ceramic pitchers which have a zoomorphic spout that was used to pour liquids.62 Interestingly, the zoomorphic
spout on these vessels is sometimes in the form of a hippopotamus head,63
thus confirming the ecological and perhaps also symbolic link between the
two animals.
Finally, it should be stressed that not all the iconographic variants of theanthropomorphic hippopotamus may have been used at the same time: it has
recently been suggested that the crested hippopotamus occurred in early
Classic Kerma assemblages, while the crest disappeared later on and a skirt
appeared from the middle Classic Kerma period, an addition which was stillpresent when, at the end of the Classic Kerma period, wings begin to be represented on the Kerma anthropomorphic hippopotamus.64

56 Bonnet 2000, 135, Fig. 98.
57 Id. ed. 1990, 90.
58 Id. 1993, 8, fig. 11.
59 Reisner 1923b, 124, 129, Pl. 43, 2; see also D’Itria forthcoming.
60 Reisner 1923b, 270, Pl. 56, 1; see also Bonnet ed. 1990, 222, no, 290.
61 Bonnet ed. 1990, 89-90; Welsby and Anderson eds. 2004, 88, n. 70.
62 Wildung ed. 1997, 96, nos. 96, 97.
63 Wenig 1978, 38; Bonnet ed. 1990, 215, no. 269; Kendall 1997, 89, no. 9; Wildung ed. 1997,

100, no. 99.

64 Minor 2018, 257, Fig. 8.

246

Andrea Manzo

The anthropomorphic cow
Only a single representation of acreature with a human body and thehead of a cow (or another bovine)
survives at Kerma. It is depicted ona stone potter’s comb found in ahouse in the southern sector of thesettlement (Fig. 3). The composite
creature is represented sitting on a
cube-shaped throne with a low
backrest. This scheme recalls thewell-known Egyptian cow goddesses (such as Hathor, Bat, MehetWeret). A possible relation with
Egypt is also confirmed by the twoanx signs on the front of her head.
For these reasons, Bonnet suggested
that this composite creature could
be identified with the goddess
Hathor of Memphis,65 who is herself
represented with a human body andFig. 3: Imaginary creature with humanan animal head in the New Kingbody and head of a cow (or other bovine)
dom, albeit a later period than the
represented on a on a stone potter’s comb
example from Kerma.66 The fact that(dimensions 7,4x2,85x1,1 cm) (courtesy
this representation seems to be an
Mission Suisse-Franco-Soudanaise deisolated example but perfectly
Kerma/Doukki Gel).
matches the conventional representations of Hathor or other cow-headed Egyptian deities has led some to suggest that it may have been made by an Egyptian or possibly a Nubian who
went to Egypt and came into contact with the cult of a specific cow-headed
deity and its iconography.67

65 Bonnet ed. 1990, 89.

66 See Berlandini 1983, 41-42, 47-49.
67 Török 2009, 155.

Mythical Animals of Kush

247

Ram-headed lion
Similar to the case of the anthropomorphic cow, we only have a single
glazed quartz statue of a ram headed lion.
The probability that the lion’s or sphinx’s
body and the ram head, which were
found in the KIII complex and are now inthe collections of the Museum of Fine Arts
(Boston), were originally part of the same
statue was first suggested by the curatorsof the MFA (Fig. 4).68 Considering that weonly have a single representation of a ram
headed lion from Kerma, the significanceof this composite creature remains obscure. Nevertheless, the provenance of thestatue from the royal funerary complex
KIII suggests a symbolic connection withthe ruler.
Indeed, the fact that the lion held considerable symbolic significance for therulers of Kerma/Kush can be seen in twolarge faïence tiles that have representations of striding lions arranged symmetrically which may have guarded the twosides of the main entrance of the Eastern
Deffufa, KII, the funerary chapel related
to royal tumulus KIII in the Eastern Cemetery at Kerma.69 The possibility that thestanding lion may have been a royal symbol, such as the embodiment of the ruler,a semantic determinative, perhaps also
corresponding to a specific epithet of theking of Kush, is suggested by its presence

Fig. 4: The two fragments of theglazed quartz statue of a ram headed
lion: a) lion body (MFA accession
number 20.1180; 33,1x43,6 cm); b)
head of a ram (MFA accession number 20.1223; 9,4x10,6x8,3 cm) (by permission of the Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston).

68 Bonnet ed. 1990, 212, no, 259; id. 2004, 158; see also Wildung ed. 1997, 102, n. 104.

69 Reisner 1923a, 129, 132, id. 1923b, 152, Fig, 181; see also Bonnet ed. 1990, 209, n. 251; Manzo

2016, 24.

248

Andrea Manzo

on one of the few existing inscriptions of a king of Kush that has so far been
discovered.70 Considering the aggressive nature and the strength of the lion,
these representations may have been intended to stress the aggressive andtriumphal attributes of the ruler of Kush and, in general, of the elite, which isalso evident in the deposition of weapons in their tombs and in some imageryof the elite71 and possibly by epithets given to the king of Kush.72 Of course,
this is also not uncommon in the rest of the Nile valley and particularly in
Egypt itself, where the lion had also been a royal symbol since the origins of
the Egyptian state. At Kerma, lions made of bronze sheet were also used todecorate a bed in the KIII funerary complex,73 while an ivory inlay possibly
representing a crouching lion decorated a funerary bed in tomb K407.74 Someamulets represented lions as well.75
As far as the ram is concerned, this not a common subject in the art of
Kerma, but its ideological importance is visible in the presence of caprine skeletons whose horns were pierced to fix a decoration consisting of a spheremade from ostrich feathers on top of their heads, which are found in sometombs dating from the end of the Ancient Kerma to Classic Kerma times.76 It
is feasible that this decoration may have had a connection to a specific attribute these animals possessed as they may also be compared to a C-Group statuette which has a sphere between the horns on top of its head77 and to similar
imagery found in Saharan rock art,78 which may have been related to solar
symbolism, as the circle on the ram’s head was regarded as a solar attribute.79
This feature may fit well in an ideological setting such as Kerma/Kush, where
several elements suggest the centrality of solar connotations (see above).
In general, it has been highlighted that the religious meaning awarded to
the ram may have marked both the C-Group and the Kerma cultures. Moreover, the later connection between this animal and the god Amon in Egypt may
have its roots in the Nubian sphere as contacts with the Nubian cultures may
70 Davies 2014, 35.
71 Manzo 2016, 17-23.
72 Ivi, 24-25; Cooper 2018, 152-153.
73 Reisner 1923b, 204; Bonnet ed. 1990, 216, no. 272; see also Wenig 1978, 151, no, 52.
74 Reisner 1923b, 269.
75 D’Itria forthcoming.
76 Bonnet ed. 1990, 73-77, 90-91; Kendall 1997, 58; Bonnet 2004, 158.
77 Wenig 1978, 129, n. 20; Wildung ed. 1997, 57, no. 51.
78 Muzzolini 1994.

79 Bonnet ed. 1990, 90.

Mythical Animals of Kush

249

have brought it to Egypt.80 Nevertheless, the hypothesis that the Egyptian andNubian religions shared specific aspects, which may have led to a syncretismin New Kingdom times, cannot be completely ruled out.81 Be that as it may,the ram is usually considered a fertility and, thus, regeneration and rebirth,
symbol.82 The fact that this characteristic may also have been held by the ram
in Kerma/Kush finds support in the aforementioned presence of the caprineskeletons with the ostrich feathers decoration on top of their heads in thetombs of Kerma, spaces where symbols related to fertility and rebirth canclearly be expected to occur. Traces of the presence of caprines were also recorded in the inner and most sacred room of the Western Deffufa, KI, the main
temple of the city, in assemblages dating to the last Classic Kerma phase ofoccupation.83 According to the initial interpretation offered by the Swiss archaeologists, these traces may be related to presence in the room of the animals who were to be sacrificed.84 Nevertheless, the fact that their presence inthis very sacred space was apparently prolonged may instead point to themhaving been kept alive there, perhaps as hypostasis of the main god of thecity. Noteworthy, there is a well in this area too, an architectural featureclearly related to the symbolism of fertility, that provided water directly tothe inner part of the Western Deffufa KI, where the alive caprine animals were
kept.85 The same symbolic meaning may have been awarded to the ram’shead-shaped spout decorating a Classic Kerma ceramic pitcher which wasused for pouring liquids.86 As far as the aforementioned possible solar significance of the ram is concerned, it should be stressed that a stair connected thesancta sanctorum of the Western Deffufa with the terrace of the temple, which
may have been crucial for the ritual activities that took place there (see above).
This suggests if not solar, then at least astral connotations for the main god of
the city.
Despite the fact that only a single representation of a ram headed lion has
survived from Kerma, this example may indeed represent a highly successful
iconographic and ideological experiment, because the criosphinx, which was
80 Wenig 1978, 38; Kendall 1997, 76-78; Wildung ed. 1997, 102; Kuckertz and Lohwasser 2016,27.
81 Bonnet ed. 1990, 91.
82 See also Almansa-Villatoro 2018, 178-179.
83 Bonnet 2004, 49, 158.
84 Id. ed. 1990, 64.

85 Ivi, 77; id. 2004, 63, 122-124.
86 Wenig 1978, 38, 157-158, no. 65; Wildung ed. 1997, 96, n. 96.

250

Andrea Manzo

usually associated with the Egyptian god Amon, went on to become a very
common composite mythical animal in the Nile Valley at a later stage. Apparently, it also remained popular in Kerma itself, where the local variant ofAmon, Imn pA nbs or «Amon of the nebes tree», was often represented as acriosphinx under a tree, as seen on the reliefs from the temples of Jebel Barkal
and Sanam of the time of Taharka.87

The winged giraffe
A further composite creature occurring in Kerma art is the winged giraffe,which is carved on both ivory incrustations and mica ornaments. It is usually
represented standing on its paws with open wings which creates an arch covering the long, curved neck, the head touching the base line, perhaps representing the creature when drinking (Figs. 2 d & 5 a).
As in the case of the hippopotamus, the giraffe is also a very common subject in the art of Kerma, as it is widely represented in the paintings decorating
chapels KII and KXI88 as well as the associated with anthropomorphic figuresin the scenes of an as yet unknown meaning on a decorated ostrich eggshellfrom a house in the city of Kerma dating to the Middle Kerma period.89 Noteworthy is also the fact that the only giraffe bone found so far at Kerma wascollected from a foundation deposit of a religious building in the religious
quarter near KI,90 which may confirm that a symbolic and perhaps even sacred meaning was awarded to this animal. Moreover, bracelets made of giraffe hair were found in association with sacrificed individuals in tumulus
KIII, and giraffe hair may also have been used for filtering traditional beer,91
although this may not be related to a specific religious meaning. Of course,
representations of giraffes also occur on ivory and mica incrustations.92 Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that in this case the thick tail they have could
be interpreted as a representation of the closed wings (Fig. 5 b). Therefore, we
may have further evidence here for winged giraffes.

87 Kuckertz and Lohwasser 2016, 51, Abb. 18-19; Bonnet et al. 2021, 25, Fig. 15 A-B.
88 Bonnet 2000, 76-86, 99, 132; Chaix 2000, 165; see also Reisner 1923a, 124.
89 Bonnet 1993, 8, Fig. 11.
90 Id. ed. 1990, 57; Chaix 2000, 165; Bonnet 2004, 90, 144.

91 Bonnet 2000, 96; see also Reisner 1923b, 313, Pl. 60, 2, 3.
92 Reisner 1923b, 267-268, 270, Pl. 54, 1, 273, 277-278, Pl. 58, 1.

Mythical Animals of Kush251

Fig. 5: a) Mica decoration representing a winged giraffe (Reisner 1923, P. 60, 2, 3); b)
Mica decoration representing a giraffe with thick tail, perhaps showing the closed
wing (Reisner 1923, Pl. 58, 1, 1); c) Mica decoration representing a two-headed bird
(Reisner 1923, Pl. 59, 2); b) Mica decoration representing a multi headed lion (Reisner
1923, Pl. 56, 4, without scale).

As far as the second component of this imaginary animal is concerned, thewings are of course related to birds. Several types of birds, such as birds ofprey (perhaps falcons and/or eagles), vultures, bustards, secretary birds, andostriches occur in the art of Kerma, particularly among the subjects on theivory incrustations decorating the beds and in the mica decorations of caps
and perhaps other garments.93 Amulets representing falcons and dating toClassic Kerma times are also known.94 It should be highlighted that the only
deity of the Classic Kerma pantheon whose name we know is also related to
the falcon: Horus.95 Indeed, the fact that Horus was worshipped at KermaKush in Classic Kerma times appears clear by the mention of his name in an
inscription issued by a ruler of Kush, who was said to have been “beloved ofHorus”, at Jebel Umm Nabari in the Eastern Desert.96 Moreover, we know that
Sepedhor, an official of Egyptian origin serving the king of Kush in the Second
Intermediate Period, built or perhaps restored the temple of Horus in the

93 Reisner 1923b, 268, 273.
94 Ivi, 51, Pl. 37, 2, 52, Pl. 44, 2; Bonnet ed. 1990, 187, no. 164; D’Itria forthcoming.
95 Bonnet ed. 1990, 89.

96 Cooper 2018, 144, 148, 157; see also D’Itria forthcoming.

252

Andrea Manzo

fortress of Buhen under the patronage of the king of Kush.97 Of course, it remains uncertain as to whether the Egyptian Horus was somehow assimilated
to a local deity that was also associated with the falcon or a bird of prey, which
may have already existed in Middle Kerma times, as suggested by the occurrence of falcon amulets dating to that phase.98 Be that as it may, like in Egypt,a specific link may have existed in Kerma between the falcon Horus and theruler, when considering the aforementioned inscriptions.
In Egypt, there is a clear association between Horus and the sun. The same
link between winged creatures and the solar deity may also have been true at
Kerma, especially if we recall the representations of winged solar discs, thatare clearly inspired by Egyptian examples, depicted on the lintel of royal funerary chapel KII and the paintings in the funerary chamber of tumulus KIII
(see above). With regards to the solar connotation, we have already seen how
this may have been an important feature of the religion at Kerma/Kush, yet it
perhaps finds further confirmation in some of the architectural features of themain religious buildings at Kerma. Indeed, similar to the case of KI, a stairleading to the terrace was also found in KII, KXI, and other sacred building,suggesting that a ritual related to astral if not solar god(s) was taking place
there (see above). As far as the specific association between the wings of a
possible solar deity and the giraffe at Kerma is concerned, we should be mindful of the fact that the giraffe was also considered a heliophorous animal, occupying a space between the earth and the sky in Predynastic rock art.99 The
wings may also suggest that the giraffe possessed solar connotations at Kerma
too, although, of course, this remains uncertain.
The specific representation of the winged giraffe has been recorded so far
only at Kerma. Therefore, it may represent a local invention, perhaps somehow inspired by the winged composite creatures that also occur on Egyptian
birth tusks.100

Two-headed birds
Further composite creatures occurring in Kerma art for which an ideological and religious meaning may be suggested are the two-headed birds,

97 Manzo 2008, 175; Cooper 2018, 144.
98 D’Itria forthcoming.

99 Huyge 2002, 199-200.
100 Bonnet ed. 1990, 214, no. 266; Curran 1990.

Mythical Animals of Kush

253

sometimes represented in the mica decorations of caps and perhaps other garments (Fig. 5 c).101 While in some instances these are clearly birds of prey, they
have sometimes been identified with bustards.
As far as I am aware, no parallels for these two-headed birds can be foundin the Nile valley. Therefore, like the case of the winged giraffe, we may havean example here of a local invention.102 Of course, bulls with heads on bothends of the body, are known in the art of Egypt since Predynastic times andthey occur on birth tusks dating to the Middle Kingdom, as well as being
found on an early Middle Kingdom axe and on amulets of a later date.103
Moreover, double ended sphinxes also decorate some Middle Kingdom birthtusks as they also do on later Egyptian funerary representations.104 Therefore,
images that are somehow related to the general idea of the symmetry characterizing the double-headed birds of the Kerma mica decorations are known in
Egypt, even though they are not exact parallels for the Kerma two-headed
birds. Nevertheless, close comparisons can be found in the Near East, where
representations of two-headed birds occur from the late 4th millennium BC
onwards in Mesopotamian seals, but also in iconographic expressions of alater date.105 The double headed eagle is indeed a well-known motif on Anatolian seals dating to the 19th and 18th centuries BC, as well as on Syrian seals
and sculpture of the same date,106 and on seals from Palestine.107 In consideration of the similar date between some Near Eastern and Kerman representations of two-headed birds and of the links between the rulers of Kerma-Kushand the Lower Egyptian Hyksos, the possibility of connections with the Near
East cannot be completely ruled out and will be discussed in the final remarksof this paper.
While the meaning of the two-headed birds motif at Kerma remains obscure, it is possible that it held triumphal and solar connotations as was discussed above with regards to the falcon and the wings associated with thesolar disc.

101 See also Quirke 2016, 513.
102 Wenig 1978, 152.
103 Quirke 2016, 187, 227, 289, 314, 323, 326, 398, 506, Fig. 5.119, 539, and again Reisner 1923b,

275.
104 Quirke 2016, 29, 105, 187, 224, 227, 257-258, 314, 322-323, 326, 398, 508, 544.
105 See also Reisner 1923b, 275.

106 See Pinnock 1992, 114, 116, Fig. 1, Fig. 2 a; Kzzo 2014-2015, 227-228.
107 Teissier 1996, 15-22, no. 135.

254

Andrea Manzo

Multi-headed lions
The last (possible) composite creature in Kerman art to be discussed here
is comprised of pairs of symmetrically arranged lion’s heads of lions facing
left and right, respectively, and emerging from a common trunk. These arefound as mica decorations on caps and perhaps other garments (Fig. 5 d).
They have incised eyes and open mouths. Indeed, in this case it is not clear if
a depiction of a real creature is intended or whether this is just an animalistic
decorative pattern. Similarly, the central trunk may perhaps be a tree or evenan architectural element.108
No known parallels are available for these representations. The lion heads
are certainly related to the importance of this animal in the culture and possibly the religion of Kerma, which we have already discussed above when dealing with the iconography of the ram-headed lion. The issue of the symmetricalrepresentation of animal heads and its possible inspirations were also covered
earlier in the discussion of the two-headed birds. Nevertheless, while the twoheaded birds possibly find parallels in the cultures of the Near East, no parallels can be found for the representation of lion heads emerging from a single
trunk. This may therefore be a purely local motif.109 Noteworthy, similar
multi-headed symmetrically arranged compositions may also have been
made with other animals,110 but unfortunately these cannot be identified dueto their poor state of conservation.

Final remarks
At this point I believe that some features of the Kerma religion and ideology can be proposed on the basis of the evidence provided by the representations of imaginary creatures. It should come as no surprise that concepts related to protection, fertility, and astral/solar connotations have emerged fromour discussion here, as these features occur in almost all religions. However,I think it is more interesting to focus not only on how these concepts were
specifically expressed in the context of Kerma/Kush and how the imaginary
creatures contributed to this, but also on the dynamics which may have led tothe development of these motifs.

108 Bonnet ed. 1990, 220; see also Quirke 2016, 513.
109 Bonnet ed. 1990, 220.

110 See Reisner 1923b, 277, Pl. 58, 2, No. 5.

Mythical Animals of Kush255

The variety and specific features of the Kerma imaginary creatures discussed suggest that they originated from several different processes. In thecase of the anthropomorphic hippopotamus, this may be a local expression ofa widely diffused motif, which very likely originated in Egypt and, at leastfrom a certain point onwards, was related to the goddesses Taweret and Ipet,
moreover this motif was also adopted in the Near East and Crete in the Middle Bronze age (see above). In general, the central role different cultures andawarded to concepts such as fertility, reproduction, and protection, as can beseen associated with this specific composite imaginary creature, may havemade it easier to adopt and adapt female deities from other cultural contexts
into new ones.111 This may have also favoured the sharing of traits, motifs,
and symbolic elements related to these deities. Howley has also recently suggested that the emergence of the anthropomorphic hippopotamus figure andthe incorporation of traits related to similar Egyptian deities into this figure
at Kerma may have been favoured by the centrality of the hippopotamus in
the local fauna and perhaps by the presence of an earlier Nubian hippopotamus cult.112
In the case of the two-headed bird, although the hypothesis of a local andindependent local origin cannot be dismissed, it may also have been a local
expression of a Near Eastern type, that arrived via Egypt, but which was nevertheless never adopted in Egypt itself. Similarly, at Kerma it remained limited to a few examples dating to Classic Kerma times. Nevertheless, we should
be mindful of the possibility that this may not be an isolated case of adoptionof Near Eastern iconographic traits, as a possible Near Eastern origin can also
be proposed for the caprids with the tree of life motif that is also found onsome Kerma ivory incrustations.113 The hypothesis that some Near Eastern
traits may mark Classic Kerma culture is perhaps also supported by other evidence, such as the specific technique used for making the ivory incrustations,114 but further investigations are needed to confirm this. Noteworthy too
is the recent suggestion that a Semitic loanword may lie behind the origin of
the name of or, more likely, an epithet given to the ruler of Kush in a Second
Intermediate Period hieroglyphic text.115
111 Howley 2017, 222.
112 Ivi, 221.
113 Bonnet ed. 1990, 217; Curran 1990; Bonnet 2004, 157; Quirke 2016, 512.
114 Curran 1990; Bonnet 2000, 99.
115 Cooper 2018, 152-153.

256

Andrea Manzo

But not all the imaginary creatures recorded at Kerma have an ultimately
foreign origin: the winged giraffe, for example, is certainly a local creation,
which remained limited to the context of Kerma/Kush. This specific design
sees the giraffe, whose importance in the art of Kerma is well known (seeabove), combined with a pair of wings. As pointed out above, this motif fits
into a very old tradition, perhaps related to the presence of giraffes in the rockart across the whole of northeastern Africa and the Sahara. It is of course also
related to the composite winged animals that are well known in the artistic
repertoire of the Nile valley from the end of the 4th millennium BC up until
Graeco-Roman times, similar to the case of the griffin,116 which was also used
to decorate Middle Kingdom birth tusks and Middle Kingdom tombs.117 Indeed, during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, winged mythical animals appear more widely also in the Near East. At that time winged sphinxes
also occur there, figures which were nevertheless only rarely adopted in
Egypt.118 During Classic Kerma times at Kerma we do not find the more
broadly distributed winged griffins and sphinxes, but instead some local
winged composite creatures, such as the winged giraffe and the anthropomorphic hippopotamus, which was given its wings at roughly the same time.
Indeed, as discussed above, wings may have been important to Nubians inClassic Kerma times.119 The use of this motif may be linked to local features,
like the sky-solar connotations that mark the religion of Kerma/Kush, as wehave already seen in the earlier discussion of some of the architectural features of the Kerma sacred buildings and the adoption of the winged sun discsymbol in funerary and sacred contexts (see above). The fact that these religious developments were also associated with the concepts of kingship androyalty can be derived from the presence of the epithet sA Ra referring to theking of Kush on a seal impression from Elephantine.120 Moreover, it cannot be
excluded that the popularity of wings and winged composite creatures at
Kerma was also linked to the adoption -and possible adaptation- of the Egyptian god Horus in Kush. As mentioned above, the temple of Horus at Buhen
was restored under the patronage of the king of Kush, and again Horus finds
a direct connection to the king of Kush in the inscription of Jebel Umm Nabari.
116 Bisi 1965, 21-23.
117 Quirke 2016, 353-356; see also Bisi 1965, 25-26.
118 Dessenne 1957, 27-28, 38.

119 See also Howley 2017, 221.
120 Cooper 2018, 148-149.

Mythical Animals of Kush

257

In the case of the lion-headed ram, which, like the winged giraffe, may
have been a local creation, we again find symbolism connected to fertility andperhaps even solar and sky attributes (see above). Later on, in New Kingdom
times, this specific motif was successfully adopted in Egypt and became asymbol of Amon, who at that time was the main deity of the Egyptian pantheon. However, this possible adoption of religious traits originating in theregions south of Egypt into Egyptian religion should not be considered aunique and isolated case, as Egyptian deities in the First Cataract region had
already shown a strong Nubian imprint, if not origin, in earlier times.121 Nevertheless, the criosphinx of Amon may certainly represent the most striking
example for the successful adoption of Nubian iconography for an Egyptian
deity.
Therefore, the anthropomorphic hippopotamus and the two-headed birds,
as well as the local elaboration of the original winged imaginary creatures andthe ram-headed lion show that Kerma/Kush participated in and actively contributed to an «international style» that marked the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. This style is evident not only in Egypt but also involved the Near
East and the eastern Mediterranean in general. A crucial issue, however, is theneed to understand in which way these patterns and iconographic elements
were shared. Indeed, the media through which some Egyptian and Near Eastern motifs may have reached Kerma are likely to have been numerous. They
may have been transmitted through imported decorated objects, such as thebirth tusks, on which, for example, Taweret or the hippopotamus-lion andwinged imaginary creatures were often represented (see above). Some birthtusks were found at Kerma in assemblages dating to the Classic Kerma phase,even though a local production for at least some of these has recently beensuggested.122 A birth tusk possibly produced in Kerma was also found in a
Lower Nubian assemblage at Argin,123 in a region which was controlled byKush in Classic Kerma times. Whether some of them were locally made ornot, the circulation of birth tusks, which were found not only in Egypt and in
Nubia, but also in Near Eastern sites,124 may have been crucial for the transmission of motifs and perhaps even ideas and beliefs related to the conceptsof protection and fertility. Moreover, we cannot exclude that the circulation
121 Almansa-Villatoro 2018, 175-180.
122 Quirke 2016, 180-181, 232, 375, 512.
123 Ivi, 182, 375.
124 Ivi, 180, 232.

258

Andrea Manzoof seals and sealings may also have been relevant to the spread of specificmotifs, just as was the case in the transmission of specific composite creatures
between the Near East and Egypt at the end of the 4th millennium BC.125 For
example, the motif of the caprids symmetrically represented on the two sides
of a tree, as found in the ivory incrustations from Kerma (see above), is alsopresent on some Near Eastern seals.126 A seal of the “green jasper workshop”
class features the representation of a double-headed eagle,127 which recalls the
Kerma mica decorations representing two-headed birds. Noteworthy, seal
stamps bearing the impressions of Near Eastern seals, along with Near Eastern type seals of this class and others were found at Tell el-Daba, the site corresponding to the capital city of the Hyksos rulers, with which the rulers ofKush certainly had contact and exchange.128 In particular, some have suggested that the “green jasper workshop” seals were produced at Byblos, anode on the long-distance exchange network with which Egypt -and in particular Tell el-Daba- certainly had very intense interaction, even though anentirely different centre of production or even a multi-centred system of production cannot be excluded for this specific class of objects.129 We can therefore wonder whether the double-headed eagle motif, originated in the Anatolian area, found its way to Kerma via Byblos. Indeed, this city was a crucial
coastal node of the long-distance exchange networks between Egypt and Near
East during the Middle Bronze age, and it is not inconceivable that from Byblos it may have reached Egypt, from where, despite not being adopted by
the Egyptians, it then may have arrived at Kerma. Of course, along with thebirth tusks, seals and sealings, other media may have played a role in thetransmission of these motifs. These media may have included perishable materials such as textiles, or reusable artefacts, (e.g., metal objects),130 but, ofcourse, their contribution to these dynamics remains obscure.
Dealing with the social aspects of these exchanges and interaction, it
should be emphasised that the seals (and sealings) are closely connected tothe elite, who were involved in the administrative processes within which
seals were a crucial tool. For this reason, the decorative motifs on the seals,

125 Wengrow 2014, 62.
126 See e.g., Teissier 1996, n. 28.
127 Collon 2001, 19, Fig. 2,2.
128 Kopetzky and Bietak 2016.

129 Collon 2001, 18; Kopetzky and Bietak 2016, 361, 372.
130 Wengrow 2014, 105.

Mythical Animals of Kush

259

and consequently on the sealings, were considered a direct expression of ideas
and concepts emanating from the elite.131 Interestingly, this has also recently
been suggested for the birth tusks, often decorated with patterns including
composite and mythical creatures. For a long time, birth tusks were considered an expression of popular domestic magical practices but on the contrary,
Quirke has shown that they are related to the Egyptian palace(s) and/or regional administrative centres and therefore with the elite.132 Although referring to the Near Eastern and Egyptian contexts, these general remarks seemto be applicable to Kerma where the representations of imaginary animals almost exclusively occur in contexts related to the elite. In particular, in the caseof the representations of the anthropomorphic hippopotamus, Minor highlights that they may have had some importance in the funerary assemblagesof high-status women, who wear similar skirts to the one found on some representations of this composite creature.133 The same situation is also emerging
from the study of the distribution of the amulet-beads representing the anthropomorphic hippopotamus.134 The only exception to this apparently constant link with the elite may be the potter’s comb decorated with the figure ofa cow-headed goddesses from a domestic assemblage at Kerma. Nevertheless,it has been suggested that this unique and unusual object may be explainedby the presence of an Egyptian resident at Kerma or of a Kerma expatriate
who has returned from Egypt.135 Regarding the rest of the motifs, the fact thatthe representations of composite animals seem to be restricted to the main
ceremonial and political centre of the Kingdom of Kush, i.e., Kerma, and thefact that most of the objects we have been discussing here were collected fromroyal or elite monuments or tombs confirms a direct link between these composite figures and the aristocrats ruling the kingdom and especially the royalcourt.
As far as the general dynamics favouring the elaboration, adoption, andadaptation of imaginary creatures at Kerma/Kush, in his 2014 seminal contribution, The Origins of Monsters, David Wengrow suggested that the introduction of composite mythical creatures into the early Bronze Age art of the ancient Near East (including Egypt) was associated with «the onset of urban life
131 Wengrow 2014, 81.
132 Quirke 2016, 6, 214-215, 228, 306.
133 Minor 2018, 259-260.
134 D’Itria forthcoming.
135 Török 2008, 26-27.

