The Catacombs of Anubis at North Saqqara: An Archaeological Perspective (British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan, 12) 9789042945500, 9789042945517, 9042945508

Citation preview

BRITISH MUSEUM PUBLICATIONS ON EGYPT AND SUDAN 12

THE CATACOMBS OF ANUBIS AT NORTH SAQQARA An archaeological perspective

Paul T. NICHOLSON

PEETERS

THE CATACOMBS OF ANUBIS AT NORTH SAQQARA

BRITISH

MUSEUM

PUBLICATIONS

ON

EGYPT

AND

SUDAN

THE CATACOMBS OF ANUBIS AT NORTH SAQQARA

An archaeological perspective

Paul T. NICHOLSON with

Salima IKRAM and Steve MILLS contributions by

Louise BERTINI, John P. HARRISON, Delyth HURLEY, Hendrikje NOUWENS, Ying QIN, Stephanie VANN, Manja VOSS, Scott WILLIAMS and Cary WOODRUFF

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2021

12

Cover illustration: Looking toward the west along the axial aisle of the Catacombs of Anubis from outside burial gallery 17. Burial galleries can be seen opening at left and right. (Photo: P.T. Nicholson).

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-4550-0 eISBN 978-90-429-4551-7 D/2021/0602/55 © 2021, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval devices or systems, without the prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

This book is dedicated to the memory of my brother Roy James Nicholson (1964-2020) Whose kindness knew no bounds. Also to his wife Janet and my mother Doris who have borne his loss with such courage

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of figures ....................................................................................................................................................

IX

List of tables ......................................................................................................................................................

XXI

Preface................................................................................................................................................................

XXIII

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................

XXV

List of contributors ............................................................................................................................................

XXVII

Paul T. NICHOLSON

Chapter 1: Introduction: Research Questions and Procedures.........................................................................

1

Paul T. NICHOLSON Chapter 2: The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara ..........................................................................

9

Steve MILLS, Scott WILLIAMS, Henkdrikje NOUWENS and Paul T. NICHOLSON Chapter 3: Surveying the Catacombs of Anubis ..............................................................................................

17

Paul T. NICHOLSON with John P. HARRISON Chapter 4: Creating the Catacomb....................................................................................................................

39

Paul T. NICHOLSON, Steve MILLS, Scott WILLIAMS and Hendrikje NOUWENS Chapter 5: The Catacomb .................................................................................................................................

51

Salima IKRAM and Louise BERTINI with contributions by Delyth HURLEY and Stephanie VANN Chapter 6: The Faunal Material ........................................................................................................................

135

Paul T. NICHOLSON Chapter 7: The Finds.........................................................................................................................................

189

Paul T. NICHOLSON Chapter 8: Priests, Procurers, Preparators and Pilgrims: An Overview of the Sacred Animal Cults at Saqqara...............................................................................................................................................................

245

Paul T. NICHOLSON Chapter 9: Postscript: The Re-Use of the Monument......................................................................................

253

D. Cary WOODRUFF, Manja VOSS, John HARRISON, Ying QIN, and Paul T. NICHOLSON Appendix: A Sirenian from the Maadi Formation (Upper Eocene) from the Catacombs of Anubis at North Saqqara (Egypt) .................................................................................................................................................

259

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................

267

Index ..................................................................................................................................................................

277

LIST OF FIGURES All photographs by P.T. Nicholson unless otherwise stated

Chapter 1 1.1 1.2

1.3

Map of Egypt showing the location of Saqqara and plan of North Saqqara showing the location of the animal catacombs. (Drawing: J. Hodges)..........................................................................................

2

Plan from Jacques de Morgan’s Carte de la Nécropole de la Memphite: Dahchour, Sakkarah, AbouSir (1897) showing the dog catacombs (north of the Anubieion Temple, here labelled as ‘Serapeum Grec’), which he regarded as being of New Kingdom date....................................................................

3

Plan of the Dog Catacombs in relation to modern surface features and including Tomb Shafts (TS) 1-3 which were located on the surface and identified as potential emergency exits. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). .............................................................................................................................................

6

Chapter 3 3.1

MHR 1978 map with T points highlighting T1 and T2 and indicating the location of the Anubieion and Dog Catacombs. (Map amended by S. Mills and S. Williams). ......................................................

20

3.2

Plan of the Catacomb and surface showing all control points. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ........

22

3.3

Steve Mills surveying in the catacomb using the Leica TPS300 Total Station. (Photo: Scott Williams).

23

3.4

The largely intact niche 35x, an example of the kind of feature whose dimensions were recorded in the survey. ................................................................................................................................................

23

The pile of dog mummy remains in gallery 30. The spalled rock fragments are typical of the galleries. The scale bar is 1m long. .........................................................................................................................

30

A truncated tomb shaft outside gallery 12. Beneath the shaft is a rubble construction presumably used by robbers to gain entry to the catacomb via the shaft. All such shafts were recorded in the survey. .

30

Dr Steve Mills surveying on the surface above the catacomb. This allowed the location of those depressions in the ground which mainly relate to infilled tomb shafts which are clearly visible in the catacomb. ..................................................................................................................................................

30

The Dog Catacombs in relation to modern and ancient surface features. The smaller catacomb is based on information from the de Morgan (1897) plan only and has not been re-surveyed. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ......................................................................................................................................

32

The final version of the new plan of the catacomb overlaid on that by de Morgan (1897) shown in grey. Where galleries are shown as indicative and have no end shown their length is unknown. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ............................................................................................................

35

3.10 Master plan of the Catacomb showing all GIS feature layers activated. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

36

3.5 3.6 3.7

3.8

3.9

Chapter 4 4.1

The entrance to the Dog Catacomb. Showing exposed rhythmic sequence of limestone (white) and marl (yellow) beds forming the catacomb roof. Note white gypsum veins in the marl. The width of the doorway seen at bottom centre is c.0.75m. .............................................................................................

40

4.2

Phase plan of the catacomb. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ..............................................................

41

4.3

Tool marks on the walls of gallery 38. ....................................................................................................

47

4.4

Chisel-type tool marks on the walls of gallery 30. .................................................................................

47

4.5

Chop-type tool marks at ‘lamp’ niche L6 in gallery 20. .........................................................................

48

LIST OF FIGURES

X 4.6

Looking east along the axial aisle from outside gallery 27. Scabbed rock can be seen lining the walls where it has fallen from them and from the ceiling. A small amount has been contributed from the dismantling of the low walls which originally sealed the galleries, but most is from natural weathering. ...............................................................................................................................................

49

Chapter 5 5.1

Overall plan of the larger of the two dog catacombs. Galleries are numbered anti-clockwise from the entrance. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). .............................................................................................

52

5.2

Modern steps seen from the top. ..............................................................................................................

53

5.3

Modern steps entering the catacomb into gallery 1, viewed from the junction of gallery 2 with gallery 1.

53

5.4

The garden of the ‘Architect’s house’. The entrance to the catacomb is at right where sand is being cleared from the modern structure which covers the entrance steps. .....................................................

54

Schematic section of the escarpment showing the original entrance onto the axial aisle buried by the sand of the garden of the modern architect’s house. (Drawing: S. Williams). ......................................

54

5.6

The catacomb showing the major features of the axial aisle. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ..........

55

5.7

An area of red brick incorporated into the limestone retaining wall of the garden of the ‘Architect’s House’ marks the position and presumed width of the dromos leading to the original entrance of the larger Dog Catacomb. A similar feature marks that for the smaller catacomb. The modern entrance doorway and building for the larger catacomb can be seen immediately left of the metal posts. .........

58

Looking west along the axial aisle. Gallery 14 is on the right. Ying Qin is facing gallery 35. Note the neat cutting of the catacomb at this point................................................................................................

58

Looking west along the axial aisle. Gallery 18 is on the right and 31 directly opposite on the left. The shape of the axial is more trapezoidal in this area. ..........................................................................

59

5.10 Professor John Harrison places a ladder into the shaft descending outside gallery 12. A rubble platform, constructed by robbers, is visible beneath the shaft. .....................................................................

59

5.11 Axial niche AX11 is the final niche on the north side of the axial aisle and is located between galleries 18 and 19. .................................................................................................................................

59

5.12 Plan showing galleries 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 46, 47 and 48 (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ...........................

60

5.13 Looking south along gallery 1, it is blocked where it meets the axial aisle. Gallery 46 can be seen at left. ............................................................................................................................................................

61

5.14 Looking north along gallery 2. Stored pottery can be seen at the back of the gallery. .........................

61

5.15 Gallery 2a (right) with gallery 1 and the entrance steps to the left. Note the extensive area of drift sand. ..........................................................................................................................................................

62

5.16 Looking east into gallery 46. ...................................................................................................................

62

5.17 Gallery 47 showing the modern steps to the left.....................................................................................

63

5.18 Gallery 48 is actually a tomb chamber and may have a shaft to the surface opening at the rear (now blocked). It opens from gallery 2.............................................................................................................

63

5.19 Enlarged area from Jacques de Morgan’s Carte de la Nécropole de la Memphite: Dahchour, Sakkarah, Abou-Sir (1897) showing the dog catacombs. .......................................................................................

64

5.20 Looking north along gallery 3. Like other galleries in the forepart of the Catacomb it has been used as storage for antiquities. .........................................................................................................................

64

5.21 Plan showing galleries 4, 5, 6, 44, 45 and 49. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams)...................................

67

5.22 Looking south along gallery 4. The antiquities are not original to the gallery but are stored there from excavations probably around 1910. .........................................................................................................

70

5.5

5.8 5.9

LIST OF FIGURES

XI

5.23 Looking east along the axial aisle the complete collapse of gallery 45 is clearly visible. ....................

70

5.24 Niche AX1, this has been damaged in the collapse of the galleries nearby. However, it may never have been very deeply cut. .......................................................................................................................

71

5.25 Looking at the west wall of gallery 5 where a tunnel has been cut between it and gallery 6. Rubble from the cutting can be seen to the left of the opening. .........................................................................

71

5.26 Niche 5B with the remains of a coffin and mummy. The coffin was subsequently conserved. ............

72

5.27 Gallery 44 showing extensive collapse as is typical for galleries in this area of the catacomb. ...........

72

5.28 Looking east at the wall of gallery 6 and the entrance to the tunnel between it and gallery 5. ............

73

5.29 Niche 6H, an example of a niche which still retains part of its blocking. Such blocking, made from the rock of the gallery and inserted between layers of calcite would serve to disguise the niche, though this may have been unnecessary given that it would subsequently be buried by the pile of dog remains. .............................................................................................................................................

73

5.30 Plan showing galleries 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 40-49. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ............................

74

5.31 Looking south along gallery 43, showing the location of the unfinished rear section where human remains were located. ...............................................................................................................................

79

5.32 The unfinished rear part of gallery 43. The human remains were located under the fallen ceiling block on top of the unquarried rock-shelf at left. ..............................................................................................

79

5.33 Animal remains sealed in place by the collapse of blocks from the ceiling of gallery 43. The scale is 10cm. ........................................................................................................................................................

80

5.34 Looking along gallery 7. The first illuminated area is approximately the point at which the angle changes .....................................................................................................................................................

80

5.35 Looking west along the axial aisle onto the extensive collapse of gallery 42. Gallery 8 is illuminated to the right. The collapse is so extensive as to obscure gallery 41 at this point. ...................................

81

5.36 Looking east along the axial aisle showing the extensive collapse of gallery 41. .................................

81

5.37 The preserved rear section of gallery 42. At the rear right of the gallery the collapse of the wall between it and gallery 41 is obvious. The walls here are very thin adding to the instability of the gallery. ........

82

5.38 The remains of mummified dogs on top of the mummy pile in gallery 42. These remains, though they have settled, are not densely packed and strongly suggest that the galleries were never filled from floor to ceiling. .........................................................................................................................................

82

5.39 Looking north into gallery 8 from the axial aisle. Collapse is visible in the foreground. The rear of the gallery has been illuminated. It is devoid of animal remains. ..........................................................

83

5.40 The ceiling on the north-west side of the entrance to gallery 8 showing the remains of the Sirenian described in the Appendix........................................................................................................................

83

5.41 Looking south along gallery 9. The level of the axial aisle is clearly visible above the level of the gallery itself and niches are apparent in the walls, particularly on the left side of the photograph. .....

84

5.42 The blind (north) end of gallery 9. Here the pile of animal remains is still in situ, note that the soot marks from lamps stop immediately before the remains are reached. The break with gallery 10 to the west is also apparent. ...............................................................................................................................

84

5.43 Looking south from the entrance of gallery 40. Here the animal remains still fill the gallery though some robber pitting is apparent. ...............................................................................................................

85

5.44 The remains of the blocking wall at the end of gallery 40 are examined by Hendrikje Nouwens. The rubble has been cemented together with mud. ........................................................................................

85

5.45 Looking west along the axial aisle at the entrance to gallery 10. The rubble in the foreground is from ceiling collapse and may have been moved from the entrance to the gallery. .......................................

86

XII

LIST OF FIGURES

5.46 Looking north along gallery 10. The substantial mound of animal remains in the foreground has been moved there by robbers. Niches are visible in the wall as is the good quality of cutting in this gallery.

86

5.47 Plan showing galleries 10-15 and 36-40. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ..........................................

87

5.48 Looking south along gallery 39. Robber pits are visible amongst the animal remains..........................

91

5.49 Rubble outside gallery 39. The two white pieces of dressed stone appear to be part of an object of some kind. ................................................................................................................................................

91

5.50 Looking along gallery 11. The animal remains show extensive signs of robber activity. .....................

92

5.51 Gallery 38 looking west along the axial aisle. The ‘step’ made by robbers beneath the tomb shaft outside gallery 12 is visible at right.........................................................................................................

92

5.52 Looking south along gallery 38. The cutting of the gallery is very good and it remains filled with animal remains, albeit somewhat disturbed. ............................................................................................

93

5.53 Entrance to gallery 12 with robbers ‘step’ in front of it. ........................................................................

93

5.54 Looking north along gallery 12, still filled with animal remains. ..........................................................

94

5.55 The blocking at the entrance to gallery 37, with Hendrikje Nouwens. ..................................................

94

5.56 Looking along gallery 37 with animal remains. ......................................................................................

94

5.57 Looking along gallery 13. Blocking is visible on the left and there are soot marks from lamps at regular intervals along the gallery wall. ..................................................................................................

95

5.58 Niche 13E showing the remains of soft white limestone blocking which has been plastered into place. .........................................................................................................................................................

95

5.59 Looking along gallery 36. ........................................................................................................................

96

5.60 Looking along gallery 14. ........................................................................................................................

96

5.61 Plan showing galleries 33-37. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ...........................................................

97

5.62 Looking along gallery 35. ........................................................................................................................

98

5.63 Looking along gallery 36, showing niches and the angle change. .........................................................

98

5.64 The furthest end of gallery 35 showing what remains of the mummy pile............................................

98

5.65 Large gouges in the wall of gallery 35. ...................................................................................................

99

5.66 Hendrikje Nouwens indicates splash marks around niche 35W. ............................................................

99

5.67 Scratched grid on the north side of niche 35B. It may belong to a time after the catacomb was abandoned, possibly to the phase during which it was being emptied...........................................................

100

5.68 Looking along gallery 15. ........................................................................................................................

100

5.69 Looking onto the remains of the blocking of gallery 15.........................................................................

101

5.70 The only burial niche in gallery 15 (15A) on the blind end wall of the gallery, with the remains of a large dog. ...............................................................................................................................................

101

5.71 Looking along gallery 34. ........................................................................................................................

101

5.72 Plan showing galleries 10-16. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ...........................................................

102

5.73 The entrance to gallery 16 showing what may be the remains of blocking, though this is uncertain. ..

103

5.74 Looking along gallery 16. Note the niches and the soot marks from the lamps. ...................................

103

5.75 Plan showing galleries 33 and 34. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ....................................................

106

5.76 Looking along gallery 33. ........................................................................................................................

107

5.77 Plan showing galleries 14-19. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ...........................................................

109

5.78 Looking along gallery 17. ........................................................................................................................

110

5.79 Plan showing galleries 32-36. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ...........................................................

112

LIST OF FIGURES

XIII

5.80

Looking along gallery 32. ......................................................................................................................

113

5.81

Two raptor mummies found in gallery 32. ...........................................................................................

113

5.82

Looking along gallery 18. ......................................................................................................................

114

5.83

Scott Williams indicating the presence of soot marks on the ceiling where gallery 18 is broken through to gallery 19..............................................................................................................................

114

5.84

Plan showing galleries 31-34. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). .........................................................

115

5.85

Looking along gallery 31. ......................................................................................................................

116

5.86

Looking along gallery 19. Rubble from a tomb shaft can be seen at left, probably broken through after the catacomb had ceased to function. ...........................................................................................

116

A galvanised cauldron has been used to block a tomb shaft at the end of gallery 19. It may relate to the period during which the catacomb was being emptied. ..................................................................

117

5.88

Plan showing galleries 24-30. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). .........................................................

120

5.89

Looking along gallery 30. The mound marking the start of the mummy remains has been separately illuminated. .............................................................................................................................................

121

5.90

The rear part of gallery 30 showing the extent of the remaining mummified remains. ......................

121

5.91

Plan showing galleries 19-24. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). .........................................................

122

5.92

Looking along gallery 20. ......................................................................................................................

123

5.93

Looking along gallery 29. ......................................................................................................................

123

5.94

Scott Williams indicates chisel marks on the break between gallery 29 and 30. ................................

124

5.95

Looking along gallery 21 with tomb shafts coming in on the right where a tomb chamber (behind the pile of rubble at right) has been truncated. .....................................................................................

124

Looking toward the rear part of gallery 21 where collapse is so extensive that the neighbouring gallery 22 is also visible. Work in these galleries was restricted due to their unsafe condition. ........

125

5.97

Looking along gallery 28. The remains of the mummy pile are visible in the middle distance. ........

125

5.98

Looking along the mummy remains in gallery 28. ...............................................................................

126

5.99

Looking along gallery 22 with extensive mummy remains. .................................................................

126

5.100 Looking along gallery 27, which is in poor condition. .........................................................................

127

5.101 Looking along gallery 23. ......................................................................................................................

127

5.102 Looking along gallery 26. ......................................................................................................................

128

5.103 Looking into the, apparently unfinished, gallery 24. ............................................................................

128

5.104 Looking along gallery 25. ......................................................................................................................

129

5.105 The rearmost part of gallery 25 which is unusually high. ....................................................................

129

5.106 Distribution of dog niches throughout the catacomb. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ....................

130

5.107 Distribution of ‘lamp’ niches throughout the catacomb. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).................

131

5.87

5.96

Chapter 6 6.1

Plan of the catacombs with the galleries containing the samples marked. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). ..........................................................................................................................................

136

6.2

A complete dog mummy from gallery 35 (35DM-6). ..........................................................................

143

6.3

Cross-section of a dog mummy from gallery 39 showing the distribution of bandages between and around limbs as well as the distribution of white powder both inside and outside the mummy.........

143

Dog mummy (11.I) from gallery 11 showing flesh, skin, fur, textile, and white powder. ..................

143

6.4

XIV 6.5

LIST OF FIGURES

Skull of a cat from gallery 40 showing evidence of mummification. It also suffered from tooth loss and alveolar resorption. ............................................................................................................................

144

6.6

A well wrapped puppy mummy from gallery 39, with textile and possibly vegetal wrappings. ..........

144

6.7

Portion of a dog mummy from gallery 40 with tidy, folded linen bands creating a striped pattern over the shroud. ................................................................................................................................................

144

6.8

Raptor mummy from gallery 32 wrapped in a herringbone pattern. ......................................................

145

6.9

Raptor mummy from gallery 32 with plain wrapping; the bottom portion is broken. ..........................

145

6.10 Tjesem from Beni Hasan (Tomb 15). (Photo: Courtesy of L. Evans and the Australian Centre for Egyptology, Macquarie University). ........................................................................................................

148

6.11 Greyhound type (back) and Saluki type in foreground, from Beni Hasan tomb of Khnumhotep. (Photo: Courtesy of L. Evans and the Australian Centre for Egyptology, Macquarie University). ...................

148

6.12 Saluki type from the tomb of Paheri at El Kab. (Photo: S. Ikram). .......................................................

149

6.13 Pariah type from Beni Hasan (Tomb 17, Khety). (Photo: Courtesy of L. Evans and the Australian Centre for Egyptology, Macquarie University). ......................................................................................

149

6.14 Mastiff type. (Drawing: I. Dennis, after Churcher 1993 (who based his image on material from Hierakonpolis, see Quibell 1900, pl. XII.7 and XIX). ............................................................................

150

6.15 A small dog, together with a Saluki type, from the tomb of Sirenput at Kubbbet el Hawa. (Photo: L. Bertini). ................................................................................................................................................

150

6.16 Small dog from the Tomb of Khnumhotep (Tomb 3) at Beni Hasan. (Photo: Courtesy of and copyright of the Australian Centre for Egyptology, Macquarie University)...........................................................

151

6.17 Distribution of withers heights in cm. .....................................................................................................

152

6.18 Plot of withers heights in cm. ..................................................................................................................

152

6.19 The skull of a dog (30.6 (Smush)) that was noted but not collected or measured during a check to make sure that the galleries had not suffered from inclement weather. The proportions strongly suggest that this is a Maltese type dog (thanks to D. Bennett for confirmation of this identification). Such smaller dogs were increasingly common in the Roman period, but have been noted before. ......

156

6.20 The long muzzled, narrow cranium type (36.1 (Len), 36.2 (Mark), and 36.3 (Brut)). ..........................

156

6.21 The long cranium and short-muzzled type (9C, Fido). ...........................................................................

156

6.22 The short muzzled and broad cranium type (18.13, which also shows evidence of trauma to the head in the form of a circular depression). ......................................................................................................

156

6.23 Varg (18.1), the largest dog found. ..........................................................................................................

157

6.24 Age distribution of jackals, n=51. Juvenile is classed as under 9 months (Deciduous teeth, scapula, distal metapodial epiphysis, and distal humerus all unfused); Young Adult is between 10-12 months (Permanent Canines erupted, proximal radius, femur (proximal and distal) all fused), and Mature Adult is over 12 months (all permanent teeth erupted, all bones fused). The ranges and criteria are based on established methodologies (Sullivan and Haugen 1956; Wood 1958; Harris 1978; Bingham and Purchase 2003; Barone 2010; Silver 1969). ........................................................................................

158

6.25 Age distribution of foxes, n=8. Juvenile is classed as under 9 months (Deciduous teeth, scapula, distal metapodial epiphysis, and distal humerus all unfused); Young Adult is between 10-12 months (Permanent Canines erupted, proximal radius, femur (proximal and distal) all fused), and Mature Adult is over 12 months (all permanent teeth erupted, all bones fused). The ranges and criteria are based on established methodologies (Sullivan and Haugen 1956; Wood 1958; Harris 1978; Bingham and Purchase 2003; Barone 2010; Silver 1969). ........................................................................................

159

6.26 The age range of the cattle remains, NISP (n=146). ...............................................................................

162

6.27 Age ranges of cats in months, n=198. .....................................................................................................

165

LIST OF FIGURES

XV

6.28 Range in size of immature cat humeri. ....................................................................................................

165

6.29 Range in size of immature cat femurs. ....................................................................................................

166

6.30 Plan showing the distribution of burial niches throughout the galleries. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

168

6.31 Image of a niche within the gallery. ........................................................................................................

169

6.32 A tibia (30.1) showing a healed oblique fracture, from gallery 30. .......................................................

177

6.33 Humerus with a well-healed oblique fracture that has displaced, resulting in a curvature of the shaft and leaving the animal (Varg, 18.1) with a limp. ...................................................................................

177

6.34 A radius with an oblique fracture (37.4), from gallery 37. .....................................................................

177

6.35 A fractured and healed humerus that might have been splinted. ............................................................

178

6.36 Bent spines of thoracic vertebrae, suggestive of trauma (gallery 17.4, 5). ............................................

178

6.37 A rib (10.1) that might show evidence of trauma. (Photo: S. Ikram). ...................................................

178

6.38 A group of vertebrae with osteophytes from gallery 43 (43.1-5). (Photo: S. Ikram). ...........................

179

6.39 Fused vertebrae from gallery 33 (33.1). (Photo: D. Hurley). .................................................................

179

6.40 Ribs with osteophytes, from gallery 18 (18.1, Varg). (Photo: S. Ikram). ..............................................

180

6.41 Ribs with osteophytes, from gallery 18 (18.1, Varg). (Photo: D. Hurley). ............................................

180

6.42 Fused and infected radius and ulna (11.5). ..............................................................................................

181

6.43 Specimen of humerus with new bone formation covering the entire shaft (35Q, Sicko). (Photo: S. Ikram). ..................................................................................................................................................

181

6.44 Infected metapodia fusing together (18.2). (Photo: D. Hurley). .............................................................

181

6.45 Bone with a curious growth in the centre (19.1). (Photo: S. Ikram). .....................................................

182

6.46 Examples of alveolar resorption in madibles. (Photo: S. Ikram)............................................................

182

6.47 Map showing the distribution of canine burials throughout Egypt (N. Warner). ...................................

187

Chapter 7 7.1

Plan of the catacomb showing the location of finds. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams). .......................

190

7.2

The square section situla found at the entrance to gallery 10. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ..............

192

7.3

The situla as found at the mouth of gallery 10. ......................................................................................

192

7.4

The situla as found on top of the mummy pile and debris at the mouth of gallery 10..........................

192

7.5

Bronze foot (or feet) from a figurine form gallery 34 at the junction with the axial aisle. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ........................................................................................................................................

193

7.6

The bronze foot from gallery 34 as found at the junction with the axial aisle. .....................................

193

7.7

The bronze feet from gallery 34 at the junction with the axial aisle. .....................................................

194

7.8

Bronze arrowhead from gallery 37. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ........................................................

194

7.9

Bronze arrowhead from gallery 37. .........................................................................................................

194

7.10 Cartouche-shaped stone shrine or coffin from gallery 43. (Drawing by Scott Williams)......................

196

7.11 Cartouche-shaped stone shrine or coffin from gallery 43. ......................................................................

196

7.12 Part of a worked limestone block from gallery 37. A probable second part remains buried in rubble.

196

7.13 Part of worked limestone block buried in rubble at the entrance of gallery 37. ....................................

196

7.14 Limestone object believed to be a crudely made or unfinished offering table from the axial aisle outside gallery 40. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ...................................................................................

197

7.15 Hendrikje Nouwens examines the ‘offering table’ as found in the rubble in the axial aisle outside gallery 40. .................................................................................................................................................

197

XVI

LIST OF FIGURES

7.16 The ‘offering table’ found in the rubble in the axial aisle outside gallery 40. .......................................

198

7.17 Small head made in painted plaster and found in gallery 43. This is one of several finds from this gallery which are not paralleled elsewhere in the catacomb. They may be related to the human remains found in the same gallery. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ......................................................................

199

7.18 Small head made in painted plaster and found in gallery 43. .................................................................

199

7.19 Wooden seated figure, probably of Isis, found in gallery 37. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ...............

205

7.20 Plan showing the position of wooden fragments from gallery 37. The wood with gesso is the probably Isis figure. (Plan by Paul Nicholson and Scott Williams).......................................................................

205

7.21 Wooden seated figure, probably of Isis, as found in gallery 37. ............................................................

206

7.22 Wooden seated figure, probably of Isis, as found in gallery 37. ............................................................

206

7.23 Wooden seated figure, probably of Isis, found in gallery 37. .................................................................

207

7.24 Wooden hand from the axial aisle outside gallery 37. (Drawing by Scott Williams)............................

207

7.25 Wooden hand from the axial aisle outside gallery 37. ............................................................................

208

7.26 Seated wooden figure of Isis from gallery 43. (Drawing by Scott Williams). .......................................

208

7.27 Seated wooden figure of Isis from gallery 43. ........................................................................................

209

7.28 Seated wooden figure of Osiris from gallery 43. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ...................................

209

7.29 Seated wooden figure of Osiris from gallery 43. ....................................................................................

210

7.30 Seated wooden figure of Isis from gallery 43. (Drawing by Scott Williams). .......................................

210

7.31 Seated wooden figure of Isis from gallery 43. ........................................................................................