260

Andrea Manzoand state formation» and resulted «from complex conjunctures of social, technological, and moral processes», and that the occurrence of the same or related composite creatures in several contexts was due to the emergence oflong distance exchange networks characterizing those phases.136 Referring to
the glazed quartz statues of the KII-KIII funerary complex, Charles Bonnet
stressed that these bestiary images, only emerged in the late phase of the history of Kerma/Kush.137 However, this remark can be extended to all the animal representations at Kerma, also including the composite creatures we havediscussed here. We can, therefore, wonder whether similar dynamics to thoseoutlined by Wengrow may also have taken place in Upper Nubia in the firsthalf of the 2nd millennium BC, in Classic Kerma times, which appears to havebeen a very dynamic period, both in artistic and ideological terms. Indeed, atthat time the kingdom of Kush was emerging as a crucial player in the Nile
valley and through the diplomatic relations with the Hyksos rulers of Lower
Egypt it was involved in broad networks of interaction extending to the Near
East.138 Bonnet pointed out that the emergence of new chapels and shrines inthe sacred quarter surrounding temple KI may suggest the enlargement of thepantheon at Kerma in Classic Kerma times.139 This may be related to the composite nature of the society of Kush in Classic Kerma times, which was characterized by the presence of different groups at Kerma,140 in turn reflecting theincreasing extension of the sphere of political and economic influence of thekings of Kush. All this is certainly shown by the increasing monumentality ofthe temples and the tombs of the kings and aristocrats ruling over the fledging
power of Kush, but also in the contemporary refined handcrafted creations,such as those decorated by the representations of animals and composite creatures.
The monumental buildings and the elaborate objects associated with themwere intended to be used and displayed by the elite, while the exotic traits
they sometimes show, as in the case of some of the representations of imaginary creatures, further stress the ability of the elite to engage and encompass
with the foreigners. This must have served to affirm its status in a broad

136 Wengrow 2014, 2, 16, 92.
137 Bonnet 2000, 138.
138 Török 2009, 104-108.

139 Bonnet 2004, 113; see also Török 2009, 155.
140 Bonnet 2004, 139, 150; Török 2008, 21, 2009, 149.

Mythical Animals of Kush

261

network including the Nile Valley and the Eastern Mediterranean.141 The useof specific exotic elements and composite creatures favoured on the one handthe sharing of concepts with the foreigners present in the capital city of Kush
-envoys, merchants, etc.- who would have seen these representations, on theother hand favoured the integration of the elite of Kush with the other elitesof the time and mutual recognition.142 However, it is necessary to underlinethat at that time, Kushite royalty may have adopted an expression of kingshipthat was concordant with Egyptian norms.143 The use of the Egyptian script(see above) and iconography, as in the case of the well-known stela from
Buhen possibly representing the king of Kush with the white crown,144 were
designed to express a mutually understood rhetoric of power, in which therulers of Kerma/Kush could project their own rulership to Egyptian audiences. These dynamics may have been more evident in the Lower Nubianarea, where groups who were used to Egyptian expressions of kingship were
becoming part of the Kushite state in Classic Kerma times. Otherwise, in the
Kerma region royalty continued to be expressed in a more original and local
way, of which the case of the distinctive and increasingly complex funerary
rituals are exemplary,145 as is the development of new artistic and architectonic solutions, which, nevertheless, had some northern exotic elements embedded in. On the internal side, these exotic elements could have made accessto the new iconographic language and related ideological concepts much easier for the various groups entering the sphere of influence of the fledging
power of Kush, which also aimed at their incorporation into it. It has alreadybeen pointed out that similar dynamics may also be evident in the original
and composite architectural monumental style of Classic Kerma times, which
integrated local and exogenous elements. In the case of the Classic Kermamonumental religious buildings, for example, the use of some Egyptian elements in combination with others of diverse origins could be linked to thedesire to develop new architectural expressions of a power, which was at thattime expanding and incorporating the Egyptian communities in Lower Nubia.146 It cannot be excluded that similar dynamics may have led to the

141 See also Cooper 2018, 150.
142 Sensu Wengrow 2014, 95.
143 Cooper 2018, 143.
144 Kendall 1997, 32-33; Manzo 2016, 21-22.
145 Cooper 2018, 159.

146 Manzo 2008, 183-184, 2017, 127-128.

262

Andrea Manzo

incorporation of exotic elements originating from other African regions thatwere involved in the expanding networks centred on Kerma/Kush, but thismust largely remain hypothetical due to our still scanty knowledge of the archaeology of those inner areas.
The monumental temples and tombs were likely used as the setting for
ceremonies aimed at legitimizing the rulers and the elite and therefore at affirming their status. A new ideological system for the new power may haveemerged, and the related artistic dynamism is shown by the development of
the new iconographic language of which the imaginary creatures were an important part. These ceremonies did not only aim at engaging with foreigners
and incorporating these new subjects and allies, but also at legitimizing theelite, stabilizing its power and reproducing social structures through different
degrees of access to the ceremonies and to the structures where these weretaking place147 and of course to the decorative programs of the monuments
and the mobile objects used in the ceremonies.148 The animalistic art at Kerma,
including the representations of imaginary creatures and the other symbols
which were used, such as the winged sun disk, were also part of this ideological narrative.149
As is also suggested by their standardization and repetitiveness, the imaginary creatures formed a coherent «system of decorum», to adopt an expression of John Baines.150 The fact that this system was characterized by specificand well-defined rules finds support in some of Reisner’s remarks.151 He
noted that in the decoration of the funerary beds the rows of anthropomorphic
hippopotamuses, when they are present, take their position on the middle
row, like the flying vultures or ostriches with outstretched wings, which arefound when the anthropomorphic hippopotamuses do not occur, while thelower row always features terrestrial animals or even birds, but these arenever depicted as flying. The caps, garments, and the funerary beds, which
are often decorated with animalistic decorative programs, were both likely
used in ceremonial occasions, certainly during funerals (see above). Therefore, they were most likely displayed to the people attending. Sometimes archaeology provides insights into the way this may have taken place, as it was
147 Manzo 2008, 178-180, 182.
148 Baines 1990, 19-20.
149 See also Manzo 2011, 215-216.
150 Baines 1990, 20.

151 Reisner 1923b, 266-268.

Mythical Animals of Kush

263

possible for Bonnet to convincingly suggest on the basis of archaeological evidence that the body of the dead ruler, and perhaps also those of the othermembers of the elite, may have been displayed on the decorated beds,152 most
likely along with their paraphernalia and insignia. The glazed quartz statueof the ram-headed lion described above was part of a group that also includes
the statues of a crocodile and other animals (see above) guarding a processional way between chapel KII and tumulus KIII. They were therefore part ofthe monumental setting of the royal funerary rituals, which may have included processional ceremonies attended by large groups of people. In thisway, the animalistic art of Kerma contributed to the sharing of ideologicalconcepts being developed by the elite with the aim of building group identity
based on these concepts along with reproducing social structures.153 The useof composite creatures in this animalistic repertoire may have been a deliberate choice. Due to their exceptionality, these creatures were very efficient froma cognitive point of view for the expression and transmission of ideologicalmessages.154
The fact that the motifs on these decorative elements were not only a matter of personal taste but were used to express ideas and concepts the elite considered important is clearly emerging from the selectivity seen in the adoptionof specific foreign motifs that were then adapted and incorporated into local
designs. As Cooper has already observed,155 the artistic motifs of Egyptian
origin were not incorporated into the Kerma repertoire without thought, butwere deliberately chosen to suit local conditions, ideological messages, andthe specific aspirations of the elite. This is clearly evident in the case of therepertoire of the Egyptian birth tusks, on which Taweret or the hippopotamus-lion is often represented. This type may have been adopted and adapted
to that of the anthropomorphic hippopotamus in the context of Kerma. In contrast, other creatures usually represented along with Taweret and often “travelling” with her, like Aha, the winged griffins and sphinxes,156 were not
adopted in Kerma. Indeed, as Quirke has rightly observed,157 absences of motifs should also be considered when defining the principles and intentions

152 Bonnet 2000, 59-60, 65, 107, 111.
153 Manzo 2017, 127-128.
154 Wengrow 2014, 23-24.
155 Cooper 2018, 150.

156 Wengrow 2014, 64.
157 Quirke 2016, 407.

264

Andrea Manzo

underlying a corpus. A similar selectivity is perhaps also evident in the decorative choices of the royal funerary chapels, which, although certainly related
to some Egyptian traits, may reflect the specific will and choices of the rulerof Kerma/Kush and his court.158 In the meantime, other local composite creatures, such as the winged giraffe and the ram-headed lion, were perhaps developed because they were considered more appropriate for expressing ideological concepts that were relevant to the rulers of Kush, maybe due to the
locally rooted ideological relevance of the giraffe and of the ram. From thisperspective, the specific will to develop an iconographic (and ideological)
identity which was not only inclusive, but also perceived as clearly distinct
from the others, especially the Egyptian identity, should be also taken into
consideration. When considering the symbolic and perhaps even identitarianvalues of the weapons in the context of Kerma, a similar attempt at forging a
distinctive identity may have emerged in Classic Kerma times when a new
type of sword emerged, one that was clearly distinct from the Egyptian typethat had been adopted earlier.159
All this seems to suggest that in Classic Kerma times, a period when Kerma
achieved an unprecedented level of international status and saw the extensionof its political and economic sphere of influence, the elite of Kerma/Kushmade an effort to develop new iconographic (and monumental) expressionsof its sovereignty and its ideological cornerstones, which also functioned as
tools to affirm and strengthen its rule. It should be noted that these material
expressions only occur at Kerma, and that the complex and articulated underlaying ideological processes remained exclusively bound to the capital city ofKush, perhaps due to the specific nature of the organization of theKerma/Kush state and the function religion had within it. The distinctivenessof the capital city is also made evident by the fact that in Classic Kerma times
its assemblage of amulets is clearly distinct, richer and more varied than thatof the other Kerma centres.160 In contrast, the attempt at approximating Egyptian norms as far as the relations between ruler and deities like Horus and Ra
are concerned (see above) seems to specifically characterize Lower Nubia. It
has also been suggested that the Lower Nubian experiments may have been«a semi-autonomous venture of the Kerma-affiliated Egyptian elite at Buhen

158 Bonnet 2000, 100.

159 Manzo 2016, 15-16, 23.
160 D’Itria forthcoming.

Mythical Animals of Kush

265

to project the hegemony of their Kushite patron».161 This can certainly be true,
and of course there is no evidence at Kerma, the capital city of Kush, for an
attempt at a complete emulation of the Egyptian ideological and religious
models. Noteworthy also are the results from a study by D’Itria, who, after
despite what is an admittedly preliminary survey, has argued that the amulets from Lower Nubia may be more related to the Egyptian horizon than toits equivalent at Kerma.162 Indeed, when considering the lack of similar material traces in Lower Nubia to those that are likely related to the religious beliefs known in Kerma, Török stated that Kerma/Kush religion «was a religiosity of many regions, inclusive and without a professional priestly class in regions far away from the capital city».163
Therefore, with the presence of commonalities in the ideology of politicalauthority and the way the rulers legitimized their rule or exercised kingshipstill being debated,164 we can wonder whether religion ultimately played amarginal role in the state of Kerma/Kush, which is apparently in contrast withwhat has been suggested above, with regards to the importance of ceremonies, monuments, and objects related to religion for identity building, legitimizing authority and social reproduction. A different explanation can thus beenvisaged, and one that may be related to the specific features of the state ofKush, the investigation of which is, nevertheless, still in progress. Indeed, it isvery likely that the state of Kush was different to the other Middle Bronze age
states, and was possibly characterized by its own specific features, possibly
also related to a pastoral economic base and the diversity in its regions.165 Indeed, this general setting may have allowed the presence of distinct ideological solutions and models to emerge in the different regions under the controlof Kush. Of course, some kind of unifying events may have taken place inKerma, the main ceremonial centre of the kingdom of Kush, where perhaps
the different regional traditions were somehow incorporated into a more unitarian system. Such a possibility may explain both the variety of the sacred
religious buildings characterizing Kerma as well as the variety of the animalistic art and the imaginary creatures themselves (see above). It is feasible thatthe people from different regions were attending and/or participating in the
161 Cooper 2018, 157, see also 159.
162 D’Itria forthcoming.
163 Török 2008, 27.

164 Emberling 2014, 149.
165 Emberling 2014, 147-150.

266

Andrea Manzo

ceremonies expressing this narrative. It is highly likely that mainly the regional elites were involved in these ceremonies, although of course this remains hypothetical. Nevertheless, it is tempting to relate the presence of delegations from different regions in the capital of Kush to the representations ofboats with apparently ethnically variegated crews in chapel KXI.166 Furthermore, the stela of the official Ka, who was consecrated at Buhen, includes an
obscure reference to an act taking place far away from Buhen which required
the official to “[wash his] (two) feet in the water of Kush following the ruler
nDH”.167 This reference may be interpreted as the participation of a member ofthe Lower Nubian elite in a royal ritual ceremony perhaps taking place inKerma.
Of course, due to the lack of written texts, several questions remain unanswered. It is nevertheless hoped that in the future new data from sites in thediverse areas which entered the sphere of influence of the kingdom Kush will
provide new insights into its religion, the specific features of its state, and its
development. The publication of the materials from the Kerma sites investigated in the Dongola reach, in the Fourth Cataract area and beyond may certainly contribute towards the balancing a perspective biased by the preponderant amount of information relating to Lower Nubia. The re-assessment of
the Lower Nubian collections from a comparative perspective with the capital
city could also prove useful. Returning to the materials from Kerma itself, after discussing the meaning of the single components of the narrative, the challenge may be to try to gain some insights into the syntax of the compositions,in which the different elements were combined, and its meaning. In the caseof the chapel KXI, this perspective was already taken by Charles Bonnet, whoemphasized the need to understand the syntax of the entire decorative program, not merely the meaning of each single element within it.168 Similar attempts have recently been made in the case of the Egyptian birth tusks, a classof materials with representations reminding for complexity the ones of theKerma funerary beds and caps.169 In the case of the ivory incrustations of thefunerary beds at Kerma, after Reisner’s observations (see above) a lot remains
to be done to try to identify and interpret recurrent associations of single elements. This may be a further challenge for the future, also when considering
166 Bonnet 2000, 89-91, 96.
167 Säve-Söderbergh 1976, 53.
168 Bonnet 2000, 100.

169 Quirke 2016, 407-409.

Mythical Animals of Kush

267

the potential of the contextual analysis, hitherto only practiced to a limited
extent,170 which may provide new stimulating interpretative insights for theidentified patterns. Indeed, this may represent the next step for developing
an iconological approach to the investigation of the Kerma/Kush ideology andreligion.

Bibliography
M. V. Almansa-Villatoro, 2018. Reconstructing the Pre-Meroitic Indigenous
Pantheon of Kush, Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 18, 167-189.
J. Baines, 1990. Restricted Knowledge, Hierarchy, and Decorum: Modern Perceptions and Ancient Institutions, Journal of the American Research Center in
Egypt 27, 1- 23.
R. D. Barnett, 1956. Fine Ivory Carving, in C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard, A. R. Hall
(eds.), A History of technology 1. From Early Times to Fall of ancient Empires,663-683. Oxford-London.
J. Berlandini, 1983. La déesse bucéphale: une iconographie particulière del’Hator memphite, Bulettin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 83,
33-50.
A. M. Bisi, 1965. Il grifone. Storia di un motivo iconografico nell’antico oriente mediterraneo. Roma.
C. Bonnet, 1993. Les fouilles archéologiques de Kerma (Soudan). Rapport préliminaire des campagnes 1991-1992 et 1993-1993, Genava n.s. 41, 1-18.
C. Bonnet, 2000. Édifices et rites funéraires à Kerma. Paris.
C. Bonnet, 2004. Le temple principal de la ville de Kerma et son quartier religieux.
Paris.
C. Bonnet, D. Valbelle, S. Marchi, 2021. Le Jujubier. Ville sacrée des pharaons
noirs. Paris.
C. Bonnet (ed.), 1990. Kerma rouyaume de Nubie. Genève.
L. Chaix, 2000. La faune des peintures murales du temple KXI, in C. Bonnet(ed.), Édifices et rites funéraires à Kerma, 163-174. Paris.
170 See e.g., Minor 2018, 254-255, 256-260.

268

Andrea Manzo

D. Collon, 2001. The Green Jasper Seal Workshop Revisited, Archaeology &History in Lebanon 13, 16-24.
J. Cooper, 2018. Kushites Expressing ‘Egyptian’ Kingship, Ägypten und Levante28, 143-168.
B. Curran, 1990. Les incrustations en ivoire, in C. Bonnet (ed.), Kerma, royaumede Nubie, l’antiquité africaine au temps des pharaons. Catalogue de l’exposition.
Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, juine-novembre 1990, 143. Geneva.
V. W. Davies, 2014. Recording Egyptian Inscriptions in the Desert and Elsewhere, Sudan & Nubia 18, 30-44.
A. Dessenne, 1957. Le Sphinx. Étude iconographique I. Des origines à la fin du second millénaire. Paris.
E. D’Itria, forthcoming. Kerma amulets: iconography and manufacture techniques, Kush 20..
G. Emberling, 2014. Pastoral States: Towards a Comparative Archaeology of
Early Kush, Origini. Preistoria e protostoria delle civiltà antiche 36, 125-156.
K. Howley, 2017. II Egypt and Nubia, in P. P. Creasman, R.H. Wilkinosn(eds.), Pharaoh’s Land and Beyond. Ancient Egypt and Its Neighbors, 219-227.
Oxford.
D. Huyge, 2002. Cosmology, Ideology and Personal Religious Practice in Ancient Egyptian Rock Art, in R. Friedman (ed.), Egypt and Nubia. Gifts of theDesert, 192-206. London.
T. Kendall, 1997. Kerma and the Kingdom of Kush 2500-1500 BC. The Archaeological Discovery of an Ancient Nubian Empire. Washington.
K. Kopetzky, M. Bietak, 2016. A Seal Impression of the Green Jasper Workshop from Tell el-Dabʿa, Ägypten und Levante 26, 357-375.
J. Kuckertz, A. Lohwasser, 2016. Einführung in die Religion von Kusch. Dettelbach.
A. F. Kzzo, 2014-2015. Cylinder seals from middle bronze age in Ebla. mainclasses of styles, Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 57-58, 225-234.
S. McIntosh, 1999. Beyond Chiefdoms: Pathways to complexity in Africa. Cambridge.

Mythical Animals of Kush

269

A. Manzo, 2008. Tempio e società a Kerma, Alta Nubia (2400-1400 a.C.), in S.
Pernigotti, M. Zecchi (eds.), Sacerdozio e società civile nell’antico Egitto. Attidel terzo colloquio, Bologna 30/31 maggio 2007, 167-186. Imola.
A. Manzo, 2011. Iconografia, religione e ideologia a Kerma, Alta Nubia, 20001400 a.C., in P. Buzi, D. Picchi, M. Zecchi (eds.), Ægyptiaca et Coptica. Studiin onore di Sergio Pernigotti, 209-224. Oxford.
A. Manzo, 2016. Weapons, Ideology and Identity at Kerma (Upper Nubia,
2500–1500 BC), Annali, Sezione orientale 76, 3-29.
A. Manzo, 2017. Architecture, Power, and Communication: Case Studies from
Ancient Nubia, African Archaeological Review 34, 121-143.
E. Minor, 2014. The Use of Egyptian and Egyptianizing Material Culture inClassic Kerma Burials: Winged Sun Discs, in M. Casanova, M. Feldman(eds.), Les produits de luxe au Proche-Orient ancien, aux âges du Bronze et duFer, 225-234. Nanterre.
E. J. Minor, 2018. Decolonizing Reisner: a case study of a Classic Kerma female
burial for reinterpreting early Nubian archaeological collections throughdigital archival resources, in M. Honegger (ed.), Nubian Archaeology in the
XXIst Century. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference for Nubian Studies, Neuchâtel, 1st-6th September 2014, 251-262. Leuven-Paris-Bristol.
A. Muzzolini, 1994. Les béliers sacrés dans l’art rupestre saharien, in C. Berger, G. Clerc, N. Grimal (eds.), Hommages à Jean Leclant. Vol. 4. Varia, 247271. Le Caire.
F. Pinnock, 1992. Una riconsiderazione della stele di Hama 6B599, Contributi
e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 4, 101-121.
S. Quirke, 2016. Birth Tusks: the Armoury of Health in Context - Egypt 1800 BC.
London.
G. A. Reisner, 1923a. Excavations at Kerma, Parts I-III, Harvard African Studies
5. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
G. A. Reisner, 1923b. Excavations at Kerma, Parts IV-V, Harvard African Studies
6. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
T. Säve-Söderbergh, 1976. A Buhen Stela from the Second Intermediate Period(Khartoum no. 18), Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 35, 50-58.

270

Andrea Manzo

B. Teissier, 1996. Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the
Middle Bronze Age. Fribourg-Göttingen.
L. Török, 2008. The Depiction of the World in a Classic Kerma Mortuary
Chapel”, in Á. Sazabó, P. Vargyas, Cultus Deorum: Studia Religionum Ad
Historiam. De Oriente Antiquo et Religione Danuvii Praehistorica. In Memoriam
István Tóth, 13-27. Pécs.
L. Török, 2009. Between Two Worlds. The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia
and Egypt 3700 BC-500 AD. Leiden-Boston.
D. A. Welsby, J. R. Anderson (eds.), 2004. Sudan Ancient Treasures. London.
D. Wengrow, 2014. The Origins of Monsters. Image and Cognition in the First Ageof Mechanical Reproduction. Princeton-Oxford.
S. Wenig, 1978. Africa in Antiquity II. The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan.
New York.
D. Wildung (ed.), 1997. Sudan. Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile. Paris-New York.

Animals of Ancient Kheny:
The Rupestrian Collection
Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyatt

The rupestrian collection
Since the start of the Swedish Mission to Gebel el-Silsila in 2012, 115 rockart locales and thousands of petroglyphs have been documented, ranging inquantity from a single design to several hundred at one site.1 The locales are
distributed over four main areas within the 30 square kilometre concession,
including Gebel el-Silsila East and West, Nag el-Hammam and Shatt el-Rigal.2
Due to the ongoing nature of the survey, the central and southern part of Nag
el-Hammam are excluded from this paper, as are the separate categories ofquarry marks and graffiti. The focus of this paper will be images of or relating
to animals.
The landscape of the Shatt el-Rigal area (including northern Nag el-Hammam) is largely preserved since antiquity. It differs greatly from Gebel elSilsila, which was subjected to extensive quarrying having an unquestionable
impact upon the rock art preservation, especially along the Nile. This is statistically evident as 18 of the 24 rock art sites of the Shatt el-Rigal area (79 %of the petroglyphs) are located along the mountain ridge near the Nile. In contrast, only five of 25 East bank locales (17 %) and 13 of 60 on the West (35 %)of Gebel el-Silsila and are found in similar positions. For the quarried landscape, the preserved rock art locales are generally situated in borderscapes(areas where the mountain meets the plain); on the plateau; or within thewadis (valleys).

1 The authors would like to thank the Permanent Committee and its head, Dr Waziri, H.E.

Minister of Antiquities, Ahmed Issa, and Dr Abdelmanem Saed, General Director of Aswan
and Nubia, for allowing us to continue our scientific work in the Gebel el-Silsila area. As
always, we owe our gratitude to the entire Silsila family. The rock art documentation has
been made possible by the generous financial support of Gerda Henkel Stiftung (AZ 58-V15) and Crafoordska Stiftelsen (20140509; 20160607).
2 When mentioning specific locales, the following abbreviations are used: GeS.E (Gebel elSilsila East); GeS.W (Gebel el-Silsila West); NeH (Nag el-Hammam); and SeR (Shatt el-Rigal).
‘Rock art site’ is abbreviated ‘RAS’, followed by a succession number.

272Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyatt

The techniques for production include hammered, rubbed, incised anddrawn designs, with or without outlines. Palimpsests occur, especially in areas of disembarking from the vessels that docked here but are surprisingly
rare. Differentiations in patination will only be considered for motifs locatedwithin the same panel/surface. Approximately 4700 petroglyphs have beencatalogued in detail so far, forming the empirical foundation for this paper
and its statistics (Tab. 1).3 Just over 1500 (38 %) represent animal depictions;these are divided into six groups for this primary publication (Tab. 2), including birds, canines, horned ungulates, regular ungulates (i.e., hooved quadrupeds), and reptiles. Giraffes are listed as a separate group based on their highoccurrence rate.

Tab. 1: Rock art motif variation (main groups) within
the Swedish concession area.

Tab. 2: Main animal groups,
based on 1531 petroglyphs.
3 East bank: 1234; West bank: 1648; Shatt el-Rigal area: 1822 (all numbers are preliminary, but

confirmed and catalogued). For the West bank, cf. Caminos 1987, 62–65; Osing 2004, who list
300 objects, including rock inscriptions (excluded from our numbers herein).

Animals of Ancient Kheny

273

Relative stylistic and technical phases
Phase IThe oldest rock art documented within the concession area is categorisedas ‘Epipalaeolithic’ and represents Phase I.4 The petroglyphs are hammeredwith or without outlines, characterised by their curvilinear, abstract or geometric designs (including some unique ‘masterpieces’5), and with a patina
consistent with the surrounding rock. Motifs are found in 20 locales at Gebel
el-Silsila East and West, with no attestations in the Shatt el-Rigal area so far.6
The panels range from singular to dozens of designs, chiefly located on higher
altitudes (e.g., 120-140 m above sea level) overlooking the wadis or in borderscapes. The surfaces are predominantly horizontal, easily accessible at thetime of production. Discernible designs show plants, traps and hunting-related subjects, and some primitive anthropoids.7 Phase I includes the site’soldest animal depiction, a crocodile viewed as from above, situated on a vertical surface in locale GeS.E.RAS.3, surrounded by images of plants.8
Phase II
Phase II consists of hammered images with no outlines (filled with percussion marks). The motifs are recognisable, although highly stylised and schematic. The petroglyphs are evenly distributed over Gebel el-Silsila West andthe Shatt el-Rigal area, stretching from the Nile to the desert plain in the West.
At Gebel el-Silsila East the locales are limited to the borderscapes in the Northand South. The motifs were incised into vertical and horizontal surfaces, habitually at altitudes of 115 m a.s.l. or more. Overall, they are easily accessible,
but not always in a clear line of sight as the landscape is preserved today.
Phase II is dominated by animals, including canines, crocodiles, elephants,giraffes, ostriches, wild asses and some horned ungulates. However, the lackof anatomical details makes it difficult to define most specific species within
the larger groups of ungulates.

4 Cf., Huyge 1998; 2002; 2005; 2009a.
5 See the Epipalaeolithic motifs at el-Hosh; Huyge and Claes 2012; Huyge and Storemyr 2012;2013.
6 Nilsson and Ward 2020a, 236–241.

7 Nilsson and Ward 2018; cf., Hellström 1970, type A140.
8 Huyge 1998, 100, fig. 3; Storemyr 2009, 124, 128, 130, 134, figs. 5d, 13, 16, Tb 1.

274

Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyatt

Giraffes
Giraffes are the most frequently depicted animals and characterized by an
ovoid or rectangular body with long neck and legs and are the largest mammal
on any panel (generally c. 50-70 cm tall). The head is small with two or four
vertical strokes to mark the ears and ossicones. The neck is essentially held vertically or diagonally (Fig. 1a), but horizontal positions occur too (Fig. 1b). The
legs are predominantly straight, and the forelegs and hind legs appear on thesame plane (Fig. 1a-c, f). Occasionally, the front legs are arranged as stretchedforwards and the hind backwards (Fig. 1d), creating an impression of an animal
in movement. A few so called ‘sitting giraffes’ (Fig. 1c) have been noted, primarily positioned at the panel’s left or right perimeter.9
Shallowly drawn lines are often connected to the hammered figure to emphasise the animal’s features, including its tuft. Such lines also form ropes attached to their necks (Fig. 1b, e, f); lassos or sticks held by anthropoids depictedin the scene. Also, there are rare examples of trees placed in front of the muzzle(Fig. 1f). The latter is an uncommon detail in the Nile Valley, although it has
parallels in Nubian rock art.10 These shallow lines were not later additions to
the designs, but rather the opposite: several panels demonstrate how they wereused as initial guidelines to receive interior percussion marks and complete thecharacteristic feature of Phase II. This may indicate that the producer(s) worked
based on a certain ‘matrix’ for their creations.

Fig. 1: Stylistic examples of Phase II giraffes: a) standard position, long, parallel sticklegs, neck raised diagonally; b) horizontal neck; c) ‘sitting’ giraffe; d) ‘running’ giraffe;e) giraffe with shallow lines added to create the tuft (hunter positioned below theabdomen); f) drawn details added to the hammered design (rope, tuft, andtree/branch). © Maria Nilsson.
9 Polkowski 2018.
10 Kleinitz 2008, 92 with fig. 3A with further references.

Animals of Ancient Kheny

275

The giraffes occur as singular motifs, but more often in herds surroundedby anthropomorphs and canines. No directional preferences are noted, although the tendency is to align with the nearest wadi or towards the Nile.11
Opposing directions between giraffes take place. Overall, they are foundwithin or overlooking wadis, in borderscapes and along the Nile.
CaninesThree ‘types’ of canine with hybrids have provisionally been identified todate. Canines are highly stylised and geometric, consisting of a rough bodywith indications of legs, head and a tail, similar to any quadruped. However,its size (c. 5-10 cm tall, 10-15 cm wide) is considerably smaller compared tosurrounding animals and is habitually positioned near anthropoid figures,
opposing or intersecting wild game (in vertical positions, above, below, infront or behind the game). Identification of canines is sometimes only possible
based on their iconographical context and positioning within a scene.12 Canines are evenly spread, with the directional pattern determined by thehunted game.
Birds
Avian depictions are chiefly represented by ostriches consisting of arounded body with two long legs and an equally long neck with no emphasis
given to the head. It is represented in frontal view and side profile, varying
in size from c. 15 to 25 cm in height and 5 to 10 cm wide. Some panels include
indications of ostrich hunt or corralling, in which the anthropomorph holds arope attached to the bird. Ostriches are almost always noted in herds and on
panels that include giraffes and anthropoid figures. There are no defined directional patterns. Ostriches in Gebel el-Silsila East and West are concentrated
in borderscape areas in the North and South, while those of Shatt el-Rigal aresituated near the Nile.
Ungulates
Limited taxa of ungulates – including hooved and horned quadrupeds –occur during Phase II. The images are far from naturalistic, but sometimes
recognisable based on anatomical features or characteristics known from

11 Cf., Huyge 1999.
12 Cf., Darnell 2009; Lankester 2013, 59, fig. 4.18.

276

Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyattcontemporaneous panels elsewhere.13 This is especially true for horned ungulates as the direction, size and form of the horns can aid the identification of
species. On average, ungulates measure c. 15-20 cm in height, or 20-30 cm forthe horned species, with an ovoid or soft-edged rectangular body physique,straight and parallel legs, rounded muzzle and short tails. While ungulates
form the largest group overall (over 400 motifs), very few belong to Phase II– most belong to Phases IV-VI. The wild ass is one of those few breeds, recognised through its characteristic long ears that belongs to Phase II. Wild asses
are frequent near and directed towards the Nile, but are overall spread evenly
over the rupestrian landscape, adjacent to canines and anthropomorphs.
Phase II is the only phase that includes elephants, which vary in style, but
are constructed with a bulky body and distinguishing trunk. Elephants arelargely found in locales near or overlooking the Nile, somewhat isolated fromother motifs, and never directly controlled or hunted by anthropoids or canines. They are never illustrated in a herd, but site GeS.W.RAS.20 display anelephant cow with a calf. Other identified species include Dibatag and/or Gerenuk, Ibex and Oryx. Dibatag or possibly Gerenuk are medium-sized antelopes with a long neck and legs, and with a slim, oval body and forwardpointed horns. The head mainly consist of a long snout, similar to the wild
ass, and the tail is longer compared to other ungulates. The Oryx belongs to
the large antelope family and are recognised by their long, scimitar-shapedhorns, often exaggerated in length so that they follow the upper curve of theentire body towards the rump. Their legs are considerably shorter than otherantelope taxa. Oryxes and Dibatag are primarily depicted individually or insmall herds, on surfaces near giraffe scenes within the wadis. The Ibex, most
likely Nubian Ibex, belongs to the family of wild goats, and are distinguishedby the male’s long, ridged and recurved horns. Although the horns are similar
to the Oryx’s they have a more arched appearance, and the legs are shorter.
Ibexes more frequently appear in herds and are spread evenly across the sites.
ReptilesPhase II include various depictions of crocodiles or lizards and snakes. The
crocodiles are easily identified though their shape, seen from above andshaped by a perpendicular line intersected by two shorter horizontal lines.
The head is sometimes indicated as an ovoid terminus to the vertical line.
13 Cf. Huyge 2009b for the “knife” at the neck of the wild ass. This motif, however, is also

represented in Phase IV.

Animals of Ancient Kheny

277

They are habitually placed on horizontal surfaces and depicted as isolated
motifs, always near water. The crocodiles are never depicted as a hunting
pray.14 They measure c. 15-20 cm along the vertical line, but larger examples
also appear. A few examples show crocodiles with six legs, perhaps a mythological creature – if indeed a crocodile at all. Snakes appear in a limited quantity, consisting of a curvilinear geometric shape with indications of a head.
Phase III
Motifs of Phase III are hammeredand stylised with a dark, weatheredsurface, but are different from Phase II
in that they are outlined, sometimes
with interior pattern, and incorporate
some anatomical details beyond simple linear strokes. However, as Phase
II and III images often occur together
and display similar shallowly drawn
details, one can presume that Phase III
is either contemporaneous or notmuch younger.15 The repertoire andmeasurements are similar to the previous, including giraffes, canines, ostriches and ungulates. Elephants andcrocodiles are not represented. A few
examples of what may be hippopotami
appear in large wadis near the Nile. A
higher number and variation of
hooved and horned quadrupeds are
introduced.
Phase III petroglyphs are not as
prevalent as those of previous periods,
although their range is the same distances from the desert plain to the Nileas Phase II, where the highest concentration is found [near the Nile]. For

Fig. 2: Potential depiction of a turtle at locale GeS.E.RAS.8 (L: original image; R:
superimposed with facsimile). Noticethat the two linear marks below the figure have not been drawn, as they are partof the natural bedrock. © Maria Nilsson.

14 Cf. Phases VI–VII.
15 In total 29 of 39 sites recorded with Phase III motifs also contain Phase II petroglyphs.

278Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyatt

Gebel el-Silsila East, the locales are principally situated along the northern
mountain ridge. Placement, distribution, orientation and patination are consistent with the previous phase.
A unique petroglyph appears from this period, which tentatively is interpreted as a turtle (Fig. 2). The anatomical features are not as symmetrical as
on other media,16 but this is true also for the vast number of animals depicted
in rock art. If this image indeed is accepted as a turtle, it would make the second only known example after the renowned turtle at Gebel Uweinat.17
Another intriguing feature of this phase is what may be interpreted as paw
prints and perhaps also hoof marks.18 The prospective hoof prints of are situated within contexts that display Phase II giraffes, crocodiles, meanderinglines and anthropomorphic figures, with which the patination is consistent.
The interpretation, however, is hypothetical.
Phase IV
Phase IV introduces a repertoire of drawn and outlined images, sometimes
with rubbed or polished interior. They appear more carefully executed withwell-defined edges. The style changes from ‘stylised’ to ‘restricted’, meaningthat the images have progressed towards a more naturalistic representation
with anatomical details and overall harmonious proportions. However, a certain degree of schematicism remain, as do the hammering technique for the
production of some outlines. The patination of Phase IV petroglyphs is generally slightly lighter compared with motifs of Phase II and III when displayed on the same rock surface or panel. However, the incision is habitually
shallower and perhaps produced with a different type of tool, for which sucha relation is not necessarily indicative for a temporal variation.
The motifs of Shatt el-Rigal are largely found near the Nile, positioned as
to be viewed from the Nile. At Gebel el-Silsila West, 60 % of the locales arefound in the southern borderscape, with 20 % along the Nile and 20 % further
into the mountainscape. Only one Phase IV site was noted on the East bank,located near the Nile. Phase IV petroglyphs are principally located on horizontal rock surfaces. The repertoire is a continuation of the previous, and animals remain the most significant motif, as is the hunting theme with a few
early expressions of piety. Hunting dogs are easily discernible with realistic
16 Fisher 1968.

17 Zboray 2018, 647, fig. 14.
18 Nilsson and Ward forthcoming a.

Animals of Ancient Kheny279

anatomy. They rarely occur as isolated motifs, but in packs and with anthropomorphs and wild game, including various taxa of antelopes and barbary
sheep. Although not as frequent, wild asses are depicted with a clearly defined ‘knife’ at their necks (Huyge 2009b). The amount and variation of ungulates increases, and cattle and more antelope breeds (measuring c. 15-25 cm inheight and width) are introduced. A few giraffes appear too, but are considerably smaller now (c. 25-30 cm in height). The legs of ungulates and giraffes
remain arranged relatively parallel, sometimes joined at the base, but the inner front and hind legs are now joined with the abdomen as in one uninterrupted line, in which the abdomen is either straight or slightly curved. Ostriches are replaced by a wider range of breeds, such as geese, ducks and potentially some bustards. Reptiles are rare, but the few examples indicate a progress towards a more naturalistic form.
Phase V
Phase V correlates with the Old to Middle Kingdom with drawn, scratchedor hammered images in a developed and outlined form, fully recognisable.
Adjacent text inscriptions provide a relative chronology for rock art producedwith compatible technique and patination. Palimpsests and spatial appropriation occur more frequently, primarily in areas near locations of disembarking. Motifs are distributed over at least 40 sites, with a heavy concentration
along the Nile and the southern borderscape of Gebel el-Silsila West. Phase V
petroglyphs are primarily found on lower altitudes (c. 90-115 m a.s.l).
On the whole, all the animals mentioned previously are represented, excluding giraffes, elephants and ostriches. Crocodiles and hippopotami still
appear. The dynastic style is apparent with animals carved in profile withmore details, and include breeds connected to the divine world, such as falcons wearing the double crown. Anatomical details are emphasised and the
proportions naturalistic. The avian corpus includes ducks, geese, falcons,
owls, secretary birds and bustards, to mention just a few. Anthropomorphs
with avian features also occur. Canines are anatomically detailed with thecharacteristic upturned tail, straight ears and thin body. Jackals appear as aseparate group. Outlined and sometimes rubbed canines are more frequent,
with a few ‘stick’ variants. They are positioned realistically around the legs ofthe hunted prey. However, depicted canines are still found placed behind theneck or rear of larger ungulates, as was the case in Phases II-III. The ungulates
incorporate a higher number of cattle, habitually surrounded by canines and280Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyatta few anthropomorphs. The positioning of the legs of quadrupeds seems todepend on the technique used for production: hammered quadrupeds havepairs of parallel and basic stick legs, often with a single line combining theabdomen with the inner front and hind legs; the legs of drawn quadrupeds
express movement with crossed, often skinny legs.
Crocodile are depicted naturalistically, but during Phase V the crocodilegod makes an entrance as “Sobek, Lord of Lake Kharu”.19 The authors haverecently identified this once-only-mentioned lake to be situated deep into
wadi Shatt el-Rigal, and the archaeological evidence indicate that it was theinitial natural sanctuary for Sobek before the fluviatile lake dried up after the
Middle Kingdom.20 This Lord of Lake Kharu is depicted reclining on a central
podium in a sacred barque at locale SeR.RR, surrounded by a flotilla andscenes of anthropomorphs in expressions of piety with raised hands.21
Phase VI
Phase VI is an artistically more delicate and detailed period, characteristicof the New Kingdom. It is a refinement of Phase V, with drawn, chiselled or
scratched naturalistic and recognisable images. The phase includes a highnumber of cattle, canines, birds and hippopotami; and new to the repertoire
are a few horses, scorpions and fish illustrations. The Shatt el-Rigal area isessentially abandoned after the Middle Kingdom with only sporadic
rupestrian activity thereafter. However, locale SeR.B.3 offers an exception anddisplays a unique scene (Fig. 3):
The scene is situated on a boulder near and facing the riverfront, likely
flooded during the inundation. The boulder is dominated by a scene containing ten standing anthropoid figures, produced with an outlined hammering
technique.22 The figures (22-35 cm tall) have rectangular bodies, parallel sticklegs and unrealistically short arms, with anatomically marked hands and feet.
Navel and breasts are marked out, and each figure wears a penis sheath. The

19 Sayce 1906, 171.
20 Nilsson and Ward forthcoming b.
21 The flotilla of SeR.RR will be described in detail elsewhere.
22 While the style and technique may indicate production during Phase V, a boat with a cen-tral mast and sail depicted at the lower end of the panel provides a temporal frame of Phase
VI instead. Iconographical parallels are found in New Kingdom papyri.

Animals of Ancient Kheny

281

head is round andrests on a definedneck; the hair islong, spiky andextruding, possibly intended as
braids or curls.
All figures but
one face towards
the north/right.
The individuals
are divided into
three
encircled agroups: a central
Fig. 3: Panel of locale SeR.B.3: a) facsimile; b) detail of thegroup of four,
three encircled/roped groups; c) detail of vertically reversed figure devoured by crocodiles; d) detail of figure
flanked to theattacked by a canine. © Maria Nilsson.
right by a couple,
and below to theleft by another couple (Fig. 3b). Yet another couple, not encircled, overlooks
the others from above and right.
Winkler originally published a part of the scene,23 although omitted thelower part, which shows another anthropoid figure with anatomical features
corresponding with the others, but without hair or genitals. This figure is depicted vertically reversed and is devoured by three crocodiles and a large fish
(an unfinished crocodile?) (Fig. 3c). Also excluded by Winkler, the right sideof the panel includes two anthropomorphs surrounded by canines. The left
figure (Fig. 3d) has a physique almost identical to the devoured figure, equally
hairless and without genitals, and the face is marked with a central dot. A
canine attacks him from behind. The tail is forked into two shafts (perhaps acorrection), with each terminal forming a spherical mace head.24 In front ofand facing him is a bowman with four canines. The bowman is depicted in ahourglass shape with the legs separated as in movement. While the style ofthe bowman is different, the technique and patina of all motifs are consistent,
which supports contemporaneity; for this, the panel is here interpreted as narrative stages of storytelling. As such, we may also include a barge (raft), a boat
23 Winkler 1939, Pl. XII.2.
24 Cf., Taylor 2016, 276–277.

282Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyattwith sail, an anthropomorph, a harpoon and a quadruped. Below them is another human-like figure with its head pecked out. This figure too is attacked
by a canine, to the right of which is what appears a rope of sorts.25 To ourknowledge, there are no known rupestrian parallels, but there may be within
the papyrological records.
A papyrus now in the Louvre contains a magical invocation intended todrive away an evil spirit from a woman called Moutemheb, identified as thewife of Ipouy at Deir al-Medina (Louvre E 32308).26 With the aid of Seth, thetext describes how the demon will be hunted and destroyed with violence;
how a net will be set up against it in heaven, and how it will be forced to sailtowards the north without being able to land. In the upper right corner of thepapyrus is illustrated how several crocodiles devour the demon. The net finds
its origin in the Papyrus of Nu (BD Chapter 153A: coming forth from the net)
and is illustrated as “a net fastened at one end to ground below or near waterby means of a stake driven through a coil of rope which is drawn tight by thedeceased” (BM 10477).27 Several parallels are found from Deir al-Medina, andthe vignettes generally include solar barques, Seth-animals and protective
symbols.28 In an unnumbered Ramesside papyrus, a canine deity (Seth?) is
depicted holding a red rope with which he controls a net that encircles thedemon that is devoured by crocodiles.29 Other related vignettes include Sethanimals and jackals, interpreted as Spirits of the West (bAw-Imnt .t) and associated with the protection of the journey in the netherworld and guides ofthe soul.30
Although the rupestrian scene is very crude compared to the vignettes, it
contains certain features of relevance, most evidently the devouring crocodiles.
It could also be suggested that, rather than encircling families or marking
boundaries, it is the outline of the net that the producer wanted to represent
with the rope-like detail. As in Chapter 153A, the depicted net would begrounded in the physical water of the Nile as the panel was submerged during
inundation. Perhaps pushing the evidence, one might posit that the four canines in the right section represent the Typhonian jackals and the attacking
25 Cf., Horn et al. 2020; Horn and Wollentz 2019.
26 See Koenig 2004. We would like to thank Rita Lucarelli for bringing our attention to thispapyrus. For the identification, see Davies 1999, 150.
27 Budge 1898, 277–280.
28 DuQuesne 1998; Koenig 1994.

29 Koenig 1994, 108–109; Duquesne 1998, 617, 628, pl. 1.2.
30 DuQuesne 1998, 617.

Animals of Ancient Kheny283

canine Seth himself.31 Does the bald and androgynous, attacked and devoured
person represent a demon? If so, we may mention his direction facing North,and the boat in which he is to sail is found in the lower part of the panel. Perhaps, there is regional relevance related to Nu’s wish to rise up like the god Sobek
as mentioned in Chapter 153A of the Book of the Dead (BM 10477, 20 L. 6).
As Shatt el-Rigal was deserted, Gebel el-Silsila became the new hub of industrial and religious motion, including the now stately controlled venerationof Sobek. Fourteen Phase VI locales have been documented on each bank. Petroglyphs are concentrated in the northern borderscape of the East bank, withheavy rupestrian activity in the cemetery and Temple of Sobek. Additionalsites are found along the pathways and southern borderscape. Locales on theWest are chiefly situated along the Nile.
Sobek is now described as “Lord of Kheny” and received monuments on
both banks.32 The crocodile-cult culminates and in addition to rock art andprimary epigraphy, headless crocodiles were placed ritualistically outside
tombs. Sobek’s popularity, however, was considerably short as his status declined already during the Ramesside period. Soon thereafter Sobek was rejected, his sanctuary destroyed and his images eradicated.33 The final reference to Sobek as Lord of Kheny comes from the West bank and the time ofRamses V.34
Phase VII
Phase VII presents a style and technique consistent with the Graeco-Roman period in Egypt. The distribution pattern differs between the areas as aresult of the type of activity. For the quarry-intense East bank, ten Phase VII
locales are spread evenly across the site from the North to South, including
borderscape areas and along the two main transportation routes along theNile and on the plateau. On the opposite bank, Phase VII petroglyphs spreadover 15 locales close to the quarries, pathways and outlook stations. For the

31 Taylor 2016.
32 For the title, see Godron 1965, 197–198; for a synopsis on the current excavations in the

Temple of Sobek, see Nilsson & Ward 2018; 2020b; monuments on the East bank, see Caminos
1987; Legrain 1903; Nilsson et al. 2021; Nilsson & Ward 2019; for Sobek in the Speos, see Thiem
2000; the Nile stelae, see Nilsson et al. 2020; Saad 2019.
33 See Yoyotte 1962, 103, note 3 for Ptolemaic reference to Sobek as Lord of Khenu at Kom
Ombo Temple.
34 Kitchen 1983, 224–225.

284

Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyatt

Shatt el-Rigal area, all seven Phase VII locales are concentrated along the main
pathway that leads to Gebel el-Silsila.
This phase introduces a wide range of avian breeds, including peacocks,
eagles and swallows.35 Horus in his local form as Pachimesen is the favoured
divinity, depicted as a zoomorph with the body of a Roman soldier and thehead of a falcon.36 The animals are heraldic and moves away from rock art per
se towards graffiti. Now, crocodiles are shown as the defeated enemy, often
speared with a harpoon.37 Within the limited rupestrian collection, the horse
stands out as a favoured quadruped to depict, with or without a rider.
Phase VIII
Phase VIII is only registered at three locales on the East bank, one on theWest, and four in the Shatt el-Rigal area. In this period, a single Coptic fishsymbol is the sole animal.38
Phase IX
Phase IX coincides with the early Islamic and Ottoman periods, and is documented at eight sites in total, and is characterised by depictions of camels and/or
horses. Locales of the final phases occur near dynastic monuments, cemeteries, orentrances to wadis facilitating routes towards the Western Desert.

Conclusion
Rock art production, including the selection of animals depicted, was controlled by the changing landscape and human interest in its natural resources(for a preliminary overview of stylistic horizons, see Fig. 4). Findings from initial surveying indicate the presence of a prehistoric fluviatile lake deep into
wadi Shatt el-Rigal, which gives reason for the four rock art sites there, surrounded by game traps and temporary shelters during Phases II-IV, coinciding
with the Predynastic chronology. A dedication to “Sobek, Lord of Lake Kharu”
at the mouth of the wadi indicates that the lake was still healthy during thereign of Mentuhotep III. However, at that time, it must have already decreased
as part of the aridification process, which forced the savannah animals further
35 However, since the majority of birds are catalogued as quarry marks, they will be dealt

with elsewhere.
36 Nilsson et al. 2019, 4–6.

37 Nilsson 2020, 144–146, fig. 4.
38 Winkler 1939 VII.2.

Animals of Ancient Kheny

285

south, and after which the giraffes, ostriches and elephants disappear from therupestrian repertoire. Rockart production was now limited closer to the Nile, withnew trends of animal depictions, chiefly horned quadrupeds. When sandstone replaced limestone for temple
construction during the New
Kingdom, the hunted/wild
game is almost completely Fig. 4: Preliminary stylistic and technical horizons ofreplaced by zoomorphic rep- animals depicted in the rupestrian collection within
resentations from the divine the Swedish concession area. Grey images above theworld, including Horus-fal- horizontal line are included as examples of motifs
cons with royal insignia, characteristic for each phase. © Maria Nilsson.
standing Taweret/Ipet-hippopotami with handheld items, and Sobek-crocodiles reclining on a podium.
Animals remained the prevalent motif throughout all the phases ofrupestrian art in this area and make up for 38 % of the rock art corpus documented thus far (for the
spatial distribution of animals across the phases, seeFig. 5). Birds of Phases IIIV are concentrated alongand directed towards the
Nile or in borderscapesthat were flooded during
inundation. As religion developed,
newspatialtrends occur as images ofbirds move from the riverside to higher grounds, Fig. 5: Spatial distribution of animals depicted within
and the focus shifts from the Swedish concession area (Phases I-IX): Gebel elostriches to the falcon of Silsila East (top), Shatt el-Rigal area (lower left) andHorus. Canines intersect Gebel el-Silsila West (lower right). © Maria Nilsson.

286Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyatt

the hunted game from all directions, above and below the game; they are evenly
spread across the sites and time periods, appearing as an always-present support to the ancient people. Giraffes are in the main located within or overlooking wadis, although exceptions occur along the Nile. Hooved and horned quadrupeds follow a similar distribution pattern to the canines, evenly spread overthe sites and time, although oriented towards the Nile or the nearest wadi. Reptiles, primarily crocodiles, are found near water, whether that is the Nile or Lake
Kharu. However, there are several exceptions on the west bank, where they arefound on the plateau with no apparent water connection. For animals at large,
it is plausible that differentiations in the spatial distribution and directional
preferences reflect patterns of movement and behaviour for the individual species. As a rock art survey still in progress, the current paper presents preliminary results. The comprehensive rock art corpus is currently prepared formonographic publication.

Bibliography
E. W. Budge, 1898. The Book of the Dead. The Chapters of Coming Forth by Day.
London.
R. A. Caminos, 1987. Epigraphy in the field, in J. Assmann, G. Burkard, V.
Davies (eds.), Problems and priorities in Egyptian archaeology (Studies in
Egyptology), 57–67. London.
J. C. Darnell, 2009. Iconographic attraction, iconographic syntax, and tableauxof royal ritual power in the pre- and proto-dynastic rock inscriptions of the
Theban Western Desert, Archéo-Nil 19, 83–107.
B. G. Davies, 1999. Who’s who at Deir el-Medina (Eg.Uit 13). Leiden.
T. DuQuesne, 1998. Seth and the Jackals, in W. Clarysse, A. Schoors, H. Willems (eds.), Egyptian Religion. The Last Thousand Years, vol. 1, 613–628. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 84, Louvain.
H. G. Fischer, 1968. Ancient Egyptian Representations of Turtles. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Papers 13, New York.
G. Godron, 1965. Deux objets du Moyen Empire mentionnant Sobek, Bulletinde l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 63, 197–200.

Animals of Ancient Kheny

287

P. Hellström, 1970. The Scandinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia, vol. 1:12: The rock drawings. Odense.
C. Horn, G. Wollentz, G. Di Maida, A. Haug, 2020. Places of Memory. Spatialised
practices of remembrance from prehistory to today. Oxford.
C. Horn, G. Wollentz, 2019. Who Is in Change Here? Material culture, Landscapes and Symmetry, in A. Haug, L. Kappel, J. Muller (eds.), Past Landscapes. The Dynamics of Interaction between Society, Landscape and Culture,
107–130. Leiden.
D. Huyge, 1998. Possible representations of Palaeolithic fish-traps in Upper
Egyptian rock art, Rock Art Research 15, 3–11.
D. Huyge, 1999. Bearers of the sun, Discovering Archaeology 1, 48–55.
D. Huyge, 2002. Dating the el-Hosh rock art, Egyptian Archaeology 20, 34–35.
D. Huyge, 2005. The fish hunters of el-Hosh: rock art research and archaeological investigations in Upper Egypt (1998–2004), Bulletin des Séances del’Academie Royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer 51, 231–249.
D. Huyge, 2009a. Late Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic rock art in Egypt:
Qurta and el-Hosh, Archéo-Nil 19, 108–120.
D. Huyge, 2009b. Detecting magic in rock art: The case of the ancient Egyptian‘malignant ass’, in H. Riemer, N. Pöllath, M. Herb, F. Förster (eds.), Desert
animals in the eastern Sahara: Status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity (Colloquium Africanum 4), 293–307. Köln.
D. Huyge, W. Claes, 2012. El-Hosh et Qurta: sur les traces du plus ancien artégyptien, in L. Bavay, M.-C. Bruwier, W. Claes, I. De Strooper (eds), Cecin’est pas une pyramide… Un siècle de recherche archéologique belge en Égypte,
32–45. Leuven.
D. Huyge, P. Storemyr, 2012. A ‘masterpiece’ of Epipalaeolithic geometricrock art from el-Hosh, Upper Egypt, Sahara 23, 127–132.
D. Huyge, P. Storemyr, 2013. Unique geometric rock art at el-Hosh, Ancient
Egypt 78, 24–30.
S. Ikram, 2013. Wanderers in the Desert. The North Kharga Oasis Survey’s
Exploration of the Darb ‘Ain Amur’, in R. Bagnall, P. Davoli, C. Hope(eds.), The Oasis Papers 6. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of288Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyatt

the Dakhla Oasis Project (Dakhla Oasis Project Monographs 15), 11–17. Oxford.
K. Kitchen, 1983 Ramesside Inscriptions VI. Oxford.
C. Kleinitz, 2008. Rock art on Us Island: a window into past life-worlds at the
Fourth Cataract, in B. Gratien (ed.), Actes 4e conférence internationale sur l’archéologie de la 4e cataracte du Nil, 85–107. Lille.
Y. Koenig, 1994. Magie et magiciens dans l’Égypte ancienne. Paris.
Y. Koenig, 2004. Le papyrus de Moutemheb, Bulletin de l’Instituts Français d’archéologie Oriental 104, 291–326.
F. Lankester, 2013. Desert Boats. Predynastic and Pharaonic era rock-art in Egypt’s
central Eastern Desert. Distribution, dating and interpretation. Bar international series 2544, Oxford.
N. Lazaridis, 2019. Carving the desert: Ancient travellers’ epigraphic uses of
Kharga Oasis rock surfaces, in M. Brose, P. Dils, F. Naether, L. Popko, D.
Raue (eds.), En Détail – Philologie Und Archäologie Im Diskurs. Festschrift FürHans-W. Fischer-Elfert, Bd. 1, 587–600. Zeitschrift Für Ägyptische Sprache
Und Altertumskunde – Beihefte 7, Berlin.
G. Legrain, 1903. Le Shatt er Rigal (Sabah Rigaleh), Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Égypte 4, 220–223.
M. Nilsson, 2020. Symbolae sacrae: Symbolic formulae for protection and adoration within the quarries of Gebel el-Silsila, in K. Szpakowska, F. Weber(eds.), Demon Things: Ancient Egyptian Manifestations of Liminal Entities(Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 25), 138–158. Tucson.
M. Nilsson, J. Ward, 2018. Updates of ongoing excavations at Gebel el-Silsila:
The New Kingdom cemetery and the Temple of Sobek, Kmt A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt 29, 4, 52–62.
M. Nilsson, J. Ward, 2019. Gebel el-Silsila throughout the Ages: Part 4 The
House of Amenhotep, Ancient Egypt Magazine 116, 4, 14–20.
M. Nilsson, J. Ward, 2020a. Rock art through the ages: rupestrian memoranda
at Gebel el-Silsila, in S.C. Dirksen, L.S. Krastel (eds), Epigraphy Through Five
Millennia: Texts and Images in Context (Sonderschrift des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 43), 235–254. Wiesbaden.