211

7.32 Seated wooden figure from gallery 43. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ..................................................

211

7.33 Seated wooden figure from gallery 43. ...................................................................................................

212

7.34 Wooden head from gallery 37. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ...............................................................

212

7.35 Wooden head from gallery 37. ................................................................................................................

213

7.36 Mortised wooden fragment possibly from a shrine or coffin. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ...............

213

7.37 Mortised wooden fragment possibly from a shrine or furniture. ............................................................

214

7.38 Wooden fragment 37-4 trapped beneath rubble in the axial aisle at the mouth of gallery 37, from whence it probably came..........................................................................................................................

214

7.39 Two wooden fragments 37-5, from the axial aisle outside gallery 37 from whence they probably came. .........................................................................................................................................................

215

7.40 Wooden fragment 37-AA, perhaps part of a cornice from gallery 37. ...................................................

215

7.41 Badly preserved wooden fragment 37-B from gallery 37. ......................................................................

216

7.42 Gessoed wooden fragment 37-BB from gallery 37. ................................................................................

216

7.43 Gessoed wooden fragment 37-C from gallery 37. ..................................................................................

216

7.44 Gessoed wooden fragment 37-D from gallery 37. ..................................................................................

217

7.45 Gessoed wooden fragments 37-DD from gallery 37. ..............................................................................

217

7.46 Gessoed wooden fragments 37-EE from gallery 37. ...............................................................................

217

7.47 Badly preserved wooden fragment 37-E from gallery 37. ......................................................................

218

7.48 Smoothed wooden fragment 37-FF from gallery 37. ..............................................................................

218

7.49 Wooden fragment 37-G with rounded end. From gallery 37..................................................................

218

7.50 Wooden fragment 37-H with adhering linen fragments (visible immediately above the scale bar). From gallery 37. .......................................................................................................................................

219

7.51 Wooden fragment 37-HH from gallery 37. .............................................................................................

219

LIST OF FIGURES

XVII

7.52 Wooden fragment 37-L from gallery 37..................................................................................................

219

7.53 Wooden fragment 37-M from gallery 37. ...............................................................................................

220

7.54 Shaped wooden fragment 37-N from gallery 37. ....................................................................................

220

7.55 Wooden fragment 37-OO from gallery 37. .............................................................................................

220

7.56 Wooden fragment 37-P which preserves traces of what is believed to be yellow paint. From gallery 37.

221

7.57 Wooden fragment 37-RR preserving two parallel sides. From gallery 37. ............................................

221

7.58 Wooden fragment 37-S which has dowel holes along one edge, perhaps suggesting that it was from a coffin or box. From gallery 37..............................................................................................................

221

7.59 Wooden fragments 37-SS, the smaller may have been drilled. From gallery 37. ..................................

222

7.60 Wooden fragment 37-W. From gallery 37...............................................................................................

222

7.61 Wooden fragment 37-X. From gallery 37. ..............................................................................................

222

7.62 Painted wooden fragment 37-Y, possibly from a coffin or shrine. From gallery 37..............................

223

7.63 Wooden coffin from niche 5B of Gallery 5. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ..........................................

223

7.64 Wooden coffin fragments as found in and around niche 5B of gallery 5. (Plan by Tessa Baber, Mari Rygh and Scott Williams). .......................................................................................................................

224

7.65 The pieces of the coffin from niche 5B after conservation by Mari Rygh.............................................

224

7.66 The coffin fragments reunited after conservation by Mari Rygh. The coffin is too fragile to be permanently reassembled and the conserved pieces have been stored flat.............................................

225

7.67 Detail of a mortise joint with dowel hole from one of the long sides of the coffin from niche 5B of gallery 5. ...................................................................................................................................................

225

7.68 One of the corner pillars from the coffin from niche 5B illustrating the use of a tongue-and-groove plane..........................................................................................................................................................

226

7.69 A mortise with round shoulders from the coffin from niche 5B indicates that it was chain drilled before being finished with a chisel. The tenon would have been held in place with a dowel as indicated by the drill hole. .......................................................................................................................................

226

7.70 An end section of the coffin from niche 32B from gallery 32. (Drawing by Scott Williams). .............

227

7.71 Part of the side of the coffin from niche 32B from gallery 32. (Drawing by Scott Williams)..............

227

7.72 Niche 32B in gallery 32 as found. Only the most complete and least friable pieces were removed for study..........................................................................................................................................................

228

7.73 End section (32B-5) from the coffin fragments from niche 32B. ...........................................................

228

7.74 Part of the side panel (32B-6) of a coffin from niche 32B. ....................................................................

229

7.75 A further fragment of coffin from niche 32B..........................................................................................

229

7.76 Fragment 32B-1 from niche 32B. ............................................................................................................

229

7.77 Fragment 32B-2 from niche 32B. ............................................................................................................

230

7.78 Fragment 32B-3 from niche 32B. ............................................................................................................

230

7.79 Fragment 32B-4 from niche 32B. ............................................................................................................

231

7.80 Fragment 32B-7 from niche 32B. ............................................................................................................

231

7.81 Fragment 32B-8 from niche 32B. ............................................................................................................

232

7.82 Fragment 32B-9 from niche 32B. ............................................................................................................

232

7.83 Fragment 32B-10 from niche 32B. ..........................................................................................................

232

7.84 Fragment of a ceramic head of Harpocrates from gallery 43. The piece probably belongs to the late 4th century B.C. (Drawing by Scott Williams). .......................................................................................

233

LIST OF FIGURES

XVIII

7.85 Fragment of a ceramic head of Harpocrates from gallery 43. The piece probably belongs to the late 4th century B.C. ........................................................................................................................................

233

7.86 Jar from gallery 35, probably dating between 525 and 400 B.C. (Drawing by Paul T. Nicholson and Scott Williams). ........................................................................................................................................

235

7.87 Jar from gallery 35, probably dating between 525 and 400 B.C. Note the resin splashed down the vessel wall. ...............................................................................................................................................

236

7.88 Jar base from gallery 37, probably dating between 525 and 400 B.C. (Drawing by Paul T. Nicholson and Scott Williams). .................................................................................................................................

236

7.89 Jar base from gallery 37, probably dating between 525 and 400 B.C. As well as resin/unguent on the exterior the interior is lined with the same.

237

7.90 Jar base from gallery 18. (Drawing by Paul T. Nicholson and Scott Williams). ...................................

237

7.91 Jar base from gallery 18. The thick resin coating inside preserved the phalange of a dog (visible beneath the scale on the right image), clearly linking it to the embalming process. .............................

238

7.92 Small bowl from gallery 18. Probably Late Dynastic or Ptolemaic in date. (Drawing by Paul T. Nicholson and Scott Williams). ...............................................................................................................

238

7.93 Small bowl from gallery 18. Probably late Dynastic or Ptolemaic in date. ...........................................

239

7.94 Complete profile of jar from gallery 29. Possibly dating between 525 and 400 B.C. (Drawing by Scott Williams). ........................................................................................................................................

239

7.95 Complete profile of jar from gallery 29. Possibly dating between 525 and 400 B.C. ...........................

240

7.96 Undated vessel base from gallery 10. (Drawing by Paul T. Nicholson and Scott Williams). ...............

240

7.97 The remains of a box of Agfa plate negatives dating from between the very end of the 19th century and 1914. ..................................................................................................................................................

243

7.98

The remains of a box from Pirie’s Antique Parchment Envelopes Finest Quality. Probably dating before 1922. ...........................................................................................................................................

243

A fragment of the Times newspaper dating to November 4th, 1910. ....................................................

244

7.100 A fragment from a box labelled ‘Maden’ and ‘K. & G. Melkonian’. Probably to be dated between 1910 and 1940. .......................................................................................................................................

244

7.101 An envelope with postmarks from the 9th of January 1912 and marked On His Highness’s Service. It was postmarked at Badrashein. ..........................................................................................................

244

7.102 Remains of a mug or lamp bearing the number 888 on a metal plate. The function and date of the piece are unclear. ...................................................................................................................................

244

7.99

Chapter 9 9.1

Looking almost vertically down what may have been a cut-away shaft where the modern steps to the catacomb have been cut. ..................................................................................................................

256

Appendix 1

2

Location of the Catacombs of Anubis and the sirenian fossil. A: The country of Egypt highlighted in red. B: The country of Egypt with Saqqara marked with a red sirenian. C: North Saqqara showing the various catacomb complexes with the Catacomb of Anubis highlighted in red. D: The location of the sirenian fossil within the ceiling of gallery 8 marked in red. ....................................................

260

A typical “whale fall” assemblage (from Peters et al. 2009). .............................................................

262

LIST OF FIGURES

3

4 5

6

XIX

Colour coded skeletal diagram of the “Saqqara Sirenia”. Note the disassociation that highlights the taphonomic condition. Skeletal reconstruction of the extinct sirenian Halitherium (reconstruction by M. Voss) illustrating the overall similarities to Eotheroides. Note the skeletal reconstruction is not to scale with the fossil assemblage. .......................................................................................................

262

Saqqara Sirenian basicranium (A) compared to a modern West African Manatee basicranium (B & C). West African Manatee images from DigiMorph. ....................................................................................

263

Comparison of sirenian innominates. A: The Saqqara Sirenian (blue). B: Protosiren (green; from Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). C: Eotheroides (red; from Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). D: Outline comparisons of the three sirenian innominates. ....................................................................................

263

Comparison of sirenian thoracic vertebrae. A: The Saqqara Sirenian (blue). B: Protosiren (green; from Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). C: Eotheroides (red; from Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). D: Outline comparisons of the three sirenian thoracic vertebrae. ........................................................

263

LIST OF TABLES Chapter 3 3.1

3.2

3.3

2009 surveys (* in first column indicates surveys on the surface, all others within the catacomb). Surveys of catacomb galleries include that of points for gallery form and dimensions, and points for gallery features including tomb shafts. ....................................................................................................

26

2010 surveys (* in first column indicates surveys on the surface, all others within the catacomb). Surveys of catacomb galleries include the taking of points for gallery form and dimensions, and points for gallery features including lamp niches, dog niches, dog mummy remains, dog faunal samples, whole dog mummies, small finds, tomb shafts and chambers. ...............................................................

27

2012 surveys (* in first column indicates surveys on the surface, all others within the catacomb). Surveys of catacomb galleries include points measured for gallery form and dimensions, and points for gallery features including lamp niches, dog niches, dog mummy remains, dog faunal samples, whole dog mummies, small finds, tomb shafts and chambers, geological features, drawing lines, humidity loggers, soot marks. ..................................................................................................................

28-29

Chapter 5 5.1

Lengths of dog burial niches. ...................................................................................................................

133

Chapter 6 The total number of identified specimens (NISP) from all the galleries. Complete dog and cat mummies, miscellaneous bird, fish, and unidentified animals are not included in this table. *An entire cat mummy was found, but is not counted here, as the bones were not examined individually. ..............................

137

6.2

Galleries and animals found therein within the samples. ........................................................................

139

6.3

Numbers of Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) calculated for each species per sample per gallery. ......................................................................................................................................................

140

Sex identification of dogs; based on differing elements. Two male dogs (35.1 (‘Sleepy’) and 18.1 (‘Varg’)) were semi-complete and their sex was confirmed both by skull morphology and the presence of a baculum. ............................................................................................................................................

146

Age range using Barone 2010 (Here, puppy is defined as between 1 to 5 months, juveniles are 6 to 15 months, adults are over 15 months)....................................................................................................

147

Table with calculations of Withers heights (in cm) for each measurable dog, showing the different results depending on the bones used to make the calculation.................................................................

151

Heights of modern dog breed (Information derived from www.dogtime.com/dog-breeds and www. dogbreedinfo.com/index, accessed July 2017). .......................................................................................

154

Measurements of dog skulls that could be obtained, following von den Driesch 1976. The largest measurements belong to Varg (18.1). Measurements in mm..................................................................

154

Limb bone measurements of dogs; Varg (18.1) is the largest. Measurements in mm...........................

155

6.10 Skull measurements of jackals in mm. ....................................................................................................

158

6.11 Mandible measurements of jackals in mm. ............................................................................................

158

6.12 Bone measurements of fox in mm. ..........................................................................................................

159

6.13 The count of cattle bones (NISP) from the various galleries, as well as the MNI that could account for the bones. ............................................................................................................................................

160

6.1

6.4

6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

XXII

LIST OF TABLES

6.14 Measurements of cattle bones in mm. ..................................................................................................

161

6.15 Measurements of ovicaprine bones in mm. ..........................................................................................

163

6.16 Measurements for equid bones in mm. .................................................................................................

163

6.17 Measurements of cat skulls using von den Driesch 1976; the considerable variations suggest the presence of F. chaus and F. sylvestris. Measurements in mm. ............................................................

164

6.18 Measurements of the mongoose tibia in mm........................................................................................

166

6.19 Measurements of the mongoose skull (12.1, Rikki) from gallery 12 in mm. .....................................

166

6.20 The distribution of animal types and ages found in the niches. ..........................................................

169

6.21 Details of the different animals found in the niches. Measurements in cm. .......................................

170

6.22 Distribution of pathological bones by element, species, and gallery. *F. chaus. ................................ 173-175 6.23 Totals of pathological bones by element and species. *Two cat bones were of F. chaus, one from gallery 12 and another from 15A. .........................................................................................................

176

PREFACE The British Museum welcomed the opportunity to publish this volume, on the Cardiff University fieldwork and multidisciplinary research in the Dog Catacombs at Saqqara. It represents an important advance in our understanding of the archaeology and architecture of the catacombs in which animal mummies were placed, complementing the rich textual data on this phenomenon. The fieldwork has provided the platform for a better understanding of the planning and construction of the catacombs, their maintenance and modification, to the experience of preparing and dedicating animal mummies, the breeding of the animals, and the later history of the complex. Animal mummies and associated objects remain amongst the most engaging aspects of the collection for visitors to the British Museum – whether in London or online. The British Museum houses a collection of just under 350 animal mummies from Egypt, from sites such as Abydos, Deir el-Bahri and Saqqara. A range of associated objects – from amulets to bronze figurines, ceramic vessels to statuary, acquired through the partage system operated by the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation and its predecessors – shed further light on the phenomenon. Research of the type published here can thus inform the understanding of collections and their presentation to the public.

Neal Spencer Keeper of Nile Valley & Mediterranean Collections British Museum

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Catacombs of Anubis Project has been made possible thanks to the generous collaboration of our colleagues in the Egyptian Supreme Council for Antiquities (SCA)/Ministry of State for Antiquities (MoA) and I am grateful to the Permanent Committee of that body for their continual support of the work. The inspectors provided by the SCA/MoA have been unfailingly helpful to us throughout the project. We are particularly grateful to Sabry Farag, Mohammed Yusuf and Hany Abdallah. The team who have contributed to this volume have frequently done so in their own time and in addition to other work and I am indebted to all of them for their efforts. The text has been edited by Professor Ian Shaw to whom I am indebted for his careful work and helpful comments. The GIS plans were produced by Steve Mills based on the work done by him along with Scott Williams and Hendrikje Nouwens. I am indebted to him for his work on these and for help with many other aspects of the project. The line drawings in the book were mostly made by Scott Williams and Tessa Baber. Scott kindly undertook the inking and digitisation of all the drawings and did so during periods of leave from his work. Salima Ikram provided helpful comments on the text as well as directing the faunal work in the field and has been a great help throughout. She particularly wishes to thank Deb Bennet and members of the online Zooarchaeology community for fruitful discussions on dog breeds. The book layout and typesetting were carried out by Ian Dennis and Kirsty Harding of the School of History, Archaeology and Religion at Cardiff University and their patient work is greatly appreciated. Ours was the last project to reside at the Beit Emery, the excavation house of Professor W.B. Emery (19031971) at Saqqara. From 2010 we moved to one of the new villas built by the SCA/MoA at the foot of the escarpment on the east side of the plateau and located immediately downslope from the Dog Catacombs themselves. Although the location of the expedition accommodation changed, the domestic staff of the house did not and I am indebted to Atef Sayed Ramadan,

Emad Sayed Ramadan, and Amer Sayed Ramadan for always making our stay pleasant, and for preparing excellent meals. Salah Hassibullah acted as the representative of the mission in many matters relating to the daily running of the project and I am grateful to him for his help and attention to detail as well as for his patience with my less than fluent Arabic. Transport was provided by Demerdash who, like Salah, worked for the Egypt Exploration Society for many years and continued to work for this Cardiff University project. I am also grateful to the Egypt Exploration Society who kindly loaned the surveying equipment to the project and allowed the storage of equipment alongside that for their Memphis Project, directed by Dr. David Jeffreys. The kind co-operation of Joanne Rowland with whom equipment sharing was co-ordinated is also gratefully acknowledged. At the Egypt Exploration Society office in Cairo I am greatly indebted to Faten Abd el-Halim Saleh who kindly liaised with the SCA/ MoA on our behalf before and after each season. It has been a pleasure to work with her. Dr. David Jeffreys and the late Mr. Ian Mathieson were kind enough to provide valuable survey data whilst Professor H.S. Smith, Susan Davies and the late Kenneth J. Frazer shared their knowledge of the Sacred Animal Necropolis site with us. Thanks are due to Dr. Geoffrey Killen for his valuable comments regarding the woodworking techniques of some of the dog coffins and for his thoughts on their chronology. The project could not have been undertaken without the generous financial support of several institutions. The 2009 season was in part supported by the School of History, Archaeology and Religion at Cardiff University who have kindly continued to provide administrative assistance to the project throughout. The subsequent seasons were largely funded by National Geographic, who have been a pleasure to work with and whose help is gratefully acknowledged here. We also received support from the Wainwright Fund, and the Thames Valley Ancient Egypt Society whose assistance

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

XXVI

has been a great help. In 2011 the project was awarded the Andante Travels Archaeology Award that assisted in our subsequent work. I am grateful to Andante for their support and for that of the American University in Cairo. I am indebted to Neal Spencer of the British Museum and Bert Verrept of Peeters for agreeing to add this book to their publication series and for their support throughout. Last, but not least, my partner Cerian Whitehurst has read and commented on the manuscript and done much to improve aspects of my grammar. Team members 2009 Season August 21st – September 7th, 2009 Inspector: Khaled Yousef Morsi Assistant Inspector: Mahmoud Mohammed Dr. Salima Ikram (Archaeozoology) Dr. Steve Mills (Surveyor) Dr. Paul T. Nicholson (Director) Drs. Hendrikje Nouwens (Field Assistant) Dr. Ying Qin (Geologist) Dr. Scott Williams (Surveyor) Funding: Cardiff University School of History, Archaeology & Religion

Ms. Delyth Hurley (Archaeozoology) Dr. Salima Ikram (Archaeozoology) Dr. Steve Mills (Surveyor) Dr. Paul T. Nicholson (Director) Drs. Hendrikje Nouwens (Field Assistant) Dr. Scott Williams (Surveyor) Funding: National Geographic Grant #8797-10 2012 Season March 27th – April 22nd, 2012 Inspector: Ahmed Zikrey Abdelhak Ms. Tessa Baber (Illustrator) Dr. Louise Bertini (Archaeozoology) Professor John Harrison (Geologist) Dr. Salima Ikram (Archaeozoology) Dr. Steve Mills (Surveyor) Dr. Paul T. Nicholson (Director) Drs. Hendrikje Nouwens (Field Assistant) Ms. Mari Rygh (Conservator) Ms. Ariel Singer (Archaeozoology) Dr. Scott Williams (Surveyor) Funding: National Geographic Grant GEFNE 4-11 Wainwright Fund Thames Valley Ancient Egypt Society Andante Travels 2016 Season

2010 Season th

th

August 20 – September 15 , 2010 Inspector: Amir Nabil Mohammed Inspector for Ms. Earl’s work: Mr. Ead Shaban Mabrouk Dr. Louise Bertini (Archaeozoology) Ms. Erin Earl (Geologist) Ms. Sabine Harding (Archaeozoology) Professor John Harrison (Geotechnical Engineer)

January 13th – January 18th, 2016 Inspector: Maha Siah Abd el Tawab Dr. Louise Bertini (Archaeozoology) Professor Salima Ikram (Archaeozoology and Co-Director) Professor Paul T. Nicholson (Director) Mr. Hussein Shokry (Biome project) Dr. Scott Williams (Illustrator and Surveyor) Funding: Det Danske Institut i Damaskus

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Dr. Louise BERTINI Executive Director, The American Research Center in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt. Professor John P. HARRISON W.M. Keck Chair of Engineering Rock Mechanics, Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. MS. Delyth HURLEY Ranger, Stover Country Park, U.K. Professor Salima IKRAM Distinguished Professor of Egyptology, American University in Cairo, Egypt. Dr. Steve MILLS Senior lecturer in Archaeology, School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff University, U.K. Professor Paul T. NICHOLSON Professor of Egyptian Archaeology, School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff University, U.K. Dr. Hendrikje NOUWENS Independent Egyptologist, Oisterwijk, Netherlands. Ying QIN Research analyst, London, U.K. Stephanie VANN Independent Researcher, Leicester, U.K. Dr. Manja VOSS Center of Natural History (CeNak), University of Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King-Platz Hamburg, Germany. Dr. Scott WILLIAMS Independent archaeologist, Bristol, U.K. Mr. Cary WOODRUFF Doctoral student in Palaeontology, University of Toronto and Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Great Plains Dinosaur Museum, Malta, Montana, U.S.A.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND PROCEDURES Paul T. NICHOLSON

Background to the work Almost annually from 1986, during excavations first at Memphis and later at Saqqara itself, I had the good fortune to stay at the Beit Emery, the excavation house built for Professor W.B. Emery (1903-1971). The Egypt Exploration Society’s (EES) work at Memphis was directed by Professor Harry S. Smith and Dr. David -H൵UH\V both of whom shared their extensive knowledge of Saqqara and its environs with me. In our many conversations the ‘dog catacombs’ were often mentioned and this project owes much to those discussions. Beit Emery์ is some 106 metres from the modern entrance to the larger of the dog catacombs and the burial tunnels of the smaller one run still closer to the northern boundary of the house. Despite the proximity of the monument it had not regularly been visited by foreign missions, including those of the EES, and it was not until December 23rd 1995 that I first visited the site accompanied by Professor Smith, Susan Davies, Ken Frazer and Dr. Caroline Jackson. We were able to make the visit thanks to the kind co-operation of our colleagues in the Supreme Council for Antiquities (SCA) and did so in the hope that it might provide a useful comparison/contrast to the work that Professor Smith and I were directing in the Ibis and Falcon Catacombs on the eastern side of the plateau (Figure 1.1). The modern discovery of the Sacred Animal Necropolis might be said to begin with the finding of the Serapeum by Auguste Mariette (1821-1881) in 1851 (Mariette 1857). However, the re-discovery of the ibis catacombs was made by Emery and his team; the South Ibis Catacomb was found in 1964 and North Ibis Catacomb in 1971. There were also catacombs for baboons (1968), falcons (1969) and the Mother of Apis cows (1970) (Emery 1965a; 1967; 1969; 1970; 1971) that

์

The Ministry of State for Antiquities (MSA) have recently converted the building for use as a laboratory for the conservation of mummified remains.

were discovered in the intervening years (Nicholson 2015). It was these 20th century discoveries that focussed attention on the scale of the animal cults at Saqqara, and in particular their votive aspects, since the avian catacombs were for the provision of many tens of thousands of mummified birds dedicated by pilgrims2 to Saqqara. On the opposite – eastern – side of the plateau were other burial places for votive sacred animals, those of the dogs and of the cats. These had both been known long before Emery’s work, with cats being recorded by the Napoleonic expedition and the dogs featuring on a plan by Jacques de Morgan (1857-1924) published in 1897 (de Morgan 1897) (Fig. 1.2). However, because they had long been known and were overshadowed by Emery’s work on the west side of the plateau they attracted little attention at the time. The Sacred Animal Necropolis will be examined in more detail in Chapter 2, but it will be apparent from this brief discussion that the whole site provided burial places for several species of animals and that many of these were votives (Ikram and Iskkander 2002, II; Ikram 2005) buried in enormous numbers. Research aims of the Catacombs of Anubis Project Despite the great numbers of animals whose burials we believe were paid for by pilgrims (see Chapters 2 and 8) and which were deposited in vast underground catacombs, these were the areas to which least attention seemed to have been paid by researchers. This is unfortunate since, as Bleiberg (2013, 4) notes, “Animal mummies constitute the largest class of objects the ancient Egyptians created.” Similarly, Ikram (2019,

ํ

On the term ‘pilgrim’ see Chapter 2.

2

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Saqqara

Fig. 1.1: Map of Egypt showing the location of Saqqara and plan of North Saqqara showing the location of the animal catacombs. (Drawing: J. Hodges).

Fig. 1.2: Plan from Jacques de Morgan’s Carte de la Nécropole de la Memphite: Dahchour, Sakkarah, Abou-Sir (1897) showing the dog catacombs (north of the Anubieion Temple, here labelled as ‘Serapeum Grec’), which he regarded as being of New Kingdom date.

ංඇඍඋඈൽඎർඍංඈඇඋൾඌൾൺඋർඁඊඎൾඌඍංඈඇඌൺඇൽඉඋඈർൾൽඎඋൾඌ 3

4

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

170) observes that “after an initial flurry of studies, animal mummies faded into relative obscurity”. The animals and their burial places deserve archaeological attention. For very sound Egyptological reasons, not least the desire to understand the cults through text and religious architecture, work on animal catacombs at Saqqara has largely concentrated on the texts (e.g. Ray 1976; Martin 2009; Ray 2011) or on the temple sites (e.g. Martin 1981; -H൵UH\Vand Smith 1988; Smith et al. 2006). The work carried out on the texts and on the temples was often exemplary and did much to move the subject forward, but did not go far toward addressing questions relating to the catacombs themselves or to their mummified occupants. Plans of the catacombs were often produced at a scale much smaller than that used for temple plans and without detailed discussion of their construction. This is unfortunate since the catacombs themselves are not generally accessible to scholars who must therefore depend upon published sources. As Price (2015, 21) notes there has been a “general lack of synthesised study” in dealing with the various facets of the animal cults. Work in the 1990s, conducted by Professor Smith, Sue Davies and myself, aimed to focus research on the catacombs and on their occupants (see Davies and Smith 2005; Davies 2006; Nicholson in preparation) and led to the development of the research questions and methodology used at the Dog Catacombs. The Dog Catacombs were selected for study because they are an important part of the ritual landscape of North Saqqara and had not been investigated as part of Emery’s work since they were not located near the presumed location of Imhotep’s tomb. Investigation of the monument would add to the understanding of the animal cults in general and of the dogs in particular.

๎

Stone-cutters has been preferred to ‘miners’ or ‘quarrymen’ or tunnellers as being a clear description of the actions of these workmen.

The main areas and questions to be addressed were: 1. The Dog Catacombs • • • •

How were the catacombs excavated by their original builders? Did the builders make use of pre-existing burial chambers in the way that those who constructed the avian catacombs appear to have done? Would they have needed large teams of stone-cutters3 to construct them? Was each catacomb built in a single operation or is there evidence of extension as could be suggested for the avian catacombs?

2. The Animals • • • • • • •

Were all of the mummies those of domestic dog or were there other animals present? If other animals were present, what species were they? What age were the animals? What gender were the animals? How did they meet their deaths? How many were interred in the monument? Would some form of farming be necessary to procure the numbers of animals interred?

3. The Cult • • •

How did pilgrims relate to the cult? (This is necessarily speculative but clues might be found from the catacombs and their occupants.) How were mummies procured? How did Saqqara appear to the pilgrims who visited it?