Animals of Ancient Kheny

289

M. Nilsson, J. Ward, 2020b. Gebel el-Silsila throughout the Ages: Part 6
Ramesside quarrying, Ancient Egypt Magazine 122, 4, 30–35.
M. Nilsson, J. Ward, A. Almásy-Martin, 2019. Quarrying for Augustus: Gebel
el-Silsila as a Source for Early Roman Monuments at Dendera, Journal ofAncient Egyptian Interconnections 23, 1–77.
M. Nilsson, J. Golverdingen, J. Ward, 2021. 18th Dynasty dipinti from Gebel
el-Silsila (East Bank), Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture 5, 7–57.
M. Nilsson, J. Ward, forthcoming a. Quarryscape Epigraphy: Feet and sandals
as private attestations at Gebel el-Silsila – Shatt el-Rigal, in C. Salvador, C.
Ragazzoli, K. Hassan (eds.), Rock inscriptions and graffiti from Ancient Egypt.
A companion to Secondary Epigraphy, 139–172. Cairo.
M. Nilsson, J. Ward, forthcoming b. Stylistic Diversity and Spatial Distribution: Recent Rock Art Documentation in Gebel el-Silsila – Shatt el-Rigal, in
M. Gatto, P. Medici, P. Polkowski, F. Förster, H. Riemer (eds.), Current
Research in the Rock Art of the Eastern Sahara, In Memory of Dirk Huyge (19572018). Oxford.
M. Nilsson, J. Ward, M. Saad, 2020. Gebel el-Silsila throughout the Ages: Part
5 Ramesside activity, Ancient Egypt Magazine 121, 3, 12–19.
J. Osing, 2004. Les graffiti de l’Ancien et du Moyen Empire au Gebel el-Silsila,in A. Gasse, V. Rondot (eds.), Séhel entre Égypte et Nubie: Inscriptions rupestres et graffiti de l’époque pharaonique: Actes du colloque international, 31 mai- 1er juin 2002, Université Paul Valéry, Montpellier, 3–6. Montpellier.
P. Polkowski, 2018. A tale of giraffe. On enigmatic composition from site 04/08
in the central Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt, in J. Kabaciński, M. Chłodnicki, M.
Kobusiewicz, M. Winiarska-Kabacińska (eds.), Desert and the Nile. Prehistory of the Nile Basin and the Sahara. Papers in honour of Fred Wendorf, 687–
706. Studies in African Archaeology 15, Poznań.
M. Saad, 2019. Rock shrines and stelae at Gebel el-Silsila West during the Ramesside
Period. [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Qena.
A. Sayce, 1906. Wadi Shatt el-Rigal, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 36, 171–177.
P. Storemyr, 2009. A Prehistoric Geometric Rock Art Landscape by the First
Nile Cataract, Archéo-Nil 19, 121–150.

290

Maria Nilsson, John Ward & John Wyatt

I. R. Taylor, 2016. Deconstructing the Iconography of Seth [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Birmingham.
A-C. Thiem, 2000. Speos von Gebel es-Silsileh (Ägypten und Altes Testament47). Wiesbaden.
H. A. Winkler, H.A. 1939. Rock-Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt: Sir RobertMond Desert Expedition II. Season 1937–1938 Preliminary Report. London.
J. Yoyotte, 1962. Processions géographiques mentionnant le Fayoum et ses localités, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 61, 79–138.
A. Zboray, 2018. The Petroglyphs of Jebel Uweinat. Many Questions and a
Few Answers..., in J. Kabacinski, M. Chlodnicki, M. Kobusiewicz, M. Winiarska-Kabacinska (eds.), Desert and the Nile. Prehistory of the Nile Basin and
the Sahara. Papers in Honour of Fred Wendorf (Studies in African Archaeology 15). Poznań.

Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife:
Function and Fashion in Early Roman Egypt
Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych

Introduction (MMSN, IZ)
In a fable written in Greek, dated no later than the 2 c. AD, Babrius1 has a wolf
asking a dog about the bare spot on his neck. The dog responds: “the flesh has
been rubbed by the iron collar which my keeper forged and put upon me”.2 The
significance of this for the present paper is the open statement that collars, in thiscase made of iron, were commonplace on dogs in the Roman age in the East as
much as in Roman Italy. The functionality of this approach to domestic animals- restraining them in an effort to prevent their leaving and as a means of marking
ownership - is obvious and goes back in time. So does the very human need todecorate these devices if the animal in question is a favorite pet.
The present paper arises from a recent discovery, made at the Red Sea harborsite of Berenike, of a cemetery of companion animals3 from the 1st and early 2nd centuries AD, mostly cats, but also a few dogs, some monkeys, and single examples ofother species (Fig. 1).4 Fifteen of the cat skeletons were found furnished with ironand copper-alloy collars, occasionally strings of beads and a single instance of apendant bell; more collars and associated elements were found dissociated fromthe animal skeletons. The finds spurred a review of four groups of iconographic
sources - images on mosaic floors and in wall paintings, terracotta figurines and

1 The author of the fable is supposed to have been a Hellenized Roman living, perhaps, in

Syria.
2 Babrius 100; Fields 2016, 68.
3 The companion cemetery is being excavated by Piotr Osypiński and Marta Osypińska (PI)from the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, working
in 2017–2020 under a Polish National Science Centre grant (NCN 2016/23/B/HS3/03576),
within the frame of the Berenike Project, a joint American-Polish expedition from the University of Delaware and the Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw.
The cemetery continues to be excavated by Osypińska under a new Polish National Science
Center grant (DEC-2021/43/B/HS3/02749), carried out in consortium by the Institute of Archaeology of the University of Wrocław and the Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology
University of Warsaw.
4 Osypińska, Skibniewski and Osypiński 2020, 242.

292

Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych

funerary sculptures/reliefs - from the 1st to the 3rd centuries AD (with a few ofslightly earlier date), corresponding to the chronology of the companion animal
cemetery. The search for surviving representations of collars, primarily on cats anddogs, reached beyond Egypt to include the northern Mediterranean Roman provinces (Gaul, Italy, Greece), the North African coast (Morocco, Tunisia) as well aspart of the Roman East (Turkey).
The broader scope of this query, which is still in a preliminary stage, isjustified by the unusual nature of the finds from Berenike. The cemetery contained the remains of nearly 600 burials: 536 domestic cats, 32 domestic dogs,
16 monkeys, one young Rüppell’s fox and one adult Barbary falcon. The bodies were not mummified, but carefully inhumed in pits dug in the sand andprotected with textiles, mats, wooden planks, or large amphorae fragments,
but there were apparently no superstructures of any kind to mark the pits.5
Moreover, while there is some evidence of a small shrine lying on a slightsandy rise at the heart of the burial ground on the northwestern fringes of theharbor town,6 the burials themselves do not seem to represent sacred animals
in the spirit of the ages-old tradition of Egypt, continued in Roman times.
Moreover, there is no tangible proof of a deliberate killing of the animals.7 So
far, neither Egypt nor any other regions of the Roman Empire have yielded
any comparative material for this particular form of animal burial practices.
Offering a full catalog of the finds, both iconographical and archaeological,
is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, the authors have focused on identifying typologies, function, and context of the collars shown in the visual arts
in order to compare them with the archaeological discoveries from Berenike.
It is important to note that the results of the iconographical and archaeologicalstudies are of necessity distinctive but complementary: on one side are thevagaries of artifact preservation at a site like Berenike, and on the other, theinevitable schematization of representations in art. In both instances, the reconstruction of examples of collars is often hypothetical at best.

5 Osypińska and Osypiński 2018, 168–174.
6 Osypińska and Osypiński 2019, 177, 192.

7 Osypińska, Skibniewski and Osypiński 2020, 639.

Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife

293

Fig. 1: Plan of the companion animal cemetery in Berenike marking the locationof finds of collars and associated elements (location of Berenike in Egypt on the
map in the inset). Top left, cat burial with a copper-alloy collar still in place; top
right, excavations in 2019. Courtesy Berenike Project (PCMA UW): photos I.
Zych, P. Osypiński, plan P. Osypiński; plate make-up K. Krajewski.

294Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych

Collars in art (MMSN)
Generally speaking, dog representations are very common in the art of the
Roman Empire between the 1st and 3rd c. AD. With just a few exceptions (seeFig. 2.11), dogs in these representations wear collars. By contrast, cat iconography is fairly problematic because small dogs and/or puppies are often misinterpreted as cats. The reason for the insecure or impossible identifications
is, as C. Johns first pointed out,8 the insufficient rigor with which cat identifications were made by some scholars from the 1950s onwards.9 Features used
to identify cats, i.e., small size, pricked ears, large and prominent eyes, round,
flattish, short-muzzled face and long tail, are not exclusive to cats and caneasily be attributed to small dogs and puppies as well.10 For example, the animal carved in high relief on a funerary stela of a girl holding a pet (Fig. 3.1),
discovered in 1831 in Bordeaux (France) and dated to the 2nd century AD,11
has been interpreted as either a cat12 or a dog.13 However, the presence of asmall protuberance on the underbelly is clear evidence of dog’s genitals, characterized by the baculum or os penis, present in dogs but not in cats.14 Anotherexample is a small quadruped in the arms of a boy depicted on a Gallo-Romanleg/support of a stone table from Mont Auxois (France) (Fig. 3.2). The animal
has alert, pricked ears, large eyes, a short muzzle, and curly tail, and wears acollar with a bell. It has been identified as a cat,15 while others16 have seen inthis quadruped a small dog, especially because of the presence of a curly tail.17
Moreover, cat representations are much less common in Roman art than thoseof dogs. Animals securely identified as cats are usually depicted hunting, withprey in their jaws or about to attack (Figs. 2.3–2.6). The number of cat representations with collars of any kind is even smaller.

8 Johns 2003, 54.
9 See also Cattelain 2015, 101.
10 Jones 2003, 54.
11 Feider 2017, 191, 262.
12 E.g., Lazenby 1949, 304; Donalson 1999, 98; Minten 2000/2001, 74; CIL, XIII, 787 erroneously

describes the human figure as a boy.
13 E.g., Johns 2003, 59; Cattelain 2015, 101.
14 See also Feider 2017, 262.
15 Grilhé 1958, 133, fig. 38; Donalson 1999, 98-99; Engels 1999, 100–102.
16 E.g., Cattelain 2015, 100, 101, fig. 5.
17 Johns 2003, 54–55.

Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife

295

Dog collars (MMSN)
Dog collars are represented on three mosaic floors from houses in Pompeii,
all of them dated to the 1st century AD (Figs 2.1–2.3). In all three instances thedog resembles a massive Molossian, shown either chained or on a leash. It isevidently on guard. The collar is schematically indicated by a red line, marked
with a series of white dots (Figs 2.1 & 2.3), while the leash is simply red andthe chain is black. An example from Hadrumentum (Tunisia) is dated to themid-2nd century AD 18 and represents a black hunting dog, similar to a slender
greyhound, depicted in the act of running or jumping. The animal wears alarge band collar, red in color. Red might stand for leather, naturally reddish/brownish in color, while the white dots might be the collar studs or
spikes, common on guard dogs even today.
Two wall paintings from Pompeii, also dated to the 1st century AD, depict
dogs with collars around their necks. The first is a hunting dog at rest, accompanying the goddess Selene and the hunter Endymion, painted on one of thetriclinium walls of the House of the Ara Maxima (Fig. 2.4). The dog resembles
a Cirneco dell’Etna, a Sicilian hunting breed. It is crouched at the feet of Endymion and wears a spike-studded collar painted grey, probably to indicate
the metal shining in the moonlight. A reddish/brown element next to the dog
can be interpreted as a leash. The second fresco (Fig. 2.5) is painted on the baseof the countertop of a thermopolium excavated in 2019 in Regio V.19 A black
guard dog with a massive body is represented seated and looking left. The
collar is painted reddish/brown and has white spots, possibly to indicate thestuds. The leash is of the same color as the collar.
Terracotta figurines, mostly dated between the 2nd and the 3rd centuries
AD, are a numerous group. The example discovered at the entrance of thetemple of Isis in Berenike (Fig. 2.6)20 can easily be associated with the goddess
because the heliacal rise of the Dog Star Sirius announced the Nile flood,

18 Threshold mosaic from a Roman house in Hadrume(n)tum (Sousse Museum, Tunisia),

mid-2nd century AD; Porstner 2020: 16; 17, fig. 7.
19 Pompeii 2015, 21.
20 Inv. BE22-135/015/001. The excavations of the temple of Berenike are carried out under theaegis of the University of Delaware (S.E. Sidebotham), Heidelberg University (R. Ast) and
Leiden University (O.E. Kaper) on the concession of the Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw (PCMA UW). The authors thank the directors of the Berenike Project, Steven E. Sidebotham, Rodney Ast and Mariusz Gwiazda, for permission topresent this unpublished find.

296

Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych

which represented the tears shed by Isis mourning the death of Osiris. A collar
can be discerned around the neck of the animal and, conceivably, the remainsof a bell suspended from it. Surface treatment in the form of oblique dashes isintended to depict a rope. Three figurines, today in the Egyptian Museum ofAncient Agriculture (Ancient Egyptian Agriculture in the Greco-Roman,
Coptic and Islamic Era) in Cairo, come from Egypt, even if their findspots are
not always known. The first (Fig. 2.7),21 of 2nd–3rd century AD date, found at
Karanis (Fayum), resembles a Maltese dog and wears a soft, closely fitting
band collar with a single pendant bell. The collar might have been made of
textile or some other soft material like skin/leather; alternately, it could depict
a two-ply cord made of leather or textile. The second figurine (Fig. 2.8),22 of
1st–2nd century AD date and unknown provenance, is also a Maltese dog. This
animal’s collar appears rigid and tubular - probably made of metal - and has
three pendant ornaments: a central bell flanked by two medal-like accessories.
The third Maltese dog figurine,23 also of unknown provenance, dates from the
2nd–3rd century AD. The collar in this case seems flat, not particularly rigid,
perhaps made of metal or leather, furnished with three medal-like pendants.
A fourth example, a fragmentary statuette from the Fouquet Collection24 (Fig.
2.9) is of slightly earlier date, 3rd–1st c. BCE. It has been identified as a spaniellike dog, wearing a large studded collar, most likely leather-made.
Finally, there are several funerary sculptures/reliefs of dogs, with andwithout collars, reflecting the strong emotional bonds between animal andhuman in the face of passing. A couch dog, dated to the mid-3rd century AD,
is represented on top of a sarcophagus (Fig. 2.10) discovered in Athens in 1937
and thought to to contain the burial of a small dog. The dog wears a bandcollar, probably made of leather or textile, with a bell hanging from it. Theedge of the band is visible and seems to be fastened with a squared buckle.
The circular and square elements on the collar can be interpreted as inlaid
decoration, perhaps made of precious stones, glass paste or metal.

21 Boutantin 2012, 103, no. 60. Inv. 850.
22 Ivi, 52, no. 59. Inv. 646.

23 Ivi, 114, no. 71. Inv. 4052.
24 Perdrizet 1921, no. 395; findspot unknown.

Fig. 2: Iconographic images of dogs with collars: 2.1 – mosaic
from the House of Orpheus, Pompeii, insula VI.14.20, now at
the National Archaeological Museum, Naples, Italy. Courtesyof Ministero della Cultura, Museo Archeologico Nazionale
Napoli; 2.2 – mosaic from the House of the Tragic Poet,
Pompeii, insula VI.8.5. Courtesy of Ministero della Cultura,
Parco Archeologico di Pompei; 2.3 – mosaic from the Houseof Paquius Proculus, Pompeii, insula I.7.1. Courtesy of
Ministero della Cultura, Parco Archeologico di Pompei; 2.4 –wall painting from the triclinium of the House of the Ara
Maxima, Pompeii, insula VI.16.15. Courtesy of Ministerodella Cultura, Parco Archeologico di Pompei; 2.5 – countertop
of a thermopolium excavated in 2019 in Regio V. Courtesy of
Ministero della Cultura, Parco Archeologico di Pompei; 2.6 –terracotta figurine from the temple of Isis, Berenike (Red Sea).
Inv. BE22-135/015/001; 2.7 – terracotta figurine from Karanis,
now at the Egyptian Museum of Ancient Agriculture and of
the Agriculture of the Graeco-Roman times in Cairo, Inv. 850.
After Boutantin 2012, 103, no. 60; 2.8 – terracotta statuette of
unknown provenance, now at the Egyptian Museum ofAncient Agriculture and of the Agriculture of Graeco-Romantimes in Cairo, Inv. 646. After Boutantin 2012, 52, no. 59; 2.9 –terracotta figurine of unknown provenance, now in the
Fouquet Collection. After Perdrizet 1921, no. 395; 2.10 –sarcophagus from Athens (Greece), now in the vault of the
National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Inv. Γ 3783.
National Archaeological Museum Photographic Archive.
Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife
297

298

Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych

Cat collars (MMSN)
A mosaic from the House of the Mosaic of Venus in Volubilis (Morocco)(Fig. 3.7), dated to the 2nd century AD, depicts a cat clutching a mouse. Inscriptions refer the representation probably to a fable. The cat wears a red collar/harness, probably indicative of leather. The context of the scene is not specified, but, according to J. Aymard,25 the use of the collar/harness is clear evidence of the animal being a domestic cat.
Concerning terracotta figurines, a secure representation of a cat with a collar comes from Egypt (Fig. 3.8), from the Burnt House A in Memphis.26 It is a
fragmentary statuette of a seated cat, on which a collar with a medal-like pendant is well visible. The collar is tubular and could be made of leather or textile, less probably of metal because it does not appear to be especially rigid.
Another representation of a cat with a collar is a figurine, from Memphis27 aswell.28 The cat is shown lying on a base, with the body to the left and the headturned to the front, clutching what appears to be a cockerel. The cat wears a
red collar with a hanging black object; this is likely to be a representation of abell suspended from a leather collar (Fig. 3.9).
A terracotta statuette with an animal, most likely a cat, possibly wearing acollar comes from Egypt (Fig. 3.10) and is now in Budapest, Hungary.29 The
statuette is not particularly rich in detail; the cat rides a cock and seems tohave a band-like, presumably ribbed collar; however, it is not enough to establish whether the collar was of leather or metal, and whether it was actuallydecorated.

25 Aymard 1961, 52.
26 Petrie et al. 1910, 45, pl. XL, n. 38.
27 Now at the NY Carlsberg Glyptotek, in Copenhagen (Denmark). The authors would like tothank Tine Bagh, curator of the Collection of Ancient Egyptian Art at the NT Carlsberg Glyptotek, for providing a high-resolution color image taken by Ole Haupt.
28 Engelbach et al. 1915, pl. LXI.45; Fjeldhagen 1995, 186, no. 186; Bagh 2011, 71, Cat, ÆIN1509, with previous references; 72, fig. 1.96.
29 Collection of the Classical Antiquities in the Museum of Fine Arts. Laszló Török interpreted
this figurine as an illustration of a fable because of a certain comic accent. A fable about a cat
and a cockerel appears in P.Amh. II 26, a papyrus document acquired in Egypt at the end of
the 19th c. (see Scappaticcio 2017, 100–101). Török 1995, 173, no. 284; plate CXLIX, no. 284.

Fig. 3: Iconographic images of cats (or dogs misinterpreted initially as cats) with collars: 3.1 – funerary stela from Bordeaux(France) with a little girl and a dog misinterpreted as a cat, now
at the Musée d’Aquitaine de Bordeaux. After Cattelain 2015, 101,
fig. 6; 3.2 – leg/support of a Gallo-Roman stone table from Mont
Auxois (France), with a boy holding a dog misinterpreted as a cat,
now at the Musée d’Alésia. After Cattelain 2015, 101, fig. 5; 3.3 –mosaic from the House of Faun, insula VI.12.5, Pompeii, now at
the National Archaeological Museum, Naples Italy. Courtesy of
Ministero della Cultura, Museo Archeologico Nazionale Napoli;
3.4 – mosaic from Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy), now at the
National Archaeological Museum, Naples Italy. Courtesy of Ministero della Cultura, Museo Archeologico Nazionale Napoli; 3.5 –wall painting from the columbarium of Caius Scribonius Menophilus, near the Villa Doria Pamphili, Rome (Italy), now at the
Roman National Museum in Rome. Courtesy of Ministero della
Cultura, Museo Nazionale Romano-Palazzo Massimo alle Terme;
3.6 – wall painting from the Insula of the Muses, Ostia Antica(Italy). Courtesy of Ministero della Cultura, Parco Archeologico
di Ostia Antica; 3.7 – mosaic from the House of the Mosaic of Venus, Volubilis (Morocco). After Aymard 1961, fig. 1; 3.8 – terracotta figurine from the Burnt House A, Memphis (Egypt). After
Petrie et al. 1910: 45; pl. XL, no. 38; 3.9 – terracotta figurine from
Memphis (Egypt), now at the NY Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen (Denmark), Inv. ÆIN 1509. Photo credit: Ole Haupt; 3.10 –terracotta figurine from an unknown site in Egypt. Collection of
the Classical Antiquities in the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest(Hungary). After Török 1995, pl. CXLIX, no. 284).

Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife
299

300

Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych

Collar typologies (MMSN)
In general, a collar marks ownership. In Roman times, a dog or a cat witha collar was private property, and, according to the social status of the ownerand to his/her sensitivity, the animal could have been particularly well cared
for and well-fed, as demonstrated by the archaeological evidence from Berenike. The above review of iconographic sources lets us distinguish three different types of collars with a few variants (Fig. 4). The context of their use andthe characteristics of the animals wearing them vary accordingly.
Type 1 is a collar with a bell and/or with medal-like pendants. Four variants have been identified:– 1.A: simple piece of rope, or a two-ply cord either of leather or fabric, ora soft textile or leather/skin band, with a single hanging bell;– 1.B: made of metal (copper alloy or iron) or of leather, with three pendantornaments: a central bell flanked by two medal-like pieces;– 1.C: same as 1.B but with three medal-like pendants and no bell;
1.D: a single bell suspended from a collar, apparently made of leather ormetal, and decorated, either with inlays possibly of precious or semiprecious
stone or glass paste, or metal appliques, or studs.
This kind of collar is recorded on images of dogs: terracotta statuettes from
Egypt, a marble sarcophagus from Athens and a leg support for a stone tablefrom Mont Auxois. Only one case of a cat in a collar is known and it is a terracotta figurine. Thus, one can argue that simple band collars with bells
and/or other pendants were common on small companion dogs, like the Maltese, for example, kept at home, fed, well cared for, and sometimes even loved
like real members of the family as attested in poems, funerary inscriptions
and stelae.30 They appear to have been worn also by domestic cats in Egyptian
contexts, at least on the grounds of the iconographic sources collected so far.
Bells are used even today to give notice of the whereabouts of an animal inside a house and to prevent accidents. The pendants, however, - like the tentative precious stone inlays - served no particular utilitarian function andmust have been intended for fashion purposes, to embellish and, in a way, tohumanize the dog. After all, today’s dressing of dog pets and their styling as
children is not that much different in effect.

30 For an extensive overview of poems, funerary inscriptions and stelae dedicated to dogs see

Garulli 2014: 27–64.

Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife

301

Fig. 4: Collar typologies based on iconographic sources from Figs 2 and 3. Processing M.M.S. Nuovo.

302

Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych

Type 2 is a collar without any suspended elements, decorated with inlays
or provided with studs or spike-studs. Two variants have been identified:– 2.A: made either of leather or metal and provided with studs; used eitherwith a leash or with a chain;– 2.B: spike-studded collar made entirely of metal; it could also be a leather
band with metal spikes.
Collars of this kind, which are wider than the first type, are worn by middle/large-sized dogs with a long neck, thin elongated body and pointed ears,
resembling a greyhound. Also, massive Molossian-like black dogs wear suchcollars. The images on mosaic floors are typically guard dogs, kept on a leash,or chained. The 2.B variant could have been worn also by shepherd dogs
guarding herds, the purpose being to keep them safe from attacking wolves,for example. On hunting dogs, collars of this kind would have protected themfrom wild animals. The utilitarian function of this type of collar is evident
because it is meant to protect the neck of the dog and give the animal a moreaggressive appearance as a deterrent of sorts.
Type 3 is a simple band of leather, sometimes with a leash or chain attached. On mosaic floors, it is always represented as a line of red tesserae. Like
the previous type of collars, they were used for both middle/large-sized hunting dogs and massive, black Molossian-like guard dogs. Cats were also depicted in such collars, as shown on the mosaic from Volubilis.
Based on the collar depicted on a dog from a mosaic in the PompeianHouse of Orpheus (Fig. 2.1), a combination of leather collar (type 3) and acollar with studs (type 2) was also possible, depending on the circumstances.

Collars in the archaeological record: the evidence from
Berenike (IZ)
Excavation of the cemetery of companion animals in Berenike has yielded acoherent assemblage of metal neck rings and tags, complete and fragmentary, associated with the burials of 15 cats. Cats constituted roughly 92% of the animal
population buried in the cemetery, in two phases, over a period of about 150
years, starting from the 1st century BC/1st century AD through the mid-1st century
AD. This corresponds to a peak in the development of the harbor site of Berenikeas the largest Roman emporium on the Red Sea, the gateway between the Far
East, India, South Arabia and sub-Sahelian Africa on the one side, and the Mediterranean world on the other. With the total number of excavated cat burials

Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife

303

currently at 566, the collared animals constituted a very small percentage of thisset, just about 2.6%. None of the few dogs among the burials (5% of the total assemblage) was found with a collar and the only other species furnished with suchan accessory was a young monkey, which archaeozoological studies have identified as an Indian species.31
Added to the collars found directly with the burials are several fragmentaryrings and loose tags that have been assigned in post-processing analysis to the
disturbed burials from the earlier phase of the cemetery. Thus, altogether, the assemblage consists of 20 iron neck rings, three rings of a copper alloy and one thatis bimetallic, combining elements made of the two metals. The tags, five of whichhave been identified for sure, were made of diverse materials: iron, copper alloy,
bone and wood. Apart from these neck rings, the cat burials yielded at least 12
cases of bead strings around the neck of the animal and one instance of a small
bell combined with finely decorated banded glass beads of Roman origin arounda kitten’s neck. In terms of percentages, the cats with bead collars add another 2%,
altogether 4.6%, to the population of animals furnished with this form of distinction.
The neck rings all take on the same form of an iron rod of square cross section(in one instance a copper-alloy rod) with the ends worked into a circlet and flattened to form end loops, which were part of the closing mechanism (none of thepieces have been cleaned professionally yet, hence not all the technological details
are clear) (Fig. 5 top). A rod of the same kind as used for the neck ring was passed
through the end loops. One end of this rod ended in a nail-head-like protuberance, the other end was curved into a loop and then twisted around the rod tosecure the loop in place. The circumference of the neck rings, wherever preserved
complete and calculating in the “swollen” size of corroded iron, ranges between
approximately 16 cm and 25 cm when closed. The rod in the closing mechanism
would allow usually for an extra 3-4 cm for pushing the neck ring in place. Importantly, the neck ring with the closing rod passed through the end loops was
closed from the start. The end loop in the rod would have served to tie on theleash or chain. No evidence of the latter has been recorded.
Rods of the kind used in the closing mechanism have also been found separately, passing through a circular center hole pierced through plaques of oblong shape from square to rectangular (roughly from 4 cm to 10 cm long, thewidth mostly about 2 cm with a few wider ones).

31 M. Osypińska, personal communication.

304

Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych

Fig. 5: Collars from cat burials discovered in Berenike: iron and copper alloy examples,
one example with glass beads rusted to the metal. Below, two strings of faience andgold-in-glass beads, a glass bead imitating an Engina mendicaria shell (an actual shell
is shown at top left for comparison), and the set of four banded glass beads with awreath motif and copper alloy bell. Courtesy Berenike Project (PCMA UW): photos I.
Zych, P. Osypiński; plate make-up K. Krajewski.

Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife

305

These plaques come in iron and bronze, but also in bone and wood, andthe material of the rod corresponds in such cases to the plaque (Fig. 6). The
bone and wooden rods are worked into a nail-like-head at one end andpierced with a crosswise hole at the other end, the latter obviously replacing
the end-loop of the metal examples. The plaques all have holes pierced
through them at both shorter ends: either a pair or one centrally on the long
axis, or one per each corner in the case of one square-shaped bronze plaque.
The holes are either circular, usually smaller than the central hole, or squareor rectangular, the shape obviously dependent on the means by which they
were attached. They could have been tied onto a collar with string (circularholes) or tacked on in some way (the square or rectangular holes). It should
be noted, however, that there is no one clearly preserved example combining
a metal neck-ring with a closure rod and a closure rod going through a plaque,
implying that we are dealing here with different types of collars.
Beads found with individual cat burials could have been stringed single
or possibly double. Among the finds is one set of 29 small gold-in-glass beads,
another set of 23 discoidal faience beads combined with larger gold-in-glass
beads: two globular, one melon, and one tubular, another set of about 50
faience discoidal beads, and a single striped glass bead (shown here with an
example of a Red Sea shell, Engina mendicaria, which it appears to have imitated). The finest find of this kind are four large banded glass beads with awreath motif set against a dark background (Fig. 5 bottom).32 Threaded onto
the same string as these four beads was a tiny copper-alloy bell, making thiskitten33 the most fashionable cat around.
The evidence from the cemetery is inconclusive as to whether any otherkinds of collars - namely, leather or textile bands - were used. Textile scraps
rusted to the iron neck rings appear only on the outside and are most probably
remains of shrouds wrapping the animal remains in these specific cases. A setof beads rusted to an iron neck ring suggests that this particular cat had both.
Keeping in mind that so few of the cats had collars or neck rings, one cannot
but wonder whether they were not a separate class among the cats buried inthis cemetery.

32 J. Then-Obłuska, personal communication.
33 Archaeozoological identification courtesy of M. Osypińska, personal communication

306

Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych

Fig. 6: Examples of tags with attaching device made of different materials (shown fromtop, animal bone, wood, and iron) from the companion animal cemetery in Berenike;note that the side with the head of the pin must have been on the inside, next to theneck. Courtesy Berenike Project (PCMA UW): photos and drawing I. Zych; digitizing
M. Momot; plate make-up K. Krajewski.

Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife

307

Function and fashion: some remarks in lieu of conclusions (IZ)
It does not need to be argued that the metal collars or neck rings, as in thecase of the archaeological evidence from the animal cemetery at Berenike, had
the prime purpose of restraining animals while marking ownership. The sizeof the preserved collars suggests neck circumferences between 16 cm and 25
cm, which - by modern collar standards - is a size appropriate for kittens andyoung adult cats.34 The width of these neck rings was around 0.5 cm, which isa fairly consistent size of iron rods, and even the end loops never exceeded 1
cm, which is the recommended width of a cat collar. The closing mechanism
indicates that they were not chokers, just adjustable collars, which - considering that from a technological point of view they were not custom-tailoredto the animal - allowed them to be fitted to different neck sizes.
Interestingly, iconographical sources from the early Roman period orother, for that matter) fail to register any form of closing mechanism even distantly resembling the rods recorded in the Berenike material. Neither is there
any evidence of plaques or tags. Collars depicted in the sources, when not
typically functional as on guard or hunting dogs, are embellished with motifs
that can be interpreted as studs or spikes. Especially in the case of spikes, one
can be certain that the animal is a working dog, allowed to run free and hence
protected in this way from being attacked by wild animals. However, in thecase of our Type 1.D, the round and square motifs suggest a more decorative
appearance35 and the same goes for collars with pendants, which are prolificin the iconographical sources from the Roman Mediterranean, and bead collars, which are not. One could speculate that beads used for this purpose werea local characteristic at Berenike, perhaps rather like a local tradition. It is notpossible to say whether beaded collars were worn in life and were left on thecorpses of the animals as part of body care for the afterlife or were just part ofthe burial ritual. The little bell on one of the collars from Berenike, well paralleled in the iconographical sources, was at once cute and functional, allowing
34 Modern European/American standards for cat collars: kittens, collars applicable from fourmonths old, (minimum 14 cm up to 23 cm) and young adult cats, 8 to 12 months old, minimum 19 cm up to 30.5 cm (Source: internet instructions for collar purchases).
35 In purely psychological terms, decorated collars for large working dogs kept the animal
restrained while giving the master an opportunity to show his esteem for the pet (Scott 1978:229); the decorated iron collars from Lagore crannog near Dublin (Ireland) represent an entirely different tradition deriving from pre-Roman through late Roman Britain, but the reconstruction of the closure mechanism is of interest when considering the Berenike finds.

308

Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych

the small animal to be tracked wherever it wandered. This device is also used
to curtail the hunting habits of adult cats, giving potential prey warning. All
in all, however, it should be assumed that the collar finds from the Berenikecompanion animal cemetery are not indicative of any kind of special burialrite or custom, but a reflection of everyday practices, the dead animals being
buried in whatever they had been wearing around their necks in life.
Finally, the plaques discovered in the Berenike animal cemetery contributeto the debate on Roman slave collars. A recent exhaustive discussion36 lists
neck rings made of lead, copper and brass, and tags of bronze and bone, someof them characteristically pierced on the short sides but without the central
hole for the closing mechanism, hence presumably attached by other means
to a non-metal support. There are no marks or text preserved on the Bereniketags - as far as can be told before cleaning - but they could very well have
served the purpose of identifying the owner or, as in the case of fugitive
slaves, indicating where to return a straying animal: “Tene me ne fugiam”(Hold me so I do not run away).37 If so, these tags would support the idea thatthe cats from Berenike wearing such collaria were somehow special.

Bibliography
J. Aymard, 1961. À propos de la mosaïque au chat de Volubilis, Latomus 20, 1,
52–71.
T. Bagh, 2011. Finds from W.M.F. Petrie’s excavation in Egypt in the Ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek. Copenhagen.
C. Boutantin, 2012. Les terres cuites gréco- romaines du musée égyptien de l’Agriculture. Le Caire.
L. Cattelain, 2015. Le chien et le chat à la période romaine, in C. Bilier, L. Cattelain, P. Cattelain (eds.), Chiens et Chats dans la Préhistoire et l’Aniquité. Exposiion créée au Musée du Malgré-Tout à Treignes (Belgique) du 9 mai au 11
novembre 2015, 97-107. Treignes.
M. C. Donalson, 1999. The Domestic Cat in Roman Civilization. LewistonQueenston-Lampeter.

36 Trimble 2016; see also Thurmond 1994 and Martínez-Chico 2021.
37 Trimble 2016.

Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife

309

R. Engelbach, with chapters by M.A. Murray, H.F. Petrie, W.M.F. Petrie, 1915.
Riqqeh and Memphis VI. London.
D.W. Engels, 1999. Classical cats: the rise and fall of the sacred cat. Oxon and New
York.
M. P. Feider, 2017. Chickens in the Archaeological Material Culture of Roman Britain, France, and Belgium [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Bournemouth.
D. Fields, 2016. Chained animals and human liberty, The Classical World 110(1), 61–86.
V. Garulli, 2014. Gli epitaffi greci per animali. Fra tradizione epigrafica e letteraria, in A. Pistellato (ed.), Memoria poetica e poesia della memoria. La versificazione epigrafica dall'antichità all'umanesimo, 27–64. Venezia.
G. Grilhé, 1958. Le chat dans la statuaire gallo-romaine, Revue archeologique del'Est et du Centre-Est 9, 128–136.
C. Johns, 2003. The tombstone of Laetus’ daughter: cats in Gallo-Romain
sculpture, Britannia 34, 53–63.
F. D. Lazenby, 1949. Greek and Roman Household Pets, The Classical Journal
44, 5, 299–307.
D. Martínez-Chico, 2021. Tene me, ne amit(tas). Nueva placa de esclavo fugitive, Myrtia 36, 227–230
E. Minten, 2001. Roman children and their pets: a socio-iconographical survey, Opuscula Romana 25–6, 73–7.
M. Osypińska, P. Osypiński, 2018. New evidence for the emergence of a human–pet relation in early Roman Berenike (1st–2nd century AD), PAM 26,
2, 167–192.
M. Osypińska, P. Osypiński, 2019. Excavation of the small animal cemetery at the
Roman Red Sea harbor of Berenike in 2018 and 2019, PAM 28, 2, 175–193.
M. Osypińska, M. Skibniewski, P. Osypiński, 2020. Ancient Pets. The health, dietand diversity of cats, dogs and monkeys from the Red Sea port of Berenice(Egypt) in the 1st–2nd centuries AD, World Archaeology, 52, 4, 639–653.
P. F. Perdrizet, 1921. Les terres cuites grecques d’Égypt de la Collection Fouquet,vol. 1. Nancy, Paris, Strasbourg.

310

Marina Maria Serena Nuovo & Iwona Zych

W. M. F. Petrie, E. Mackay, G.A. Wainwright, 1910. Meydum and Memphis (III).
London-Aylesbury.
L. Porstner, 2020. Boundaries, Magic, and Popular Religion in two Mosaics
from Ancient Thysdrus (El Jem in Tunisia, New Classicists 2, 1–69.
B. G. Scott, 1978. Iron ‘slave collars’ from Lagore Crannog, Co. Meath, Proceedingsof the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History 78, 213–230.
D.L. Thurmond, 1994. Some Roman slave collars in CIL, Athenaeum 82, 459–493.
J. Trimble, 2016. The Zoninus collar and the archaeology of Roman slavery,
AJA 120, 3, 447–472.
M. C. Scappaticcio, 2017. Fabellae. Frammenti di favole latine e bilingui latinogreche di tradizione diretta (III–IV d.C.). Berlino.
L. Török, 1995. Hellenistic and Roman terracottas from Egypt. Roma.

The Imperial Iseum in Benevento
and its Zoomorphic Gods
Rosanna Pirelli

Introduction“Regnal year eight, under the majesty of the Horus “Strong Bull,” the Kingof Upper and Lower Egypt, the Lord of the [Two] Lands…….: a splendid
sanctuary was built to Isis the Great, Lady of Benevento, and her Ennead, anda large obelisk was erected by Rutilius Lupus…”.1
These are the words on the third face of one of the two obelisks in
Benevento. Together with the texts on the other sides, they inform us that, in
88/89 AD, Rutilius Lupus erected a temple in the Samnite city and dedicatedit to the goddess Isis to celebrate the emperor’s victorious conclusion of the
Dacian wars.2
Although none of the ancient buildings found so far in Benevento can be
attributed to an Iseum, the existence of such a temple is confirmed by a large
number of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic statues, a few epigraphs andsome architectural elements.
With the exception of one of the obelisks - now erected in Piazza Papiniano
but documented in front of the Cathedral as early as 1597 - most of the remains
were found in 1903 by Almerico Meomartini in a section of the foundationsof the ancient city walls,3 which probably date from the 4th century AD.4
Other materials were brought to light between the end of the 19th century andthe first half of the 20th century in various sectors of the city.5
Of the nearly fifty finds, almost all of a very high quality, numerous statues
represent “pharaohs”, in both human and sphinx form, two are

1 The text here supplements the inscription on obelisk A (erected in Piazza Papiniano in

Benevento) with that on obelisk B, kept in the Museo del Sannio, and is based on the recent
translation by Luigi Prada 2022.
2 Müller 1969: in this paper the Italian version, translated by Silvio Curto, will be used: 1971,
13-16; Prada op. cit.
3 Meomartini, Marucchi, Savignoni 1904.
4 Rotili 2013 and 2015.
5 Müller 1971, 21-25 and 107-110.

312

Rosanna Pirelli

anthropomorphic deities, three depict female worshipers, four are priests,
while several sculptures represent sacred animals: four hawks, two baboons,four Apis bulls, and a number of uraei on the head of the Benevento pharaoh’s“portraits”.
This extraordinary set of artefacts belonging to different historical periods,
from the Pharaonic to the Ptolemaic and finally Roman times, is one of thelargest concentrations of Egyptian and Egyptianising materials belonging toa single cultic context of the Imperial period outside Egypt.6
In 1969, Wolfgang Müller published a thorough analysis of the Iseum ofBenevento. This has long been (and still is) considered a fundamental studyof this temple, being much more than a simple catalogue of “Isiac” materials.
It is an exhaustive and effective overview of the introduction of the cults of
Egyptian divinities to Benevento, their spread, their relationship with theoriginal cults in Egypt, as well as their relationship with other oriental cultsin the Samnite city.7
In his introductory observations, Müller emphasised the imperial
character of the sanctuary, strongly arguing that Domitian was the true patronof the erection of the temple at Benevento and that the sculptural decoration
expressed a clear symbolism of power based on the Pharaonic tradition.
Since 1997, a series of exhibitions8 and a conference organised in 2005 in
Benevento have awakened a new interest in the Samnite Iseum,9 and various
scholars have begun to discuss Müller’s interpretation, in some cases sharing
his opinion, in others challenging it. A lively debate has arisen (it is not yet
concluded) and various questions have been raised about the identification of
the royal statues, the provenance and cultural milieu of the artists, the6 Pirelli 2006a; id. 2007.
7 From then on, materials from the Benevento Iseum have often been cited in works dealing

with Isiac cults in the Roman imperial period, both in the series Études préliminaires aux
religions orientales dans l’Empire romaine (EPRO), published by Brill in the second half of thelast century, later merged into RGRW, and in single monographs and papers, but without
adding much to what Müller had already established.
8 Arslan 1997: catalogue of the exhibition “Iside, il mito, il mistero, la magia”; it was followed
a few years later by De Caro 2006, catalogue of the exhibition “Egittomania: Iside e il
Mistero”.
9 The proceedings of the study day, entitled “The Temple of Isis at Beneventum. Comparativemodels and new studies of the Isiac collection of the Museo del Sannio”, held in honour ofStefania Adamo Muscettola, have not been published, but a small volume published byElecta, Il culto di Iside a Benevento, contains two articles on the Iseum: Pirelli 2007; Bragantini
2007, which reproduced the essays by the two authors, published in De Caro 2006.

The Imperial Iseum in Benevento and its Zoomorphic Gods

313

provenance and symbolism of the stones employed, the location of thetemple, its nature and appearance, the significance of this temple in relation
to Domitian's self-representation, and the relationship of this monument toother temples dedicated to Isis and scattered throughout the Empire.10
Already in 1997, in his review of the volume by Lembke on the Iseum
Campense,11 Versluys again drew attention to the significance of the Egyptian
and Egyptianising materials within a temple dedicated to Isis outside Egypt.
He stated: “There does not seem to be any special criteria in the choice of theEgyptian artefacts which seem to have been chosen on purely practicalgrounds…..They emphasise the foreign and exotic character: the age ororiginal meaning was not important.”, and a little further: “Sometimes eventhe original meaning is lost: thus sacred baboons may become monkeys.” 12
In 2015, Kristine Bülow Clausen devoted a completely new study to thislost “monument”,13 the results of her analysis being published in her PhD
thesis, The Flavian Isea in Beneventum and Rome. The Appropriation of Egyptian
and Egyptianising Art in Imperial Beneventum and Rome. As the title suggests,
the volume is, however, not a monograph on the temple of Benevento, but acomparative analysis of the two Isea built during Domitian’s principate. The
author retraces the previous studies of the topic since Müller’s publication,and then focuses on points that had been little discussed until that time,
namely the relevance of some Hellenistic-style sculptures to both the Isea. The
scholar's aim was to challenge the traditionally accepted reconstruction thattheorises the almost exclusively Egyptian nature and visual appearance of
these two Isea by laying particular emphasis on the possible dialogue between
the “Egyptian/Egyptianising” and “Graeco-Roman” sculptures.
Between 2010 and 2018, Pfeiffer also contested Müller's interpretation. He
based his argument on the flimsiness (as he saw it) of the data used tomaintain the importance of the Egyptian element in the formulation of theimperial image of Domitian, and to demonstrate his direct involvement in theconstruction of the two Isea, including the choice of furnishings and texts especially those of the three obelisks - intended to describe him as a pharaoh.

10 Pirelli 1997, id. 2006, id. 2016; Bragantini 2006; id. 2018; Vergineo 2010; Pfeiffer 2010, id. 2018;

Bülow Clausen 2012 (to cite but a few).
11 Lembke 1994.
12 Versluys 1997. A similar opinion had been already expressed some years before by Roullet(1972, 13).

13 Bülow Clausen 2015.

314

Rosanna Pirelli

He argued that the emperor's interest in Egyptian decorations can best be
described as evidence of an Egyptian fashion, and “a dedication erected inhonour of Domitian that presents him as a pharaoh does not mean that
Domitian himself wanted to be regarded as pharaoh. It only tells us that his
subjects regarded both Egyptian religion and their emperor positively andwanted to create a direct relation between the two”. Furthermore, “Moreconclusive evidence is needed to demonstrate that Domitian really wanted tobe pharaoh; and if this is not possible, one could interpret the obelisk’s
inscriptions as a representation of Domitian as expressed by Egyptian priests,
who attributed [to] Domitian the power of a pharaoh.”14
I cannot address all the complex and stimulating questions that some of
their theses open up, because this would take us too far from our topic.15 Thus,in order to stimulate some reflections on some the issues raised, my paper will
briefly present the Isiac sculptures of the Iseum of Benevento by attempting
to reconstruct, at least virtually, their context, and will analyse the symbolismof the zoomorphic deities with a particular focus on their role in the
representation of Domitian's imperial image.

Materials from the temple of Benevento
Although we have not yet found the cultic context to which the numerous
Isiac artefacts belonged, we can hypothesise that it would have been abuilding similar to other imperial Isea that are documented both fromarchaeological evidence in Egypt and beyond (Iseum and Sarapeum in
Luxor,16 Pompeii,17 Carthago Nova,18 to name but a few) and by coeval
representations (the paintings of Pompeii and Herculaneum,19 the mosaic ofPalestrina,20 and depictions on coins21). This means a chapel in Hellenistic

14 Pfeiffer 2018.
15 A new monograph is being prepared by the present writer, hopefully to be published in

2024, which is intended not only to update the catalogue of ‘Isiac’ materials from Benevento,
but also to address in detail the issues mentioned here.
16 Golvin et al. 1981.
17 De Caro (ed.) 1992.
18 Noguera Celdrán 2021.
19 MANN inv. 8975 (Pompeii); MANN inv. 8924 e 8919 (Herculaneum).
20 Meyboom 1995.
21 Vespasian, AD 71: Berlin, Münzkabinett, former collection Martinetti 1748; Domitian AD
94-96, 2 coins from London BM.

The Imperial Iseum in Benevento and its Zoomorphic Gods

315

style, possibly erected on a podium, in some cases prostyle tetrastyle, in others
peripteral, and perhaps surrounded by a portico22.
Concerning the typology of the finds, as in many Isiac contexts of theimperial era, the sculptural furnishings of the Iseum of Benevento consisted
both of Egyptianising sculptures, made in Roman times (in Italy),23 andstatues and materials from the Pharaonic and Ptolemaic periods, imported
from Egypt. For our discussion, however, I do not think it is useful to deal
separately with them following a chronological order, because it is clear thatthe most ancient materials were fully integrated in the figurative and textual
program of the imperial temple. Hence I will proceed by presenting the finds
according to the subjects represented, in increasing order of importancewithin a cultic context: the worshippers, the priests, the sovereign, the gods.
The worshippers
Among the most original sculptures, it is worth mentioning three marble
statues of kneeling women, sculpted in a definitely 'Hellenistic' style.24 The
group is very unusual indeed, for more than one reason: a) their clothing, along draped dress, characterised on the breast with the typical knot, identifies
them as figures belonging to the Isiac circle. However, the lack of the heads inall three cases prevents us from being more precise about their real nature.
Were they generic representations of women in the act of prayer or portraits
of real Isiac worshippers?25 b) Another consideration concerns the kneelingpose: in Greek and Roman art, the kneeling figure represents the vanquishedor the suppliant, but it is a common attitude of statues in prayer and inadoration in Egyptian contexts.26 Thus, despite the material (marble is veryrare if not completely absent in Egyptian statuary) and the 'Hellenistic' style,there is no reason to doubt that they were pertinent to the Iseum; but c) it isworth mentioning that no other specimen of this type of statue is known fromany other imperial temple dedicated to Isis.27

22 In a forthcoming paper, I will propose possible comparisons also with coeval Imperial

temples in Egypt.
23 On this subject, see Roullet 1972, 19.
24 Müller 1971, cat. 285 (inv. 1923); 287 (inv. 1925); 290 (inv. 1928).
25 As Irene Bragantini suggests (2018, 243-259).

26 As is also shown in the “Egyptianising” scene from Herculaneum: MANN, inv. 8919.
27 Cf. Eingartner 1991.

316

Rosanna Pirelli

The priests
1. A fragmentary block statue of the royal scribe Neferhotep is a sculptureof the Pharaonic period,28 for which a range of dates from the Ramessideto the 22nd dynasty has been proposed;29 originally, it was certainly set
up in the temple complex dedicated to the god Ptah in the city ofMemphis.
2. Three statues of priests belong to the Roman imperial period:a) one, a priest with a long draped dress decorated with fringes, andoriginally holding a sistrum (now missing)30 certainly dates from thereign of Domitian;b) the other two, completely covered by a long cloak that also hides theirhands holding Canopic divinities,31 belonged, according to Müller, to the
Hadrianic period.32 I would express some doubts about this chronology,
because their human scale, together with their material and technicaldetails, could possibly associate them with two statues that we will see
later, one representing Domitian and the other an anthropomorphic deity.
In addition, a direct comparison can be made between the three priests’
statues and a painting from Herculaneum (MANN inv. 8924)
representing an Isiac ceremony and dated to the 1st century AD at thelatest.33

28 Müller 1971, cat. 282 (inv. 1920).
29 According to Müller ( 1971, 86), it belongs to the 22nd dynasty; but Frood, forthcoming, re-dates it to the 19th Dynasty (Personal communication).
30 Müller 1971, cat. 286 (inv.1924).
31 Müller 1971, cat. 284 (1822); 288 (inv. 1926).
32 The “Canopic” divinities seem to be a creation not prior to the first century BC/beginningfirst century AD (for an assessment of this subject, see: Wild 1981, 113-123), while hardstone
statues on a human scale holding them are attested by the imperial era and are not very
numerous. As stone sculptures in the round – in addition to the pair in Benevento – we knowof one example in the museum of Alexandria (inv. 4309), one in the Museo del Tesoro diSant’Eulalia in Cagliari Inv. 18004, and one from the underwater excavations off the Abuqir
coast (National Museum Alexandria, SCA 449). In this respect, Bülow Clausen remarks thatthey seem to be connected only with Alexandria, Rome and Benevento (Bülow Clausen 2015,261), stating that “these three cities seem to have played a particular role in the advent of theFlavian dynasty”, but she evidently missed the specimen in Cagliari.
33 Another point of doubt is whether the two statues are actually ‘twins’. Some observations
made by the writer might lead one to reconsider the relationship between the two sculptures,
one of which could be a (later) copy of the other.

The Imperial Iseum in Benevento and its Zoomorphic Gods

317

The pharaoh
Three anthropomorphic statues depict pharaohs.
1. The most ancient is a fragmentary statue of king Mery-shepses-ra (13thdynasty), coming from Karnak;34
2. the others belong to the Roman imperial era:a) one is probably the most representative statue of the Iseum; its attribution
to Domitian is today almost universally accepted;35b) the last is a later “Roman pharaoh”, probably Caracalla.36
The sculpture depicting Domitian can be considered a very distinctive
example of a mixed style, as it clearly points to the artist's intention to combine
two very different ways of representing the human being: the Egyptian,characterised by a rigid pose and a face not marked by fisiognomic features,and the Hellenistic, in which, in addition to a greater dynamism of the bodies,the features of the face and facial expressions are intended to individualise
the portrait. In this sculpture, the face is characterised by irregular andmarked features, the mouth is protruding and framed by expression lines, theeyes are asymmetrical, the ears very accentuated and the uraeus — also
asymmetrical — is rendered in an almost “naturalistic” way.37 According toCapriotti Vittozzi's convincing analysis, the sculpture could be attributed to a“coherent group” also containing the following statues, on the basis of precise
stylistic and technical analogies:38 a head of Amon now held in the Staatliche
Sammlung Ägyptischer Kunst in Munich39, a royal head in Pharaonic stylewith double crown, now held in the Museum of Florence40 and the face of oneof the sphinxes from the Campo Marzio, now held in the Capitoline
Museums.41

34 Müller 1971, cat. 268 (inv. 1904).
35 Müller 1971, cat. 260 (inv. 1903); although Bülow Clausen mentions it with a question mark(2015, 98).
36 According to Müller 1971, cat. 264 (inv. 2165).

This type of uraeus is considered one of the typical features of Domitianic sculpture(Barbagli 2021, 258-263). Since the complex issue of the identification of the Domitianic
portraits cannot be addressed here, the reader is referred to Bergman, Zanker 1981, 317-412.
38 Capriotti Vittozzi 2003, 340-346; id. 2014, 237-259.
39 Inv. GL 68.
40 Florence, Museo Egizio (inv. 8650).
41 Musei Capitolini, Inv. Scu 33; Roullet 1972, 133-134 (cat. 280);
37

318

Rosanna PirelliThis last sculpture gives us the opportunity to introduce another group of
statues in which the sovereign takes the traditional form of the sphinx, where
the lion embodies one of the sovereign's prerogatives, namely that ofprotecting the sacred precinct from internal and external enemies andcontamination by the profane. Some sphinx heads - which unfortunately
cannot be connected with any of the bodies still extant - come from Benevento,
together with several headless sphinxes of different sizes and kinds of stone,of which at least 8 are of pink granite and of large dimensions.42 It is likelythat this ensemble of sphinxes flanked a rather long path to the temple.
Anthropomorphic gods
1. A granite head of Isis43 may have belonged to one of the goddess's cultstatues. On the basis of the type of granite and style, Müller suggested
that the statue came from Behbeit el-Hagara, the monumental granite
temple in the Delta erected for Isis by Nectanebo II and completed byPtolemy II and III;44
2. the remains of an Isis Pelagia45 is preserved only as a boat where the feetof the goddess are visible. Even in its present condition, we can tell thatthe sculpture must have been of refined workmanship. Since the 3nd
century BC, texts described and revered Isis as the creator of navigationand the protector of sailors46. The type is known from bas-reliefs,
numerous images on coins, and a group of statues, the latter almost all
dating from the 1st-2nd century AD,47 and our specimen might have beenfrom the time of Domitian or, according to Müller, even earlier.48
3. According to archival sources, a head of Sarapis may also come fromBenevento, although we cannot confirm this with any certainty.49

42 The last one – a large fragment of a red granite sphinx - was found during excavations by

the local Superintendency in the area of the cathedral in 2009 (personal communication by
Simone Foresta).
43 Müller 1971, cat. 261 (inv. 2166).
44 Favard Meeks 1991.
45 Müller 1971, cat. 279 (inv. 1917).
46 Bricault 2020, 289.
47 Ivi, 109-128.
48 Müller 1971, 77-89.
49 I.N. 2574, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, purchased in Rome in 1911 through Helbig from theengineer Petrucci; its provenance from Benevento was recorded by Poulsen 1951, 349. KaterSibbes 1973, cat. 573, 106 (personal communication by Italo Iasiello).

The Imperial Iseum in Benevento and its Zoomorphic Gods

4.