ංඇඍඋඈൽඎർඍංඈඇඋൾඌൾൺඋർඁඊඎൾඌඍංඈඇඌൺඇൽඉඋඈർൾൽඎඋൾඌ 4. Chronology • • •

When did the dog catacombs flourish? Can phases be distinguished? What happened to the catacombs once they had fallen out of use? These questions required a rather GL൵HUHQWapproach to those that have traditionally been taken to the animal catacombs. It would first be necessary to make a complete re-survey of the site at a large scale so that individual features within the monument could be recognised. This is the approach developed in the 1990s and published by Davies and Smith (2005) in their volume on the Falcon Complex. The mummified remains, as far as they currently survive, would be included in an approach of this kind, along with any other features that could readily be determined and surveyed. The field of zooarchaeology has advanced greatly since Emery’s time, and the Catacombs of Anubis project involved specialists in animal bones and ecology. Similarly, the advent of digital photography made the recording of features much simpler and less costly than previously, whilst laser guided electronic surveying equipment made surveying in the darkness of the catacomb simpler than before. Advances in lighting technology also played a significant role, in that portable LED and high intensity lighting meant that there was no longer a need to trail mains electric wires through the monument with light bulbs at intervals. Whilst the old system might have lit more of the monument at any one time, it also did so with less flexibility than our portable lighting and the bulbs gave R൵ considerable heat which would have an H൵HFWon the overall humidity of the monument. Since we believe that humidity plays an important role in the stability of the monument, the use of such lights seemed best avoided in the new work (see Chapter 4). Working Practices Since the animal catacombs of Saqqara are today in a fragile and potentially dangerous condition, it is worth outlining the procedures that were put in place to permit safe working in the monument, in the hope that such practices might be employed elsewhere. Before any work was undertaken Professor John Harrison (formerly of the Royal School of Mines at Imperial College London and now of Toronto University’s Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering) made an assessment of the Dog Catacomb’s overall

5

condition. In areas of the catacomb the ceiling had undergone movement but remained in place due to the keystone H൵HFWof the slumped blocks. It was believed that inserting shoring beneath these would have the H൵HFW of pushing them upwards making the ceiling unstable and potentially dangerous. It was therefore decided that shoring would not be employed in the monument. Certain galleries were deemed to be too unsafe to work in, and these areas were therefore avoided. They appear on the plan, however, as it was possible to measure them by using the EDM equipment from the axial corridor. The bottoms of the walls along all of the galleries, including the axial, showed evidence of debris which had, over time, flaked away from the walls and ceiling. At the start of our work, a series of clean A4-size paper sheets were placed at selected points within the catacomb. Any material that fell from the ceiling or walls during our work or between seasons would land on these and be immediately obvious, calling attention to any areas of concern. No such falls were noted during the seasons of work at the site. Within the catacomb, all team members wore protective helmets and did not work alone but in pairs or larger groups. Dust masks were also provided. Team locations were made known to those on the surface before venturing into the monument. The dog catacomb today has only one point of entry and exit: the secondary steps, which are now enclosed beneath a modern stone building. This would mean that in the event of a roof collapse in the monument team members might be cut R൵from the exit. In the event of such an incident the team members on the surface had the GPS co-ordinates of the shafts that were truncated by the construction of the catacomb and knew which would be most easily and quickly cleared to allow rescuers access into the monument. These potential exits are shown along with other modern features in Figure 1.3. Caches of bottled water were placed at strategic points within the catacomb in case of such GL൶FXOWLHV and all team members carried spare torch batteries with them, along with an emergency whistle. In order to facilitate finding the route to the entrance a series of reflective marker points were set up in the catacomb leading R൵the axial aisle to the small tunnel between galleries 5 and 6 and thus toward the main entrance. This route avoided the dangerous part of the axial aisle east of gallery 44.

3306800

3306750

3306700

3306650

328150

TS2

Mastaba of Horus Qa-a S3505

328150

328200

TS1

328200

328250

Mastaba of Den S3506

Entrance

328250

Ghafir's hut

Wall

328300

0

Metres 25

Catacomb 50

Potential emergency exits

328350

328350

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

Emery house

Architect's house

Garden wall

328300

Fig. 1.3: Plan of the Dog Catacombs in relation to modern surface features and including tomb shafts (TS) 1-3 which were located on the surface and identified as potential emergency exits. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

328100

TS3

328100

3306800 3306750 3306700 3306650

6 ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

ංඇඍඋඈൽඎർඍංඈඇඋൾඌൾൺඋർඁඊඎൾඌඍංඈඇඌൺඇൽඉඋඈർൾൽඎඋൾඌ This cautious approach to working within the monument meant that it was not necessary to interfere with it by adding shoring or lighting, and yet provided the safest possible working environment. No accidents

7

occurred during the work and we would recommend these simple precautions to those working on similar monuments in the future.

CHAPTER 2

THE SACRED ANIMAL NECROPOLIS AT NORTH SAQQARA Paul T. NICHOLSON

Introduction The Catacombs of Anubis, or the ‘dog catacombs’, which are the subject of this volume do not exist in isolation but rather are part of a broader phenomenon, the gradual development of the animal cults at Saqqara and elsewhere. This chapter attempts to review the evidence for the development of the animal catacombs at Saqqara in order to place those of the dogs in their social and historical context. While certain animals, such as the Apis Bull of Memphis or the Mnevis bull of Heliopolis were the living image (ba) of a particular god and were represented only by a single animal buried with national ceremony, others were dedicated as votives by pilgrims. The motives for these R൵HULQJVand the working of the cult are considered in more detail in chapter 8, for the moment it is VX൶FLHQW to regard them as a “materialised form of prayer” (Price 2015, 21) whose purpose was to serve as conduits between the dedicatee in the world of the living and the gods in theirs. The Apis The Apis bull was the living manifestation (ba) of the creator god Ptah of Memphis and acted “as an intermediary for mankind to communicate with the creatorgod of Memphis through oracles” (Hart 1986, 27). Although the Apis was a unique animal, selected from the temple herds for its unique markings (Otto 1938, 15-16) and supposed conception in a flash of lighting (Herodotus III, 28), aspects of its worship hold true for the other animals of Saqqara. A new Apis would be paraded through the settlements of Egypt (Ray 1978, 151) before being installed at Memphis; this would not

์

There is no word for ‘pilgrim’ in ancient Egyptian and I am aware that the term carries certain modern connotations. It is used here to mean a visitor to Saqqara, or other religious site, whose purpose was to perform a pious act. In this sense the term seems appropriate.

only mark the great significance of the animal but would help to foster a personal connection to it, and ultimately to the place of its burial at Saqqara (see also Jurman 2010). That the Apis should be buried at Saqqara, the necropolis of Memphis, is of course significant. The bull represented Ptah, the creator and patron of the ancient capital where his temple was located. Within the temple was the stall of the Apis bull, and this became a major focus for private worship, particularly because the bull was believed, at least in later times (Ray 1978, 151), to give oracles, and pilgrims1 were encouraged to ask questions of it. The bull’s supposed response to these questions would then be interpreted by priests in return for a payment. However, in the words of John Ray “nothing in the Apis’s life quite became him like the leaving of it” (1978, 151). On his death the Apis bull would be embalmed in Memphis before being dragged on a sledge amid public mourning on the scale normally reserved for the king, to be entombed in burial vaults at Saqqara. The deceased Apis became Osiris-Apis or Osorapis (Ray 1972; 1978, 15) later to be remodelled as the deity Serapis on the orders of Ptolemy I Soter (305-285 B.C.) (Hart 1986, 189; Wilkinson 2003, 127).2 The cult of the Apis bull is known from as early as the First Dynasty when it is mentioned alongside King Aha (Jurman 2010, 225) and is twice mentioned on the Palermo Stone (Dodson 2005, 72; Ray 1978, 151). However, relatively little is known about its cult before the reign of Amenhotep III (1390-1352 B.C.) when the first dedicated burial catacomb, now known as the Serapeum, was constructed (Dodson 2005, 74). The

ํ

Bommas (2012, 422) attributes the name Ser-Apis to the Egyptian word for ‘foretell’ ser, thus the ‘foretelling Apis’ emphasising his oracular role.

10

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

location of any hypothetical earlier burials is unknown. Ibrahim and Rohl (1988) have suggested that such earlier burials may have lain beneath the western part of the Step Pyramid complex, though this idea has not found wide favour (Dodson 2005, 74), and it is possible that individual interments were made at various places on the plateau, one such possible site having been observed by the Austrian Consul-General Anton Laurin (1789-1869) in 1845 (Hamernik 1997). The chronology of individual burials within the Serapeum complex is beyond the scope of this volume but has been conveniently summarised by Dodson (2005); VX൶FH it to say that the galleries seem to fall out of use at the end of the Ptolemaic era (Dodson 2005, 89). In this one animal probably rest the origins of all the animal cults at Saqqara. The great antiquity of the cult of the Apis bull – and its status at death leading to burial with royal honours – marked it out as being archetypically Egyptian, something which was to become important in later times as Egypt was increasingly drawn within the Mediterranean sphere of influence. The ability of the Apis to give oracles whilst alive made it a focus for pilgrims and must have drawn visitors to the ancient capital, thus bringing wealth not only to the temple of Ptah but to the broader economy. It is not unreasonable to assume that shortly after the Apis began to be seen by the public and was deemed able to give oracles, the cults of other sacred animals would have begun to follow the same pattern. Most of these other animals were not confined to one or even a few individuals but were available in their thousands. As a result, a modest pilgrim might personally finance the votive mummification and burial of a representative of the god, taking to themselves the pious task that a king would perform for the Apis bull. In so doing these individuals were providing a fitting burial for an animal, in the hope that it would then intercede with the god on their behalf, just as the Apis would do for the king in his dealings with Ptah. The reason for Saqqara becoming an early royal burial place is not known; it may simply have been a

๎

The ‘Greek Serapeum’ referred to by Mariette on his map (1882) and by de Morgan (1897 see this volume Fig. 1.2) is

convenient area of high desert in close proximity to Memphis, but it may also have been especially favoured because it was here that the Apis was laid to rest. Whilst Ibrahim and Rohl (1988) may be mistaken in their placing of the early Apis burials in the area on which the Step Pyramid was subsequently built, the presence of early Apis burials in some other, as yet unknown, location at Saqqara, along with the mastabatombs of the earliest R൶FLDOVmay have been VX൶FLHQW reason to encourage pharaoh Djoser (2667-2648 B.C.) of the 3rd Dynasty to build there. The temple for the Apis bull stood over the burial galleries at Saqqara, and was known to the Greeks as “The Great Serapeum which is near Memphis”3 differentiating it from other Serapea, notably those at Alexandria and in Greece itself (Ray 1972, 698). More properly, and more anciently, it was “The House of Osorapis” and this name was taken to refer to the whole of north Saqqara (Ray 1972, 698), including the settlement areas of the plateau. What then of the other cults and catacombs of Saqqara and their relationship to one another? The Mothers of Apis According to Herodotus (III, 28) the mother of the Apis bull, impregnated as she was by a flash of lightQLQJFRXOGJLYHELUWKWRQRRWKHUR൵VSULQJ,Q(J\SWLDQ thought the mother of Apis cow was identified, by Memphite theologians, with Isis (Ray 1978, 152; 2001a, 345) although there seems to be no evidence for her being provided with a special place of burial before the reign of Hakor (393-380 B.C.) of Dynasty 29 (Davies 2006, 48). The latest inscription from the Mothers of Apis Catacomb is dated to year 11 of Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XV Caesarion and is therefore of 42-1 B.C. (Davies 2006, 51). This inscription is for the burial of a cow during the time “when the Queen was in Syria” presumably when she visited Mark Anthony after the battle of Philippi (Smith 1974, 39), an event which further illustrates the drawing of Egypt into the Mediterranean sphere. Thompson (2012,

in fact the Anubieion and was misidentified by Mariette (Hawass 2010, 182).

ඍඁൾඌൺർඋൾൽൺඇංආൺඅඇൾർඋඈඉඈඅංඌൺඍ ඇඈඋඍඁඌൺඊඊൺඋൺ 51; see also Davies 2006, 51) has suggested that the Apis produced by this last recorded Mother of Apis may have been the one that Octavian refused to visit during his time in Egypt in 30 B.C. (Suetonius, Augustus, 93), an event which may symbolically mark the decline of the animal cults, though recent evidence might suggest a longer duration (Chapter 8). The Mother of Apis Catacomb is located north of the Serapeum and immediately south of the North Ibis Catacomb (Fig. 1.1). Its construction is closely similar to that of the Serapeum itself, with each cow being given its own sealed vault within the monument. The construction of the vault and the chronology of the burials (both described in detail in Davies 2006) lie outside the scope of this work.4 Calves of the Apis It is attested from literary sources that there was a shrine and burial place for the calves of the Apis bull and these apparently lay north of the Serapeum Way (Ray 1972, 700-701; Thompson 2012, 29; see also Guilmot 1962). The date at which this cult developed and burials were made remains unknown pending the discovery of the catacombs, but it has been speculated that they probably began around the same time as those of the Mothers of Apis, and were part of the phenomenon of expansion of the animal cults in the final few centuries B.C. The Baboons of Thoth Thoth was represented not only by the ibis but also by the baboon, and this animal too was interred at Saqqara. Its catacomb is located just south of the burials of the Mothers of Apis, and so lies between the Northern and Southern Ibis catacombs (Fig. 1.1). It comprises two levels, an upper one extending from east to west with two arms extending to the south and a later, lower, gallery also running east to west. The mummified baboons were placed in wooden shrine-like FR൶QV which were then filled with gypsum plaster. Each FR൶Q was placed in one of a series of niches

๏

For detailed discussion of the construction methods employed see also Davey (2001-2).

11

along the walls of the galleries. Over four hundred such niches are recorded and described by Davies (2006). Davies (2006, 82-84) dates the first burials to the th 26 -27th Dynasties, with the cutting of the upper Catacomb in Dynasties 28/29, and the cutting of the lower gallery in the 2nd century B.C. The date at which burials ceased in the catacomb is unknown, but it may well be around the same time as the Mothers of Apis Catacomb ceases around 40 B.C., which Davies (2006, 83) estimates is a span of some 364 years “from the end of the First Persian Period in 404 B.C. down to c.40 B.C.”. The baboons form an interesting group amongst the sacred animals in that, like the Apis, they are linked to a temple at Memphis, that of “Ptah under his Moringa Tree” where they formed what Ray (2001a, 346) describes as a “faunal aristocracy”, a group rather than a single sacred individual. The temple of “Ptah under his Moringa Tree” may also be the site at which the baboons were embalmed at the end of their lives (Ray 2011, 20). They do not usually seem to have been captive bred and most were imported from tropical Africa and as a result only a few such animals would have been present at Memphis/Saqqara at any one time. In this respect they are unlike the great masses of creatures such as ibises, falcons, cats and dogs which find burial at Saqqara. That their catacomb spans almost four centuries is a guide to the longevity and popularity of the cult and may give a clue to the duration of some of the other catacombs, albeit ones which contain a much greater number of animals. The Ibises of Thoth There are two catacombs for the burial of ibises at Saqqara (Fig. 1.1), a northern and a southern one, and these two burial places seem to be particularly significant in the overall picture of the cults at Saqqara. The ibis was identified with the god Thoth, a lunar deity associated with scribes, writing and knowledge (Hart 1986, 214). The learned aspect of Thoth was particularly significant at Saqqara, where he and Imhotep, the deified architect of the Step Pyramid, were closely linked (see Cauville 2010; Dereser 2009). Imhotep

12

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

came to be credited with the invention of building in stone (see Wildung 1977) and this architectural prowess led to a further identification with Ptah. Although a historical figure of the 3rd Dynasty, by the Middle Kingdom Imhotep was already credited with the authorship of a book of instruction (Hart 1986, 99) though this has not survived. At some time during the Late Period he was deified on account of his great learning. Under the Ptolemies he was further identified with Asklepios (Hart 1986, 99) a deity of healing and medicine (see Hart 2000). Because of Imhotep’s links with Thoth and the ibis, it was amongst the 3rd Dynasty tombs which overlie much of the western part of the Sacred Animal Necropolis that W.B. Emery sought the tomb of Imhotep (Emery 1965a; 1965b). In the mythology of the Memphis area, Thoth was also believed to be the father of Isis (Ray 1978; 152), and this may, in part, account for the positioning of the Mothers of Apis catacomb between the two ibis catacombs. The date at which the ibis cult was introduced at Saqqara is uncertain, but Ray (1978, 152) has suggested that it was “probably before the reign of Nectanebo II” (360-343 B.C.), a date that generally ties well with the findings of Martin (1981, 118-119) for the South Ibis Catacomb. The date of the North Ibis Catacomb is as yet unclear. Whilst the general burial rite in both ibis catacombs is for the mummified birds to be placed in pots, the North Ibis Catacomb includes at least one gallery of unpotted birds. However, whether these have chronological significance and pre-date the potted, thus suggesting that the North is earlier than the South, or whether they simply represent votive mummies from a GL൵HUHQWclass of person is unclear. Peter French (pers. comm., July 2015) dates certain lidded vessels from the South Ibis Catacomb to the Late Ptolemaic or Early Roman period, essentially 1st century B.C. to 1st century A.D., and certainly no earlier than the 2nd century B.C. This may suggest that the South Ibis Catacomb is indeed later than the North (for discussion see Nicholson 2019). The point at which both ibis catacombs fell out of use remains uncertain.

๐

Ray (2001a, 346) gives an estimate of 60,000 ibis for North Saqqara. Fieller’s figure is based on his statistical work of the 1990s and so has been preferred here.

Although there is uncertainty as to the date of these catacombs they are, in form, a model for many of the other animal catacombs at Saqqara. They comprise an axial aisle or corridor that leads through the monument; opening out from this aisle, on either side, are a series of galleries taking the form of blind tunnels in which burials were made, usually consisting of birds in pots. Both the North and the South Ibis Catacombs have secondary axial aisles, and it is clear from the North Ibis Catacomb that these secondary aisles were often used for burials late in the life of the monument. However, unlike the side galleries, the axial aisles do not generally seem to be filled from floor to ceiling – instead, they have been filled to a lower level in order to allow continued passage through the monument. The ibis also form a good example of a group of animals all of which had come to be identified with the god, rather than only a single individual or a few individuals being treated in that way. Ray (2001a, 346) suggests that the process of identifying a whole species with a deity began at least as early as the New Kingdom, though it is not until the Late Period and Ptolemaic era that the practice reaches its height. The Prinz Joachim Ostraca from Kom Ombo (Preisigke and Spiegelberg 1914) give some indication of the extent of the interments, requiring several hundred birds per month at Kom Ombo. The actual burials however, took place only once a year, those awaiting burial were stored in “houses of waiting” (Ray 2001a, 346) until the event took place. The late Dr. Nick Fieller (19472017) estimated that the Northern Ibis Catacomb at Saqqara may have held one million ibis, while the Southern contained three quarters of a million.5 The Falcons The falcons that are interred at Saqqara had a dual religious role, they balanced the lunar Thoth since they represented “the sun-god, ‘Horus, the avenger of his father’. In addition, the father of Horus was none other than Osiris, who was the embodiment of the dead Apis bull…” (Ray 1978, 152).

ඍඁൾඌൺർඋൾൽൺඇංආൺඅඇൾർඋඈඉඈඅංඌൺඍ ඇඈඋඍඁඌൺඊඊൺඋൺ The Falcon Catacomb is located immediately to the south of that of the baboons, and there is a break from the Falcon Catacomb into a small chamber at the bottom of the stairs of the Baboon Catacomb and also from behind baboon niche 211 (Davies 2006, 76-77). This demonstrates that the Baboon Catacomb predates that of the Falcons (Davies and Smith 2005, 33). According to Davies (2006, 83) the likely time for the construction of this level is the early 2nd century B.C. The part of the Falcon Catacomb that breaches the Baboons is itself a late development in the construction of the Falcon Catacomb, overall construction of which was probably begun in the 4th century B.C. in the reign of Nectanebo II (Nakhthorheb) and endured for a minimum of 330 years (Davies and Smith 2005, 39). Many interesting queries arise in considering the procurement of the falcons, though these are beyond the scope of the present volume. 6X൶FHit to say that many raptors are GL൶FXOWto breed in captivity, especially on a large scale, and that many of those interred at Saqqara must have either been found dead or been captured. The falcons are present in much lower numbers than the ibises, perhaps reflecting the GL൵HUHQFH in their ease of procurement, and this may have led to the production of so-called ‘fake’ or ‘pseudo’ mummies. The significance of these is discussed below, but the issue of managing numbers has implications for the way in which the burials at the Dog Catacomb are to be viewed. Fieller estimated that half a million interments were made in the Falcon Catacomb, however, this figure includes pseudo- and incomplete mummies. The Cats of Bastet The cat burials of Saqqara are a well known phenomenon. The cats were sacred to ‘Bastet, lady of Ankh-tawy’, the latter toponym referring to an area within the city of Memphis as a whole (Zivie and Lichtenberg 2005, 108). The burials seem to begin in the second half of the first millennium B.C. (Zivie and Lichtenberg 2005, 108) and some of the ‘catacombs’ are built into the escarpment within the temenos of the Bubastieion temple itself (Zivie and Lichtenberg 2005, 110). It is worth noting that the cat burials are not elaborately built ‘catacombs’, unlike the elaborately built structures that have been considered hitherto. Rather, the cat burials tend to re-use and re-model plundered tombs of the New Kingdom for this purpose.

13

These open tombs led to the local designation ‘Abwab al-Qutat’ or “Doors of the Cats” (Zivie and Lichtenberg 2005, 110). Whilst most of the mummies are those of cats, the skeleton of a lion was found in the re-used tomb of Maïa during the 2001 excavation season (Callou et al. 2004). Cats breed readily in captivity, and as a result they seem to have been present in large numbers at Saqqara. Cat mummies are recorded from as early as the Napoleonic expedition to Egypt, and they seem to have been taken away as souvenirs and for industrial and agricultural purposes over many years. For example, a shipload of 180,000 cat mummies was imported into Liverpool docks for use as fertiliser in 1890, a matter that attracted the attention of the satirical magazine Punch (Punch 1890, 83). Whilst these mummies did not come from Saqqara, it does illustrate the large scale of the animal cults and the need for votive animals during the time of their operation. According to Zivie and Lichtenberg (2005, 115) some 31% of the 272 mummy ‘packets’ which they examined between 1991 and 1992 “only contained mud, some clay, or a few pebbles, and as such can be considered fake mummies” (Zivie and Lichtenberg 2005, 114). This may suggest that, despite the mummification of what we must presume were thousands or tens of thousands of animals, demand still outstripped supply and necessitated the making of substitute mummies. Some 4% of their sample contained only a few cat bones rather than a complete animal, a phenomenon known also from the Falcon Catacomb. The cat burials R൵HU probably the closest comparable situation to that found in the Dog Catacomb but also R൵HUsome interesting contrasts. Pseudo- or ‘Fake’ Mummies It has long been recognised that not all animal mummy bundles represent actual deceased animals. This is particularly true of apparent raptor mummies which often contain only a small fragment of the bird or even no bodily remains whatsoever. Scholars have traditionally regarded these mummies as ‘fakes’ and they have been thought to have been deliberately made to deceive pilgrims. This view has probably been emphasised in the light of the Archive of Hor (Ray 1976) which records a series of fraudulent practices regarding the making of ibis mummies, especially the practice of placing several in a single pot instead of each being given its own container.

14

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

However, we actually have no information on the production of these mummies. They may have been deliberately made to deceive, but in that case one must ask why any part of the creature was included at all. It may be safest to assume that in the case of animals which were GL൶FXOW to procure, such as raptors, the whole might legitimately be represented by a part of the creature. Equally, the making of an image of the animal might be regarded as an adequate substitute and since many such ‘fakes’ are very carefully made they may have taken at least as long to prepare as the genuine item. Mummified material can be found inside some figurines in bronze and other materials emphasising the connection between deity and image (Price 2015, 21). It is notable that ibis mummies appear to be less commonly represented by ‘fakes’ than are raptors but cats and other creatures which breed readily may also be faked, suggesting that such substitutes were acceptable in all cults and that, perhaps, the demand for even the most numerous animals sometimes failed to meet the needs of the cult. McKnight (2015, 72-73) rejects the term ‘fake mummy’ but instead sees any mummy which contains “either less or more than one individual, sometimes from multiple species” as “ ‘true’ mummies” (McKnight 2015, 72). Those with no skeletal material she terms as ‘pseudo’ mummies (McKnight 2015, 73). With the exception of a mongoose wrapped to appear as a dog mummy no ‘fake’ or ‘pseudo’ mummies have yet been found at the Catacombs of Anubis, but on the basis of other studies it is likely that they exist. Egyptians, Foreigners and the Sacred Animal Cults

Sacred animals have a long history in Egypt, with the Apis known from as early as the First Dynasty (as noted above). However, their popularity grows markedly in the Late Period (747-332 B.C.), when Egypt was increasingly exposed to the wider Mediterranean world and to the political rivalries between Greece and Persia. Egypt itself was subject to Persian invasion, and it must have seemed to many of the populace that the position of Egypt in the world had somehow shifted. At such times of change and perceived threat it is not unusual for there to be an increase in religious activity and some kind of return to what might be seen as core values. The popularity

of the animal cults at this time may stem from the perception of these cults as archetypally Egyptian, symbols of national identity at a time when the country was subject to the rule of foreigners such as Libyans and Persians (Dodson 2012), and was caught up in events taking place beyond its borders. Against this background, the worship of deities represented by sacred animals might be seen as a way of returning to the fundamental principles of Egyptian belief, in order perhaps to regain the favour of the gods and return Egypt to some kind of nostalgic golden age. The writers in the present volume take the view that the cults were ‘popular’ and that individual ‘pilgrims’ played a very substantial part by purchasing mummies and votive items for the cult. This is the view espoused by most of those actively working on the cults at Saqqara, such as Davies (2008) and Zivie and Lichtenberg (2005). Kessler (1989), however, regards the cults as specifically associated with the king. Neither view contradicts the idea that they may be a response to troubled times and so represent a symbolic return to Egyptian traditional ideology. That the animal cults were recognised as important to the Egyptians – and were a phenomenon that might have been employed to help Egyptians come to terms with new circumstances – is to be seen in the way that they were regarded by Egypt’s last conquerors – the Ptolemies and the Romans. Alexander the Great had long realised the value of allowing indigenous religious practices to continue within his empire and is well known for his visit to the sanctuary of Ammon at Siwa in 331 B.C. (Bosworth 1996, 59). Ammon was a deity probably of Libyan origin who became equated with the Egyptian Amun, and whom the Greeks identified with Jupiter. This practice of permitting local cults to persist continued under Alexander’s Ptolemaic successors and went as far as the creation of a deity in combined Egyptian/Hellenistic style in the form of Serapis (see Stambaugh 1972; Wilkinson 2003, 127) and “Greek-speaking Egyptian Kings became major sponsors of the animal cults” (Bleiberg 2013, 75). Indeed, when irregularities in the ibis cult were identified by Hor of Sebennytos (Ray 1976) under Ptolemy VI (180-145 B.C.) they had to be referred to Alexandria, most probably to the R൶FLDOV of the king (see Bleiberg 2013, 99).

ඍඁൾඌൺർඋൾൽൺඇංආൺඅඇൾർඋඈඉඈඅංඌൺඍ ඇඈඋඍඁඌൺඊඊൺඋൺ

The cult of Serapis was essentially that of OsirisApis but at Alexandria or Canopus (Strabo 17.1.17) he took on specific guises “according to political, local, or individual requirement” (Gordon 1996, 1355). It was this remodelled form of the god, tailored to suit the new regime, which was eventually spread from Egypt and taken up across the Roman empire (Bommas 2012). Serapis seems to first appear under Ptolemy I (Lurker 1974; 107; Wilkinson 2003, 127) and takes the essentially Egyptian elements of the Osiris-Apis cult and begins to fuse them with Greek theology. Whilst the Serapea at Alexandria, Canopus and elsewhere were important it was that at Memphis which was “the Serapeum par excellence” (Ray 1972, 699). It was known as “the House of Osorapis” and came to lend its name to the whole of the northern part of the Saqqara plateau which was the focus for the animal cults (Ray 1972, 699). This included the extensive settlement of persons responsible for various aspects of the animal cults and for serving the visitors to the site by providing food, accommodation, dream interpretation and the selling of items for the cult. Such items might include bronze situlae, figures of gods and votive animal mummies themselves. The Anubieion temple itself seems to have been a centre for mummification of various kinds. The Serapis cult was intended to bring the various peoples of Ptolemaic Egypt together, stressing tradition, a right to established worship but also an acceptable way for non-Egyptians to be a part of Egyptian society and to pay homage to ancient religion. This was not perhaps such a radical change. The Greek world had long looked to Egypt as a source of ancient wisdom (Dundas 2002, 436) and piety and so the establishment of a Graeco-Egyptian mode of worship need not have been a radical change. The Roman attitude toward the animal cults at first seems in contrast to that of the Ptolemies and ³R൶cially, Romans never approved of Egyptian worship of animals” (Bleiberg 2013, 76). According to Cassius (c. A.D. 164 – post 229) (Dio Bk. 51, 16.3-17.4) Octavian, during his visit to Egypt, made a point of

๑

Bleiberg (2013, 69) notes that the animal cults were regarded as “the abomination of the Egyptians” by the Jewish Tora.