319

The headless statue of an anthropomorphic deity was interpreted byMüller as an image of Anubis,50 one of the deities of the Isiac circle51 - a
god who listens to suppliants, brings victory and succour, like the otherdeities of the Isiac gens52 - but the absence of the head raises some doubts.
If the god was represented in keeping with Egyptian iconography, we
would expect a canine head covered with a tripartite wig falling over theshoulders (while a fully anthropomorphic appearance is very rare). In an
early Roman iconography, the god (in his Hermanubis form) still had acanine head and wore a cloak or perhaps military garb. In the first casethe shoulders should have traces of hair; in the second, the god would
have a different garment. Should we conjecture a hybrid image? In any
case, it is interesting to remark that the first dated attestations of a fully
anthropomorphic image of Hermanubis occur during the principate of
Domitian. In them the god appears, with a youthful human face,with thick short hair, which does not fall over his shoulders, andsurmounted by a kalathos, on coins from the mint of Alexandria, in year
11 of his reign (i.e. 91/2 CE).53 The Egyptian style of this statue however
makes it difficult to imagine such a type of head. So, at the present stageof our knowledge, we have to leave the question undecided. It should beremarked, however, that the statue seems to form a pair with that of
Domitian and was probably placed symmetrically in relation to it. The
Egyptian style, dimensions, and type of stone make the two sculptures
somewhat complementary, an impression that is heightened - as Irene
Bragantini has pointed out54 - by the fact that the statue of Domitian isrepresented in keeping with the traditional Egyptian iconography, withthe left leg advanced, while the statue of the god advances the right leg.

Zoomorphic gods
1. Four falcons are present among the Egyptian material from Benevento.55
As is well known, the falcon is the earliest animal and divine power towhich the Egyptian sovereign was assimilated, and its role inside the
50 Müller 1971, cat. 281 (inv. 1919).
51 For a general introduction to the god Anubis, from the Pharaonic to Roman times, seeGrenier 1977; for a recent reassessment, see Malaise 2014, 73-93.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.

54 Bragantini 2018, 243-262.
55 Müller 1971, cat. 253 (inv. 1894); 254 (inv. 1895); 255 (inv.1896); 269 (inv. 1907).

320

2.

Rosanna Pirelli

temple does not need any explanation. But the presence of four statues(two from the Pharaonic era and two from Roman times) leads us toassume that the value attributed to it in this temple was of considerable
importance. The sculptures were probably placed symmetrically along apath to the temple, perhaps alternating with sphinxes and other statues.
However, if we consider that Nectanebo II - the last indigenous ruler
before the Second Persian dynasty and the Macedonian conquest – wasthe object of a particular cult as a falcon during his reign and throughout
the Ptolemaic period,56 one wonders whether the statues of Benevento
may not be related to the popularity of the figure of Nectanebo II in theHellenistic world. We should remember that his name means “Horus is
victorious in Hebyt”, i.e. in Behbeit el-Hagara, and we know that one of
the blocks of Nectanebo II found in the Iseum Campense comes from thistemple, and that, according to Müller the head of Isis may also come fromthe same site.57
Like the falcon (and the uraeus, see below), the bull was linked to theroyal figure from the earliest stages of Egyptian history; as a specificmanifestation of Apis (one of the gods of the Isiac circle58), it has its centre
of worship in Memphis. It is first identified as a son of Ptah and thenassimilated to the god himself. In documents of the Graeco-Roman
period, the sovereign is defined as the heir, friend or son of Apis, to whom
the power of procreation and regeneration of the royal strength isattributed.59 The presence of three statues of Apis bulls60 (one currently
standing outside the museum on a base in Viale San Lorenzo) allows us
to affirm the god’s leading role in the Iseum of Benevento. This is further
confirmed by another image of a bull forming part of the decoration in
high-relief of a small marble fragment of a frieze.61 Yet another image ofa bull was hypothesised by Müller as forming part of anotherfragmentary wall decoration (at the time composed of two pieces, a third
being lost62), whose subject the author had reconstructed by comparison
56 Gorre 2009, 55-69.
57 Müller 1971, 57-58.
58 Kater-Sibbes, Vermaseren 1975.
59 For its iconography and epithets, see LGG 5, 115-119; for a recent synthesis of its solar

aspects in the Late and Ptolemaic periods, see Marković 2021.
60 Müller 1971, cat. 270 (inv. 1908); 280 (inv. 1918).
61 Müller 1971, cat. 250 (inv. 1891).

62 Müller 1971, cat. 257 (inv. 1898); 258 (inv. 1899).

The Imperial Iseum in Benevento and its Zoomorphic Gods

3.

4.

321

with a scene from a coeval tomb of Kom el Shugafa (Alexandria). This
portrayed the king honouring the zoomorphic god protected by the wingsof Isis.63
The presence of baboons in both of Domitian’s Isiac monuments (two in
Benevento,64 three in Campo Marzio65) creates a close bond with Thothand his city, Hermoupolis, where in the time of Domitian a temple was
erected to Nehemet-away,66 Thoth's wife, to be also identified with Isis.
Thoth as the god of wisdom and writing was also considered the vizier of
Ra. The same god in his assimilation to Hermes is connected to Isis in the
Kyme aretalogy, for instance, where she says, “I was taught by Hermes
and with Hermes I devised letters.”67 The Ariccia relief68 could also beinterpreted in the same way. The central female figure, to be identified
with Isis, holds a roll of papyrus on her lap and is surrounded by various
figures, including two pairs of baboons. Lembke connects the relief with
the Iseum of Campo Marzio.69 Interestingly, we have to remark that
Domitian’s activity was very intense in Middle Egypt, between Akhmim
and Hermoupolis, the whole region being linked to Thoth, where it has
also been hypothesised that local priests could have been responsible forsome expressions and spellings characteristic of the titulary of thePamphilj obelisk and of the two in Benevento.70
The last zoomorphic divinity that I will speak of briefly is the cobragoddess Wadjyt placed on the forehead of the sovereign since veryancient times.71 As stated above, one of the typical features of Domitian’s
portraits – including those in Benevento – is the so-called “naturalistic”
uraeus,72 characterised by striped coils, non-symmetrical volutes and a
63 Müller 1971, 22, 50-54, fig. 1.
64 Müller 1971, cat. 252 (inv. 1893); 256 (inv. 1896).
65 Roullet 1972, cat. 345, 193; cat. 366, 198.
66 Snape 1989.
67 Grant 1953, 131.
68 Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Altemps, inv. 77255.
69 Lembke 1994, 174-176; on the same subject, see also more recently, Capriotti Vittozzi 2014.
70 For a wide examination of the subject, see Capriotti Vittozzi (2018)

and Barbagli 2021, 186188.
71 Although there are no freestanding sculptures depicting the goddess Wadjyt among thematerials in Benevento, I feel that the emphasis placed on this zoomorphic deity - demonstrated both by the peculiarities of her morphology in Domitian's portraiture and by the textsof his obelisks (see below) - deserves some consideration in this section.
72 See above 317, note 36.

322

Rosanna Pirelli

rather upright hood, which reflects the actual attack position of the cobra.
The cobra is one of the natural powers depicted on Predynastic objects,
and was transformed very early - in the 1st Dynasty - into a divine power
associated with the king both as one of the symbols of his nebty title andin aggressive scenes of conquest. The snake’s ability to launch sudden
attacks, its aggressiveness, dangerousness and strength, made it one ofthe principal symbols of the sovereign in the early stages of the unificationof the two lands and the conquest of foreign regions.73 After a period ofabsence from the royal iconography - probably due to the need for areformulation of its symbolism, then closely associated with the solar
aspects of the king and his protection74 - from the 4th Dynasty (reign ofDjedefre), the cobra as a uraeus became a constant symbol of royalty. In
the New Kingdom, when the military aspect of the pharaoh became oneof the main prerogatives of the king - think for example of his Horus nameconstantly introduced by the expression kA-nxt, “powerful bull” (except in
the case of Hatshepsut) - the uraeus resumed its aggressive nature. It iscalled for instance “The Wadjyt of Pharaoh who burns the corpses of foreign
enemies”; or “The lady of fire” as an epithet of the eye of Ra who annihilates
enemies.75 Some of these expressions are also present in the Saitic period(the age of Egyptian renaissance), but if we look at the references to thegoddess in Ptolemaic and Roman times, we will find her inserted above
all in religious ceremonies and cultic contexts, without any reference toher aggressive nature.
Now if we turn to the textual evidence in hieroglyphic writing from thetime of Domitian, some expressions from the faces of his obelisks (the two in
Benevento and the one in the Iseum Campense) appear very distinctive, as on
the whole they reflect epithets and features typical of the royal figure fromthe Pharaonic era with a remarkable degree of fidelity.76 Domitian is
73 Vinci 2006.
74 Pirelli 2006b.
75 LGG 2, 269-273.
76 Domitian is one of the few emperors who had a complete Pharaonic titulary composed forhim (on this point, see also Ciampini 2005). This was very rare for Roman emperors even in
Egypt, although we have two cases documented in temples built during Domitian’s reign:
the temple of Aswan dedicated to Khnum, Satet e Anuket (Hölbl 2004, 37-39 andbibliography); and that devoted to Nehemet-Away in Hermoupolis (Snape 1989). We should
also not forget that Domitian was the first emperor who certainly had original texts composed

The Imperial Iseum in Benevento and its Zoomorphic Gods

323

described, for instance, as “The Horus ‘Strong Youth’, the Two Ladies ‘He
Who Conquers through Might’, the Golden Falcon ‘Powerful of Years andGreat of Triumph’, The King of Upper and Lower Egypt ‘Emperor Caesar’,son of Ra ‘Domi[t]ian’, ever-living, he who collects tribute from the Two
Lands and the subjugated foreign countries” 77 (face 1 of the Benevento obeliskB); or “the Horus ‘Strong Bull’, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, the Lordof the [Two] Lands, the God, the Son of the God, Beloved of all the Gods, theSon of Re, the Lord of Crowns ‘Domitian’, ever-living”78 (face 3 of the
Benevento obelisks); while on face 2 of the Pamphilj obelisk, originally erectedin the Iseum Campense, we read: “Horus: beloved by the Two Lands, ruler ofthe shores. The perfect god, great in strength, with a strong arm, who
overthrows enemies, with a mighty arm, …..the earth trembles for fear of him,….who sits on the throne of Horus, who saves the sanctuaries of the gods,
who subdues those who oppose him, who subdues the Nubian tribes, whocollects tributes in Asia, whose uraeus pursues the beduins…”.79
Two features, among others, are particularly revealing: the close link withthe sun god and the military aspect of the pharaoh/emperor,80 both of them
being connected with the nature and functions of the uraeus81, which
symbolises the warlike power of the king, connects him with Ra, and protects
him from all enemies.

and inscribed in hieroglyphics for his obelisks: uncertainties still persist about theidentification of the emperor to whom the Borgia and Albani obelisks were dedicated (Prada
2022, 108-112). As for the Pincian or Barberini obelisk, erected by Hadrian, it was inscribedwith original texts between 130 and 138 AD, but was mainly dedicated as a funerarymonument to Usir-Antinoös after his death by drowning in the Nile (for a recent translation,
see Ciampini 2004,168-187).
77 According to the recent translation by Prada 2022, 117.
78 According to the recent translation by Prada 2022, 133.
79 For recent translations, see Ciampini 2004, 161-163; Bülow Clausen 2015, 147-148.
80 It will be useful here to recall that scholars commonly identify the occasion for the erectionof the two obelisks of the Samnite Iseum with Domitian’s victorious conclusion of the Dacianwars; so already in Müller (1971, 15), but cf. also Colin, 1993; Bülow Clausen, 2015, 9; Bricault,
Gasparini, 2018.
81 In dealing with the text of the Pamphilj obelisk and with the role of the maternal goddesses
mentioned on it, Ciampini (2005) states: “the couple Uadjet and Nekhbet, dynastic patronesses and mothers of the king …confirm his power by means of milk: with it they suckle theyoung king, giving to him the divine nature of ruler ….Thus suckling is an expression of theroyalty of the triumphant king”.

324

Rosanna Pirelli

Conclusion
Given the theme of this conference, the analysis of the Benevento materials
has been conducted by giving a certain space to the role of the divine entities
embodied by certain animals (lions/sphinxes, falcons, baboons, Apis bulls,
cobras) that represented fundamental aspects of the pharaoh from the very
beginning of the Egyptian history. And even from this necessarily limited
perspective, I believe that the important emphasis on the symbolism
conveyed by these divine images can hardly be explained as Versluys did in
dealing with the Iseum Campense.82
In my opinion, on the contrary, the Pharaonic and Egyptianisingmonuments were not chosen for purely decorative purposes or simply tocreate an exotic setting,83 but on the basis of a precise requirement: to create a
new imperial image based on the ancient and successful model of divine
sovereignty embodied by the Egyptian pharaoh and expressed by his
assimilation or ties to various divine entities, traditionally represented also by
sacred animals; and especially if we consider that the worship of animals was
not held in high regard outside Egypt, and particularly in Rome,84 theirmarked presence in a cultic context dedicated to an emperor merits close
scrutiny. For all these reasons, not only were the age and the original meaningof those materials important, but I would go even further and suggest that
their provenance was also significant. I propose, in other words, that themonuments imported from Egypt and inserted in the Iseum may have beencollected from those areas which had been in some way functional to the

82 See above.
83 On the contrary, I had already argued in 1998 that the presence of the Samtawytefnakhtemonument in the temple of Isis in Pompeii (Pirelli 1998) must be somehow connected to thecontent of the text engraved on it, despite the fact that the sanctuary in Pompeii is clearly‘non-imperial’. Of a similar opinion is the more recent contribution by Capriotti Vittozzi(2011), who attributes an extremely significant role to the ‘dialogue’ between Egypt and Romein the decoration of Isis monuments in Italy, with particular reference to the construction of
the image of the Flavian emperors, and more specifically Domitian.
84 For instance, we can mention Cassius Dio (51.16.5), who says that Octavian “wished toworship gods, not cattle”.

The Imperial Iseum in Benevento and its Zoomorphic Gods

325

formulation of Domitian’s regality: Karnak85, Hermoupolis,86 Memphis,87
Behbeit el-Hagara88 are all regions connected to the presence – albeit notphysical89 – of the Emperor.
Now, to return to the objections raised by some scholars against Müller’s
overall interpretation of the Benevento Iseum (as well as to the opinions of themany scholars who agree with him90), if we go back to what we haveobserved, the resulting picture seems to point to specific choices in thecomposition of texts, symbols and materials that can hardly be attributed only
to the will and initiative of a private individual,91 as might result from
Pfeiffer's position.92 The monumentality and quality of the finds, the85 At Karnak, in the eastern contra-temple of Thutmosis III, a structure with an evident solar

connotation, Domitian had a monumental portal built and inscribed, and two outer walls of
the complex decorated with texts and images dedicated to different manifestations of thesolar deity (Klotz 2008).
86 On this subject, see above 316 and note 60.
87 The statue of Neferhotep in Benevento comes from Memphis, and I suggest that at least
two of the Apis bulls may also have come from there (Pirelli forthcoming).
88 See above 314 and notes 43 and 44.
89 Unlike Vespasian and Titus, Domitian never travelled to Egypt.
90 For a summary of the opinions of the proponents of two opposing views on the subject, see
Pfeiffer 2018.
91 Although of great interest, the role of 'private' patronage in the monumental building programmes of the Roman era is not among the aims of this paper and, given its complexity, could
not be addressed here. However some short notes may be usefully presented: in Egypt for instance,
during the Flavian era, there were monuments that were certainly erected by private individuals
and dedicated to the emperors: a stela erected in the complex of Philae for Vespasian (Brophy 2015,37); a chapel erected by a certain Petronia and her children to Domitian at Kom Ombo (PM VI,200), and, to the same emperor, a temple (?) at Kom el-Sheikh Ahmed in the oasis of Bahria (Colin
2004, 103-133). However, I agree with scholars who argue that both large-scale building projects,
such as those relating to large national temples (in Italy as in Egypt), and regional ones, intended
to serve strategic territories for the economic and/or political interests of Rome, must have been
undertaken with precise objectives, and would therefore have been approved and supported (atleast in part) by the imperial administration, given the scale and complexity of the operations(Kaper 1998, 139-158) and the fundamental role they played in the representation of sovereignty.
On this topic, it may be useful to cite Rosso (2010, 167-191), though her contribution deals specifically with the birth of the imperial portraiture of the Flavians and does not address the issue of“Egyptian and Egyptianising” monuments: “la diffusion à très grande échelle d'une image impériale fixe et officielle est nécessairement une opération fortement centralisée, programmamée etcontrôlée”. This is all the more evident in the case of the economic and organisational commitment
necessary for the construction of “Egyptian” monuments outside the mother country, which involved the transport of numerous original works from Egypt. On this subject, see Lembke 1994,
135; Bragantini 2007, 19-27; ead. 2018, 243-257.
92 See above 314, note 14.

326

Rosanna Pirelli

integration of the original Pharaonic materials and those made in Romantimes and the dialogue between them, the specific references to royal ideology
and Egyptian religious thought, all seem to be the result of a meticulous
attempt to construct the image of a sacred sovereign.93 The monumental
manifestation of this image must have been built on a successful and firmly
established model,94 and its visual language and vocabulary, in my opinion,
could only be that which adhered most closely to the original tradition.

Bibliography
N. Barbagli, 2021. Faraoni Romani. Rappresentazioni del potere imperiale in Egitto
da Augusto a Domiziano [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Pisa.
M. Bergman, P. Zanker, 1981. Damnatio memoriae: Umgearbeitete Nero- und
Domitiansporträts; Zur Ikonographie der flavischen Kaiser und desNerva, JDAI 96, 317-412.
I. Bragantini, 2006. Il culto di Iside e l’Egittomania antica in Campania, in S.
De Caro (ed.), Egittomania. Iside e il mistero, 159-167. Napoli.
I. Bragantini, 2018. A note on the temple of Isis at Beneventum, in M. J Versluys, K. Bülow Clausen, G. Capriotti Vittozzi (eds.), The Iseum campensefrom the Roman Empire to the Modern Age. Temple – Monument – Lieu de Mémoire, 243-262. Roma.
L. Bricault, 2020. Isis Pelagia: Images, Names and Cults of a Goddess of the Seas
[RGRW 190]. Leiden.
L. Bricault, V. Gasparini, 2018. I Flavi, Roma e il culto di Isis, in C. Bonnet,
Ennio Sanzi, Roma, la città degli dèi. La capitale dell’Impero come laboratorio
religioso, 121-131.
E. Brophy, 2015. Royal statues in Egypt. 300BC-AD 220. Context and Function,
Archaeopress Egyptology 10.
K. Bülow Clausen, 2012. Domitian between Isis and Minerva: the dialogue
between the “Egyptian” and “Graeco-Roman” aspects of the sanctuary ofIsis at Beneventum, Supplemento MYTHOS 3, n.s., 93-122.
93 We should not forget that the Roman emperor could only be declared divine after his deathby the Senate.

94 On this subject, see also Ciampini 2005.

The Imperial Iseum in Benevento and its Zoomorphic Gods

327

K. Bülow Clausen, 2015. The Flavian Isea in Beneventum and Rome. The appropriation of Egyptian and Egyptianising Art in imperial Beneventum and Rome. Københavns.
G. Capriotti Vittozzi, 2003. Una testa faraonica da File al Museo di Firenze, in
N. Bonacasa, P. Minà (eds.), Faraoni come dei, Tolemei come Faraoni. Attidel V Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano, Torino 8-12 dicembre 2001
(Torino – Palermo 2003), 340-346. Torino.
G. Capriotti Vittozzi, 2014. The Flavians: Pharaonic Kingship between Egypt
and Rome, in L. Bricault, M.J. Versluys (eds.), Power, Politics and the Cultof Isis [RGRW 180], 237-259. Leiden.
E.M. Ciampini, 2004. Gli obelischi iscritti di Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca
dello Stato. Roma.
E.M. Ciampini, 2005. The Pamphili Obelisk: Two Notes on Pharaonic Elements in Domitian Ideology, in M. Sanader, A.R. Miočevič (eds.), Religion
and Myth as an Impetus for the Roman Provincial Culture. The Proceedings of
the 8th International Colloquium on Problems of Roman Provincial Art, 399-402.
Zagreb.
F. Colin, 1993. Domitien, Julie et Isis au pays des Hirpins (CIL IX, 1153) etl'óbelisque de Bénévent, CdE 68, 247-260
F. Colin, 2004. Un temple en activité sous Domitien au Kôm al-Cheikh Ahmad(Bahariya) d’après une dédicace grecque récemment découverte, BIFAO
104,103-133.
C. Favard-Meeks, 1991. Le temple de Behbeit el-Hagara. Essai de reconstitution etd’interprétation [BSAK 6]. Hamburg.
J.C. Golvin, S.A. el-Hamid, G. Wagner, F. Dunand, 1981. Le petit Sarapeionromain de Louqsor [avec 6 planches], BIFAO 81, 115-148.
G. Gorre, 2009. ‘Néctanébo-le-faucon’ et la dynastie lagide, Ancient Society 39,
55-69.
F.C. Grant, 1953. Hellenistic Religions: The Age of Syncretism. Indianapolis-New
York.
J.C. Grenier, 1977. Anubis alexandrine et romain [EPRO 57]. Leiden.
G. Hölbl, 2004. Altägypten im römischen Reich. Der römische Pharao und seine
Tempel, II Die Tempel des römischen Nubie. Mainz am Rhein.

328

Rosanna Pirelli

O. Kaper, 1998. Temple building in the Egyptian deserts during the roman
period, in O. Kaper (ed.), Life on the Fringe: Living in the Southern EgyptianDeserts During the Roman and Early-Byzantine Periods, Proceedings of a
Colloquium Held on the Occasion of the 251h Anniversary of theNetherlands Institute for Archaeology and Arabic Studies in Cairo, 9 - 12
December 1996,Research School CNWS School of Asian, African, andAmerindian Studies, Leiden, The Netherlands, 139-158.
G.J.F. Kater-Sibbes, 1973. Preliminary catalogue of Sarapis Monuments [EPRO36]. Leiden.
G.J.F. Kater-Sibbes, M.J. Vermaseren, 1975. Apis, I: The monuments of the Hellenistic-Roman Periods from Egypt [EPRO 48]. Leiden.
G.J.F. Kater-Sibbes, M.J. Vermaseren, 1975. Apis, II: Monuments from Outside
Egypt [EPRO 48]. Leiden.
G.J.F. Kater-Sibbes, M.J. Vermaseren, 1975. Apis, III: Inscriptions, Coins and Addenda [EPRO 48]. Leiden.
D. Klotz, 2008, Domitian at the Contra-Temple of Karnak, ZÄS 135, 63-77; pls.
XVII-XVIII.
Ch. Leitz (Hg), 2002. Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen[Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta]. Leuven.
K. Lembke, 1994. Das Iseum Campense in Rom. Studie über del Isiskult unter Domitian, Archäologie und Geschichte 3. Heidelberg.
M. Malaise, 1972a. Les conditions de pénétration et de diffusion des cultes égyptiens
en Italie [EPRO 22]. Leiden.
M. Malaise, 1972b. Inventaire préliminaire des documents égyptiens découverts en
Italie [EPRO 21]. Leiden.
M. Malaise, 2014. Anubis et Hermanubis à l’époque romaine. Who’s who?, in
L. Bricault, R. Veymiers (eds.), Bibliotheca Isiaca III, 73-93. Bordeaux.
N. Marcović, 2021. « Apis is Ptah, Apis is Ra, Apis is Horus, son of Isis”: thesolar aspect of the divine Apis bull and the Royal ideology of the Late period (664-332 BCE), in M. Nuzzolo, J. Krejci eds., The rise and development of
the solar cult and architecture in Ancient Egypt, Harrassowitz, 235-251.
A. Meomartini, O. Marucchi, L. Savignoni, 1904. Notizie degli scavi di antichità,
Atti della Reale Accademia dei lincei, 107-131.

The Imperial Iseum in Benevento and its Zoomorphic Gods

329

P.G.P. Meyboom, 1995. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina: Early Evidence of Egyptian
Religion in Italy [RGRW 121]. Leiden.
W. Müller, 1969. Der Isiskult im antiken Benevent und Katalog der Skulpturen aus denägyptischen Heiligtümern im Museo del Sannio zu Benevent [MÄS XVI]. Berlin.
W. Müller, 1971. Il culto di Iside nell’Antica Benevento. Catalogo delle Sculture provenienti dai santuari egiziani dell’Antica Benevento nel Museo del Sannio [Saggi
e Studi del museo del Sannio, Biblioteca Storica e Archivio Storico Provinciali di Benevento, II]. Benevento.
J.M., Noguera Celdrán, 2019. Arqueología de los espacios sagrados en carthago
nova: el Santuario isiaco del Molinete (Insula II), in J.M. Noguera Celdrán, C.
Alcaraz M. J. Madrid Balanza, M. Peris (eds.), Santuario De Isis y Serapis(Insula II) Molinete/Cartagena. Barrio del foro romano. Proyecto integral de recuperación y conservación, 17-27. Murcia.
S. Pfeiffer, 2010. Ägypten in der Selbstdarstellung der Flavier, in N. Kramer,
Ch. Reitz (eds.), Tradition und Erneuerung. Mediale Strategien in der Zeit derFlavier, 273-288. Berlin, New York.
S. Pfeiffer, 2018. Domitian’s Iseum Campense in context, in M. J. Versluys, K.
Bülow Clausen, G. Capriotti Vittozzi (eds.), The Iseum Campense form the
Roman Empire to the Modern Age. Temple – Monument – Lieu du mémoire. Proceedings of the international conference held in Rome at the Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome (KNIR), the Accademia di Danimarca, and the
Accademia d’Egitto (May 25-27 2016, Rome), 179-194. Rome.
R. Pirelli, 1997. L'Iseo di Benevento, in E. Arslan, F. Tiradritti, M. Abbiati
Brida, A. Magni (eds.), Iside. Il Mito il Mistero e la Magia, 598-609. Milano.
R. Pirelli, 2006a. Il culto di Iside a Benevento, in S. De Caro (ed.), Egittomania.
Iside e il mistero, 129-136. Napoli.
R. Pirelli, 2006b. Il cobra e le divinità femminili nella regalità egiziana, in S.
Pernigotti, M. Zecchi (eds.), Il coccodrillo e il cobra, 77-90. Imola.
R. Pirelli, 2016. Il tempio di Iside a Benevento, in F. Poole (ed.), Il Nilo a Pompei,
89-104. Torino.
B. Porter, R. Moss B. Porter, R. Moss, 1991 (from the original 1939). Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic texts, Reliefs and Paintings
VI, Upper Egypt : Chief Temples (excluding Thebes), Abydos, Dendera, Esna,
Edfu, Kom Ombo, and Philae, Griffith Institute. Ashmolean Museum Oxford.

330

Rosanna Pirelli

L. Prada, P.D. Worsworth, 2022. “To Isis the Great, Lady of Benevento”: Privately Dedicated Egyptian Obelisks in Imperial Rome and the Twin Obelisks of Benevento Reedited, in J. Spier, S.E. Cole (eds.), Egypt and the Classical World. Cross-cultural Encounters in Antiquity, 106-177. Los Angeles.
E. Rosso, 2010. Entre Orient et Occident : création et diffusion de l’image impériale flavienne (69-70 après J.-C.) in I. Savalli-Lestrade, I Cogitore (eds.),
Des rois au prince. Pratiques du pouvoir monarchique dans l’Orient hellénistiqueet romain (IVe siècle avant J.-C. - IIe siècle après J.-C.), Grenoble, 169-191.
M. Rotili, 2013. Ricerche archeologiche a Benevento - Arco del Sacramento: ilcontesto di rinvenimento dell’epigrafe di Fullonius, in Caruso (ed.),Antiqua Beneventana. La storia della città romana attraverso la documentazione
epigrafica, 35-51. Benevento.
M. Rotili, 2015. Considerazioni su Benevento nella Tarda Antichità, in Ebanista,
Rotili, Aristocrazie e società fra transizione romano-germanica e Alto Medioevo,
Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi Cimitile-Santa Maria Capua
Vetere, 14-15 giugno 2012, 317-351. Napoli.
A. Roullet, 1972. The Egyptian and Egyptianizing Monuments of Imperial Rome,[EPRO 20]. Leiden.
S.R. Snape, 1989. A Temple of Domitian at El-Ashmunein [British Museum Occasional Paper No. 68]. London.
G. Vergineo, 2010. Il tempio di Iside a Benevento: l'architettura e gli arredi,
l'architettura attraverso gli arredi, Estrat crìtic 5, 2, 62-75.
M.-J. Versluys, 1997. The sanctuary of Isis on the Campus Martius in Rome. A
Review Article (K. Lembke, Das Iseum Campense in Rom. Studie über den
Isiskult unter Domitian. Archäologie und Geschichte, Band 3. Verlag
Archäologie und Geschichte, Heidelberg), BABESCH. Annual Papers on
Mediterranean Archaeology 72, 159-169.
S. Vinci, 2006. Il coccodrillo e il cobra: dal naturale al divino, in S. Pernigotti,
M. Zecchi (eds.), Il coccodrillo e il cobra, 195-208. Imola.
R.A. Wild, 1981. Water in the Cultic Worship of Isis and Sarapis, [EPRO 87], Leiden.

A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS)
Project:
An Introduction
Maria Diletta Pubblico1

Introduction
Animal mummies are arguably one of the most unique material aspects ofAncient Egyptian religion. Animals were believed to have a divine nature,possibly due to the benefits they rendered to the community.2 From the Predynastic Period (ca. 4000/3900-3300 BC), they were sacrificed and buried inboth human and independent graves.3 However, the mummification of sacred animals surged in the New Kingdom (ca. 1550-1069 BC) and peaked between the Third Intermediate Period and the Roman Period (ca. 1069 BC-380
AD).4 During this time a specific type of mummy increasingly gained popularity, namely votive animal mummies. Some animals (such as cats, dogs,
hawks, ibises, crocodiles, snakes, fishes, shrews, and baboons) were perceived
to be the avatar of specific deities and deliberately killed in order to be sold asmummies to worshippers.5 Through the mummification process these animals, which were not sacred in themselves, become the soul of the gods withwhom they were associated. Two texts belonged to the Archive of Hor clearlystate that animal mummies are the souls of the god with which they arelinked.6 Similar to human souls, the souls of the mummified animals might
move through this world and that of the divine, acting as messengers throughwhich believers might easily address their concerns to the gods.7 After being

1 This article stems from the HE-MSCA-2022-PF-GF, Project Acronym: SEAMS (A Study of

Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles), Grant agreement ID: 101105365.
2 Diodorus Siculus, 1, 86–87; Plutarch, 74; Kessler 1986, 571–587.
3 Flores 2003.
4 Bleiberg 2013, 79; Ikram 2015a, 2–3.
5 Armitage and Clutton-Brock 1980, 187; 1981, 195; Ikram and Iskander 2002, 9–12; Raven andTaconis 2005, 253, 258; Porcier and Lichtenberg 2011, 244; Zivie and Lichtenberg 2015, 117–
188; Ikram 2015b, 9–15.
6 Ray 1979, 73–80, text 19, recto 4–8, 92–93, text 25, 1-4.
7 Hornung 1983, 137–138; see also Migahid 1986, 38–44, 115–129, 137–139.

332

Maria Diletta Pubblico

donated to the corresponding gods as votive offerings, many thousands ofmummies were buried in sacred necropoleis throughout Egypt.8 During the
19th and 20th centuries, these sites were subjected to large-scale illegal excavations with the aim of collecting and then shipping animal mummies to Europe, where they were auctioned as fertilizer. At the beginning of 1890, twocargo ships (the SS Pharos and SS Thebes) arrived at Liverpool’s port, carrying unwrapped cat mummies from the necropolis of Istabl ‘Antar. This unprocessed fertilizer was auctioned and bought by the fertilizer company Leventon and Co., an occurrence that greatly attracted public interest, as shownby two cartoons published by the Daily Graphic on 12 February 1890 and the
Punch on 15 February 1890.9 Animal mummies also continued to be used as
ballast, fuel, medicine, and paint.10 They were also bought as souvenirs bytravelers and tourists. In 1833, the cleric Father Géramb remarked that people
used to return from Egypt “with a mummy under one arm and a crocodile
under the other”.11 This trade is confirmed by a letter sent in March 1890 by
the Neapolitan lawyer Alfonso Donnabella to the General Secretary of the Società africana d’Italia, Giuseppe Careri. Donnabella, who was visiting Egypt,
wrote from Mansura, asking if the shipment containing cat mummies had
been received. It was a gift that he probably sent to enrich the collection of theColonial Museum.12 Thus, many specimens survived the looting activities andbecame part of museum collections. However, due to the abovementioned vicissitudes, as well as the history of casual collection, there is often no information on where they came from and/or when they were produced.

State-of-the-art
Studies devoted to reconstructing the story of animal mummies occurredslowly, as animal mummies were long regarded as mere curiosities and an
odd expression of later Egyptian religious practices. Some classical writers
commented humorously on the Egyptian interest in animal cults, while others
looked on it as a strange phenomenon.13 Animal mummies have long been
8 Ikram 2015c, XVIII–XX.
9 Cooke 2015, 51.
10 Ikram and Dodson 1998, 72; Ikram 2019, 169; Zivie 1985, 295, n. 9; Zivie and Ginsburg 1987,

6; Zivie 2000, 177; Zivie and Lichtenberg 2003, 605, Ikram 2015a, 8.
11 Ikram 2015d, XV.

12 SAI archive, B2 1890, Egyptian section. Cf. Intartaglia and Scaramella 1992, 65.
13 Clement of Alexandria, 3, 2.4, 2–4; Diodorus Siculus, 1, 83, 1.

A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS) Project333

neglected by modern scholars, as well. The very first scientific interest in this
topic began during the Napoleonic expedition, when one of the savants,
Étienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire was so attracted by these artifacts that he collected some samples in order to deepen the study of animal species and ancient Egyptian environment.14 Notwithstanding this interest, the first real contributions to the study of animal mummies date to the early 20th century,
thanks to the efforts of L. Lortet, C. Gaillard and G. Daressy. Their works are
the cornerstones of animal mummy studies.15 However, mainstream Egyptology continued to pay scant attention to this topic. Yet, this situation haschanged over the last thirty years, with the number of projects devoted to this
topic growing considerably.16 By working hand in hand with specialists fromvarious disciplines, Egyptologists have mainly engaged in interdisciplinary
research focused on the study of each individual species’ evolution,17 the animal remains,18 and the mummification process.19 Seldom have attempts been
made to trace the date and origin of the mummies, yet they have involved
gathering invasive samples in order to perform archaeometric investigations.20
In order to shed light on the contextual data of votive animal mummies,
this author proposes an innovative project named SEAMS - a Study of Egyptian
Animal Mummy Styles which is focused on their aesthetic appearance. In contrast to other forms of Egyptian material culture, animal mummies do nothave an epigraphic apparatus that normally helps in reconstructing theirstory. However, while some of the mummies’ features remain unchanged
over time, there were a great variety of wrapping styles.21 The present writerstrongly believes that this variety possibly depends on when and where these
artifacts were manufactured, as their mass production promoted a certain degree of craft specialization and changes at both a chronological and geographical level, especially in terms of wrapping techniques and styles. Therefore,

14 Ikram 2015-2016.
15 Lortet and Gaillard 1905-1909; Daressy and Gaillard 1905.
16 Ikram 2019, 179–191; see also Ikram this volume.
17 Wasef et al. 2019, 341–329; Ottoni and Van Neer 2020, 38–45; Hekkala et al. 2022, 3–14.
18 Ikram and Iskander 2002; Raven and Taconis 2005; McKnight 2010; Bewes et al 2016, 173–

177; Porcier et al. 2019b; Anderson and Antoine 2019, 31–37.
19 Buckley, Clark, and Evershed 2004, 837–841; Bruno 2013a, 124–128.

20 Wasef et al. 2015, 355–361; Richardin et al. 2017, 595–607, Porcier et al 2019a, 283–292.
21 Bruno 2013b, 133–137; Dunand et al. 2019, 145–153.

334

Maria Diletta Pubblico

the SEAMS project aims to investigate the mummies’ bandage weaves in orderto demonstrate that they are markers of specific periods and regionalism.
This investigation has never been undertaken before as the wrapping
weaves have rarely been considered by Egyptologists. In 2019, conservators
began to pay attention to this topic by running autoptic investigations, but
only focused their sample on specific cemeteries and/or animal species.22 In
recent years, another significant project provided a thorough insight into thepatterns and composition of the textiles chosen for wrapping the animal
mummies, but the sample is restricted to the specimens kept at the Museo
Egizio in Turin.23 Taking its cue from these seminal studies, the SEAMS project
aims to go further by widening the sample in terms of Museum collections,the species of animal mummy and their production sites, which thus ensuresthat data collection is carried out fairly.

Materials and method
The study is to be carried out through an innovative interdisciplinary
methodology that combines traditional techniques with new technologies.
The animal mummies under study, kept in different Museums worldwide,
have been chosen because of their elaborate wrapping system and a relatedarchive dataset. They include cats, dogs, hawks, ibises, crocodiles, snakes,
fishes, and shrew mummies, mainly coming from the necropoleis of Saqqara,
Tebtunis, Manfalut, Asyut, Abydos, Thebes, Esna. The date range of specimens already sampled for radiocarbon dating is between the late Pharaonic
and Roman Periods.
The first step will employ photogrammetry to create high-accuracy 3D models for each mummy in order to retrieve geometric information on the wrapping
patterns. Photogrammetry has already been extensively used to examine various ancient Egyptian artefacts.24 However, it has rarely been used in the analysis of mummy wrapping patterns, though it is the most suitable instrument toanalyse the wrapping weaves’ geometry. This non-invasive, low-cost, diagnostic tool allows the original aspect of patterns to be unravelled. These were neverreally documented through traditional approaches as they are not only completely invisible to the naked eye (because of the interweaving and overlapping
22 Letellier-Willemin 2019, 221–229; Tarek et al. 2019, 315–321.
23 Oliva et al. 2022.

24 Lucarelli 2019, 137–150; Bryson 2020, 309–322; Mainieri, Mandelli, and Rossi 2022, 335–341.

A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS) Project335

of the bandages themselves), but also their current state of conservation (e.g.,
strip loss and/or detachment) affects the interpretation of the original decorative module. This is especially true for the strips dyed with bright colours (red,pink, green, dark brown), which were themselves interlaced with pale bandages to produce a more sophisticated pattern. Often only mere scraps of coloured bandages have survived since they were mostly broken down by the materials used in the dyeing process.25 The colourants used will be investigatedthrough a set of broadband photographic methods: visible-reflected (VIS), ultraviolet-induced visible luminescence (UVL), infrared-reflected (IRR), ultraviolet-reflected (UVR), infrared-reflected false colour (IRRFC), and ultraviolet-reflected false colour (UVRFC). These multispectral imaging (MSI) techniques
will allow to highlight the nature and spatial distribution of the dyes present on
the bandages.26
At this stage, by using both tangible evidence and objective data obtained
through photogrammetry and MSI techniques, any volumetric and chromatic
gaps found in the patterns will be filled in the digital replica through a virtualstylistic restoration.27 This will produce a digital edition of the mummies,
which is reliable and corresponds to their original appearance, as well as improving the legibility of the wrapping weaves.
The virtual restored replicas of the mummies, the available metadata on thestory of each one (i.e., acquisition, findspot), and the other data gathered until thisstage will be merged into a relational database which will facilitate data storage,
management, and retrieval of collected information. Moreover, through multiscalar and cross analysis, recurring patterns on mummies with matching
metadata will be identified via specific queries and then grouped into types.
These types will be provided with a well-defined terminology that has been lacking until now.
An autoptic approach has already allowed some recurring decorative patterns to be highlighted.28 Some mummies were wrapped with bandages spirally arranged around the body. As is the case with cat mummy 67 kept at theMuseo della Società Africana d’Italia in Naples, the light brown bandages
folded in half are placed on the lower part of the next layer of strips, dyed

25 Pubblico and Oliva 2019, 302.
26 Dyer et al. 2018; Tamburini and Dyer 2019, 494–511; Tamburini et al. 2021, 106–132.
27 Nemoto et al. 2018, 241–245; Pietroni and Ferdani 2021, 167–197.
28 Pubblico 2022, 6–9.

336Maria Diletta Pubblico

Fig. 1: Museo della Società Africana d’Italia (Naples),Inv. no. 67, © Collezioni della Società Africana d’Italia-Sistema Museale di Ateneo dell’Università di Napoli “L’Orientale.

with a dark brown colour (Fig. 1).29 More elaborate
wrapping systems are lozenge patterns. Snakemummy P.1441, held at Museo Egizio in Turin,
shows twelve square lozenges arranged in an evermore tightly interlaced pattern and placed on thefront of the bundle. The complex design is madeeven more sophisticated since originally the lozenges were half light brown and half dark brownin colour (Fig. 2). Bi-coloured bandages are also
used to make a diamond lozenge pattern. Thiselaborate design, which consists of rhombusshaped lozenges progressively intertwined moreor less tightly, is actually very common, as the ibis
mummy 1969.112.42 of the World Museum in Liverpool shows. The bandages can also
be arranged to form meander lozenges.
The decorative model consists of repeating lozenges, placed on the front
and possibly on the sides of themummy. The meander is usually madewith dark brown bandages, while thelozenges are created with pale coloured strips, as in the case with the dog
mummy C. 2347/1, held at Museo
Egizio in Turin (Fig. 3). Herringbone
Fig. 2: Museo Egizio (Turin), Inv. no.
lozenges are also attested. Usually
P.1441, © Museo Egizio, Torino.
made with pale bandages, this design
can be also realized with bi-colored

29 Pubblico 2017, 523; Pubblico and Oliva 2019, 302.

A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS) Project337

bandages, as seen on the crocodile mummy N 2901ter
kept at the Musée du Louvre. The herringbone patternis also used without lozenges. This design could bemade alternating light and dark bandages, as in thecase of the cat mummy EA6758 held at the British Museum, as well as using exclusively light strips as theibis mummy E 2805 kept at the Musée du Louvre. Paleand dark-brown bandages are interlaced in order tocreate the rarer checkerboard pattern, shown on the
body of the crocodile mummy 6-21634 held at the
Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology. The headcan be covered with cartonnage masks as well as paleor blackened linen, as shown by the dog mummy C.
2347/2, held at Museo Egizio in Turin. Facial details
are usually painted and/or naturalistically modelledwith paddings applied underneath the wrappings, especially cheeks and muzzle. Mouth is internally padded to give a raised appearance or indicated with ahorizontal pale linen bandage on which vertical blacklines define the teeth, as seen on the crocodile mummy Fig. 3: Museo Egizio
2901bis of the Musée du Louvre. Whiskers are further (Turin), Inv. no.
represented by rolled linen threads or painted sym- C.2347/1, © Museometrical columns of parallel black and red lines, as is Egizio, Torino.
the case with cat mummy 66 kept at the Museo della Società Africana d’Italia
in Naples (Fig.4). Eyes were made applying two linen buttons with black
painted pupils, while ears could be soft and irregular or stiffened conicalshaped strips, as the dog mummy EA6743 held at the British Museum
shows.

Fig. 4: Museo della Società
Africana d’Italia (Naples), Inv.
no. 66, © Collezioni della Società Africana d’Italia-Sistema
Museale di Ateneo dell’Università di Napoli “L’Orientale.

338

Maria Diletta Pubblico

Some wrapping aspects are so typical of a site or an area that they easily
allow the specimens to be contextualized. This is the case with some of the catmummies with individually bandaged paws found at the Bubasteion in
Saqqara (Fig. 5). However, it often happens that specimens showing the same
type of wrapping pattern come from diverse necropoleis,30 such as the two
crocodile mummies 6-21633 kept at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology and 16.11.06.153 held at the World Museum in Liverpool, which camefrom Esna and Tebtunis respectively, or belong to different periods, as in thecase of the cat mummies 42.18.2 kept at the World Museum in Liverpool andC. 2349/5 of the Museo Egizio in Turin, which dated to the Late Period andRoman Period respectively. In addition, several different species often show
the same wrapping pattern, for example, the cat mummy EA37348 of the British Museum and the ibis mummy 11296 kept at the Manchester Museum, bothwrapped in the same meander pattern.

Fig. 5: Cat mummies, tomb of Khufu-Imhat (Saqqara), © Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities.

30 Hegmon 1992, 526–527.

A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS) Project339

Therefore, how can the presence of a specimen within a specific period
and/or site be recorded? The answer is to go beyond the mere typologicalstudy by taking a closer look at the concept of style. Style has been defined ina variety of ways.31 Unfortunately, a precise definition of style will never bepossible, due to its very nature. However, scholars agree that style is always
grounded in some cultural context or frame of reference. From this, it should
not be surprising that style is diverse, multivalent, and elusive, especiallywhen in another context.32 Thus, the analyses of stylistic variations of recurring wrapping weaves on votive animal mummies will provide a means ofhighlighting the characteristics of regional wrapping styles and understandwhether they could be linked to specific ateliers and/or a more refined timeframe.33
Their study also offers a unique perspective from which to unravel the existence of social, economic, religious, and technological changes as well as
identify any potential meanings attributed to the recurring patterns in different religious contexts.34 The stylistic analysis will be carried out by performing
morphological and stylistic comparisons between the restored 3D entities
grouped into the same wrapping type, by using the advanced functionalities
offered by an open-source mesh processing tool (i.e., MeshLab or CloudCompare). The stylistic variations will be then combined with information gleaned
from archives, especially priestly and photographic archives (i.e., Lucy Gura
Archive),35 and archaeological fieldwork reports. This will allow comparative
investigation with well-contextualized specimens along with other artifacts(i.e., human mummies), which will give information about local beliefs hidden in stylistic designs, wrapping techniques or textile choices. At El Deir in
the Kharga oasis, for example, both the human and dog mummies werewrapped with reddish bandages. This constitutes a local religious practiceand a precise economic choice which allows the definition of a regional style.36
Following the identification of the weaving styles variations, the next challenge is to provide information on wrapping manufacture. Analysis of theimages that were previously acquired through non-invasive analytical tools

31 Sackett 1982, 63; Wiessner 1990, 106–107; Hodder 1990, 45.
32 Conkey and Hastorf 1990, 2.
33 Ikram 2019, 182.
34 Moreno Garcia 2014, 138-139.
35 Reymond 1973; Ray 1976.
36 Dunand et al. 2017, 201.

340

Maria Diletta Pubblico(i.e., Dino-Lite digital microscope) will shed light on the nature and torsion of
the fibres employed as well as identify the presence of fringes and stitchingdetails (hems, darning, seams) that may suggest the reuse of textiles (mostly
linen, but wool, cotton, hemp and jute fibers are also attested).37 Through textile and experimental archaeology protocols, the SEAMS project will reproduce
exact replicas of the recurring wrapping patters using the digitally restored
replicas as their main references. The replicas will further an understandingof how the bandages were held in tension, what the interweaving stages were,
and which tools, if any, were used. This information will lead to draft the very
first classification of votive animal mummies based on their wrapping techniques and styles. The results will offer a unique insight into the animal
mummy craft, especially by providing information on the raw materials favoured by specific production centres and consequently an in-depth understanding of their environment, as well as shed light on the economic impactof the votive animal mummy business.38
The high-resolution 3D models and restored replicas of the mummies together with other data (metadata, texts, images, videos) gathered during thecourse of the research will be widely shared in a timely fashion through avisual repository, made accessible to everyone for free through the 3D Heritage Online Presenter (3DHOP) viewer, thereby avoiding the use of commercial software.39 In doing so, users will be able to make queries according totheir expertise and needs and dynamically browse the 3D entities directly on
the webspace.

Conclusions
Through the multidisciplinary methodology proposed, the SEAMS project
stands to make a significant contribution to recent studies in the animal mummies
field and beyond. Developing a consistent terminology for the identified wrapping patterns allows a level of standardisation to be created, which has been lacking until now. This factor will have an impact of considerable magnitude among
peer researchers, fostering an interoperability of data and facilitating communication. The classification of votive animal mummies provides the scientific community with an especially useful comparative tool that will potentially help to37 Bruno 2013c, 111–115, Letellier-Willemin 2021, 185, 187–188.
38 Ikram 2015a; Letellier-Willemin 2019, 226–228.

39 Potenziani et al. 2015, 129–141; Scopigno et al. 2017, 1–9.

A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS) Project341

identify the currently unprovenanced specimens held in museums. This tool is
set to reconstruct the story of these artefacts towards a more profound understanding of their meaning. In doing so, it will reduce the necessity to carry out
expensive diagnostic investigations involving destructive sampling - usuallyused to retrace contextual data - and consequently, it will play a key role in thecontinued preservation of the objects by avoiding direct contact and any stressfultransfer of such fragile materials, as well as in decreasing costs. Moreover, theresulting 3D entities will become part of the multimedia contents of the museums
involved in the project, and will enhance visitor experience. They will further contribute to raising public awareness on the importance of animals in Antiquity andthe ethics of how to approach of animal remains. Therefore, by using a combination of new technologies (photogrammetry, MSI techniques, virtual restoration,
relational database, visual repository), SEAMS will offer important insights into
the manufacture of votive animal mummies and shed new light on Egyptian craftspecializations, chaîne opératoire, technologies, and favoured materials, as well ason the economy of state and local religious communities. Moreover, by providing
essential information on the wrapping sequences of votive animal mummies, itwill form a major contribution to our knowledge on this neglected category ofartefacts.

Bibliography
J. Anderson, D. Antoine, 2019. Scanning Sobek. Mummy of the crocodile god,in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky.
Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 31–37. Leiden.
J. M. Bewes, A. Morphett, F. D. Pate, M. Henneberg, A. J. Lowa, L. Kruse, B.
Craige, A. Hindson, E. Adams, 2016. Imaging ancient and mummiﬁed
specimens: Dual-energy CT with effective atomic number imaging of two
ancient Egyptian cat mummies, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 8,
173–177.
E. Bleiberg, 2013. Animal Mummies: the souls of the Gods, in E. Bleiberg, Y.
Barbash, L. Bruno (eds.), Soulful Creatures. Animal mummies in Ancient
Egypt, 64–105. New York.
L. Bruno, 2013a. The scientific examination of Animal Mummies: Issues ofDate and Material, in E. Bleiberg, Y. Barbash, L. Bruno (eds.), Soulful Creatures. Animal mummies in Ancient Egypt, 124–128. New York.

342

Maria Diletta Pubblico

L. Bruno, 2013b. The scientific examination of Animal Mummies: Changes
over Time, in E. Bleiberg, Y. Barbash, L. Bruno (eds.), Soulful Creatures. Animal mummies in Ancient Egypt, 133–137. New York.
L. Bruno, 2013c. The scientific examination of Animal Mummies: Analyzing
the Mummies’ Wrappings, in E. Bleiberg, Y. Barbash, L. Bruno (eds.), Soulful Creatures. Animal mummies in Ancient Egypt, 111–115. New York.
K. Bryson, 2020. New technology and ancient images: the application of digital 3D imaging to the study of ancient Egyptian art, in J. Kamrin, M. Bárta,S. Ikram, M. Lehner, M. Megahed (eds.), Guardian of ancient Egypt: studies
in honor of Zahi Hawass 1, 309–322. Prague.
S. A. Buckley, K. A. Clark, R. Evershed, 2004. Complex Organic ChemicalBalms in Pharaonic Animal Mummies, Nature 413, 837–841.
M. Conkey, C. Hastorf, 1991. Introduction, in M. Conkey, C. Hastorf (eds.),
Uses of Style in Archaeology, 1–4. Cambridge.
A. Cooke, 2015. Auctions and air raids: Liverpool’s animal mummy collection,
in L. McKnight, S. Atherton-Woolham (eds.), Gifts for the Gods. Ancient
Egyptian Animal Mummies and the British, 48–53. Liverpool
G. Daressy, C. Gaillard, 1905. La Faune Momifiée de l’Antique Égypte. Cairo.
F. Dunand, R. Lichtenberg, C. Callou, S. Letellier-Willemin, 2017. El-Deir Nécropole IV. Les Chiens d’El Deir. Paris.
F. Dunand, R. Lichtenberg, C. Callou, S. Letellier-Willemin, 2019. Des chiens
et des bandelettes, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures ofEarth, Water, and Sky. Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 145–153.
Leiden.
J. Dyer, D. Tamburini, E. R. O'Connell, A. Harrison, 2018. A multispectral imaging approach integrated into the study of Late Antique textiles from
Egypt, PLoS ONE 13(10), e0204699.
D. V. Flores, 2003. Funerary sacrifice of Animals in the Egyptian Predynastic Period. Oxford.
M. Hegmon, 1992. Archaeological Research on Style, Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 517–536.
E. R. Hekkala, R. Colten, S. W. Cunningham, O. Smith, S. Ikram, 2022. Using
Mitogenomes to Explore the Social and Ecological Contexts of Crocodile

A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS) Project343

Mummification in Ancient Egypt, Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural
History 63(1), 3–14.
R. Hodder, 1990. Style as historical quality, in M. Conkey, C. Hastorf (eds.),
Uses of Style in Archaeology, 44–51. Cambridge.
E. Hornung, 1983. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many.
London, Melbourne and Henley.
S. Ikram, 2015a. Speculations on the Role of Animal Cults in the Economy ofAncient Egypt, in M. Massiera, B. Mathieu, F. Rouffet (eds.), Apprivoiser leSauvage, 1–17. Montpellier.
S. Ikram, 2015b. Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies, in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine
Creatures: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt. Second Edition, 1–15. Cairo.
S. Ikram, 2015c. Selected List of Animal Cemeteries, in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine
Creatures: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt. Second Edition, XVIII–XX.
Cairo.
S. Ikram, 2015d. Preface, in S. Ikram (ed.), Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies
in Ancient Egypt. Second Edition, XV–XVI. Cairo.
S. Ikram, 2015-2016, Ancient Egyptian Fauna, in I. Shaw, E. Bloxham (eds.),
Oxford Handbook of Egyptology, Oxford.
S. Ikram, 2019. Shedding New Light on Old Corpses. Developments in the
Field of Animal Mummy Studies, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.),
Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky. Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt andNubia, 179–191. Leiden.
S. Ikram, A. Dodson, 1998. The Mummy in Ancient Egypt: equipping the dead foreternity. London.
S. Ikram, N. Iskander, 2002. Non-Human mummies. Cairo.
C. Intartaglia, C. Scaramella 1992. Archivio storico della Società Africana d’Italia.
Inventario. Napoli.
D. Kessler, 1986. Tierkult, in W. Helck and W. Westendorf (eds.), Lexicon derÄgyptologie VI, 571–587. Wiesbaden.
S. Letellier-Willemin, 2019. Appréhender les momies autrement. L’étude destextiles des momies de gazelles du Musée des Confluences à Lyon, in S.
Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky. Essays
on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 221–229. Leiden.

344Maria Diletta Pubblico

S. Letellier-Willemin, 2021. Discovery of an Unexpected Textile Fiber in a Fish
Mummy from the Musée des Confluences (Lyon) Collection, in S. Ikram,
J. Kaiser, S. Porcier (eds.), The Ancient Egyptians & the Natural World,
Flora, Fauna & Science, 183–189. Leiden.
L. C. Lortet, C. Gaillard, 1905-1909. La faune momifiée de l’ancienne Egypte. Lyon.
R. Lucarelli, 2019. The materiality of the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead,
MAARAV 23(1), 137–150
S. Mainieri, A. Mandelli, C. Rossi, 2022. Digital Humanities: a Holistic Approach to Classify Yellow Coffins, The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 46 (2), 335–341.
M. Marković, E. Mezzatesta, S. Porcier, C. Vieillescazes, C. Mathe, 2020.
Chemical characterization of embalming materials of four ibis mummies
from the Musée des Confluences, Lyon, Journal of Archaeological Science 34,102624–102633.
L. M. McKnight, 2010. Imaging applied to animal mummification in Ancient Egypt.
Oxford.
A.-el-G. Migahid, 1986. Demotische Briefe an Götter von der Spät- bis zur
Römerzeit : ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des religiösen Brauchtums im alten Ägypten. Würzburg.
J. C. Moreno Garcia, 2014. Dans les champs, sur les routes et dans les ateliers,in H. Guichard (ed.), Des animaux et des pharaons. Le règne anomal dansl’Egypte ancienne, 134–139. Louvre-Lens.
T. Nemoto, T. Kobayashi, O. Takeshi, M. Kagesawa, H. Kurokochi, S. Yoshimura, E. Ziddan, M. Taha, 2018. Virtual restoration of wooden artifacts by
non-rigid 3D shape assembly: a case of the first solar boat of king Khufu,
in R. Sablatnig, M. Wimmer (eds.), GCH2018: Eurographics workshop ongraphics and cultural heritage, 241–245. Goslar.
E. Pietroni, D. Ferdani, 2021. Virtual Restoration and Virtual Reconstruction
in Cultural Heritage: Terminology, Methodologies, Visual Representation
Techniques and Cognitive Models, Information 12 (4), 167–197.
S. Porcier, P. Richardin, G. Louarn, S. Ikram, D. Berthet, 2019a. Datations parle carbone 14 de 63 momies animals du Musée des Confluences à Lyon
(France), in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water,and Sky. Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 283–292. Leiden.