15

visiting the tomb of Alexander whilst declining to see those of the Ptolemies. At the same time he declined a visit to the tombs of the Apis Bulls on the grounds that he was “accustomed to worship gods, not cattle” (Dio 51, 16.5). However, Dundas (2002, 434) makes the point that much of our view of Octavian/Augustus’ attitude to Egyptian religion comes through the filter of Dio, and that it is he rather than Octavian who disliked Egyptian religion.6 Dundas goes so far as to say that “in general the cities and provinces of the Empire were D൵RUGHG complete autonomy in establishing and maintaining their religious cults, imperial or otherwise” (Dundas 2002, 435). Though Augustus took away temple land rights and instead provided a subvention known as the syntaxis, this is argued by Dundas (2002, 447) not to be an antireligious act, but merely a way of curbing the power of the priesthoods and diverting income from temples to the State, that being the Roman State. The curtailing of income as a result of the syntaxis, though designed to reduce the income and therefore the power of the priesthoods may have had an unintended consequence, namely an increase in the popularity of the very animal cults which have supposedly been regarded as frowned upon by the Romans. The selling of votive bronzes along with votive mummies for burial within the sacred catacombs cannot have been undertaken without R൶FLDO sanction from the temples and these would most certainly have derived income from these practices. This involvement in popular religion would not be against Roman interests since it could be viewed by them as a continuance of traditional practices which would help to pacify the populace. Similarly, the practice of associations designed to support the cults, which had begun as early as the 26th Dynasty and developed further under the Ptolemies, “were active even in Roman imperial times” (Stadler 2012, 459). Members paid a fee in order to take part in cult activities including “the burial of the sacred animal of their temple” (Stadler 2012, 459). Such financial support, along with the irregular donations made by pilgrims toward a votive mummy or bronze might, in some localities such as Saqqara, have considerably enriched the temples.

16

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Perhaps because of the picture we get from Dio and from Juvenal, the cults of the sacred animals are not thought of as lasting long into the Roman era, yet the last Buchis Bull of Montu was buried in A.D. 340 (Lajtar 2012, 180). If the Buchis cult remained into the 4th century there may be little reason to assume that the lesser, but arguably more popular, cults of the ibis, falcon, cat and dog did not also last well into Roman times. Certainly Egyptian cults were not extinguished by Roman rule but flourished both in and beyond Egypt.

๒

See for example BM GR1805,0703.51 or the head from the Walbrook Mithraeum London (Museum of London 18494).

The image of Sarapis/Serapis changed over time, ultimately becoming that of a bearded man wearing a kalathos basket as a headdress7 but his origins remain with the sacred animals of ancient Egypt. Thus Juvenal’s jibe at Egyptian religion – “Who has not heard, Volusius, of the monstrous deities those crazy Egyptians worship? One lot adores crocodiles, another worships the snake-gorged ibis … you’ll find whole cities devoted to cats, or to river-fish or dogs” (Juvenal XV) – is somewhat ill-founded. Rome herself had taken up the worship of Egyptian deities, some of whom had their origins in the most ancient of animal cults.

CHAPTER 3

SURVEYING THE CATACOMBS OF ANUBIS Steve MILLS, Scott WILLIAMS, Henkdrikje NOUWENS and Paul T. NICHOLSON

Introduction Both the lack of explicit and detailed survey information and the loss of any archives that may once have accompanied such surveys remains a serious issue in archaeology. It is therefore hoped that this chapter will provide a useful methodology for those working on animal catacombs in the future. It is intended that by making the survey methodology explicit here it will assist those working with our survey data and so obviate some of the GL൶FXOWLHVwhich we have encountered when attempting to employ earlier surveys. Unlike the animal catacombs on the western side of the Saqqara Plateau, which are those generally thought of as ‘The Sacred Animal Necropolis’, the Catacombs of Anubis (or ‘Dog Catacombs’) have attracted much less attention. They were not part of the work undertaken by Emery in the 1960s, not least because their location was away from what he presumed would be the location of the tomb of Imhotep. The history of the discovery of the Dog Catacombs is an uncertain one, and the present chapter attempts to summarise what is currently known of it before going on to describe the new survey of the site. Although references to animal catacombs at Saqqara are quite common in the accounts of early travellers, there are few referring to dog burials. Most refer instead to the ibis catacombs, usually described as ‘bird pits’ or ‘wells’, which were already known by the time of the Napoleonic expedition, and which were recorded by the savants (Description 1809-26, Vol. 5 Pl.1 and Pl.4). It is not always clear whether the ibis catacombs described in the early 19th century are those that are now known as the North or the South Ibis Catacombs since it is likely that they were being entered by several GL൵HUHQW openings. It is, however, known that both these catacombs were entered by early travellers (see Martin 1981, 3; Nicholson et al. 1999).

์

For details of the work of the savants see Russell (2005).

That the ibis catacombs were attractive to visitors and the Dog Catacombs were not may imply that the former had long been known whilst the latter were not found until later. It is certainly true to say that the number of ibis mummies in museum collections generally exceeds the number of dog mummies and it is likely that many of the latter do not come from Saqqara but elsewhere. Historic Mapping at Saqqara and the Catacombs of Anubis The best known early maps which identify the ancient necropolis of North Saqqara are those of the Description de l’Égypte (Description 1809-1826), created and compiled by the savants who accompanied Napoleon Bonaparte’s army into Egypt.1 Two maps that concern the Saqqara/Memphis area are included within the publication (Planche 1 and 21), and both are presented at such a small scale that there are few details of the archaeological features. Prominent features in the landscape, such as the pyramids, are defined and labelled and their positions in relation to the edge of the desert and the Nile floodplain are discernible. The larger scale map (Description 1809-26, Antiquités V, Planche 1) also defines the general position of the Tombeau de Momies d’Oiseaux (Tomb of the Bird Mummies), presumably one of the Ibis Catacombs, and Tombeau de Momies Humaines (Tomb of Human Mummies).2 It is unclear to which tomb the latter description refers. On the smaller scale map (Description 1809-26, Atlas Géographique V, Planche 21) the Saqqara area is described as the ‘Plaine des Momies’ (Plain of Mummies) or ‘Plaine des Oiseaux’ (Plain of Birds). The Dog Catacombs are not identified on either map, so it may be assumed that they remained unknown at this time.

ํ

Possibly a ‘mummy pit’, see Baber (2016).

18

ඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌൺඇൽඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

In his summary account of the mummy pits at Saqqara, Colonel Howard Vyse (1784-1853) noted: “The entrance to the catacombs, where the mummies of dogs were deposited, is marked by E, but most of them had been destroyed apparently by fire, which, upon the authority of Plutarch, Mr. Perring supposes to have taken place in consequence of the sacrilegious attack made by the dogs on the entrails of the bull Apis, after he was slain by Cambyses.” (Vyse 1842, 89). The map of Saqqara which accompanies the volume (1842, 37) is unfortunately not annotated with the letter E, which should indicate the location of the catacombs as discussed in the text. It therefore remains unknown where the catacombs mentioned by Vyse were located. An area defined as ‘Pits of mummified dogs’ is inset to the west, some way back from the escarpment edge, orientated east to west. This appears to be the only reference to dog mummies on Vyse’s map. Karl Richard Lepsius (1810-1884) in writing notes during the Prussian expedition to Egypt (1842-5) comments on a ‘Hundegrab’ which his editors note is probably identical with the “Schakalsgrabe von Sakkara” (Lepsius 1849-1859, Band 1, 145). However, Lepsius does not identify the site on his map of Saqqara. The location of the ‘Hundegrab’ should be identified on the map by the number which corresponds with its entry in the main text, in this case number 9. However, it is very GL൶FXOW to read many of the printed numbers on the map, and the location of the feature has thus far been impossible to clarify. The maps of August Mariette (1821-1881) (1856, Pl.II; 1889, Planche II) and Arthur Rhoné (1836-1910) (1877, 216), compiled in the mid-1800s, do not identify dog burials of any kind. In fact, the first map to show the location of the Dog Catacombs is that published by de Morgan (1897) which not only shows the location of the two catacombs but gives them in plan and colour codes them with a suggestion of their supposed date. Sadly, de Morgan’s Carte de la Nécropole Memphite: Dahchour, Sakkarah, Abou-Sir (1897) (see Fig. 1.2) has no explanatory text to accompany it and as a result it is uncertain on what basis particular monuments were assigned to given periods. It is clear, however, that the Anubieion enclosure is assigned to the “époche grecque” and the Dog Catacombs to the “nouvel empire”.

Because there is no accompanying text, it is similarly uncertain whether de Morgan was himself responsible for the surveying of the Dog Catacombs or whether he simply re-used an already extant plan and reproduced it on a reduced scale as part of his overall map of Saqqara. If a pre-existing survey was used it was likely produced subsequent to the Mariette and Rhoné maps, as it appears to have been unknown to them. Curiously, de Morgan’s plan of the catacombs was omitted from the later map by William Stevenson Smith (1907-1969) (Smith 1936, Map ii) which was presented in George Reisner’s (1867-1942) comprehensive publication The Development of the Egyptian Tomb Down to the Accession of Cheops (Reisner 1936). Smith’s map was drafted to modern standards, using topographical data produced by the Survey of Egypt in 1932 as its base, and documented those monuments that were visible at that time (Buongarzone 2003, 122). Smith incorporated features from the publications of Mariette, de Morgan and Lepsius, and drew upon the work of Murray and Quibell to construct a comprehensive map of the area. He attempted to reconcile many of the confusions over tomb numbering that had developed over time and re-excavated several tombs which were discovered by Mariette, allowing him to establish fixed survey points for them (Spencer 1974, 1). His detailed discussion on the source material and his identification of the tombs remains an invaluable resource (Smith 1936, 390-411). Given that Smith made use of the de Morgan plan to compile his own map of the area, it is unclear why he did not include the Dog Catacombs or mark their location. Similarly, the plan and location of the galleries are absent from the North Saqqara maps made by Spencer (1974, TAB I) and that by Lauer (1902-2001) (1976, 8-9). Both scholars worked extensively at the site and would have known of the existence of the Dog Catacombs. Spencer drew upon the work of Mariette, Lepsius, de Morgan, Firth, Quibell, Smith and Emery. Using the Smith map as the base, he published a revised plan in 1974 (Spencer 1974, TAB I). He also made use of the Porter and Moss (1981) Topographical Bibliography when compiling his list of tombs and reconciling the tomb numbering systems of his predecessors (Spencer 1974, 1). He identified several errors in earlier publications which he sought to correct, whilst also providing new notation on other poorly recorded

ඌඎඋඏൾඒංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻඌඈൿൺඇඎൻංඌ archaeological features of North Saqqara (Spencer 1974, 2-4). Lauer’s (1976) map is presented without comment or notation, perhaps because it was intended for a popular publication, and it is unknown from which source materials it was derived. However, he is likely to have relied on his own excavation notes in addition to other source materials. The map was drafted using contours rather than hachures to display topographic information and therefore appears to be more topographically accurate than the Smith/Spencer map. It does not, however, contain the same degree of detail as that by Spencer, and numerous tombs are absent, including the Dog Catacombs. The Topographical Bibliography (Porter and Moss 1981, 777 and map LXX) includes a brief entry for the Dog Catacombs which they label as “Jackal Galleries”. The de Morgan plan was redrawn as part of an environmental survey produced by Ago et al. (2003, 332). The catacombs were georeferenced onto the Ministère de l’Habitat et de la Reconstruction (MHR 1978) topographic series sheet H:22 for North Saqqara, as part of a risk assessment GIS. The label “Jackal Galleries” was applied to the catacombs. This plan, and that of de Morgan remained the only ones available until the resurvey made by the present project. The Catacombs of Anubis Project survey Establishing survey control points Some of the archaeological surveys on the Saqqara plateau, described above, established a number of fixed, permanent and accessible survey control points on the surface that are available for use by other projects/missions. These include points surveyed by Cairo University during the 1980s, by David -H൵UH\V during the 1980s and 1990s on behalf of the Egypt Exploration Society’s Survey of Memphis -H൵UH\Vand Giddy 1989, 12), and by Ian Mathieson during the 1990s and 2000s on behalf of the National Museums of Scotland Saqqara Survey Project and Saqqara Geophysical Survey Proj-

๎

This was kindly provided by David -H൵UH\V and the Egypt Exploration Society.

19

ect (Mathieson and Tavares 1993, 23; Mathieson et al. 1997, 17-18; Mathieson et al. 1999; Mathieson and Dittmer 2007; Mathieson 2013). Of particular importance for Catacombs of Anubis Project were the Cairo University series of ‘T’ (for triangulation) control points, established in 1988 and inspected and updated by the Saqqara Geophysical Survey Project (20002007) (Fig. 3.1). Prior to commencing our first field season in 2009, Ian Mathieson kindly provided details of these ‘T’ control points presenting their descriptions, locations and elevations in a number of GL൵HUHQWcoordinate systems (Latitude and Longitude; WGS84 UTM zone 36R north eastings and northings, ellipsoid height and metres above sea level; and MHR 1978 eastings and northings) (Mathieson pers. comm. 2009). Using these ‘T’ control point data in association with GIS the project was able to plan in advance a procedure for establishing its own survey control points for the 2009 and subsequent seasons. As discussed above the modern base mapping available to The Catacombs of Anubis Project was the MHR 1978 sheet number H223 which was scanned and georectified in the project GIS. This mapping at 1:5000 scale uses the MHR 1978 coordinate system (above) and since we had access to the coordinates of the ‘T’ control points, the MHR 1978 coordinate system was that chosen for the current work. The elevations used for the ‘T’ control points are metres above sea level based on the WGS84 coordinate system. Those Cairo University ‘T’ control points on the surface which were used are: T1 on the plateau 360m to the west of the Dog Catacombs, which is the nearest ‘T’ control point to the Dog Catacombs where it was possible to set-up the total station, and T2 on the Teti Pyramid being the nearest to T1 (540 m to the south east of T1) and with a clear line of sight. The Egypt Exploration Society’s Leica TPS300 total station was used for the survey. To establish survey control points at the surface in locations practicable for use at the Dog Catacombs the first step in the 2009 fieldwork season was to tie the new survey into the ‘T’ control points. To achieve this the total station was set-up on control point T1 and its

Fig. 3.1: MHR 1978 map with T points highlighting T1 and T2 and indicating the location of the Anubieion and Dog Catacombs. (Map amended by S. Mills and S. Williams).

20 ඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌൺඇൽඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

ඌඎඋඏൾඒංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻඌඈൿൺඇඎൻංඌ position set with the coordinates for T1 in the list provided by Ian Mathieson. A zero horizontal angle was collimated to control point T2 on top of the Teti Pyramid.4 Using the GIS the horizontal angle from grid north between T1 and T2 had already been determined. Using this information it was possible to set the total station to 0 degrees grid north at T1 and to then record a backsight to T2 as a check. We were able to confirm that the coordinates for T2 established by our backsight matched those provided to us by Mathieson. This procedure fixed the horizontal angle to grid north and provided an easting and northing coordinate referenced to the MHR 1978 coordinate system. Once satisfied with the set-up at T1 a number of new control points were established (with the prefix DG for Dog Galleries) on the surface immediately above the larger dog catacomb. Using backsight checks between these new control points and T1, and creating further new control points as required with foresights, the total station position was gradually ‘leap-frogged’ from the plateau surface down the escarpment to a position at the modern entrance to the catacomb. Five new control points at surface (DG1-DG5) enabled the survey to reach the catacomb (DG5 being at the entrance), with all placed to enable backsight checks to be performed between them when required. In addition, a control point on a bolt on the plinth of a nearby lamp post was also established for use in future fieldwork seasons as a precaution in case any of the other control points were lost during the intervening periods. In 2010 additional control points (DG40 and DG41) were established above ground near the entrance to the catacomb to aid surveying surface features nearby. In 2012 a further control point (DG51) was created on the plateau further to the west beyond T1 to extend the Dog Catacomb survey across to the area of the Sacred Animal Necropolis, and additional control points (DG52 and DG53) were established to survey the probable entrance location of the smaller dog catacomb. From DG5 at the entrance to the catacomb it was possible to establish further control points inside the monument to enable the survey within to be conducted. Given the confined interior spaces, the configuration of the galleries relative to the main axial corridor and the limited range of lines of sight for surveying, it was nec-

๏

Permission to access the T2 control point was kindly granted by the Saqqara Antiquities Inspectorate.

21

essary to establish numerous control points along the length of the main axial corridor. These were positioned to enable VX൶FLHQWspace for the total station to be setup on the tripod and to be leap-frogged to GL൵HUHQW positions to enable lines of sight and surveying down each of the galleries. To ensure lines of sight for surveying throughout, additional control points had also to be established within some of the galleries because of changes in their orientation along their length. In total 42 control points were established inside the catacomb (DG6-DG50 inclusive, excepting DG40 and DG41 which were additional to those above ground control points) (Fig. 3.2). Catacomb survey procedure For each phase of survey within the catacomb, and surveys on the surface, the total station was set up on a fixed control point and then a backsight taken to one of the other fixed control points to check location (easting, northing, horizontal angle and horizontal distance) and elevation precision. The precision for total station set-up sought throughout the survey was 1-2 cm for easting, northing and elevation (metres above sea level), and 5 arc minutes for angle. Given the layout and dimensions of the catacomb and the working conditions of the underground spaces within which the survey was largely conducted, this level of precision was deemed acceptable and at the same time manageable (Fig. 3.3). At the end of each phase of survey, with the total station set-up at any given control point, an additional backsight measurement was taken to the same control point used at the start of that survey, in order to check that precision had been maintained throughout. If any loss of precision was detected (perhaps due to the total station moving or being knocked within the confined spaces) then that phase of survey was repeated. However, every care was taken to ensure that precision was maintained and consequently there were no entire phases of survey that had to be repeated. 'L൵HUHQWprism and VWD൵types were used depending on the circumstances of the location to be surveyed relative to the position of the total station. To enable survey of the majority of points within the confines of the catacomb it was necessary to use the Leica mini

3306800

3306750

3306700

328100

DG51 on surface 585m to northwest

328100

DG38

DG42

DG37

DG44

328150

DG36

DG35

DG33

DG47

DG43

DG34

DG32

DG29

DG31 DG48

DG30

DG45

328200

DG19

DG18

DG11 DG12

DG21 DG23

DG46

DG25

DG22 DG20 DG24

DG2 DG16

328200

328250

0

Lamp Bolt DG13 DG1

DG14

DG40

DG53

Metres 20

40

Control points catacomb

Control points surface

DG52

328300

328300

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

DG10

DG6

DG4

DG7

DG3

DG41 DG5

DG15

DG9

DG17

DG8

328250

Fig. 3.2: Plan of the Catacomb and surface showing all control points. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

DG39

DG50

DG26 DG27 DG49 DG28

328150

3306800 3306750 3306700

22 ඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌൺඇൽඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

ඌඎඋඏൾඒංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻඌඈൿൺඇඎൻංඌ

Fig. 3.3: Steve Mills surveying in the catacomb using the Leica TPS300 Total Station. (Photo: Scott Williams).

Fig. 3.4: The largely intact niche 35x, an example of the kind of feature whose dimensions were recorded in the survey.

23

24

ඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌൺඇൽඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

prism. It was also necessary to use the total station in reflectorless mode on many occasions in order to make measurements at locations where the VWD൵ and prism could not be positioned. Where conditions meant that it was not possible to set up and use the total station (sections of galleries 2a, 17, 21, 22, 26, 42, 46, 47, 48) it was necessary to use compass and tape to survey those galleries. Furthermore, due to access restrictions in a number of galleries, some features were surveyed using a handheld Leica DISTO D8 laser distance meter (galleries 27, 41, 44, 45, 49). All survey data from the total station was logged on the instrument for later download in digital form and a paper record of all survey data was also maintained at the time of survey as a back-up. The data recorded5 for each point are: point number, feature code, easting (X), northing (Y), elevation (Z), angle (from grid north), horizontal distance, VWD൵ height, instrument height, prism type (mini, reflectorless), zero-set angle, indication if backsight or foresight, remarks, date, total station position, ID of surveyors. A range of feature codes were used to aid in retrieval of specific survey points and feature types. Feature codes used for surveys within the catacomb include: Control Point, Axial (for axial corridor), DG** (for Dog Galley followed by the relevant number of the gallery e.g. DG1, DG2 etc.), Lamp Niche, Dog Niche, 2൵HULQJ Niche, Faunal sample, Tomb, Tomb Shaft, Plan (for drawing), Finds (Bronze, Wood), Geo (for geological feature), Humidity Logger, Soot, Dog remains. Feature codes used for surveys on the surface include: Control Point, Spoil, Mastaba, Wall, Transect, Track, Garden, Collapse hole.6 Each time the total station was set up over a control point, or moved and set up over a GL൵HUHQW control point, this was classed as a new survey. Surveys were numbered incrementally from 001 to 0132. Surveys 001 to 038 were completed in 2009; surveys 039 to 092 were completed in 2010 (survey 072 was abandoned because the initial backsight identified a setup error); and surveys 093 to 132 were completed in 2012 (sur-

vey 116 was abandoned due to a setup error). Tables 3.1-3.3 summarise the surveys from each year, providing information on the control point on which the total station was set-up, date of the survey, control points established, and the galleries and features surveyed.

All digital survey data and GIS derived information has been archived on networked hard-drives at &DUGL൵University, U.K. During the 2012 field season the Saqqara Antiquities Inspectorate notified the team of the appearance of two large holes in the

vicinity of the Dog Catacombs, the general location of which were promptly surveyed for safety reasons. These are probably the result of collapse of underground structures, with one possibly related to the smaller Dog Catacomb.

๐ ๑

2009 surveys The aim of the 2009 survey was to establish control points on the surface and down into the catacomb to enable survey within, and then through the monument, so as to provide as much of an outline of the form of catacomb galleries as was possible in the time available. Initial survey within the catacomb focussed around the modern entrance area and galleries 1-4 and 46-47 (surveys 5-11). Via gallery 5 the survey was able to first reach the main axial corridor towards its eastern end and establish control point DG13 (survey 12). From there the survey was able to proceed inwards along the main axial corridor – from east to west – establishing control points as required to enable lines of sight into the galleries on either side (surveys 13-38). In most cases it was possible to survey the general form of side galleries from control points established along the main axial corridor. For some galleries, however, because of their length and/or changes in direction it was necessary to establish additional control points along their length to be able to survey their full extent. This was the case for galleries 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 29, 32 and 35. The procedure adopted for surveying the form of the galleries, to collect data to determine their length, width, height, any changes in direction, and location of entrances, was as follows. The left and right tops (roof) and bottoms (floor) of entrances were surveyed (be they entrances to the main axial corridor or to passages into other galleries – e.g. between galleries 4 and 5 and between 5 and 6). The left and right roof and floor of the ends of galleries were surveyed. Changes in direction along a gallery between the entrance and end were surveyed, with points located appropriately on the floor

ඌඎඋඏൾඒංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻඌඈൿൺඇඎൻංඌ of the gallery. At a number of locations within the catacomb there are places where adjacent galleries are so close together that the dividing wall has broken away to leave a single large opening (see Chapter 5). These openings were surveyed at floor level to indicate their maximum extents. Breaks exist between galleries 9 and 10, between 17 and 18, between 19 and 20, between 21 and 22, between 29 and 30, between 32 and 33, and between 41 and 42. Floor levels within galleries at points near the centre line along their lengths were surveyed to be able to determine an approximate height for galleries. A note was made on every occasion where it was possible to determine that a surveyed point VWD൵position) was not on the original gallery floor level but above this due to the presence of rubble on the floor. In such instances it was not possible to determine the depth of rubble and therefore the original floor level. Consequently at such locations we were not able to calculate the original height of a gallery. In addition, the corners of tomb shafts that intersect with the roof of the catacomb axial corridor or side galleries were surveyed. By the end of the 2009 season the full length of the axial corridor had been surveyed to its western limit and the entrances to all side galleries had been surveyed. The full extent and form of many of the side galleries at the eastern end of the catacomb had also been surveyed: galleries 2 to 16 consecutively on the north side and galleries 33 to 43 consecutively on the south side (except gallery 35 due to its length, and galleries 41 and 42 due to access restrictions). Of the remaining galleries at the western end of the catacomb (galleries 17-24 on the north side and 25-32 on the south side) the extent and form of some had been partially surveyed while for the others only their entrances from the axial corridor had been recorded. Surveying the extent and form of these remaining side galleries was assigned to the 2010 season. 2010 surveys The survey procedure within the catacomb in 2010 continued as in 2009, starting with the extent and form of side galleries at the western end of the catacomb. In this way, by the end of the 2010 season the extent and form of all side galleries had been surveyed, except for those areas where no survey was possible at all because

25

of (1) access restrictions applied for safety reasons or (2) blockages comprising collapsed material (galleries 44, 45, 49 were partially surveyed using Leica DISTO D8 and compass and tape, and the very eastern end of the axial corridor east of gallery 2a). The extent and form of a few galleries could only be partially surveyed due to the same access restrictions (galleries 26, 27, 28), therefore we were unable to determine their full extent. A task of the 2010 season was also to begin surveying the location of features within the axial corridor and galleries, including lamp niches, dog niches, extent of surviving dog mummy piles, samples collected for faunal analysis, complete dog mummies (in gallery 35), tomb shaft and chamber intersections (started in 2009), and small finds (Fig. 3.4). The following feature types were surveyed with single points to fix their locations: lamp niches, samples, complete dog mummies and small finds. Other feature types were surveyed with two or more points to fix their location and dimensions: dog niches, extent of dog mummy piles, and tomb shaft and chamber intersections. For the dog niches two points were surveyed at either end of the features to determine their maximum length along the walls. Where it was not possible to place the survey prism at the exact location of the end of a niche, it was placed as close as possible, and a distance measurement made using a hand tape and an angle measurement using a compass were logged, UHFRUGLQJWKHGL൵HUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHSULVPORFDWLRQDQG the actual end of the niche. These GL൵HUHQFHV could then be applied in the GIS to position the niches correctly. In the galleries where there are surviving piles of dog mummies (galleries 9-12, 17, 18, 21-24, 26-28, 30, 32-42) the limits nearest the axial corridor of these were surveyed with two points at either side of the base of the piles next to the gallery walls (Fig. 3.5). In all galleries where there are remaining dog mummies they continue from their limits nearest the axial corridor all the way to the end of the gallery. The only galleries where the extent of dog mummies is uncertain are 26, 27 and 28 because we were unable to access and survey their full extent. The upper surface of the dog mummy piles at their limits nearest the axial corridor were also surveyed to fix their height (or depth). This figure appeared generally consistent along their length within galleries and so it was not deemed necessary to survey

26

ඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌൺඇൽඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Table 3.1: 2009 surveys (* in first column indicates surveys on the surface, all others within the catacomb). Surveys of catacomb galleries include that of points for gallery form and dimensions, and points for gallery features including tomb shafts. Survey number & Control point setup 001 - T1* 002 - DG1* 003 - DG1* 004 - DG3* 005 - DG5* 006 - DG7 007 - DG8 008 - DG9 009 - DG10 010 - DG8 011 - DG11 012 - DG12 013 - DG13 014 - DG14 015 - DG15 016 - DG16 017 - DG17 018 - DG18 019 - DG19 020 - DG20 021 - DG21 022 - DG22 023 - DG23 024 - DG24 025 - DG25 026 - DG26 027 - DG27 028 - DG28 029 - DG29 030 - DG30 031 - DG31 032 - DG32 033 - DG33 034 - DG34

Date (yyyy/mm/dd) 2009/08/24 2009/08/25 2009/08/26 2009/08/26 2009/08/26 2009/08/26 2009/08/27 2009/08/27 2009/08/27 2009/08/27 2009/08/29 2009/08/29 2009/08/30 2009/08/30 2009/08/31 2009/08/31 2009/08/31 2009/08/31 2009/09/01 2009/09/01 2009/09/01 2009/09/01 2009/09/01 2009/09/02 2009/09/02 2009/09/02 2009/09/02 2009/09/02 2009/09/02 2009/09/02 2009/09/03 2009/09/03 2009/09/03 2009/09/03

035 - DG35 036 - DG36

2009/09/05 2009/09/05

DG36 DG37

037 - DG37 038 - DG38

2009/09/05 2009/09/05

DG38 DG39

Control points established

Galleries/features surveyed

T2, DG1, DG2 all on surface Hut and wall A on surface DG3, DG4 all on surface Lamp Bolt, DG5 all on surface DG6, DG7 DG8 DG9 DG10

Gallery 3 Galleries 2, 2A ; entrance steps Galleries 1, 46, 47

DG11, DG12 DG13 DG14, DG15 DG16 DG17 DG18 DG19 DG20 DG21 DG22 DG23, DG24 DG25 DG26 DG27 DG28 DG29 DG30 DG31 DG32 DG33 DG34 DG35

Galleries 4, 5 Gallery 5 Galleries 44, 45 Gallery 6 Gallery 43 Galleries 7, 42 Gallery 8 Galleries 9, 41 Gallery 40 Gallery 10 Gallery 39 Gallery 11 Gallery 38 Gallery 12, tomb shaft above axial Gallery 37 Gallery 13 Gallery 36 Galleries 14, 35 Galleries 15, 34 Gallery 16 Galleries 16, 33 Galleries 17, 32 Galleries 18, 31 Galleries 19, 30, tomb shaft in gallery 19 Galleries 20, 29 Galleries 21, 28, tomb shaft in gallery 21 Galleries 22, 27 Galleries, 23, 24, 25, 26, axial end

27

ඌඎඋඏൾඒංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻඌඈൿൺඇඎൻංඌ

Table 3.2: 2010 surveys (* in first column indicates surveys on the surface, all others within the catacomb). Surveys of catacomb galleries include the taking of points for gallery form and dimensions, and points for gallery features including lamp niches, dog niches, dog mummy remains, dog faunal samples, whole dog mummies, small finds, tomb shafts and chambers. Survey number & Control point setup 039 - DG3* 040 - DG40*

Date (yyyy/mm/dd) 2010/08/23 2010/08/24

041 - DG3* 042 - DG1*

2010/08/24 2010/08/25

043 - DG38 044 - DG39 045 - DG37 046 - DG42 047 - DG42 048 - DG37 049 - DG36 050 - DG36 051 - DG35 052 - DG34 053 - DG44 054 - DG33 055 - DG1*

2010/08/26 2010/08/26 2010/08/26 2010/08/26 2010/08/28 2010/08/28 2010/08/28 2010/08/29 2010/08/30 2010/08/30 2010/08/30 2010/08/30 2010/08/31

056 - R10*

2010/08/31

057 - DG29 058 - DG45 059 - DG46 060 - DG33 061 - DG47 062 - DG32 063 - DG35 064 - DG43 065 - DG34 066 - DG32 067 - DG32

2010/09/01 2010/09/01 2010/09/01 2010/09/02 2010/09/02 2010/09/02 2010/09/04 2010/09/04 2010/09/04 2010/09/05 2010/09/05

Control points established

Galleries/features surveyed

DG40 on surface

DG41 on surface

Surface features near catacomb entrance (garden wall, entrance, hut, rock face edge, escarpment transects, tomb on escarpment) Garden wall Surface features on plateau above catacomb (tomb shafts, end of axial, track, depression above shaft in gallery 19, hut, mastaba, spoil heap) Galleries 23, 24, 25, 26, axial end Gallery 25

DG42

DG43 DG44

DG45 DG46 DG47

DG48

Gallery 23 Galleries 23, 26 Galleries 21, 22, 27, 28 Gallery 21, tomb cut in east wall Galleries 21, 28, tomb shaft in gallery 21 Galleries 20, 29, tomb in gallery 20 Gallery 19 Gallery 19, tomb in gallery 19 Galleries 18, 31, tomb chamber in gallery 18 Surface features on plateau above catacomb (galleries 20 & 31 end markers, spoil, mastaba, Emery house, tomb shaft capping, small dog catacomb west axial end, R10 surface bench mark) Position of tomb shafts in galleries 18 & 19 at surface Galleries 15, 16, 33, 34 Gallery 35 Gallery 35 Gallery 18 Gallery 18 Gallery 17, tomb shaft in gallery 17 Gallery 29 Galleries 29, 30 Gallery 30 Gallery 32, axial niches Gallery 32

28

ඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌൺඇൽඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Table 3.2 (cont.): 2010 surveys (* in first column indicates surveys on the surface, all others within the catacomb). Surveys of catacomb galleries include the taking of points for gallery form and dimensions, and points for gallery features including lamp niches, dog niches, dog mummy remains, dog faunal samples, whole dog mummies, small finds, tomb shafts and chambers. Survey number & Control point setup 068 - DG48 069 - DG33 070 - DG30 071 - DG49 072 - DG31 073 - DG29 074 - DG28

Date (yyyy/mm/dd) 2010/09/05 2010/09/05 2010/09/06 2010/09/06 2010/09/06 2010/09/06 2010/09/06

075 - DG26 076 - DG27 077 - DG18 078 - DG17 079 - DG16 080 - DG14 081 - DG12 082 - DG11 083 - DG8 084 - DG13 085 - DG20 086 - DG23 087 - DG22 088 - DG15 089 - DG31 090 - DG32 091 - DG25 092 - DG41*

2010/09/06 2010/09/06 2010/09/07 2010/09/07 2010/09/07 2010/09/08 2010/09/08 2010/09/08 2010/09/08 2010/09/08 2010/09/09 2010/09/09 2010/09/09 2010/09/12 2010/09/12 2010/09/12 2010/09/13 2010/09/13

Control points established

DG49

Galleries/features surveyed Gallery 32 Gallery 31 Gallery 16, axial niches Gallery 16 Survey abandoned - setup error Galleries 15, 34 Gallery 14 Gallery 13 Gallery 36, axial niches Galleries 9, 10, 11, 38, 39, 40, axial niches Gallery 8, axial niches Gallery 7 Gallery 6 Gallery 5 Gallery 4 Gallery 3 Axial niches Galleries 10, 39, 40, small finds gallery 10 Galleries 38, 12 Gallery 11 Gallery 43, small find Gallery 33 Gallery 17 Gallery 37, small finds Entrance steps

Table 3.3: 2012 surveys (* in first column indicates surveys on the surface, all others within the catacomb). Surveys of catacomb galleries include points measured for gallery form and dimensions, and points for gallery features including lamp niches, dog niches, dog mummy remains, dog faunal samples, whole dog mummies, small finds, tomb shafts and chambers, geological features, drawing lines, humidity loggers, soot marks. Survey number & Control point setup

093 - DG42 094 - DG25 095 - DG26 096 - DG26 097 - DG27 098 - DG28 099 - DG24 100 - DG23

Date (yyyy/mm/dd)

2012/04/02 2012/04/03 2012/04/03 2012/04/03 2012/04/04 2012/04/04 2012/04/04 2012/04/04

Control points established

Galleries/features surveyed

Gallery 23 Gallery 37, axial Gallery 13 Gallery 13 Gallery 36, axial Gallery 14, axial, humidity logger Gallery 12, axial Gallery 38, axial

29

ඌඎඋඏൾඒංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻඌඈൿൺඇඎൻංඌ

Table 3.3 (cont.): 2012 surveys (* in first column indicates surveys on the surface, all others within the catacomb). Surveys of catacomb galleries include points measured for gallery form and dimensions, and points for gallery features including lamp niches, dog niches, dog mummy remains, dog faunal samples, whole dog mummies, small finds, tomb shafts and chambers, geological features, drawing lines, humidity loggers, soot marks. Survey number & Control point setup

101 - DG22 102 - DG35 103 - DG50 104 - DG35 105 - DG43 106 - DG34 107 - DG45 108 - DG46 109 - DG21 110 - DG34 111 - DG33 112 - DG32 113 - DG30 114 - DG3*

115 - DG1* 116 117 - T1* 118 - DG51*

Date (yyyy/mm/dd)

2012/04/04 2012/04/05 2012/04/05 2012/04/05 2012/04/07 2012/04/07 2012/04/07 2012/04/07 2012/04/07 2012/04/08 2012/04/08 2012/04/09 2012/04/09

Control points established

DG50

2012/04/10 2012/04/10

2012/04/11

DG51 on surface

2012/04/11

119 - DG31 120 - DG29 121 - DG20 122 - DG19 123 - DG18 124 - DG8

2012/04/11 2012/04/12 2012/04/12 2012/04/12 2012/04/12 2012/04/14

125 - DG11

2012/04/14

126 - DG13 127 - DG17 128 - DG16 129 - DG16 130 - DG3*

2012/04/14 2012/04/14 2012/04/15 2012/04/15 2012/04/19

DG52 on surface

131 - DG52*

2012/04/19

DG53 on surface

132 - DG53*

2012/04/19

Galleries/features surveyed

Gallery 11, axial Gallery 20 Gallery 20 Gallery 29, axial Gallery 29 Gallery 19, axial Gallery 35 Gallery 35 Gallery 39 Gallery 30 Galleries 18, 31, axial Galleries 17, 32, axial Galleries 16, 33 Surface features near catacomb entrance (garden posts, stones, covering, ‘collapse hole’ above gallery 46) Surface features (‘collapse hole’ between dog catacombs, stone slab, tomb shaft in gallery 17 at surface) Abandoned Surface features at Sacred Animal Necropolis (tomb shafts, Hetep Ka tomb, Falcons tomb shaft, North Ibis tomb shafts, Temple Terrace steps, Falcons entrance) Gallery 16, axial Galleries 15, 34, axial, small find Gallery 10, axial, small finds Gallery 40, axial Gallery 9, axial Galleries 2, 3, 4, 5 Galleries 4, 5, passage between galleries 5 & 6 Gallery 5, axial Gallery 8, fossilised sirenian, axial Gallery 7, axial, humidity logger Gallery 6, axial Red brick wall in garden – possible small dog catacomb entrance marker Red brick wall by house – possible small dog catacomb entrance marker

30

ඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌൺඇൽඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 3.5: The pile of dog mummy remains in gallery 30. The spalled rock fragments are typical of the galleries. The scale bar is 1m long.

Fig. 3.6: A truncated tomb shaft outside gallery 12. Beneath the shaft is a rubble construction presumably used by robbers to gain entry to the catacomb via the shaft. All such shafts were recorded in the survey.

Fig. 3.7: Dr Steve Mills surveying on the surface above the catacomb. This allowed the location of those depressions in the ground which mainly relate to infilled tomb shafts which are clearly visible in the catacomb.

ඌඎඋඏൾඒංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻඌඈൿൺඇඎൻංඌ a series of points along the upper surface and to then calculate an average height: one measurement of height would VX൶FH For tomb shaft and chamber intersections with the axial corridor and side galleries a series of points were surveyed as necessary to define the features (Fig. 3.6). This included points at the left and right of the base and tops of chamber intersections; where possible points were surveyed to fix the depth of chambers into the gallery walls and their form. For tomb shafts intersecting with the roofs of galleries the corners were surveyed. Some chambers and shafts were partially accessible with caution and where this was the case their interior dimensions and form were surveyed with the Leica DISTO and/or with compass and tape. Other features surveyed in 2010 were: the steps down into the catacomb from the modern entrance; the step cut at the back of gallery 43 which appears to be where the original gallery excavation was not completed to floor level; and the remains of entrance blockings between the axial corridor and side galleries where present (galleries 7, 21, 38, 40). 2012 surveys The surveys during the 2012 season continued the task of fixing the locations of features within the catacomb that had commenced in 2010. Much of the survey focussed on recording the locations of the many lamp niches within the catacomb. In addition to the range of features surveyed in 2010, some additional feature types were included in 2012. These were: locations of drawing lines for plan and section drawings, a geological feature running along the walls of the axial corridor, the locations of humidity loggers, the locations of soot marks, and the fossilised Sirenian bones (gallery 8, see Appendix). The procedures for surveying features were as outlined above for previous years. The following feature types were surveyed with single points to fix their locations: the positions of humidity loggers, the locations of soot marks, and the centre point of the group of fossilised Sirenian bones. For the drawing lines a point was surveyed at each end. For the geological feature running along the axial corridor single centre points were surveyed to fix its position on the walls where it occurred between side gallery entrances.

31

Surface surveys 2009-2012 In addition to the initial survey set-up on the surface in 2009, over the three fieldwork seasons the work also included the survey of features immediately around and above the Dog Catacombs (Fig. 3.7). This enabled below ground features to be spatially related to features on the surface. Tables 3.1 - 3.3 include basic details of the surveys on the surface. In 2009 the surveys on the surface established the main surface control points as outlined above and fixed the location of the Ghafir’s hut on the surface above the catacomb. In addition, the line of the small wall (labelled wall A in Fig. 3.8) on the escarpment edge immediately behind and to the west of the Chief Inspector’s/Architect’s house was surveyed. The surveys on the surface in 2010 included the outline of the structure above the modern entrance to the larger catacomb and the garden wall of the Architect’s house on the escarpment edge to the immediate north and east of the catacomb. A tomb shaft further down the escarpment to the east of the catacomb was surveyed as well as the line of the retaining wall at the base of the escarpment. Four transects were surveyed from the top of the escarpment heading east down to the retaining wall at the base of the escarpment to provide a topographic profile of the escarpment. Two spot heights recorded the elevation of the garden of the Architect’s house. The edge of the rock face immediately to the west of and at the base of Architect’s house garden was surveyed, as was the top of the same rock face delineating the top edge of the escarpment. On the plateau, the surveys on the surface in 2010 included the locations of three of the tomb shafts that cut down and intersect with the larger catacomb (see below about establishing GPS coordinates of the same tomb shafts at surface so their location could be easily found in case of emergency, also Chapter 1). The west end of the axial corridor and of two of the longest side galleries to the north (gallery 20) and south (gallery 31) were surveyed and marked at surface to provide a sense of the size of the catacomb on the surface. A series of points were surveyed along the centres of two modern dirt tracks to indicate their orientation and to identify which parts of the larger catacomb they pass over. The outline of a surface depression was surveyed to establish which part of the larger catacomb it is above. This

3306850

3306800

3306750

3306700

328150

328150

328200

Mastaba of Horus Qa-a S3505

R10 bench mark

328200

Stone slab

328250

328300

328300

Emery house

Collapse hole

328350

0

50

328350

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

Metres 25

Catacomb

Vehicle tracks

Surface depression

Spoil heap

Rock edge

Red brick wall

Escarpment wall

Asbestos covering

Tombs shafts at surface

Small dog catacomb based on de Morgan plan

Architect's house

Garden wall

Tomb

Garden posts

Wall A

Ghafir's hut

Mastaba of Den S3506

Entrance

Collapse hole

328250

Fig. 3.8: The Dog Catacombs in relation to modern and ancient surface features. The smaller catacomb is based on information from the de Morgan (1897) plan only and has not been re-surveyed. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

328100

328100

3306850 3306800 3306750 3306700

32 ඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌൺඇൽඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

ඌඎඋඏൾඒංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻඌඈൿൺඇඎൻංඌ confirmed that it is above the tomb shaft and chamber at the end of gallery 19. The mastaba of Horus Qa-a S3505 immediately above the eastern end of the larger catacomb was surveyed in outline (Fig. 3.8). Another mastaba (that of Den: S3506) immediately to the south of the larger catacomb and likely above part of the smaller catacomb, was also surveyed. Outlines of the tops and bottoms of spoil heaps immediately above the larger catacomb were surveyed. Additional features surveyed include a tomb shaft cap in the area between the two catacombs, the ends of the northern wall of the Emery house and the partially damaged R10 bench mark 25m to the north of the larger catacomb. The surveys on the surface in 2012 added additional features in the garden of the Architect’s house, including the location of two metal posts, a line of stones, an asbestos covering (possibly over a collapse hole), and a small collapse hole above gallery 46 of the larger catacomb. The location of another collapse hole identified in the area between the two catacombs was also surveyed, along with a large stone slab in the same area which may be a capping for a further such hole. The location of other tomb shafts that intersect with the larger catacomb that had not previously been surveyed at surface were added. To better spatially relate the dog catacombs to other animal cult features on the plateau the 2012 surface survey extended west over to the Sacred Animal Necropolis (SAN). With the total station set-up at T1, a new surface control point, DG51, was established as close as possible to the SAN. This is a distance of some 740m from the larger dog catacomb control point DG1 (if a straight line of sight were possible between the two). The corners of the tomb of Hetep Ka (tomb S3509; Martin 1979) were surveyed, along with the corners of another five tomb shafts in its immediate vicinity (two shafts of Sehy S3508, two shafts of Kasinebef S3510 and one shaft over Ibis Catacomb gallery 20). A shaft leading down to the Falcon Catacomb was surveyed. Further north, the corners visible from DG51 of two tomb shaft entrances to the North Ibis Catacomb were included along with a lamp pole at the western end of the promontory within which the North Ibis Catacomb is located. Moving to the Temple Terrace area, a series of points along the north, central and south steps were surveyed along with two points fixing the location of the entrance to the Falcon Catacomb.

33

Finally, the surface survey included points locating the line of a red brick wall on the southeast side of the garden of the Architect’s house (Fig. 5.7) that may indicate an entrance to the smaller Dog Catacomb, and the line of another red brick wall immediately to the south of the house that may mark another possible entrance to the small Dog Catacomb. Both walls appear to align with the location of the small Dog Catacomb as represented on the de Morgan plan georeferenced in the project GIS. Tomb shafts at the surface For safety reasons, a hand-held GPS was used to record (and store as waypoints) the WGS84 coordinates at the surface of a number of tomb shafts that cut down and intersect with the larger catacomb. In the event that the entrance now used to gain access to the catacomb became blocked then the tomb shafts could be used for exit in an emergency (Chapter 1). The tomb shafts selected (TS1-3) were those that were potentially easiest to access from within the catacomb: TS1 along the man axial corridor opposite gallery 12; TS2 in gallery 19; and TS3 in gallery 21 (see Fig. 1.3). Use of GIS and creating survey plans The project used ESRI’s ArcGIS suite of applications (principally ArcMap) licensed through &DUGL൵University (ArcGIS version 9.2 and later versions 10.1, 10.2 and 10.5). As discussed above, the MHR 1978 map sheet number H22 was used as the base mapping for the project and the GIS was set to use the MHR 1978 coordinate system. Other forms of mapping added to the GIS to help with locating archaeological and topographic features, and to better understand/visualise how the landscape of the Saqqara plateau has transformed in recent times, were: 1) scanned and georectified version of the de Morgan 1897 plan of Saqqara (Carte de la Nécropole Memphite, 10); 2) scanned and georectified version of the Hodges map of the Sacred Animal Necropolis. This map was compiled from earlier sources, notably that by Lauer (1976) by Joanne Hodges; 3) scanned and georectified version of the Ago et al. (2003) map covering the area of the dog catacombs;

34

ඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌൺඇൽඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

4) scanned and georectified copy of an aerial photograph of North Saqqara (provenance unknown, dated c.1929. Numbered 3044); and 5) modern satellite imagery made available online by ESRI for use in GIS (Imagery World 2D consisting of NASA Blue Marble and eSAT imagery). Data for each survey were downloaded from the Leica total station in the GSI-16 (Geo Serial Interface 16 character) data format. Each GSI data file was then opened in Microsoft Excel and the data cleaned (removal of extraneous characters and numbers) and column/field headers added according to the variables recorded (point number, feature code, easting (X), northing (Y), height (Z) etc.). The procedure enabled the total station data downloaded from each survey to be converted and arranged in a format (.xls file) suitable for import to the project GIS. In this way a spreadsheet file for each survey was imported to the project GIS and the surveyed points displayed in the map space using their easting (X) and northing (Y) coordinates in the MHR 1978 coordinate system. Once satisfied that points were displaying in their correct locations, the data from each spreadsheet was converted into an ESRI point shapefile (the ESRI vector file format) such that each of the 132 surveys had a corresponding point shapefile. All data recorded in the total station for each surveyed point was migrated as attribute data into the point shapefiles making it available for manipulation as required in the GIS (point number, feature code, easting (X), northing (Y), height (Z), angle (from grid north), horizontal distance, VWD൵ height, instrument height, prism type (mini, reflectorless), zero-set angle, indication if backsight or foresight, remarks, date, total station position, ID of surveyors). The process of importing survey data and creating point shapefiles took place on a daily basis while at site immediately after each day’s surveying. This enabled the data to be checked in the GIS while there was still an opportunity to resurvey points if any errors or anomalies were detected. It also enabled the results of the catacomb survey to be appreciated while still near the site and a representation of the outline of the catacomb to be visualised as the survey developed. This procedure of updating the project GIS with the most recently

surveyed data on a daily basis continued across all three fieldwork seasons. Once the point shapefiles were created and made available for use in the GIS they were queried to identify and select those surveyed points that provide the outline structure of the larger dog catacomb. These points were then used as nodes to create a line shapefile representing the forms, orientations and dimensions of the axial corridor and side galleries – essentially a process of joining the dots. The line shapefile of the outline of the larger dog catacomb was updated regularly during each and across all fieldwork seasons until its total surveyed form was completed during the 2012 season. As mentioned above, in some places it was not possible to use the total station to survey sections of side galleries and other features, and instead the Leica DISTO or compass and tape were used. The positional data gathered from the Leica DISTO and compass and tape surveys were used to fill in the relevant gaps in the total station survey and combined and stored in a sepaUDWHOLQHVKDSH¿OH+DYLQJWKHGDWDIURPGL൵HUHQWIRUPV of survey stored in separate shapefiles was deemed appropriate to clearly distinguish between total station, and Leica DISTO and compass and tape data collection methods. Due to access restrictions resulting from collapse and for safety reasons it was not possible to complete surveys, or to survey at all, within some side galleries (the southern ends of galleries 27 and 28, all of galleries 44, 45 and 49, and the very eastern end of the axial corridor east of gallery 2a). A line shapefile was produced in the GIS with lines added to show the likely orientation of the walls of these areas of the catacomb beyond the points where it had been possible to see and to survey. These lines are therefore for indicative purposes only and are not based on survey data. The combination of the three line shapefiles (1) total station survey, (2) Leica DISTO and compass and tape, and (3) indicative in non-surveyed areas provides the representation of the structure of the larger dog catacomb used in figures in this publication (Fig. 3.9). Based on the georectified version of the de Morgan (1897) plan, a polygon shapefile version of his plan of the Dog Catacombs was created for use in the GIS to

3306800

3306750

3306700

328100

21

24

18

25

19

328150

26

27 28

16

29

15

30

14

13

31

33

34

12

11

10

32

37

8

328200

36

9

328200

38

7

35

39

6

40

5

41

2

42

4

3

43

44

1

0

46

Metres 20

40

de Morgan plan

Non-surveyed indicative

Compass & tape or Disto

Total station survey

small dog catacomb

328300

328300

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

2a

47

49

328250

45

48

328250

Fig. 3.9: The final version of the new plan of the catacomb overlaid on that by de Morgan (1897) shown in grey. Where galleries are shown as indicative and have no end shown their length is unknown. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

23

22

20

17

328150

3306800 3306750 3306700

328100

ඌඎඋඏൾඒංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻඌඈൿൺඇඎൻංඌ 35

3306800

3306750

3306700

23

22

328100

21

20

328100

25

19

328150

26

27 28

16

29

15

30

14

13

31

33

34

12

11

10

32

37

8

328200

36

9

328200

38

7

35

39

6

40

5

41

2

42

4

3

43

44

1

0

46

Metres 25

Tombs

Faunal remains

Dog niches

Samples

Dog mummies

Lamp niches

Offering niches

Drawing lines

Humidity loggers

Soot marks

Small finds

Sirenian

328300

50

328300

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

2a

47

49

328250

45

48

328250

Fig. 3.10: Master plan of the Catacomb showing all GIS feature layers activated. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

24

18

17

328150

3306800 3306750 3306700

36 ඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌൺඇൽඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

ඌඎඋඏൾඒංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻඌඈൿൺඇඎൻංඌ enable comparison with our survey results. A polygon shapefile of some surviving modern buildings near the Dog Catacombs as shown on the MHR 1978 was also created for use in the GIS (representing the location of the Architect’s house and the Emery house). Queries run on the survey point shapefiles enabled those points locating the various features (e.g. dog niches, lamp niches, sample locations) within the catacomb, and on the surface, to be selected and exported into or used to create new separate shapefiles so that they can be visualised as separate layers. Depending on how the features were surveyed, the relevant survey points were exported into or used to create new point, line or polygon shapefiles as appropriate and as detailed below. Features represented as point shapefiles: surface control points, catacomb control points, faunal samples, lamp niches, complete dog mummies, small finds, drawing lines, geological features, humidity loggers, soot marks, fossilised Sirenian bones, tomb shafts at surface.

37

Features represented in line shapefiles: dog niches, catacomb entrance steps, step cut in gallery 43, gallery entrance blockings, walls (around the Architect’s house), mastabas, Ghafir’s hut, larger dog catacomb entrance structure, escarpment retaining wall, tomb on escarpment, vehicle tracks, spoil heaps, collapse holes and surface depressions, features at the SAN, red brick wall small Dog Catacomb marker. Features represented in polygon shapefiles: remaining dog mummy piles, tomb shafts and chambers in the catacomb. Activating these GL൵HUHQW shapefile layers individually or in combination within the GIS enables spatial relationships of features within and between them to be visualised and investigated (Fig. 3.10). It also enables plans of the catacomb and its associated features, based on the survey and in relation to the base mapping to be generated showing the various feature layers as and when required. Such plans are included throughout this publication and have appeared in previous publications (e.g. Nicholson et al. 2015; Ikram et al. 2013).

CHAPTER 4

CREATING THE CATACOMB Paul T. NICHOLSON with John P. HARRISON

Introduction

Cutting the Catacomb

Although Egyptologists have paid some attention to the building of temples and to the manufacture of sculpture, very little attention has been paid to the means by which the animal catacombs were excavated. In part, this lack of attention may stem from the view that construction must have been undertaken in the same way as for a tomb1 and that it was therefore a straightforward process. However, work on a structure as large as the Dog Catacomb described in this volume requires some less common problems to be addressed.

The selection of the location for cutting the two Dog Catacombs at Saqqara was probably determined in relation to the Anubieion temple. It is not known whether an earlier structure predated that examined by -H൵UH\V and Smith (1988) but it is possible that the locale was already sacred to Anubis at the time of the construction of the first catacomb. Although it has not been possible to gain access to the smaller, more southerly, of the Dog Catacombs, it is assumed here that it was the earlier one. This assumption is made because of its smaller size. It is also slightly closer to the Anubieion than is the larger catacomb. It has therefore been assumed that the larger catacomb replaced the smaller as the importance of the cult of Anubis expanded, probably at the same time as an expansion of the other animal cults (see below). Jacques de Morgan (1897) in his chronological key for his Carte of the necropolis colour codes each monument according to its presumed date. The coding for the Dog Catacombs shows that he believed them to belong to the New Kingdom, though on what basis is not clear. Whilst we now know that there is no evidence for the larger catacomb being of this date it is possible that de Morgan was aware of something in the smaller one which led him to this early dating. If so, then it might be supposed that a temple of New Kingdom date existed nearby, perhaps demolished when the present one was constructed, and that the site of the catacombs was made as near as was feasible to this monument, though there is at present no evidence for this. Those who were responsible for cutting the catacombs, referred to here as stone-cutters, would already have been familiar with the geology of the Saqqara

The Geology The animal catacombs are cut into the upper calcareous beds of the Saqqara member of the Lower Eocene Maadi formation (Youssef et al. 1984), which at this locality dip slightly to the west. This member forms the bulk of the Saqqara Abu Sir plateau, and consists of alternating light yellow limestones and weaker yellow marls (Fig. 4.1). These rocks are thought to have formed in a lagoonal environment in a shallow sea sheltered by many islands (Gingerich 1992; Peters et al. 2009; Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). The marl beds contain many late diagenetic gypsum veins (Peters et al. 2009), the presence of which is significant for the catacomb itself, as outlined below. The Saqqara member is overlain on the plateau’s east side by the early Pleistocene Idfu (or Edfu) Gravels (Youssef et al. 1984; Said 1981). These rocks have not previously been recorded as containing any vertebrate fossils. However, during the work of the Catacombs of Anubis project, a fossil Sirenian was discovered in the roof of Gallery 8 (see below and Appendix).