A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS) Project

345

S. Porcier, C. Berruyer, S. Pasquali, S. Ikram, D. Berthet, P. Tafforeau, 2019b.
Wild crocodiles hunted to make mummies in Roman Egypt: Evidence
from synchrotron imaging, Journal of Archaeological Science 110, 105009.
M. Potenziani, M. Callieri, M. Dellepiane, M. Corsini, F. Ponchio, R. Scopigno,
2015. 3DHOP: 3D Heritage Online Presenter, Computers & Graphics 52, 129–
141.
M. D. Pubblico, 2015. The cat mummies of Società Africana d’Italia: an archaeological, cultural and religious perspective, in G. Rosati, M. C. Guidotti(eds.), Proceeding of the XI International Congress of Egyptologists, 23-30 August 2015, 532–537. Oxford.
M. D. Pubblico, 2022. Making a Cat Mummy. Some Case Studies from ItalianCollections, Archeologie tra Oriente e Occidente (CISA) 1, 1-13
[https://doi.org/10.6093/archeologie/9385].
M. D. Pubblico, C. Oliva 2019. Le cinq momies de chat de la Società africana
d’Italia (Naples): nouvelles recherche, nouvelles découvertes, in S. Porcier,S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky. Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 293–304. Leiden.
C. Oliva, M. Borla, S. Aicardi, 2022. Dressing animal mummies: the collection ofMuseo Egizio, Turin, paper read at the 3rd International Symposium on Animals in Ancient Egypt, the Middle Nile and their hinterlands (June 15-17,2022). Naples.
C. Ottoni, W. Van Neer, 2020. The Dispersal of the Domestic Cat: Paleogenetic
and Zooarchaeological Evidence, Near Eastern Archaeology 83 (1), 38–45.
M. J. Raven, W. K. Taconis, 2005. Egyptian Mummies. Radiological Atlas of theCollections in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. Leiden.
J. D. Ray, 1976. The Archive of Hor. London.
E. A. Reymond, 1993. Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the Ashmolean Museum I.
Embalmers’ Archives from Hawara. Oxford.
P. Richardin, S. Porcier, S. Ikram, G. Louarn, D. Berthet, 2017. Cats, Crocodiles, Cattle, and More: Initial Steps Toward Establishing a Chronology ofAncient Egyptian Animal Mummies, Radiocarbon 59 (2), 595–607.
J. R. Sackett, 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology, Journal of Anthropology and Archaeology 1, 59–112.

346

Maria Diletta Pubblico

R. Scopigno, M. Callieri, M. Dellepiane, F. Ponchio, M. Potenziani, 2017. Delivering and using 3D models on the web: are we ready?, Virtual Archaeology Review 8 (17), 1–9.
D. Tamburini, J. Dyer, 2019. Fibre optic reflectance spectroscopy and multispectral imaging for the non-invasive investigation of Asian colourants in
Chinese textiles from Dunhuang (7th-10th century AD). Dyes and Pigments
162, 494–511.
D. Tamburini, J. Dyer, M. Vandenbeusch, M. Borla, D. Angelici, M. Aceto, C.
Oliva, F. Facchetti, S. Aicardi, P. Davit, M. Gulmini, 2021. A multi-scalar
investigation of the colouring materials used in textile wrappings of Egyptian votive animal mummies, Heritage Science 9, 106–132.
A. Tarek, M. Abdel-Rahman, N. Mohamed, A. Khairy, A. Abedellatif, 2019.
Study of Different Wrapping Types on Ibis Mummies from Tuna-el-Gebel,
Hermopolis, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures of Earth,
Water, and Sky. Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 315–321. Leiden.
S. Wasef, R. Wood, S. El Merghani, S. Ikram, C. Curtis, B. Holland, E. Willerslev, C. D. Millar, D. M. Lambert, 2015. Radiocarbon Dating of Sacred
Ibis Mummies from Ancient Egypt, Journal of Archaeological Science 4, 355–
361.
S. Wasef, L. Huynen, C. D. Millar, S. Subramanian, S. Ikram, B. Holland, E.
Willerslev, D. M. Lambert, 2019. Fishing for Mitochondrial DNA in Mummified Sacred Ibis, in S. Porcier, S. Ikram, S. Pasquali (eds.), Creatures ofEarth, Water, and Sky. Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, 341–329.
Leiden.
P. Wiessner, 1990. Is there a unity to style?, in M. Conkey, C. Hastorf (eds.),
Uses of Style in Archaeology, 105–112. Cambridge.
A. Zivie, 1985. La Falaise du Bubasteion à Saqqarah: bilan des travaux et perspectives pour l'avenir, in S. Schoske (ed.), Akten des Vierten InternationalenÄgyptologen Kongresses, München 1985, vol. 2, 291–298. Hamburg.
A. Zivie, 2000. La résurrection des hypogées du Nouvel Empire à Saqqara, in
M. Barta, J. Krejcí (eds.), Saqqara and Abusir in the Year 2000, Archiv
orientální. Supplementa 9, 173–192. Prague.

A Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles (SEAMS) Project347

A. Zivie, L. Ginsburg, 1987. La nécropole des chats de Saqqarah en Egypte:
recherches récentes, Le Chat, Ethnozootechnie 40, 5–10.
A. Zivie, R. Lichtenberg, 2003. Les chats du Bubasteion de Saqqara. Etat de laquestion et perspectives, in Z. Hawass (ed.), Egyptology at the Dawn of the
21st Century: Proceeding of the Eight International Congress of Egyptologists,
Cairo 2000, Vol. 2, History, Religion, 605–611. Cairo-New York.

Some Remarks on Roman Period Mummy Masks
from Kellis with the Jackal Motif:
An Update on Regionalism and Craftsmanship in theWestern Egyptian Desert
Carlo Rindi Nuzzolo1

Introduction: The Cartonnage from Kellis
A total of 27 tombs have been excavated by the Dakhleh Oasis Project(DOP) within the southernmost sector of the Kellis 1 cemetery on the outskirtsof Ismant al-Kharab;2 this is the only area so far explored of a necropolis containing 300+ tombs (Fig. 1).3 Several of the bodies buried therein, whether anthropogenically mummified or skeletonised, were provided with cartonnage
coverings and usually had a ‘set’ composed by two pieces: a mummy mask
and a foot-case. In rarer instances, a full body cover was used.4 The cemeteryyielded more than 90 pieces of cartonnage, including 40 mummy masks, 28
foot-cases, and 14 full body covers discovered in 19 tombs of the 27 explored.
Additional pieces from each of these categories were found in the North
Tombs, which are not included in the following discussion. Investigation of
the manufacturing details and iconography of these pieces demonstrated thepresence of multiple groups of craftsmen producing cartonnage for the Kellis
funerary market. Within the cartonnage production of the area, the craftsmen
manufactured two main types of mummy masks: masks with a decorative
programme in line with indigenous Egyptian tradition (Group I), and masks
decorated predominantly following Roman fashion (Group II) featuring a tunic with clavi, shawl, jewellery, etc.5

1 ORCID: 0000-0002-8183-8483. This article has been developed in the context of the H2020-

MSCA-IF-2020, Project Acronym: CRAFT (Cartonnage Regionalism in the Ateliers of the Fayum Territory), Grant agreement ID: 101033437.
2 Site number 31/420/C5-1 in the DOP site numbering system.
3 Birrell 1999; Mills and Churcher 1999, 260-261.
4 Schweitzer 2002; Hope et al. 2022; Rindi Nuzzolo 2022.
5 Hope et al. 2022; Rindi Nuzzolo 2017; 2023.

350

Carlo Rindi Nuzzolo

Mummy Masks from Kellis
Among the above-mentioned mummy
masks, a number of pieces are of interest
due to the presence of a large vignette featuring jackals as the main element; the vignette is always positioned in a large horizontal register on the lower section of thechest cover. Mummy masks including alarge register featuring jackals in the decoration are known from other cemeteries,
for instance Deir el-Bahri or Hawara.6
However, the Kellis variant is of interest as
it includes elements and arrangement thatare uncommon and are exclusively foundin the Dakhleh Oasis production, identifying them as regional characteristics.
Mask 1 (Group I)
A mummy mask bearing the jackal
motif was initially identified among thefindings of Tomb 25;7 it was not discovered on a body, but in a disturbed context together with other cartonnage artefacts.8 The mask shows an individual
wearing a head covering decorated withimages of deities and a broad collar with
Fig. 1: Map showing the general view flower motifs followed by a horizontalof the Kellis 1 Cemetery, with the line of hieroglyphs. Below this is a large
location of tombs 20 and 25 indicated.
Drawing by the author based on an
original drawing present in the Kellis
Field Notes.

6 Riggs 2000.

7 Rindi Nuzzolo 2017; 2022, 36.
8 Birrell 1999; Schweitzer 2002; Rindi Nuzzolo 2022, fig. 1.41.

Some Remarks on Roman Period Mummy Masks from Kellis with the Jackal Motif

351

scene with two seated black jackals
flanking a barque with incurving ends
in the form of lotus flowers (Figs. 2 &6a).
Within the barque, the deceased ispainted in red and lying with head on
the left proper. The flanking jackals
are facing outwards, and remnants ofdecoration show they are tied to thebarque. The mask also includes a falcon with folded wings on the back of
the head. Until recently, this was believed to be the only one of its kindoriginating from the area.
Mask 2 (Group Unknown)
During 2017, while in Dakhleh,
this author identified a small fragment pertaining to the edge of an additional mask originating from Tomb
20 (Figs. 3 & 6b). The fragment only Fig. 2: Mask 1 (Tomb 25); photograph by
had a partial section of a jackal on it, the author.
but its positioning and dimensions
suggested it was part of the same scene as that on the mask from Tomb 25.9
Furthermore, its measurements, exactly matched those of the mask from thelatter tomb. This demonstrated that the motif was not an isolated case. Although it was impossible to establish to which group the mask pertained to(Group I, decorated in Egyptian tradition, or Group II, in Roman fashion) due
to its fragmentary state, it proved that the motif was used on additional masks
from the area suggesting a repeated production.

9 Rindi Nuzzolo 2023.

352

Carlo Rindi Nuzzolo

Mask 3 (Group II)

A further fragmentary section ofa third mask was discovered in
Tomb 18. Its surface is partially
blackened, although the decorationis still visible (Fig. 4). It depicts one
jackal, on the right-hand side of aboat, of which only the last part ofthe lotus terminal is visible. The
head of the deceased within thebark is barely detectable, and vertical fringe-like strokes have been
painted in front of the jackal. The
fragment in question is of particularinterest as it belongs to a mummy
mask of Group II, and it testifies
that the motif was also used on
Fig. 3: Mask 2 (Fragment from Tomb 20); mummy masks decorated in Rodrawing/photograph by the author. Mask 3 man fashion. In fact, just above the(Group II)register painted with the jackal motif, it bears traces of the garments
used in the decoration that identify
it as a Group II mask.10

Fig. 4: Mask 3 (Fragmentfrom Tomb 18); drawing by
the author.

10 Rindi Nuzzolo 2022, 70, fig. 2.28.

Some Remarks on Roman Period Mummy Masks from Kellis with the Jackal Motif353

The decorative programme ofthese masks is well exemplified byan intact mask of Group II discovered in Tomb 25, although not featuring the jackal motif. This depicts awoman with gilded face (Fig. 5). She
wears a wreath and has realistic
curly hair, rendered using vegetal fibres covered in black paint, fallingon her shoulders. Her garments consist of a light tunic (Chiton) with clavi,a fringed mantle (Himation) aroundher shoulders tied in a knot in thecentre of the chest and which descends on the lower abdomen. She
has her arms crossed, left over right,
and wears heavy jewellery including
bracelets, armlets, a ring, and a necklace with lunula-pendant.
Unprovenanced Mummy Masks
Fig. 5: The mask from Tomb 25 decoThe previous three examples
rated with the "everyday dress"; photograph by the author.
demonstrate that the jackal motif wasused at Kellis on both masks of GroupI and II. However, to further investigate how frequently this motif was usedin the area, and given the apparent scarcity of the excavated material, it isnecessary to look at some of the artefacts which have appeared on the art market.11 I will demonstrate how this material can relate to the Kellis cartonnage
production and, thus, can help integrate the scant archaeological remains of
this motif and allow a general reconsideration on its frequency of use.
Mask 4 (Group I)
A cartonnage set composed by mummy mask and foot-case, the former
featuring the jackal motif (Fig. 6d), appeared on the French art market during
11 Only a selection of pieces is presented here. A dedicated study investigating the collection

history and provenience of such pieces is under preparation. For additional exemples see
Rindi Nuzzolo 2022, 173.

354

Carlo Rindi Nuzzolo

1996.12 The mask is strikingly similar to Mask 1 not only in the decorative programme, but also in how the pieces are moulded and their general craftsmanship. The mask is decorated with seated and standing gods holding sceptres
and lotus flowers positioned in the wig registers, as on the example fromTomb 25 at Kellis. The face, eyes and eyebrows are also identical to those on
Mask 1, as is the jackal motif. The only visible difference is the body of thedeceased lying in the barque, which in this instance is not painted entirely in
red but features a yellow head. Moreover, a corrupted inscription is now located below the vignette, instead of above. A further proof that Mask 4 comesfrom Kellis is provided by the foot-case included in the same cartonnage set;
this has the same colour scheme and decorative programme as the mask, and
it is noteworthy that this foot-case is identical to one excavated in the Kellis 1
cemetery within Tomb 3.13 Once again, moulding, craftsmanship, decorationand details all match the example from Kellis, and thus allow to ascribe thisentire cartonnage set to the Kellis 1 cemetery.
Mask 5 (Group II)
A cartonnage mask (Fig. 6e) appeared on the British art market in 1998.14
It is manufactured for a woman. She has realistic curly hair and is wearing thesame kind of tunic with clavi seen on the mask discovered in Tomb 25 of the
Kellis 1 cemetery and on Mask 3, with a fringed shawl tied in the centre of thechest. Jewellery is also the same as on the Kellis example, with bracelets andnecklace with lunula. The mask differs from the example from Tomb 25 in that
it is decorated with a single jackal, depicted below the left elbow and facing
outwards. This is the only element of the jackal motif present on the mask but
is painted in the same way as on Mask 1.

12 Galerie Samarcande, Paris, 7-8 October 1996, lot 268.
13 Rindi Nuzzolo 2023, pl. XIX.

14 Bonhams, London, 24 June 1998, lot 374.

Some Remarks on Roman Period Mummy Masks from Kellis with the Jackal Motif

Fig. 6: The jackal motif on Masks 1–5. drawing/photograph by the author.

355

356

Carlo Rindi Nuzzolo

Conclusions
These artefacts offer an interesting opportunity to further analyse aspects
connected to this motif. Firstly, they allow to prove that the motif was tied to
the Kellis cartonnage manufacture. Even in the case of Masks 4 and 5, I will
demonstrate how these can relate to the Kellis production. For Mask 4, it has
been seen how both pieces in this cartonnage set are identical, in shape anddecoration, to those found on the site. Furthermore, from the craftsmanshipstandpoint, both the mask and the foot-case bear the red preparatory lines
which are still visible underneath the painted surface. Again, this is also foundon Mask 1, where the red guidelines are particularly visible in the jackal motif
area as well as in the back of the mask. These guidelines, also visible throughout the entire chest cover of Mask 5, are a particular characteristic – in thatthey are always visible – relative to a group of craftsmen which I identified at
Kellis.15 Moreover, numerous fragments bearing identical blue and black clavi
without dotted decoration are present in the Kellis material, as well as fragments showing hands and fingers realised in the very same fashion.16 Additionally, the time frame of appearance of these objects on the art market also
matches the excavations in the Kellis 1 Cemetery.17
Second, these new data allow a quantitative reconsideration on the use ofsuch motif. Initially, Mask 1 was believed to be the only mask bearing thismotif at Kellis. Although fragmentary, Masks 2 and 3 prove that it was usedon more examples. The art market investigation, with Masks 4 and 5, complies
with what has been found on site. Additionally, thanks to the above-mentioned striking similarity, the complete cartonnage set of Mask 4 allows tohypothesise the presence of more pieces in the cemetery itself possibly bearing the motif. An identical foot-case in Tomb 3 must have been provided witha similar mask; whereas multiple mask fragments from Tomb 16, once again
with the same style and manufacturing as Masks 1 and 4 possibly represent
another cartonnage set. Finally, a further small fragment from Tomb 22, depicting the incurved terminal of the barque in the shape of a lotus flower, certainly was part of the same motif on an additional mask.18

15 Rindi Nuzzolo 2022, 115-119, pl. IV.
16 Ivi, 175.

17 Ivi, 183-187.
18 Ivi, 184, 301-302.

Some Remarks on Roman Period Mummy Masks from Kellis with the Jackal Motif

357

Third, the new examples allow to understand how the motif was used, andthat it was not only confined to masks with traditional Egyptian imagery(Group I), but on masks decorated following Roman fashion (Group II) as
well, as demonstrated by Masks 3 and 5. Although both groups are indeed
Egyptian in nature, as the belief system they exemplified, this is of interest as
it demonstrates that craftsmen were drawing from both stylistic repertoires
when decorating these pieces. As mentioned, vignettes involving jackals
standing seated at the sides of a barque are found on a variety of funerarymaterials, including cartonnage masks as well as stelae.19 The motif used at
Kellis, however, includes jackals always facing outwards which, even thoughtied to the barque, are not represented in the act of pulling it. By looking out
from the main scene, they seem rather to guard the deceased in the funerarybarque. Mask 5 stands out as it is only one so far provided with a single jackal,
and this suggests that the concept of the motif was still ideally represented
despite the lack of space. This also applies to several inscriptions found on
cartonnage pieces at Kellis; although these do not yield a running translation‘we should be careful not to dismiss such texts as pseudo-hieroglyphs. Individual
signs may contain clear references to a specific context or practice, and overall the
Roman period brings some changes in the perception of the script. A few signs could
be enough in a given context to conjure up the desired reference’.20 In the same way,
one single jackal on the mask was enough to express, pars pro toto, a reference
to the entire motif. This could also suggest, as in the case of Kharga Oasis,21that the craftsmen at Kellis were not always strictly following the same patterns but that they were also allowed a certain degree of freedom to modify
them and create them anew. Future research will be directed to understanding whether the motif was used at other sites within the Dakhleh Oasis.

Bibliography
A. Abdalla, 1992. Graeco-Roman Funerary Stelae from Upper Egypt. Liverpool.
M. Birrell, 1999. Excavations in the Cemeteries of Ismant el- Kharab, in C. A.
Hope, A. J. Mills (eds.), Dakhleh Oasis Project: Preliminary Reports on the
1992–1993 and 1993– 1994 Field Seasons, 29-41. Oxford.

19 Abdalla 1992; Riggs 2000.

20 Kaper in Connor et al. 2022, 198.
21 Dunand 2004, 579.

358

Carlo Rindi Nuzzolo

A. Connor, I. Gardner, G. Vittman, O. E. Kaper, C. A. Hope, 2022. Literacy, in
C. A. Hope, G. E. Bowen (eds.), Kellis: A Roman-Period Village in Egypt's
Dakhleh Oasis, 185-202. Cambridge. (https://doi.org/10.1017/97805118
44362.012).
F. Dunand, 2004. Le mobilier funéraire des tombes d’El Deir (Oasis deKharga): témoignage d’une diversité culturelle?, in P. C. Bol, G. Kaminski,
C. Maderna (eds.), Ägypten, Griechenland und Rom. Austausch und Verständnis, Städel-Jahrbuch, Sonderdruck, Neue Folge 19, 565–579. Stuttgart.
F. Dunand, R. Lichtenberg, 2012. Anubis, Oupouaout et les autres…, in C.
Zivie-Coche, Y. Guermeur (eds.), Parcourir l’éternité. Hommages à Jean
Yoyotte, 427-439. Turnhout.
C. A. Hope, 2014. The Kellis 1 Cemetery: Roman Period Burial Practices in
Dakhleh Oasis, in G. Tallet, C. Zivie-Coche (eds.), Le myrte et la rose. Mélanges offerts à Françoise Dunand par ses élèves, collègues et amis, CENiM 9,
325–48. Montpellier.
C. A. Hope, J. Mckenzie, C. Rindi Nuzzolo, 2022. The Traditional Cemeteriesof Kellis, in C. A. Hope, G. E. Bowen (eds.), Kellis: A Roman-Period Village
in Egypt's Dakhleh Oasis, 307-342. Cambridge.
B. A. Ibrahim, F. Dunand, J.-L. Heim, R. Lichtenberg, M. Hussein 2008. Le materiel archeologique et les restes humains de la Necropole d’Aïn El-Labakha. Paris.
A. J. Mills, C. S. Churcher, 1999. Reports from the Survey of the Dakhleh Oasis
1977-1987. Oxford.
C. Riggs, 2000. Roman Period Mummy Masks from Deir el-Bahri, The Journalof Egyptian Archaeology 86, 121–44.
C. Rindi Nuzzolo, 2017. Graeco-Roman Cartonnage from the Kellis 1 Cemetery (Ismant el-Kharab, Dakhleh Oasis): The Case of Tombs 10 and 25, in
K.A. Kóthay (ed.), Burial and Mortuary Practices in Late Period and GraecoRoman Egypt, 305–10. Budapest.
C. Rindi Nuzzolo, 2019, The Cartonnage from Kellis (Ismant al-Kharab, Dakhleh
Oasis): A Study in Regionalism and Craftsmanship [Unpublished PhD Dissertation]. Melbourne (https://doi.org/10.26180/5ca6c9fd1dc0f).
C. Rindi Nuzzolo, 2020. Broken Faces: Investigating Evidence of Regionalism
in Cartonnage Fragments from the Kellis 1 Cemetery, in A. Warfe, C.

Some Remarks on Roman Period Mummy Masks from Kellis with the Jackal Motif

359

Hamilton, D. Stewart (eds.), Dust, Demons and Pots. Studies in Honour of
Colin A. Hope, 635-644. Leuven.
C. Rindi Nuzzolo, 2022. Roman-Period Cartonnage from the Kellis 1 Cemetery (The
Excavations at Ismant al-Kharab vol. I). Oxford.
C. Rindi Nuzzolo, 2023. Cartonnage Mummy Masks from Kellis (Ismant alKharab, Dakhleh Oasis) featuring the jackal Motif: New Insights on Regionalism after the 2017 Study Season, in C. A. Hope, B. Parr, C. Rindi
Nuzzolo (eds.), Australasian Egyptology Conference 4. Papers from the Fourth
Australasian Egyptology Conference Dedicated to Gillian E. Bowen, 85–90. Oxford (https://doi.org/10.32028/9781803274317).
A. Schweitzer, 2002. Les parures de cartonnage des momies d’une nécropoled’Ismant el-Kharab, in C.A. Hope, G.E. Bowen (eds.), Dakhleh Oasis Project:
Preliminary Reports on the 1994–1995 to 1998–1999 Field Seasons, 269–76. Oxford.

Appendix

Programme of the 3rd International Symposium on Animals in Ancient
Egypt, the Middle Nile and their Hinterlands

Keynote lectures••••

Wrapping it Up: Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummy Studies in 2022. Salima Ikram.
Mythical Animals in Kush. Remarks on the Composite Creatures in
Kerma Art. Andrea Manzo.
“When everything is human, the human is an entirely different thing…”
Animal Powers in the Ancient Egyptian Demonic Imagery. Rita Lucarelli.
Sacred Animals in Domitian’s Iseum in Benevento. Rosanna Pirelli.

Session Museology/scientific analysis and archaeozoology(Chairmen: Salima Ikram, Maria Diletta Pubblico)
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•

Palaeopathology of Captive Baboons from Wadi Gabbanat el-Qurud, Upper Egypt. Stéphanie Porcier, Wim Van Neer, Stéphane Pasquali.
Animal Mummies. First Insights into the British Museum’s Collection.
Marie Vandenbeusch, Daniel Antoine, Salima Ikram.
Animal Remains from the Egyptian Collection of the Civic ArchaeologicalMuseum of Milan. Sabrina Ceruti, Cinzia Oliva.
Preliminary Investigations of Crocodile Mummy from the National Preserve “Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra” (Ukraine). Yevheniia Yanish, Dario
Piombino-Mascali, Wilfried Rosendahl, Mykola Tarasenko.
The Crocodile of “Castel Nuovo” in Naples (Italy): Religion, Taxidermy
and Conservation. Emanuele Casafredda.
Dressing animal mummies: the collection of Museo Egizio, Turin. Cinzia
Oliva, Matilde Borla, Sara Aicardi.
An Innovative Approach to Study Votive Animal Mummies. The SEAMS- a Study of Egyptian Animal Mummy Styles - Project. Maria Diletta Pubblico.
Ceramic, Wood, Stone and Bronze: Animal mummy Containers in theMuseo Egizio, Turin. Johannes Auenmüller, Federica Facchetti.
Exploring the Morphological Diversity of Mummified Canids in Ancient
Egypt Through 3D Modelling of Skulls. Colline Brassard, Stéphanie Porcier, Hassen Jerbi.

362

•

AppendixPotted Dog: a Special Burial from Gebelein. Salima Ikram, Sara Aicardi,
Matilde Borla, Federica Facchetti.

Session Animals in art, craft and texts (Chairmen: Cinzia
Oliva, Maria Diletta Pubblico)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

The Valuable Role of Animals in Kerma Culture. Elena D’Itria.
In the Presence of Giants: Giraffe-pots in Meroitic Sudan. Loretta Kilroe.
Zooarchaeology in Old Kingdom Egypt: a Comparison between Animal
Iconography and Faunal Remains. Ramona D’Alfonso.
“I caused to live the hill of the nega-bulls”. Ancient Egyptian Zootoponymy During the 3rd Millennium BC. Andrés Diego Espinel.
Wandering Falcons: on the Referent and Meanings of Nemty’s Hieroglyphs (/ , G7A/G7B). Francisco L. Borrego Gallardo.
How Now Modified Cow? Horn Deformation in the New Kingdom.
Laura Harris.
A Re-discovery of the Monkey-like Figurines of Deir el-Medina. Audrey
Crabbé.
Shabtis for the Apis-bull. Federico Poole.
Animals of Ancient Kheny: the Rupestrian Collection. Maria Nilsson,
John Ward and John Wyatt.
Cartonnage from the Dakhleh Oasis Featuring the ‘Jackal Motif’: Aspectsof Regionalism and Craftsmanship in Egypt’s Western Desert. Carlo
Rindi Nuzzolo.

Session Animal impact on human society and economy(Chairman: Ilaria Incordino)
•
•

•
•

Food for Thought? Considering the Presence of Zoomorphic Figurines in
Predynastic Egyptian Burials. Elizabeth Brice.
Animals in the Diet During Late Period: the Example of Plinthine (Lower
Egypt). Nicolas Morand, Martine Leguilloux, Mennat Allah El Dorry,Charlène Bouchaud, Mikaël Pesenti, Séverine Marchi, Rim Saleh.
Fishy Business: Fishing and Government Control in Ptolemaic Egypt. Lisa
Vanoppré.
Butchers and Bureaucrats: The Role of Meat in the Economy and the Fiscal
System of Graeco-Roman Egypt. Nico Dogaer.

Appendix

•
•

363

The Identities of the Ancient Berenike Society Through the Relations to
Animals. Marta Osypińska, Piotr Osypiński.
Marine Resources Exploitation in Hellenistic Berenike (Red Sea, Egypt).
Alfredo Carannante, Marek Adam Woźniak, Iwona Zych.

Session Archaeology and current fieldwork (Chairman: Elena
D’Itria)•••••

The Animal Necropolis of Syene/ “Old Aswan” and the Material Culture.
Wolfgang Müller, Mariola Hepa.
Animal Cult in Ancient Asyut. Jochem Kahl, Chiori Kitagawa.
The Dogs of Anubis - the Good, the Bad and the Ugly? - Zooarchaeology
at el-Sheikh Fadl (Middle Egypt). Herbert Böhm.
Collars on Cats and Dogs in Life and in the Afterlife: Fashion and Function in Early Roman Egypt. Iwona Zych, Marina Maria Serena Nuovo.
Animals in the Decorative Repertoire of Byzantine Pottery from the Monastery of Manqabad (Asyut, Egypt). Ilaria Incordino.

Il Torcoliere • Officine Grafico-Editoriali d’Ateneo
Università di Napoli L’Orientale
Finito di stampare nel mese di ottobre 2023

ISBN 978-88-6719-285-4