์

Though the cutting of tombs themselves requires further study.

40

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ Plateau. Tombs had been cut into the rock of the plateau for centuries and there can be little doubt that these workmen had been involved in the construction of tombs and catacombs on previous occasions (see also Davey 2001-2). Construction Phases

Fig. 4.1: The entrance to the Dog Catacomb. Showing exposed rhythmic sequence of limestone (white) and marl (yellow) beds forming the catacomb roof. Note white gypsum veins in the marl. The width of the door way seen at bottom centre is c.0.75m.

Overall, the catacomb follows the dip of the bedding (i.e. down to the west), with the roof being formed throughout from one particularly thick and strong bed of limestone. As the roof follows the dip of the beds, the elevation of the catacomb reduces as one goes further from the entrance, changing from 45.13m above sea level near the entrance steps to 41.03m at the extreme western end of the axial aisle. The significantly weaker marl bed beneath this limestone is the material in which the catacomb has been excavated. Subhorizontal gypsum veins that follow the bedding are used to form lintels and sills to various niches, as noted in Chapter 5. There is no inscriptional evidence that might assist in the phasing of the catacomb (see below), therefore phases can be suggested only on the basis of a study of its architecture and construction techniques. The phasing of the catacomb also depends on the assumption that the parts nearest to the entrance, namely the easternmost galleries, were the earliest to be constructed and that it is likely that they were the ones which were first filled with mummified remains. Given these assumptions it was clear from early in the project that two broad phases could be distinguished, namely those galleries on the east as far as gallery 15/16 and 33 (see below) and those to the west from 16 to 24 and 32 to 25. However, arguments can be made for a somewhat more refined chronology as set out below. The proposed phases are shown in Figure 4.2.

3306800

3306750

3306700

23

22

328100

21

20

24

18

25

17

328150

26

27 28

29

15

30

14

13

31

33

34

12

36

9

32

37

38

7

35

39

6

40

5

41

328200

1

49

2a

47 46

328250

0

40

328300

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

Metres 20

328300

Phase lines

Phase 1a: galleries short, neatly finished, parallel; mouths regularly staggered and perpendicular to Axial

43

44

45

48

328250

Phase 1b: as 1a but no deviation along gallery length and parallelism not so obvious

2

42

4

3

Phase 2: galleries long, irregular in width and direction, cut surface not well finished, mouths not staggered along Axial. Phase 1b G16 & G35 extended in Phase 2?

11

10

8

328200

Figure 4.2: Phase plan of the catacomb. (Base plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

19

16

328150

3306800 3306750 3306700

328100

ർඋൾൺඍංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ 41

42

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Phase 1a This first phase marks the beginning of the construction of the catacomb. It may be that the entrance to the larger Dog Catacomb (and perhaps also the smaller, which is currently inaccessible) was enlarged from an extant tomb chamber or rock-cut chapel. If so, the construction of the wide axial aisle has cut most of this away, making it GL൶FXOW to identify an original structure.2 This phase involved the cutting of the axial aisle at least as far as G9 on the north side and G39 on the south. This same phase would have involved the incorporation into the monument of existing tomb chambers, which would become galleries G2a, G46, G47 and G48. The practice of modifying existing tomb chambers and of incorporating them into animal catacombs is well known from Saqqara, as has been attested at the Falcon Catacomb (e.g. Davies and Smith 2005, 21). This larger Dog Catacomb comprises an axial corridor approximately 173m long from which open, on either side, a series of shorter tunnels, the longest of which is about 65m. It can be suggested that the initial work comprised the cutting of the axial aisle as far as Gallery 39. This gallery appears to mark the end of the first phase of the work and once it was cut the side galleries could be begun. For the Cow Galleries, Davey (2001-2, 18) suggests that the main passage was extended only when necessary for additional burials. This practice may apply to the Dog Catacomb too, though the uniformity of the galleries in this first phase and the large numbers of animals which were (presumably) deposited regularly may have meant that the first phase was constructed either in one event or a series of very closely spaced events. These first galleries, 2-9 on the north and 49-39 on the south, probably all began as galleries of similar length (c.24m). Each of the galleries in this phase of the larger catacomb is roughly three times the length of that recorded by de Morgan (1897) for the smaller one,

ํ

There is a large volume of drift sand in this area, and the Saqqara inspectorate asked that this not be removed during the work, since it would open up the original entrance at a time when security considerations in Egypt were paramount following the Revolution of 2011.

and it is clear that those galleries in the second phase of the larger catacomb were made still more extensive (below).3 The increasing size of galleries over time is believed to represent the gradual expansion of the cult. The galleries in phase 1a have their mouths perpendicular to the axial aisle, though the rear of the gallery is angled. This is particularly clear in galleries 5-8. The reason for this angling of the gallery is uncertain as it does not seem to have anything to do with geology or topography. On the south side, there is an area of major collapse in galleries G49-44, possibly because of their proximity to the escarpment edge. Gallery G43 (below) was left unfinished, perhaps for the same reason or due to an awareness that there was a danger of breaking through into the smaller dog catacomb. The workers who cut the first phase galleries seem to have been well aware of the need to µR൵VHW¶ the entrances so that there was not a long, uninterrupted – and completely unsupported – expanse of roof running from the north end of a burial gallery, across the axial, to the south end of another. Instead, the galleries are staggered such that, as one leaves a burial gallery one faces the blank wall at the other side of the axial. The need to reduce the extent of an unsupported roof in order to maximise its strength is well known to geotechnical and mining engineers of today. Phase 1b This phase can be traced from gallery G10 to gallery G16 on the north side and G38 to G33 on the south. The galleries here are of similar length to those of Phase 1a but are less angled and not so obviously parallel to one another. The mouths of the galleries on either side of the axial are R൵VHWone from another so avoiding large unsupported spans of roof. There are, however, some possible anomalies here. Gallery G16 on the north side appears to have been cut to the standard length and pattern before being

๎

Since we have not had access to the smaller catacomb it has not been possible to check that the de Morgan plan is reliable and as such the view that the galleries in Phase I of the larger catacomb are three times longer than in the smaller must be regarded as preliminary.

ർඋൾൺඍංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ extended. If we are correct in our view of the development of the catacomb, then this would have been the last gallery constructed on the north side in Phase 1. On the south side G35 is much longer than the others and also appears to have been extended. The extension is not kept to the same alignment as the original cutting. It is possible that after the north side had been filled as far as G15, it was realised that more space was needed, and so G16 was extended and similar work began on G35 before a decision was taken to extend the whole catacomb. That galleries G34 and G33 were not extended, may be because the workmen were aware that these galleries were so close together that a break would occur if any extension was attempted. The fact that these galleries were not extended may have hastened the decision to begin an entirely new second phase. When G32 was cut in Phase 2 there was a break-through into G33 leading to some collapse and requiring a marked turn in the line of the gallery. The fact that it was possible to extend G16 and G35 suggests that they were not filled, therefore suggesting that galleries were indeed cut in advance of need. Phase 2 The second phase of cutting the catacomb may have begun with the lengthening of G16 on the north side. Here, a gallery that was of the normal length of c.24m in Phase 1, seems to have been extended to approximately twice that length. The tunnelling of the extension is less straight than the original part of the gallery and might suggest that this was work carried out by a new gang of workmen, perhaps some decades or more after the original cutting. The work carried out in this second phase of construction seems at first sight to have been less skilled than the first, with many of these longer, phase 2, tunnels slightly meandering and often colliding as, for example, G17/18, G21/22 and G29/30. Whilst there are

๏

Only the larger of the two catacombs can be considered here since the smaller is currently inaccessible.

43

breaks between tunnels in the first phase, they are rare and relatively minor, and even a casual glance at the plan of the catacomb reveals that the second phase is much less regular and less ordered than the first. Additionally, the galleries of this SKDVHDUHQRWXVXDOO\R൵VHW across the axial aisle, leaving an area of unsupported roof of about 5m across at the entrances to opposing galleries, and galleries 20 and 29 displaying a combined length of about 140m. However, the workmen of this second phase are likely to have been just as familiar with the cutting of tombs as those of the first, so the apparently less skilful tunnelling may have another cause. Perhaps there was pressure to complete the work quickly rather than carefully and this might reflect either alterations in the hiring/remunerating of stone-cutters or a change in the rate at which burials were being made (or perhaps both factors simultaneously). It does appear that we see the galleries of Phase 1 as being three times longer than those of the smaller catacomb whilst the Phase 2 galleries are two or three times the length of those in Phase 1. At the very end of the catacomb, the axial aisle continues for a few metres beyond G25, as if in readiness for further expansion, while G24 (a very short gallery on the north side) appears to have been started, but never completed. The point in time when these two galleries were cut may mark the chronological end of the cult of Anubis at Saqqara. Dating the phases Assigning dates to the Dog Catacomb4 and to the individual galleries within it is, for the most part, very uncertain. There is currently only one radiocarbon date5 available and though this is useful undue weight should not be given to a single date. The radiocarbon date comes from bone found in the unfinished gallery 43 (above) and yields a conventional age of 2160±37 BP which if calibrated to 2Ʃ is cal BC

๐

We are grateful to the MSA for permissions to carry out this work.

44

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

359-271, or 263-94, placing it either at the very end of the Late Period into the Ptolemaic era or firmly within the Ptolemaic period. The wooden figurines found in gallery 43 are conventionally stylistically dated to the Late Period (see Chapter 7), but like many of the bronzes from the Sacred Animal Necropolis such finds have not normally been recorded in secure context and could be somewhat later in date. Certainly a date into the Ptolemaic era would not be problematic. A wooden FR൶Qfrom niche 5b, a location close to the entrance of the catacomb in the area ascribed Phase 1a has been dated by Killen to the Ptolemaic-Roman era (Chapter 7). This raises some interesting possibilities. If we are correct in believing the galleries to have been filled from east to west then the FR൶Qshould be an early placement which might in turn suggest that the whole monument should be dated to the Ptolemaic period, perhaps extending to the Roman era. The possibility that the catacomb was filled from west to east, so that the FR൶Q represents a very late deposit should also be considered. However, if this was so the shorter eastern galleries would suggest that the cult shrank over time and given the cult’s importance to the economy (see Chapter 8, also Ikram 2015e) one might (perhaps cynically) expect that it would be maintained at a large scale for as long as possible. Furthermore, if the cult were in decline it seems unlikely that the stone-cutters would take the trouble to remodel old tomb chambers near the entrance and to incorporate them into the structure, whereas they would be both obvious and quick to adapt at the start of the construction process. A plausible explanation for a FR൶Qlocated near the entrance but which could be as late as the Roman period is provided by von den Driesch et al. (2005, 218) in considering some of the mummies from Tuna el-Gebel. She found that some had been rewrapped in later times, the priests having found them damaged. A re-burying of earlier remains, particularly of an animal considered in some way special and therefore worthy of a burial niche might well explain this potentially ‘late’ burial near to the entrance of the cata-

comb. It is the only FR൶Qof this construction type to have been found in the catacomb and no FR൶QVhave been found in those niches that are preserved in almost pristine condition.6 Taking the dating evidence as a whole, however, it may be that the whole catacomb belongs to the Ptolemaic era, or begins right at the end of the Late Period and ceases to function early in the Roman period.

The fragmentary remains of other FR൶QV from niches are known, but they are from niches which have already been fully

opened rather than from those which are almost completely sealed.

๑

Construction Methods The method by which the galleries were cut is well illustrated by the incomplete gallery G43. Here it can be seen that the stone cutters have worked from the top of the gallery, cutting out rock for a distance before beginning to cut away another level of blocks until they reached floor level. It would appear that they worked in ‘benches’ of approximately 1m height. This method of working is well known from the construction of tombs such as that of Ay (EA25) at Tell el-Amarna (Davies 1908, Pls. XXII & XXIII) and is discussed by Davey (2001-2) in relation to the Mothers of Apis Catacomb. Davey notes that the evidence of the “excavation process was halted before the completion of full working cycle” and that this is known in mining as a “false end” (Davey 2001-2, 16). Because of the relatively weak nature of the marl, it is likely that the rock excavated would be removed in the form of rubble rather than neatly cut blocks. The rubble would then need to be taken out of the catacomb via the main entrance. This would be a fairly straightforward process in the early stages of cutting the catacomb, but as work proceeded further to the west, the distance would become greater and the task more burdensome. In places the catacomb cuts through the chambers of tomb shafts coming in from the surface and such shafts might have been used as convenient openings through which rubble could be removed to the surface. The shafts would certainly have R൵HUHG some additional light and fresh air to the workers, though it should be noted that none of the animal gal-

ർඋൾൺඍංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ leries are of such depth or size that air circulation would be a problem. When compared to some of the other animal catacombs at Saqqara, the Catacombs of Anubis intersect relatively few shafts. The most obvious is that in the centre of the axial aisle outside G12, while others are to be found toward the western end of the catacomb in some of the galleries cut in the second phase. It may be supposed that experienced stone-cutters, such as those cutting the catacomb, may have known when they were close to breaking into an extant tomb, and may well have deliberately aimed to do so. Where a shaft was already known from indications at the surface it is possible that the stone-cutters deliberately aimed toward it. This may be the case with the shaft outside G12. It is believed that this process is likely in the case of some of the avian catacombs (Nicholson in preparation), though it is generally less apparent at the Dog Catacomb. It is similarly possible that tomb shafts were entered from the surface and that workers tunneled toward the axial aisle, though this is not clear in the Dog Catacomb. That stone-cutters were aware of nearby tombs or other subterranean structures may be witnessed by the fact that G43, which is near to the entrance, was not completed. It is likely that it was known to be close to the smaller Dog Catacomb and that the workmen realised that they might otherwise break into it. If this is so, then it further supports the contention that the smaller catacomb is the earlier of the two. It was stated earlier that no vertebrate fossils were previously known from these strata at Saqqara (see Youssef et al. 1984). However, stone-cutters, whilst cutting G8 of the catacomb, dug through the remains of a large fossil vertebrate, a Sirenian. The fossil was first noted by Qin in the 2009 season and has subsequently been examined by palaeontologists WRRGUX൵ and Voss (this volume Appendix). The discovery raises the interesting question of whether or not the stonecutters were aware of the fossil and whether it might have been of any significance to them.

๒

Bolton Museum, Accession Numbers 1977.345.3.1 and 1977.345.3.2. Many others, without wrappings, are in the collection of the Natural History Museum, London.

45

That the Egyptians were generally aware of fossils is known (Mayor 2001), and sometimes these are wrapped as if to mummify them, as in the case of a couple of examples from Qau el-Kebir.7 However, working in the darkness of the catacomb, the stonecutters may have been unaware of their find or at least of what it represented. The darkness of the catacomb raises the question of lighting and of tools used by the workmen and of their working practices. Lighting would probably have taken the form of ceramic bowls with a flax wick as recorded by Černý (1973b, 44), perhaps with salt added to the oil in order to reduce smoke (Černý 1973b, 54). Strong (2019, 333334) has suggested that animal fats would probably be preferred to vegetable oil as an illuminant in confined spaces as they produce little or no smoke. She also notes that lighting could be in the form of a ‘wick on stick’ (Strong 2019, 326) which would be easily portable and might be easily placed amongst rubble rather than needing a horizontal surface as a pottery lamp might.8 The addition of light from the occasional tomb shaft would no doubt have been very welcome. It is known from the Valley of the Kings that those who were working on the tombs there had a plan of the monument (Černý 1973b, 22) and the same may have been true for the Dog Catacomb, though whether the plan was more than simply the first few galleries with an order to repeat the pattern up to a given number is not known. Rubble would have been removed in baskets, either carried to the entrance or dumped or hauled out via shafts to the surface. Given that small quantities of rubble would eventually be required to construct the low walls across the ends of the galleries it is likely that on completion of the cutting an amount of rubble was left at the entrance of each so that it could be mortared together with mud to form a wall, thus obviating the need to bring in rubble from outside the catacomb. The tools used in the cutting process would probably have been of bronze or iron since the latter was already used to some extent by the Late Period and had become

๓

I am grateful to Meghan Strong for providing this reference in advance of publication. She has also produced a doctoral thesis on the subject of lighting in ancient Egypt (Strong 2018).

46

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

fairly common by Ptolemaic times (Ogden 2000, 166168; Shaw 2012, 122-126). The limestone of the roof is VX൶FLHQWO\ strong that iron tools might well have been used to cut this, but progress would have been slow. The marl of the catacombs is relatively soft, and bronze implements would have been adequate for its working. The tools themselves probably comprised chisels and mallets perhaps used alongside levers when necessary. Davey (2001-2) found no evidence for the use of picks in the Mother of Apis Catacomb and chisels seem to be the most commonly used tool in excavation. Klemm and Klemm (2008) have attempted to use tool marks for dating purposes based on their work at Gebel Silsila and those from the Dog Catacombs compare with their Ptolemaic and Roman examples (Klemm and Klemm 2008, 198-199). Comparison of the tool marks from the catacomb with those shown by Depraetere and Depauw (2009, 54) suggests that the galleries were cut, or perhaps more likely finished, using an iron chisel or punch, which leaves regular grooves on the walls (Fig. 4.3) as noted by the Klemms. Tool marks akin to those of the New Kingdom chisels of Depraetere and Depauw (2009, 54) are known in gallery 30 (Fig. 4.4) but probably belong to a later period and are confined to areas around the lamp niches, which we believe to be much more recent. Most lamp niches are, however, chopped into the wall using an adze-like tool, probably a small turiya as commonly used in agriculture today (Fig. 4.5) and post-date the ritual use of the monument. It is possible that the main cutting was undertaken using such a tool but, if so, all marks from it have been erased, suggesting perhaps that cutting was by means of large chisels, since picks, although known in the Greek world from the 4th century B.C., do not seem to be used in Egypt (Depraetere and Depauw 2009, 53). Bloxam (2010, 4) has suggested that since stone tools are those most commonly found at quarry sites and are known to have been used throughout Egyptian history, as such they may be the most common material for tools used in stone cutting. However, the tool marks at the catacombs suggests that such stone tools were not used here and it may be that the rock is often so weak that it would compact rather than break away were a relatively blunt stone tool used on it as opposed to a sharp metal point. It is known that in the royal tombs the workmen were organized into two gangs, Left and Right, and that, at least in theory, each would be responsible for

the work on their respective sides of the tomb (Černý D%LHUEULHU൵ +RZHYHU, the royal tombs were cut into stronger limestone than is present at Saqqara and required plastering and decorating as part of the process. It is therefore possible that the gangs (if indeed there was more than one) at Saqqara were smaller in number than the teams of 32-48 men suggested by Bierbrier (1982, 27). It may be supposed that the greater part of the gang(s) would be involved in the removal of rubble rather than actively digging and it is suggested here that the whole monument could have been cut by a team of as few as ten in number. In the New Kingdom, at the Valley of the Kings, the metal tools were issued to the workmen from central stores and were re-cast as necessary. The valuable metal was closely monitored and guarded to prevent theft (Bierbrier 1982, 46; Eyre 2013, 244; Romer 1984, 82). Whether such tight control was exercised over those cutting the catacombs at Saqqara is unknown, but since the project would have been overseen by the Priests of the Anubieion, it is not unlikely that a similar system was in place. Mechanical Behaviour of the Maadi formation: Humidity and Conservation Whilst working in the avian catacombs on the west of the plateau in the 1990s, Nicholson noted that the humidity, particularly in the North Ibis Catacomb, appeared to increase over time. He was aware from ethnographic work in the clay mines of Deir el-Gharbi (Nicholson and Patterson 1985) that humidity could be a cause of collapse and in the interests of both safety and the better understanding of the environment of the ancient catacombs, he consulted with Professor John Harrison, then of the Royal School of Mines, Imperial College London and now of the Dept. of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto. In 2009 geologist Ying Qin had identified that parts of the monument were subject to deterioration and continual minor collapse but in the short time available could do no more than record this process whilst undertaking other work for the project. Subsequently Harrison, over two seasons in 2010 and 2012, was able to examine the deterioration of the monument in greater detail. Harrison’s work showed that the marl of the Maadi formation probably contains smectite clay minerals, probably montmorillonite, which is susceptible to both loss of strength and expansion and contraction accord-

ർඋൾൺඍංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 4.3: Tool marks on the walls of gallery 38.

Fig. 4.4: Chisel-type tool marks on the walls of gallery 30.

47

48

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 4.5: Chop-type tool marks at ‘lamp’ niche L6 in gallery 20.

ing to changes in humidity. Similar instability has also been noted at the nearby tomb of Idut (Akarish and Shoeib 2011; see also Ziegler et al. 2019). These changes operate throughout the year leading to the phenomenon known as ‘spalling’ (Fig. 4.6) whereby, usually small, flakes of rock break away from the roof and walls of the catacomb. The evidence of this is particularly noticeable at the bottom of the walls of the axial corridor and, to a slightly lesser extent, in the emptied parts of the burial tunnels. That this is less obvious in the burial tunnels may well be because they do not appear to have been emptied until some time in the 19th or early 20th century A.D. and so might be expected to have undergone less dramatic changes in humidity than those exposed for longer, as the axial aisle appears to have been.9 During the 2012 season, Omega OM-EL-USB2-LCD® relative humidity loggers were placed at intervals along the axial corridor to measure changes in

๔

It is not known whether or not the axial corridor would itself have been used to hold burials. However, on the basis of work in the North Ibis Catacomb it is quite likely that at least part of it served this purpose. At what point these burials, if they

humidity during the season and beyond. It was found that humidity increased toward the rear (west) of the monument with recordings in excess of 90%RH being noted. It is not surprising to find that there were higher levels of humidity the further one went into the catacomb, since the main source of fresh air and greatest circulation was at the east, where there is a modern, secondary, entrance to the site (Chapter 9). Any other sources of fresh air are very minor, resulting from incompletely blocked tomb shafts which were truncated when the Dog Catacomb tunnels were quarried. It seems likely that the presence of the survey team had an H൵HFW on the relative humidity but since they were present for only a few weeks per year and for only a few hours each day, this H൵HFWis unlikely to be significant in terms of the overall deterioration of the site. The data loggers were left in place for a year and confirmed that the presence of the team in the catacomb IRUVKRUWSHULRGVRIWLPHKDGQRVLJQL¿FDQWH൵HFWRQWKH

existed, were removed is not known, though it may have occurred during the ‘industrial’ emptying of the monument (see Chapter 9).

ർඋൾൺඍංඇ඀ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

49

Fig. 4.6: Looking east along the axial aisle from outside gallery 27. Spalled rock can be seen lining the walls where it has fallen from them and from the ceiling. A small amount has been contributed from the dismantling of the low walls which originally sealed the galleries, but most is from natural weathering.

annual relative humidity and therefore would not cause increased deterioration of the catacomb. Additional instability is likely to be due to the presence of the gypsum veins. During the deposition of the Maadi formation, evaporation of seawater would have resulted in the precipitation of gypsum. This would have been dehydrated to anhydrite during subsequent geological burial, and then rehydrated to gypsum upon exhumation. This final stage can lead to a volume increase of up to about 60% (Zanbak & Arthur 1986). This volume change would be restrained by the surrounding rock but once the restraint was released (by, in this case, excavation of the catacomb), the volume change would cause the rock to break. This phenomenon is widely encountered in tunnelling (e.g. Steiner et al. 2010; Alonso et al. ,QWKHFDWDFRPEWKHH൵HFW of such expansion is to fracture and cause deterioration of the rock on the walls of the axial aisle and galleries, and is exacerbated where these adjoin. Once this

unavoidable expansion takes place, humid air will infiltrate the fractures and cause swelling and subsequent spalling of the smectite. What is clear from the work is that any tomb or catacomb cut into the marls of the Maadi formation at Saqqara will have a finite lifespan. Over time the natural spalling of the walls will lead to their weakening and eventual roof collapse. This was demonstrated in 2012 when our colleagues at the SCA showed us an area of collapse immediately south of the Dog Catacomb and north of the Emery house, the former British dig house at Saqqqara10 – and therefore in the general vicinity of the smaller, uninvestigated, Dog Catacomb.11 What had happened here was that a hole about 2.0m in diameter had appeared in the desert surface. Careful investigation revealed that the underlying rock had collapsed leaving a significant void roofed only by the concreted Idfu gravel. Such collapses are well documented at Saqqara, and are monitored by our Egyptian

The house was originally built for Professor W.B. Emery and is known localy as Beit Emery. The precise location of the catacombs on the de Morgan map is inaccurate. The new work has precisely determined the position

of the larger catacomb but this cannot yet be done for the smaller one, as the original entrance is not currently visible, though its approximate location is marked in red brick on the terrace wall beside the SCA Chief Inspector’s house.

10 11

50

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

colleagues. It seems that one cause of their occurrence is likely to be changes in humidity leading to the collapse of tombs and tunnels beneath the desert. The de Morgan Carte (1897) shows a series of tunnels indicated only by dotted lines on the south side of the axial corridor of the large Dog Catacomb, at its eastern end. Our investigation showed that these were in fact areas of massive rock collapse. What is unclear is whether they were caused by over-ambitious stonecutting, earthquakes, or changes in humidity. However,

the location of these galleries at the eastern end of the catacomb where air circulation would always have been greatest might suggest that humidity was not the major cause here. Earthquakes occur infrequently in Egypt but can be significant; the last sizable one in the Saqqara area was that of 1992, but there have been numerous others including one in 1847 (Mekkawi et al. 2007). The date of the major collapses in the Dog Catacomb cannot yet be ascertained with any certainty other than to say that they happened before 1897.

CHAPTER 5

THE CATACOMB Paul T. 1ංർඁඈඅඌඈඇSteve 0ංඅඅඌScott :ංඅඅංൺආඌand Hendrikje 1ඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Introduction Most studies of animal catacombs have hitherto given very little attention to the galleries themselves and yet it is these that make up the monument. Thus, in our opinion, the galleries are of significance and their recording and description should form an important part of the study of the animal cults. This chapter describes the features of the galleries within the larger of the two Dog Catacombs and draws attention to particular features within them. The Galleries The large Dog Catacomb examined here is essentially a single straight corridor, designated as the axial aisle, from which pairs of burial galleries open to the left and right (Fig. 5.1). For practical purposes these galleries were numbered from 1, which is nearest the entrance, to 49 running in an anti-clockwise direction. Thus, G1-24 are on what can be called the north side of the axial aisle whilst G25-49 are on its south, with G46, G47 and G48 being anomalous, as explained below. Galleries G2-G16 and G32-G49 probably belong to the earliest phase of the monument while G16-G24 and G25-G32 belong to the second. The reason why G16 and G32 are mentioned twice is that they seem to have been initially cut during a first phase but then extended during a later one as will be discussed below. Within many of the galleries are a series of niches for burials of animals which seem to have been in some way ‘special’, as well as small niches believed to be for objects. Small niches for lamps1 also occur but are not believed to be contemporary with the monument (see Chapter 9).

์ The term ‘lamp niche’ is used here to designate any feature

where a lamp of some kind has been present. Most of these are

The text below considers several types of niches, the two most common being the ‘dog’ and ‘lamp’ niches. The former are cut deliberately into the gallery walls and originally held a dog burial, they vary considerably in size and depth. Lamp niches (usually marked by soot) are much smaller cuts, where a lamp or candle has at some time been placed. We attempted to determine whether lamp niches might be ancient or modern based on sooting, though felt that this was unreliable and that the sooting might vary according to the type of lamp or fuel used. In addition, a third class of niche has also been identified. This third group are designated as ‘R൵HULQJ niches’ although no actual R൵HULQJV have been found in them. They are usually well cut, small rectangles of VX൶FLHQW size to hold a bronze situla or figurine. They have no sooting and are too small for burials. The fact that they are empty suggests that the contents were of VX൶FLHQW value to make them worth looting. Where no niches are mentioned on a given wall then none have been observed. The catacomb is currently entered via what are believed to be modern steps (Fig. 5.2, 5.3) (see Chapter 9) cut into the rock that bring the visitor into the junction of galleries G1 and G2, in what is the most confusing area of the monument. However, the original access would have been from a main entrance directly on the axial aisle. That entrance is now buried beneath the modern garden associated with the so-called ‘Architect’s’ or ‘Chief Inspector’s’ house (Fig. 5.4) and the project was asked not to remove this garden for security reasons. As a result the original entrance has not been seen by the authors of this work. Nonetheless the description of the catacomb should begin with the axial aisle. Figure 5.5 indicates the relationship of the original entrance to the area currently buried under the garden of the architect’s house.

physical niches but in a few cases only sooting marks remain, possibly because of spalling of stone from the wall.

3306800

3306750

3306700

21

328100

24

18

25

17

19

328150

26

27 28

16

328150

29

15

30

14

13

31

33

34

12

11

10

32

37

8

328200

36

9

328200

38

7

35

39

6

40

5

41

2

42

4

3

43

44

1

0

46

Metres 20

Axial aisle

40

328300

328300

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

2a

47

49

328250

45

48

Modern entrance

328250

Fig. 5.1: Overall plan of the larger of the two Dog Catacombs. Galleries are numbered anti-clockwise from the entrance. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

23

22

20

328100

3306800 3306750 3306700

52 ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.2: Modern steps seen from the top.

Fig. 5.3: Modern steps entering the catacomb into gallery 1, viewed from the junction of gallery 2 with gallery 1.

53

54

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.4: The garden of the ‘Architect’s house’. The entrance to the catacomb is at centre where sand is being cleared from the modern structure which covers the entrance steps.

Escarpment edge

Modern sand level

Axial Gallery

Original entrance Modern retaining wall Ancient sand level

Fig. 5.5: Schematic section of the escarpment showing the original entrance onto the axial aisle buried by the sand of the garden of the modern architect’s house. (Drawing: S. Williams).

3306800

3306750

3306700

23

22

328100

21

20

24

25

19

AX9

328150

26

27 28

AX11

AX10

16

29

30

AX13

AX12

AX8

15

14

13

31

33

11

34

AX14

AX6

12

AX7

10

5

4

32

37

AX

8

328200

36

AX

9

328200

38

7

35

39

6

40

3

AX

41

2 AX

5

2

42

4

3

43

44

1 AX

1

0

46

Metres 25

Tombs

Dog niches

Lamp niches

Offering niches

328300

50

328300

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

2a

47

49

328250

45

48

328250

Fig. 5.6: The catacomb showing the major features of the axial aisle. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

18

17

328150

3306800 3306750 3306700

328100

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ 55

56

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

The Axial Aisle (Fig. 5.6)

The axial aisle is the main route through the monument and would originally have been accessed from an entrance on the east face of the escarpment, to the north of and somewhat below the elevation of the Anubieion temple -H൵UH\Vand Smith 1988), whose north wall is situated some 278m to the south of the entrance (see Chapter 3 Fig. 3.1). The entrance to the axial aisle is currently blocked by sand that was not possible to be removed. The point at which the dromos for the catacomb reaches the escarpment is currently marked for both this and the smaller catacomb by areas of red brick within the otherwise stone retaining wall of the garden of the Architect’s/Chief Inspector’s house (Fig. 5.7). This red brickwork must have been included when the garden wall was built in order to mark the position of the dromos. In describing the features of the axial aisle it should be noted that some areas of the roof are badly cracked and potentially unstable. Examination of these by Professor Harrison, the geotechnical engineer working with the project, concluded that to attempt to shore them up would exacerbate any possible danger and that so long as caution was exercised then transit along the aisle was safe. The axial is very straight and extends for approximately 170m with burial galleries opening R൵it from either side.2 Its width averages c.3.0m and its average height is the same. Measurement of height is GL൶FXOW because of the rubble on the monument’s floor.3 However, the floor level of the axial generally seems to be slightly above that of the burial galleries. If this is a genuine phenomenon, as it appears to be, then it is a

feature shared with the bovid catacombs but not with those of the birds. It is not clear why it should be somewhat elevated. It cannot be because of any desire to pack more mummies into the galleries since it is apparent that they were never filled from floor to roof, but only to a maximum of perhaps 1.50m, the pile now having a depth of 1.0 to 1.1m in most cases. That part of the axial which can be attributed to the first phase of the monument (i.e. as far west as gallery 16) is very well cut with well smoothed walls and sharp 90º corners where they meet the roof, which is itself well finished (Fig. 5.8). It should be noted that the roof as now preserved appears less even than it originally did due to weathering and the loss of surface due to spalling (see Chapter 4). The walls of the aisle VX൵HU from this same weathering problem and all along the axial are small piles of rubble that have fallen from the walls. The sharp corners where a burial gallery opens from the axial are particularly susceptible to such weathering and the corners of some galleries are almost completely detached from the rest of the wall. The later phase of the monument still has a well cut axial, but the profile tends to be more trapezoidal with the roof rather narrower than the floor (Fig. 5.9). However, this may be accentuated due to weathering as the rock in this part is generally weaker and apparently more prone to weathering. Adjacent to G12 the axial roof has cut through an earlier tomb shaft (2.0m west of mastaba S3505 of Horus Qa’a) and chamber, though the cutting of the axial has here obliterated any trace of an original burial chamber. There is, however, evidence of the way in which the catacomb has been entered by robbers, in that a small platform of rubble about 1.50m high has been constructed directly beneath the shaft, enabling robbers to enter and leave more easily (Fig. 5.10). To what period this belongs is uncertain, it may be that it relates to the emptying of the monument in modern times rather than to tomb robbers per se, though its rather haphazard construction and location perhaps

ํ Based on a projection into the current garden of the architect’s

๎ Areas of collapse on the axial aisle mean the height varies con-

Dog niches north wall 11 Dog niches south wall 3 Lamp niches north wall 3 Lamp niches south wall 3 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches north wall 1 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches south wall 2

house. This distance is measured from the point at which sand is blocking what is believed to be the entrance of the axial aisle, where blocking stones are visible. As noted, he original entrance is no longer accessible.

siderably. Three metres appears to have been the original height throughout. Heights of galleries are given as ‘indeterminate’ where they could not be measured with certainty. Often, rubble and debris on the gallery floor means heights are approximate.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ makes this less likely. Had it been for the extraction of mummies in modern times a more substantial structure might have been expected. Whether the shaft was used in the cutting of the catacomb (Chapter 4) is uncertain. It might, however, have been a point known on the surface and for which the stone-cutters aimed, knowing that they would cut through the tomb chamber and so reduce the amount of tunnelling needed, as well as having a convenient shaft through which to remove rubble and gain both natural light and ventilation. The axial aisle ends with a short stretch of only 4m after the point at which G24 and G25 open to either side of it. It is not clear if this extension was planned as a point from which future tunnelling could be resumed or whether it was intended as a short burial gallery, though the former is perhaps the more likely. Cut into the walls of the axial aisle are 14 burial niches, 11 on the north side and 3 on the south. The position of these is of considerable interest. It may be that these contained particularly favoured animals whose burial warranted a location on the main thoroughfare through the monument, in which case they may have been points visited annually as part of the burial rites. It is equally possible that these were animals that required special burial but at a time when the wall space within the burial tunnels was already filled, in which case they must belong to the end of the life of the monument. Their position, however, spread along the length of the catacomb implies that this was not the case: if they were late burials for which no room could be found elsewhere one might expect them to be more clustered than they are. As with niches in the burial galleries they are usually quite low on the walls. In the view of the members of the Catacombs of Anubis Project, these niches contain either animals that for some reason were closely associated with one of the burial galleries but for whatever reason could not be accommodated there or they are special animals for whom axial space was required either through their position or through the rank of the person who donated them, in which case they might be added at GL൵HUHQW times without reference to any particular gallery. It is

57

possible that if the axial aisle was eventually used as a burial gallery and filled, some of these would eventually have been covered by the common pile of mummies. It is known that the North Ibis Catacomb had its axial at least partially filled with vessels (Nicholson 2019; Nicholson in preparation) so the suggestion that the same may be true for the dogs is not an unreasonable one. It is noteworthy that the niches do not extend west beyond G18/19 on the north and G31/32 on the south. This places most of them in the first phases of the catacomb, suggesting that they may be associated mainly with its early development (Fig. 5.11). For clarity, in what follows the galleries are described as though the axial aisle runs due west and the galleries open at north and south. In practice the axial runs north-east to south-west with galleries usually opening at 90º to it, or at least starting that way. In many cases it would have been possible to determine for certain whether blockings were present by removing rubble at the front of the galleries. However, this is a fragile environment and it was felt best to leave it in the condition in which it was found rather than risk environmental changes caused by the need to have numerous workmen removing spoil and causing vibration and dust in so doing. The presence of numerous people in the catacomb is also undesirable for safety reasons (see Chapter 4). Similarly, we could have dug through the mummy piles to check for further burial niches but felt that to do so would cause unnecessary damage. Those galleries judged to be too unsafe for detailed work are indicated as such in what follows. We have used the term ‘gallery’ to mean an excavated space probably intended for animal burials as opposed to spaces that are clearly earlier tomb chambers or shafts. Some of the galleries near the entrance have clearly been re-modelled from tomb chambers but this process has apparently been carried out in order make them suitable for the purposes of the animal cult. The exceptions to this are ‘galleries’ G47 and G48 whose purpose was unclear when numbers were originally assigned to them.

58

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.7: An area of red brick incorporated into the limestone retaining wall of the garden of the ‘Architect’s House’ marks the position and presumed width of the dromos leading to the original entrance of the larger Dog Catacomb. A similar feature marks that for the smaller catacomb. The modern entrance doorway and building for the larger catacomb can be seen immediately left of the metal posts.

Fig. 5.8: Looking west along the axial aisle. Gallery 14 is on the right. Ying Qin is facing gallery 35. Note the neat cutting of the catacomb at this point.

59

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.9: Looking west along the axial aisle. Gallery 18 is on the right and 31 directly opposite on the left. The shape of the axial is more trapezoidal in this area.

Fig. 5.10: Professor John Harrison places a ladder into the shaft descending outside gallery 12. A rubble platform, probably constructed by robbers, is visible beneath the shaft.

Fig. 5.11: Axial niche AX11 is the final niche on the north side of the axial aisle and is located between galleries 18 and 19.

3306820

3306810

3306800

328230

5B 5A

1

4C

1a

48

A 2A

4A

4B

5E

5D

5C

3A

2a

328250

328250

1

47

Axial

Modern entrance

46

328260

328260

0

Fig. 5.12: Plan showing galleries 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 46, 47 and 48. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

328240

4E

AX

4D

328230

6

5

4

3

2

328240

328270

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

Metres 5

Dog niches

Lamp niches

Offering niches

328270

10

3306820 3306810 3306800

60 ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.13: Looking south along gallery 1, it is blocked where it meets the axial aisle. Gallery 46 can be seen at left.

Fig. 5.14: Looking north along gallery 2. Stored pottery can be seen at the back of the gallery.

61

62

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.15: Gallery 2a (right) with gallery 1 and the entrance steps to the left. Note the extensive area of drift sand.

Fig. 5.16: Looking east into gallery 46.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.17: Gallery 47 showing the modern steps to the left.

Fig. 5.18: Gallery 48 is actually a tomb chamber and may have a shaft to the surface opening at the rear (now blocked). It opens from gallery 2.

63

64

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.19: Enlarged area from Jacques de Morgan’s Carte de la Nécropole de la Memphite: Dahchour, Sakkarah, Abou-Sir (1897) showing the dog catacombs.

Fig. 5.20: Looking north along gallery 3. Like other galleries in the forepart of the Catacomb it has been used as storage for antiquities.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ Galleries 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 46, 47 and 48๏ (Fig. 5.12) 1 L: 9.9m W: 3.5m (Fig. 5.3 and 5.13) H: Indeterminate 1a L: 6.3m W: 2.9m Lamp niches east wall: 1 Lamp niches south wall: 2 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches: south wall 2 H: Indeterminate 2 L: 16.1m W: 3.0m (Fig. 5.14). Lamp niches west wall: 2 Lamp niches rear wall: 1 H: Indeterminate 2a L: 6.2m W: 2.9m (Fig. 5.15) Dog niches west wall: 1 H: 1.29m above level of drift sand.๐ 46 L: (min.) 8.4m W: 3.0m (Fig. 5.16) H: Indeterminate 47 L: 3.0m W: 2.7m (Fig. 5.17) H: Indeterminate. 48 L: 3.5m W: 4.0m (Fig. 5.18) H: Indeterminate These galleries have been grouped together as they form a complicated and somewhat anomalous area at the entrance of the catacomb. All are located on the north side of the axial aisle and G1 along with G46, G47 and G48 may represent either the earliest or latest phase of construction of the monument. The same may be true of galleries 2 and 3 and what may be their connecting corridor 1a (Fig. 5.12). There are numerous points in this area where angle changes or well defined corners may be the remains of earlier tomb chambers which have been cut away and remodelled in the cutting of the catacomb. In particular, G46 seems to be a tomb whose entrance is from a courtyard on the escarpment. The clearing of sand at the end of G46 in 2012 led to the opening of a small collapse hole (rousha) on the surface confirming that the rock face of the escarpment had been reached.๑

Gallery 1 (Fig. 5.3) is the largest of this group of galleries and is at a marked oblique angle to the axial and to the other galleries within the catacomb. Its northern end does not open fully toward G2. It is likely that this gallery has been adapted from an earlier burial chamber(s). Its southern end is now blocked by collapse, but originally opened onto the axial aisle (Fig. 5.13). Gallery 2a (Fig. 5.15) is now almost completely blocked where it meets the axial aisle and it is not clear whether it ever had a full-width opening onto it. It is likely to have been a tomb chamber. It is on the same alignment and of similar width to G2, suggesting that these were conceived of as the same burial space, albeit with an untidy area where G1 and G48 meet them. At the time of examination G2 was in use as a storage place for pottery from earlier excavations (Fig. 5.14). There is a considerable amount of rubble from spalling of the walls and roof, perhaps exacerbated in this area by its proximity to the escarpment; it is to be expected that GL൵HUHQFHV in temperature and humidity in this area will be greater than elsewhere in the monument. Gallery 3 (Fig. 5.12 and 5.20) L: 17.2m W: 3.4m H: 3.23m Presence of animal remains: None Dog niches west wall: 1 Total dog niches: 1 Lamp niches east wall: 2 Lamp niches west wall: 4 Total lamp niches: 6 This gallery, like G2, does not meet the axial aisle, rather it is fitted somewhat awkwardly between G2 and G4, though it does connect with G1a which may be a ‘proto-axial’. It has a slight angle change towards the

๏ Where galleries are irregular, maximum lengths and widths are ๐

given. Gallery heights are the maximum recorded during survey and are indicative of the current height, which may be D൵HFWHGby drift sand, rubble collapse and roof spalling. Where dog remains fill a gallery the height is given from the level of the axial

65

๑

outside the gallery to the roof. Where partially filled, the height is from the gallery floor to the roof. Permission had been granted to clear the sand from this area (now part of the garden of the Architect’s/Chief Inspector’s house). However, following the revolution we were requested not to do so on security grounds, so this did not take place.

66

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

north end while the south end now connects to G4 due to a collapsed separating wall between the two. The break may have been made, or at least enlarged, when the catacomb was being emptied in modern times. The niche 3A is partly blocked, with fragments of plaster visible over the blocking stones. It is close to the rear wall and located high up7 and is approximately 0.5m long. The gallery is currently used for the storage of pottery and other finds from earlier excavations. Gallery 46 (Fig. 5.16) has a narrow entrance opening into a more commodious space, suggesting that it may originally have been a tomb chamber. Modern blocking on its south separates it from the axial corridor. Gallery 47 (Fig. 5.17) exists only as a small break on the east wall next to the modern steps behind the steel door. It is largely sanded up, but is probably another tomb chamber. Gallery 48 (Fig. 5.18) is immediately to the north of the modern steps and opens R൵ G2. It is certainly a small tomb chamber, the bottom part of which has been blocked R൵with mud bricks. Whether it served as part of the Dog Catacomb when in use or was broken through subsequently is unknown. The de Morgan (1897) plan appears to show a narrow corridor with chambers opening from what is probably G48 (see Fig. 5.19) but this is now blocked with sand and was not cleared for security reasons. It is possible that it is an early part of the catacomb and re-used earlier tomb chambers. Overall, this area of the catacomb is an untidy collection of often small areas that have been broken through from one to another. It is likely that this was an area of earlier tombs that were taken over and remodelled by those responsible for cutting the catacomb. This incorporation of earlier tombs is found in other catacombs, notably the falcons (cf. Davies and Smith 2005). The incorporation of these, whilst no doubt deliberate, may be a reflection of the fact that there were already numerous tombs along the escarpment only some of which are currently known, the rest being covered by sand. Whilst their incorporation might have saved some excavation work their re-modelling into something akin to what was intended for the catacomb must have posed a challenge for the builders.

7

Actual heights are not given since in some cases it is not possible to ascertain the original floor level, either because of rubble collapse or because dog remains still fill the gallery.

It is possible that this easternmost group of galleries, apparently re-modelled earlier tomb chambers, was developed before the axial was cut. Gallery 46 might thus have been an original entrance with G1a serving as a kind of proto-axial gallery. Gallery 49 (Fig. 5.21) L: Not known. W: 3.6m (approx.) H: 1.82m minimum (due to collapse) Presence of animal remains: No dog remains visible. Opposite gallery 2a is G49, one of a number of collapsed galleries in this front part of the catacomb. These cannot safely be accessed and details are therefore minimal. The collapse of this gallery along with G44 and G45 may relate to their proximity to the rock face of the escarpment. Gallery 4 (Fig. 5.21 and 5.22) L: 21.0m W: 3.4m H: 2.33m maximum Blocking: Yes Presence of animal remains: Remains in niches only. Dog niches east wall: 3 Dog niches west wall: 2 Total burial niches: 5 Lamp niches east wall: 5 Lamp niches west wall: 1 Total lamp niches: 6 This gallery is broken through into G1a on its east wall and has a break into G5 on the west. There is substantial sooting of the roof at this location. The northern end of the gallery is somewhat turned to the west, perhaps the result of attempting to avoid the neighbouring G3. Where the gallery meets the axial aisle there are the remains of blocking, but this is largely obscured by debris. Of the five burial niches 4A has the best-preserved remains, including a dog skull and the remains of

3306810

3306800

8B

6E

6C 7C

AX

6G

3

6H

7I

6J

6

5B 5A

7E

8A

328240

44

1

AX

4C

1a

45

A 2A

5E

5C

5D

3A

7A

6I 7B

7H

8G

2a

328250

Axial

328250

49

1

47

Modern entrance

Fig. 5.21: Plan showing galleries 4, 5, 6, 44, 45 and 49. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

328230

5

4

48

4A

328220

6F

6B 6A

7G

7D

6D

3

2

328240

4D

3306790

0

Metres 5

Dog niches 10

Offering niches

Lamp niches

Soot marks

328270

328260

328270

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

46

328260

3306810 3306800 3306790

328230

4B

3306780

4E

3306780

328220

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ 67

68

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

mummy bandages adhering together with resin. The other niches contain only powdered remains. Like G3 this is currently used for the storage of finds from earlier excavations, notably pottery. Based on a storage box and other materials it is likely that these come from an excavation of around 1910 (see Chapter 7). Gallery 45 (Fig. 5.21 and 5.23) L: At least 12.3m W: 3.7m H: 2.08m minimum (due to collapse) Presence of animal remains: Unknown Total burial niches: Unknown Total lamp niches: Unknown Located on the south side of the catacomb, the mouth of this gallery faces the wall between G4 and G5. Like its neighbours to either side (G49 and G44) it has collapsed and large blocks of many metres in size, along with rubble, are now obscuring the gallery floor and any mummies that it may once have contained. A burial niche (AX1) (Fig. 5.24) is located in the axial aisle immediately opposite the entrance of G45. Gallery 5 (Fig. 5.21 and 5.25) L: 23.0m W: 4.0m H: 3.18 Blocking: Yes? Presence of animal remains: Remains in niches only. Dog niches east wall: 1 Dog niches west wall: 4 Total burial niches: 5 Lamp niches east wall: 1 Lamp niches west wall: 4 Total lamp niches: 5 Gallery 5 has a break through to G4 on its eastern wall and is connected to G6 by a narrow tunnel that we believe to be modern (see Chapter 9). The tunnel has several lamp niches around and within it, and rubble from its cutting has been dumped across the gallery. In fact this gallery has a considerable amount of rubble along the walls from spalling and from the break into G4. The closed end of gallery 5 curves away from G4, probably because the stone-cutters either broke through

whilst cutting it or realised that they were in danger of doing so. There are five burial niches of which 5B is the best preserved and contains not only the mummified remains of a dog, the head and neck still wrapped, but also fragments of a wooden FR൶Q which has been conserved (Fig. 5.26) (see Chapter 7 and Fig. 7.20). Niche 5E also contains part of a FR൶Qand powdery remains from an animal mummy. The blind end of the gallery has been used for the storage of a collection of human skulls from previous excavations. Gallery 44 (Fig. 5.21 and 5.27) L: At least 14.4m W: 3.7m H: Indeterminate Presence of animal remains: Unknown Total burial niches: Unknown Total lamp niches: Unknown Located on the south side of the catacomb, the mouth of this gallery faces the wall between G5 and G6 and like its eastern neighbours (G45 and G49) is collapsed. Large blocks now lie at the junction of the gallery with the axial, while further back there are small rubble blocks. The potentially unstable roof means that the gallery is not safe to enter, and whether it still contained mummies at the time of the collapse is unknown. Like its neighbours this gallery is known to have collapsed before 1897, as it appears with dotted lines on de Morgan’s Carte (de Morgan 1897). Gallery 6 (Fig. 5.21 and 5.28) L: 22.1m W: 3.4m H: 2.95m Presence of animal remains: None Dog niches east wall: 3 Dog niches west wall: 5 Dog niches rear wall: 2 Total burial niches: 10 Lamp niches east wall: 3 (includes 2 which may be part of later tunnel) Lamp niches west wall: 1 Total lamp niches: 4 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 4

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches west wall: 4 Total µR൵HULQJ¶ niches: 8 This gallery is today entered via the modern tunnel on its east wall. Immediately to the south of the tunnel is a small circular hole in the wall which is about 0.75m deep and slopes into the rock at about 45º. It may have been used to hold something such as a pole on which a lamp was suspended to indicate the way out of the catacomb.8 The gallery is empty of mummies except in the niches, where remains in various states of preservation survive. Some of the niches are still largely intact with most of their blocking stones still in place. The stones are cut from the same rock as the catacomb and so blend in with the walls. As in other galleries the niches often make use of the bands of gypsum within the rock to form a lintel above the niche and sometimes also a sill on its floor. Inserting blocks between these layers further serves to disguise the niche, though whether such disguise was necessary is uncertain since most would have been covered by the common pile of mummies (Fig. 5.29). Gallery 6 also exhibits an interesting phenomenon: a sharp change of angle after c.4.0m from the axial. There seems little need for this, a phenomenon which is also present in G7, G8 and G9 on the north side and in G40-43 on the south (it may also have been present in the collapsed galleries but this cannot now be determined). It is possible that the galleries up to G9 on the north and G40 on the south were originally cut square to the axial and extended only 4-5m in length. In this they would be consistent with the length for the galleries in the smaller Dog Catacomb as recorded by de Morgan (1897).9 If this is so, then it may be that when the new catacomb was begun, the galleries were intended to be of the same length as in the old one, indeed the length of this forepart of the new catacomb as far as G6 is of a similar length as the small cata-

8

The Catacombs of Anubis Project team used red-reflective signs to indicate the route from the axial into gallery 6 and the tunnel for exit. Such indicators are a necessary safety feature in this environment.

69

comb, namely 33.5m here and 38m in the smaller catacomb. Perhaps what gallery 6 indicates is that the new catacomb, the subject of this volume, was originally intended as a like-for-like replacement for the smaller one that was full. In the early stages of its cutting and, after re-modelling the former tomb chambers at the entrance of the catacomb, a decision was made to enlarge it considerably and the galleries which had already been cut were lengthened. The reason for the change of angle however, is not clear, perhaps it was influenced by the peculiar angle of G5. That the stonecutters were capable of making parallel and straight galleries is evidenced elsewhere, so the changed angle here seems significant. It may simply result from hasty workmanship. Alternatively, the positions of the galleries may have been marked by cutting them for the first few metres, and then subsequently completing them as needed. The angle change would then simply reflect the change that was necessary between G5 and G4. This opinion may be supported by the apparently incomplete G24 near the end of the catacomb. Gallery 43 (Figs. 5.30 and 5.31) L: 20.3m W: 3.4m H: 3.17m Blocking: Yes Presence of animal remains: Remains of dogs and cats at rear of gallery. Sampled: Yes Total burial niches: 0 Gallery 43, on the south side of the axial between galleries 6 and 7 on the north, is one of the most interesting galleries in this first part of the catacomb. Like those on the north side it is cut at an oblique angle to

9

It should be borne in mind however, that the writer and team have not had access to this smaller catacomb and so have not been able to verify the lengths themselves. However, de Morgan (1897) does not show them as dotted which is his convention for collapsed galleries and we must therefore assume that their full and original length is indicated.

70

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.22: Looking south along gallery 4. The antiquities are not original to the gallery but are stored there from excavations probably around 1910.

Fig. 5.23: Looking east along the axial aisle the complete collapse of gallery 45 is clearly visible.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.24: Niche AX1, this has been damaged in the collapse of the galleries nearby. However, it may never have been very deeply cut.

Fig. 5.25: Looking at the west wall of gallery 5 where a tunnel has been cut between it and gallery 6. Rubble from the cutting can be seen to the left of the opening.

71

72

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.26: Niche 5B with the remains of a coffin and mummy. The coffin was subsequently conserved.

Fig. 5.27: Gallery 44 showing extensive collapse as is typical for galleries in this area of the catacomb.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.28: Looking east at the wall of gallery 6 and the entrance to the tunnel between it and gallery 5.

Fig. 5.29: Niche 6H, an example of a niche which still retains part of its blocking. Such blocking, made from the rock of the gallery and inserted between layers of calcite would serve to disguise the niche, though this may have been unnecessary given that it would subsequently be buried by the pile of dog remains.

73

3306800

3306790

12

A 10

11

328200

40

328220

A

41

2 AX X3

7I

6B

6J

6

328230

42

328230

5

43

4

5E

8G 9A

328240

328240

44

4C

1 AX

45

2a

328250

Metres 5

49

1

10

Tombs

Faunal remains

Dog niches

Samples

Offering niches

Soot marks

Lamp niches

Humidity loggers

Small finds

Sirenian

328260

328260

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

328250

0

Axial

Fig. 5.30: Plan showing galleries 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 40-49. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

328210

9B

39

9M

8F

38

9F

9L

8E 9C

8A

9K

9E 9D

8B

7E

9

9G

8

7G

7

6F

7H

4

9J

9H

8C

7D

328220

7C

AX

9I

8D

7F

328210

7B

37

5 AX

10

328200

7A

328190

7 AX

328190

6H

6I

3306780

6G

5D

3306770

5A

3306760

3306800 3306790

6A

4D

3306750

4E

3306780

5C

4A

3306770

4B

3306760

A 2A

3306750

74 ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ the axial and like them it shows signs of having first been cut as a short gallery. It is one of those galleries that de Morgan (1897) evidently considered to have collapsed and it is certainly true that some very large blocks have fallen from the roof and now lie on the floor. However, the impression of collapse may have been accentuated by the fact that the gallery is unfinished. The rear c.4.0m is a rock shelf where the stone-cutters have cut away a layer of about 1.0m thick immediately beneath the roof and then stopped (Fig. 5.32). It may be that the work was abandoned for fear of breaking into the smaller catacomb or some other structure of which we are unaware. This throws up an interesting problem, in that the axial aisle of the smaller catacomb is neither continued by dotting on the de Morgan plan, nor is it given a clear end line in the way that the larger catacomb is delineated. As a result it is not clear how far it actually extends. The published plan suggests that it is well away from the larger catacomb and it may be that the stone-cutters ceased work because they believed (perhaps rightly) that the rock above them was unstable. Whatever the reason for work on gallery 43 being abandoned, it did not prevent it from being used. Two human burials were placed on the rock shelf, and subsequently crushed by the fall of a large ceiling block. They seem to have been accompanied by a series of small wooden figurines of deities and by a cartoucheshaped limestone shrine, possibly intended for one of the wooden figures (Chapter 7). The finds were made amongst the extensive quantity of chippings on the ledge. Where the gallery was cut to its full height it was used for animal mummies. This is clear from those animal remains which remain trapped as a result of the fall of other large stone blocks from the ceiling (Fig. 5.33). No niches for dog burials were identified in this gallery. There is some smoke blackening in places, including the ceiling near those areas where ceiling blocks have crushed the mummies. Gallery 7 (Fig. 5.30 and 5.34) L: 23.0m W: 3.4m H: 3.15m Blocking: Yes. Mud mortar clearly visible. Presence of animal remains: None Dog niches east wall: 5

75

Dog niches west wall: 3 Dog niches rear wall: 1 Total burial niches: 9 Lamp niches west wall: 2 Total lamp niches: 2 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 3 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches west wall: 2 Total µR൵HULQJ¶ niches: 5 This gallery, like G5 and G6, is angled after the first c.6.0m suggesting a change of plan during excavation. It is now devoid of any remains of the common pile of mummies, though a few traces remain in the niches and 7B and 7G contain wooden fragments from FR൶QVIn niche 7E Nouwens observed some clean sand, possibly a ritually pure layer. Niche 7H has substantial remains of a mummy though partially buried in collapse from above the niche. Galleries 42 and 41 (Figs. 5.30, 5.35 and 5.36) Length of G42: 23.0m Length of G41: 22.1m W: of 42: 3.5m W: of 41: 3.8m H: 1.31m minimum (due to collapse) Presence of animal remains: Present at rear and probably continuing toward axial but under collapse. Sampled: No Dog niches: None visible Lamp niches: None visible These two galleries on the south side of the catacomb are treated together because the entrances to both have become conjoined following a significant roof collapse that has left many cubic metres of rock in the forepart of the galleries and running into the axial aisle. This pair of galleries appears to be the last shown as collapsed on the de Morgan (1897) plan. A reason for the weakness of the forepart of these galleries may be that the walls between them were intersected by what may be a re-used tomb chamber, though there is no obvious shaft coming from the surface. It may be that trace of it has been destroyed or obscured by the collapse. Where the walls survive they are very thin (Fig. 5.37), no more than 0.1 - 0.2m thick. These galleries were considered too dangerous for any sustained work to be carried out. They were, however, quickly surveyed and it was apparent that the

76

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

mummies here had survived untouched – though they were in a very friable state (Fig. 5.38). They were present to a depth of at least 0.5m and probably to a depth of above 1.0m as in other areas of the catacomb. The fact that these mummies had not been removed by those who apparently emptied much of the catacomb (Chapter 9) suggests that the roof fall had already happened by the time that they were active and that they too considered these galleries too dangerous. It is also apparent from the fact that the mummy material is not compacted from intruders crawling over it that, even allowing for the settling of the mummy material, the galleries were never filled from floor to roof. Were it not for the unstable condition of these galleries they would have been an interesting area in which to conduct detailed sampling. Some of the dog mummies on the surface of the pile were well wrapped, though completely blackened and friable. Nowhere in the catacomb has produced mummies of the quality known from some other sites, notably El-Deir (Dunand et al. 2017). The cutting of both of these galleries is very good, with smooth walls and neat right angled corners where they meet the roof. The roof itself is GL൶FXOWto assess in G42 because of extensive cracking and spalling but it was presumably of a comparable standard to that in G41. However, despite the good quality of the cutting the rear part of the two galleries has broken through and though there has been no significant collapse in this area it adds to the dangerous state of this pair. Two burial niches (AX2 and 3) are located in the axial aisle immediately opposite the entrance of G42. Gallery 8 (Fig. 5.30 and 5.39) L: 22.2m W: 3.6m H: 3.28 Presence of animal remains: None Dog niches east wall: 4 Dog niches west wall: 3 Total burial niches: 7 Lamp niches east wall: 4 Lamp niches west wall: 3 Total lamp niches: 7 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 1 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches west wall: 2 Total µR൵HULQJ¶ niches: 3

Gallery 8, on the north side of the catacomb, has its entrance facing onto the area of collapse that marks the entrance to G41 and G42. The floor of the gallery is markedly lower than the axial aisle at this point, probably indicating that rubble from the collapse opposite has spilled over to the entrance of this gallery, perhaps building up against any remaining blocking, though blocking is not now visible. The gallery is well cut, though like G7 it is somewhat angled to the west after its first few metres. Its main feature of note is in the roof of the entrance to the gallery where there are very clear fossils from a vertebrate animal (Fig. 5.40) that has been identified as a sirenian (Appendix). This is the first recorded vertebrate fossil from these strata at Saqqara. Whether the Egyptian stone-cutters or the priests for whom they worked saw the bones, and if they did how they thought of them, is unknown, though there is evidence that fossils, where observed, could be regarded as sacred (Mayor 2001) and certainly as wonders (Ray 2001b, 82). There is extensive sooting of the roof near the entrance, perhaps associated with interest in the fossil. There are a number of niches including some with blocking partly in place, notably 8A. Such remains as are present in the niches are extremely damaged and fragmentary. Gallery 9 (Figs. 5.30, 5.41 and 5.42) L: 22.0m W: 3.6m H: 3.28m Blocking: Yes Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present at the back of the gallery, starting at 16m from the entrance Sampled: Yes Dog niches east wall: 9 Dog niches west wall: 4 Total burial niches: 13 Lamp niches east wall: 6 Total lamp niches: 6 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 2 Total µR൵HULQJ¶ niches: 2 Like G8, this gallery has its floor level set considerably lower than the level of the axial aisle, possibly due to collapsed material from G41 and G42 raising the

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ axial floor level at this location (Fig. 5.41). It appears that some large blocks of rubble from G41 have rolled into the entrance of G9 and are mixed with some of the rubble from the original blocking. The gallery itself opens straight from the axial aisle for only about 1.5m before being sharply angled toward the north-west, apparently over-compensating for the angled G8 next to it. This is the last of the galleries on the north side to be angled, all of them apparently compensating for G4 and G5 near the entrance. Gallery 9 retains its pile of dog remains at the far (north) end and these are 0.8 to 1.0m in depth (Fig. 5.42). The rest of the gallery has been cleaned out and lamp niches, with sooting, can be seen to stop just before the pile of mummy remains. On the west wall, beside the dog remains, is a break through into G10. Rubble from the break now lies on top of the pile of dog remains, though there is somewhat less here than in G10. As the rubble is on top of the dog remains on both sides it must have occurred after the deposition of the mummies and possibly in recent times. The gallery has 13 dog burial niches, some of them with animal remains and with partial blockings still in place. As elsewhere in the catacomb, use has been made of the layers of gypsum to form lintels and sills at top and bottom of the niches. Several of the niches contain clean sand suggesting that an attempt was sometimes made to lay the deceased animal on a ritually pure mound. Most of the niches are at the level of the gallery floor or just above and would, as is usual, have been covered by the common pile of mummies. Gallery 40 (Fig. 5.30, 5.43) L: 22.0m W: 3.4m H: 2.15m free height above mummy remains. Blocking: Yes Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: Yes µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 6 Total µR൵HULQJ¶ niches: 6

10

The average depth of mummified remains is 1.10m. This figure can be added to the height given as ‘free height above mummy

77

Gallery 40 has a well preserved blocking made up of rubble cemented together with mud (Fig. 5.44). It reaches to within about 0.8m of the roof. The gallery is very neatly cut, though has angle changes, particularly in the last 5.0m. The gallery has been cut well away from its collapsed easterly neighbour (G41) and from G39 to its west and is in good condition. The gallery is still full of dog remains, though a small pit has been dug into these immediately behind the blocking and against the west wall. This type of digging is generally associated with attempts to find niches but none is apparent here. The fact that the present team has recorded no niches suggests that either they were not present or that they remain buried beneath the pile of dog mummies. The roof of this gallery is cracked, as are many others, but remains stable. There are some thin sheets of spalled rock lying on the surface of the mummy pile. It is not clear, given the apparent good condition of the gallery, why it was not cleared in the 19th/20th century when it is assumed that most of the mummies were removed (Chapter 9). Gallery 10 (Figs. 5.30, 5.45 and 5.46) L: 22.0m W: 3.5m H: 2.12m free height above mummy remains.10 Blocking: Yes, traces remain at west side of entrance. Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Dog niches rear wall: 1 Total burial niches: 1 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 5 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches west wall: 1 Total µR൵HULQJ¶ niches: 6 Gallery 10 opens at 90º from the north side of the axial aisle and is largely straight, curving only gently toward its north end where it comes closest to G9 (Fig. 5.46). Perhaps the slight curve is the result of a realisation on the part of the stone-cutters that they

remains’ to get an approximate height of the gallery. In the case of gallery 10 the total height would therefore be 3.22m.

78

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

were encroaching on G9. The wall of G9 is broken through at this point and a considerable amount of rubble now lies on top of the dog remains in both galleries, suggesting that the break occurred after the burials were complete. It may result from modern robbing of the catacomb or natural collapse. There is sooting on the roof near the entrance. The gallery is still full of dog mummies, but there has been some digging amongst them and a mound has been created near the axial aisle and a dip made toward the middle of the gallery by individuals digging amongst the remains. On top of the pile of rubble a square-section bronze situla was found (Chapter 7). The situla would fit neatly into one of the µR൵HULQJ niches’ cut in the wall. It is likely that where small rectangular niches are observed they were for the deposition of such votive bronzes, most of which have now been robbed out except where they have been well hidden either by the pile of dog remains and/or small closing stones in the manner of the dog burial niches. One burial niche was recorded at the far (north) end of the gallery and contained some dog remains. The niche has been poorly constructed and may not have had a blocking. Gallery 39 (Fig. 5.47 and 5.48) L: 21.5m W: 3.4m H: 2.15m free height above mummy remains. Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Lamp niches east wall: 3 Total lamp niches: 3 Gallery 39 on the south side of the axial has its opening facing the wall between G10 and G11. There is a dog burial niche (AX4) in the axial corridor immediately opposite its mouth. The gallery is slightly trapezoidal at the opening, being narrower toward the floor than the roof, but is for the most part very well cut and the blind (south) end is neatly rectangular. The opening from the axial aisle has a considerable amount of rubble built up around it. Some of this may be from collapse but it is likely that some of it may originally have formed part of the blocking of the gallery. The gallery is filled with animal remains though a pit has been dug into them against the east wall and the

mummy remains piled up beside it. This probably represents an attempt to locate niches where bronzes may have been buried. A limestone block found in the axial corridor immediately east of the entrance to the gallery has distinct chisel marks on it and probably forms part of an object of some kind. Another piece seems to be buried beneath a very large fallen block in the remaining rubble (Fig. 5.49). It was not possible to lift the block and retrieve the piece. As found the piece may have been placed by robbers to mark a gallery, since its bright white surface makes it very obvious. Gallery 11 (Fig. 5.47 and 5.50) L: 21.5m W: 3.4m H: 2.21m free height above mummy remains. Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: Yes µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 4 Total µR൵HULQJ¶ niches: 4 This is a well cut gallery which opens squarely from the north side of the axial aisle and is generally straight over its length, though it narrows slightly toward the blind end. There is a debris pile where the gallery meets the axial, some of it probably from the breaking down of a blocking, though this cannot be ascertained with certainty. The gallery remains filled with dog mummies, though there are some areas of pitting along the walls where robbers seem to have been seeking niches. Any such niches are no longer visible and rather than risk damaging the remains further the team did not attempt to dig into the pile in order to locate them. Gallery 38 (Figs. 5.47, 5.51 and 5.52) L: 22m W: 3.6m H: 2.31m free height above mummy remains. Blocking: Yes Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Dog niches east wall: 1 Total burial niches: 1

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.31: Looking south along gallery 43, showing the location of the unfinished rear section where human remains were located.

Fig. 5.32: The unfinished rear part of gallery 43. The human remains were located under the fallen ceiling block on top of the unquarried rock-shelf at left.

79

80

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.33: Animal remains sealed in place by the collapse of blocks from the ceiling of gallery 43. The scale is 10cm.

Fig. 5.34: Looking along gallery 7. The first illuminated area is approximately the point at which the angle changes.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.35: Looking west along the axial aisle onto the extensive collapse of gallery 42. Gallery 8 is illuminated to the right. The collapse is so extensive as to obscure gallery 41 at this point.

Fig. 5.36: Looking east along the axial aisle showing the extensive collapse of gallery 41.

81

82

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.37: The preserved rear section of gallery 42. At the rear right of the gallery the collapse of the wall between it and gallery 41 is obvious. The walls here are very thin adding to the instability of the gallery.

Fig. 5.38: The remains of mummified dogs on top of the mummy pile in gallery 42. These remains, though they have settled, are not densely packed and strongly suggest that the galleries were never filled from floor to ceiling.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.39: Looking north into gallery 8 from the axial aisle. Collapse is visible in the foreground. The rear of the gallery has been illuminated. It is devoid of animal remains.

Fig. 5.40: The ceiling on the north-west side of the entrance to gallery 8 showing the remains of the Sirenian described in the Appendix.

83

84

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.41: Looking south along gallery 9. The level of the axial aisle is clearly visible above the level of the gallery itself and niches are apparent in the walls, particularly on the left side of the photograph.

Fig. 5.42: The blind (north) end of gallery 9. Here the pile of animal remains is still in situ, note that the soot marks from lamps stop immediately before the remains are reached (top right). The break with gallery 10 to the west is also apparent.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.43: Looking south from the entrance of gallery 40. Here the animal remains still fill the gallery though some robber pitting is apparent.

Fig. 5.44: The remains of the blocking wall at the end of gallery 40 are examined by Hendrikje Nouwens. The rubble has been cemented together with mud.

85

86

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.45: Looking west along the axial aisle at the entrance to gallery 10. The rubble in the foreground is from ceiling collapse and may have been moved from the entrance to the gallery.

Fig. 5.46: Looking north along gallery 10. The substantial mound of animal remains in the foreground has been moved there by robbers. Niches are visible in the wall as is the good quality of cutting in this gallery.

A 15 E 13 B 14 14A

M 16

328170

C 14 B 35

A 35

328180

12

A 13

32 B

F 13

35

C 13

13 AX

14 AX

14

13

D 13

8 AX

15

D 14

B 13

36

7 AX

6

AX

328190

V 35

35Z

X 35 E 35

37

5

AX

328200

38

9J

4

AX

9I 9H

9

39

9K

9G

9M

328210

9L

9E 9D

328210

8

9C

40

8B

8G 9A

F 35

C 35

328220

328220

AX

7I

Fig. 5.47: Plan showing galleries 10-15 and 36-40. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

328190

11

10

328200

0

42

Metres 5

10

Tombs

Faunal remains

Dog niches

Samples

Offering niches

Soot marks

Lamp niches

Humidity loggers

Small finds

Sirenian

43

44

328240

328230

328240

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

Axial

41

3

328230

3306790 3306780

3306790

3306780

3306770

3306760

328180

A 38

3306750

9F

3306740

8E 9B

3306770

8F

3306760

8A

3306750

7A

3306740

328170

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ 87

88

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 6 Total ‘R൵HULQJ¶ niches: 6 This gallery on the south side of the axial aisle opens straight from it and runs squarely to the south. The blocking is very well preserved and stands to a height of about 0.6m with traces of mud mortar (Fig. 5.51). Behind the blocking the gallery is filled with animal remains. There has been some disturbance due to robber activity and there is minor pitting to the surface of the pile. That this material has been left in situ, despite what seems to have been a deliberate H൵RUWto remove it in many of the other galleries, is problematic. It may be that if the removal was a licenced operation,์์ permission may have lapsed before these could be exploited, or perhaps for some reason these mummies were regarded as inferior. The niche 38A is small with poorly preserved dog remains. As with other filled galleries it is likely that other niches remain hidden by the pile of material. A single dog burial niche (AX5) is located immediately opposite the entrance of this gallery. Gallery 12 (Figs. 5.47, 5.53 and 5.54) L: 21.6m W: 3.8m H: 2.21m free height above mummy remains. Blocking: Yes Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: Yes µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 1 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches west wall: 1 Total ‘R൵HULQJ¶ niches: 2 In front of the entrance to gallery 12 is a platform made from blocks of stone probably taken from gallery blockings (Fig. 5.53). It is located immediately beneath a shaft descending from above and may have served to facilitate entry and exit to the catacomb by robbers. Human remains were found on the north side of this platform, lying on what remained of the blocking. Whether these came from the tomb above the shaft or were originally interred amongst the animal remains

11

Licences to remove material were sometimes given by the Egyptian authorities. See Chapter 9.

cannot be determined with certainty but the former is perhaps the more likely given their position. The gallery itself is well cut and opens straight from the north side of the axial aisle and remains full of mummies which have been minimally disturbed giving a pitted surface to the pile. No burial niches are visible, though they may exist beneath the pile. Similarly such small niches as exist are likely to be for votive bronzes. Gallery 37 (Figs. 5.47, 5.55 and 5.56) L: 21.1m W: 3.2m H: 2.15m free height above mummy remains. Blocking: Yes Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: Yes µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 2 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches west wall: 1 Total ‘R൵HULQJ¶ niches: 3 Gallery 37 opens from the south side of the axial aisle and is fairly well cut, though has a very slightly z-shaped plan. The entrance preserves blocking up to about 0.9m in height (Fig. 5.55). It is GL൶FXOWto tell if part of this blocking is the natural rock, while other parts are clearly the usual loose blocks. Two dog burial niches (AX6 and AX7) are located in the axial aisle immediately opposite to the entrance of the gallery. The gallery remains full of decayed mummies (Fig. 5.56) though there is a substantial pit towards the rear that extends across the width of the gallery. A number of wooden fragments were found here that might have originally come from a shrine or similar object. The gallery also yielded a large and well carved wooden figure of a seated Isis. It was covered in white gesso that has now largely decayed and was probably gilded originally. Wooden fragments continue into the axial aisle in front of the gallery and include a small wooden hand as well as a joint from a furniture element (see Chapter 7 for description and photographs of finds). The hand was found amongst a pile of cattle, equid, sheep/goat, and pig bones, some of them apparently sawn through, as part of being butchered. It is not clear

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ whether they entered via the tomb shaft in front of G12, were in the tomb chamber that was cut through when the axial was cut or were removed from one of the other galleries – most likely G37. If the bovid bones are from G37 they could have been interred there and be associated with the wooden elements, but the latter seem too few in number to be connected with a bovid FR൶Q or sledge and the bones may simply have been dumped from the shaft or chamber. They are discussed further in Chapter 6. Gallery 13 (Fig. 5.47, 5.57 and 5.58) L: 24.0m W: 3.4m H: 3.2m Blocking: Yes Presence of animal remains: None Dog niches east wall: 4 Dog niches west wall: 2 Total burial niches: 6 Lamp niches east wall: 11 Lamp niches west wall: 6 Lamp niches rear wall: 2 Total lamp niches: 19 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches rear wall: 1 Total ‘R൵HULQJ¶ niches: 1 Like its eastern neighbour (G12), gallery 13 opens at a right angle from the axial aisle, though is slightly less straight and a little longer than its neighbour. The remains of the blocking wall are well preserved (Fig. 5.57) although partly obscured by crushed rubble, probably the result of many people walking in and out whilst removing the dog mummy remains. All dog remains from the common pile have been removed, though there are six wall niches, some of which retain part of their blocking. Niche 13E has been blocked with soft white limestone which has been plastered into place with white gypsum plaster (Fig. 5.58). The end of the blocking shows traces of chisel marks although they may be the result of robbers breaking into the niche. Some dog remains are present in some of the niches, all of which are at, or close to, floor level. Gallery 13 has 19 niches believed to be for lamps; the sooting around most of these is extensive and they are probably to be associated with the removal of remains from the gallery. A single ‘R൵HULQJ¶ niche is present on the rear wall.

89

Gallery 36 (Fig. 5.47 and 5.59) L: 21.2m W: 3.2m H: 2.87m Blocking: No Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, starting at c.4.3m from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Lamp niches east wall: 1 Lamp niches west wall: 1 Total lamp niches: 2 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 1 Total ‘R൵HULQJ¶ niches: 1 This southern gallery is empty of dog remains over the first c.4.3m of its length but the last part remains filled, dog remains being present at a depth of about 1.0m. Where sooted lamp niches are apparent they are in the emptied part of the gallery. The gallery itself narrows slightly toward its south, blind, end. Gallery 14 (Fig. 5.47 and 5.60) L: 21.5m W: 3.5m H: 3.07m Blocking: No Presence of animal remains: No Dog niches east wall: 3 Dog niches rear wall: 1 Total burial niches: 4 Lamp niches east wall: 7 Lamp niches west wall: 14 Total lamp niches: 21 Although this gallery on the north side of the axial has no visible blocking in place, there are what may be the remains of loose blocks from it at the mouth of the gallery. The gallery itself is devoid of dog remains but has numerous lamp niches, many with soot and very clear tool marks suggesting that they are the result of work by individuals removing the dog remains. Only four burial niches are present and have minimal dog remains. Gallery 35 (Fig. 5.61, 5.62 – 5.67) L: 58.0m W: 3.5m

90

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

H: 3.08m Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, starting at 32.1m from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Dog niches east wall: 12 Dog niches west wall: 16 Total burial niches: 28 Lamp niches east wall: 11 Lamp niches west wall: 29 Total lamp niches: 40 Gallery 35 may be regarded as one of the most interesting galleries within the catacomb. This is because it appears to be the point at which some experimentation is carried out in lengthening the galleries. The first part of the gallery, representing about 21.0m, is fairly straight and is entirely consistent with the other galleries on this southern, and indeed northern, side of the catacomb to this point. This part of the gallery, and some metres beyond it, has no surviving dog remains, though niches and numerous lamp remains are present (Fig. 5.63). The rear part of the gallery, that apparently was added later, is less straight and at one point there is a very marked kink towards the east. At this point there are deep gouges in the wall, though the reason for this is unclear (Fig. 5.65). The tool marks are the same as elsewhere and one might wonder whether that this was an attempt to ‘hear’ whether another gallery or tomb was in vicinity on the east side. Approximately the last 23m of the gallery is still full of dog mummies to their usual depth of c.1.0-1.10m (Fig. 5.64). Amongst them are some large and well wrapped specimens. This gallery also has numerous (28) dog niches, some of them still with blocking. Where niches are open, clean sand can often be observed beneath the powder remaining from decayed mummies. Some of the burial niches are above the level of the mummy pile. Fragments of a large pottery jar were found beside niche 35C on the west wall. The jar has extensive quantities of resin running down it. Splash marks around niche 35W may be of the same resin but without scientific testing this cannot be stated with any confidence (Fig. 5.66). On the north side of burial niche 35B there is a scratched ‘grid’ though its purpose is not clear and it may have been made during the emptying of the gallery (Fig. 5.67).

A large number of lamp niches are present and some, unusually, run beyond the empty part of the gallery, although only on the west side. Most of these, perhaps all, are to be associated with the removal of mummies from the gallery. Gallery 15 (Figs. 5.47, 5.68 - 5.70) L: 17.0m W: 3.6m H: 2.87m Blocking: Yes Presence of animal remains: None (other than in niche). Sampled: Niche only Dog niches rear wall: 1 Total burial niches: 1 Lamp niches east wall: 1 Lamp niches west wall: 6 Lamp niches rear wall: 1 Total lamp niches: 8 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches west wall: 2 Total ‘R൵HULQJ¶ niches: 2 Gallery 15 on the north side of the axial aisle opens from it at the normal width but is then somewhat narrower and runs for only 17m. There are remains of blocking (Fig. 5.69). There is also a narrowing of the gallery part way along which makes it somewhat hourglass in shape. The west wall also slopes inward toward the roof as one goes further back into the gallery. However, despite these features the overall standard of the cutting is not obviously poorer than that of the other galleries. Only one burial niche is recorded and that is on the blind (north) wall at the very end of the gallery (Fig. 5.70). There are lamp niches on all walls, but predominantly on the west wall. Two ‘R൵HULQJ¶ niches are present on the west wall. Gallery 34 (Fig. 5.61 and 5.71) L: 22.0m W: 3.6m H: 3.1m Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, starting at 9.6m from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Total burial niches: 0

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.48: Looking south along gallery 39. Robber pits are visible amongst the animal remains.

Fig. 5.49: Rubble outside gallery 39. The two white pieces of dressed stone appear to be part of an object of some kind.

91

92

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.50: Looking along gallery 11. The animal remains show extensive signs of robber activity.

Fig. 5.51: Gallery 38 looking west along the axial aisle. The ‘step’ made by robbers beneath the tomb shaft outside gallery 12 is visible at right.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.52: Looking south along gallery 38. The cutting of the gallery is very good and it remains filled with animal remains, albeit somewhat disturbed.

Fig. 5.53: Entrance to gallery 12 with robbers ‘step’ in front of it.

93

94

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.54: Looking north along gallery 12, still filled with animal remains.

Fig. 5.55: The blocking at the entrance to gallery 37, with Hendrikje Nouwens.

Fig. 5.56: Looking along gallery 37 with animal remains.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.57: Looking along gallery 13. Blocking is visible on the left and there are soot marks from lamps at regular intervals along the gallery wall.

Fig. 5.58: Niche 13E showing the remains of soft white limestone blocking which has been plastered into place.

95

96

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.59: Looking along gallery 36.

Fig. 5.60: Looking along gallery 14.

3306760

3306750

3306740

7

32 A

32 B

32

AX

13

A

X8

16

33

14 AX

15

B 35

A 35

328180

35

36

328190

H 35

32F

C 32

D 32

31K

328170

34

Axial

14

328180

E 35

3306730

D 35 C 35

G 35 F 5 3

3306720

5J I3 35

K 35

35 M

35 S

N 35

328200

35 O

35 P

38

39

328210

35 R

328210

Q 35

G 32

31F

31D

E 31

Fig. 5.61: Plan showing galleries 33-37. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

328190

35 L

37

328200

328220

328220

0

10

Faunal remains

Dog niches

Samples

Offering niches

Lamp niches

Humidity loggers

Small finds

328240

328230

328240

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

Metres 5

328230

3306760 3306750 3306740

M 16

3306730

16L

AA 35 T 35

3306710

Y 35

BB 35 W 35 X 35 35Z

U 35

3306720

V 35

3306710

328170

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ 97

98

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.62: Looking along gallery 35.

Fig. 5.63: Looking along gallery 36, showing niches and the angle change.

Fig. 5.64: The furthest end of gallery 35 showing what remains of the mummy pile.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.65: Large gouges in the wall of gallery 35.

Fig. 5.66: Hendrikje Nouwens indicates splash marks around niche 35W.

99

100

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.67: Scratched grid on the north side of niche 35B. It may belong to a time after the catacomb was abandoned, possibly to the phase during which it was being emptied.

Fig. 5.68: Looking along gallery 15.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.69: Looking onto the remains of the blocking of gallery 15.

101

Fig. 5.70: The only burial niche in gallery 15 (15A) on the blind end wall of the gallery, with the remains of a large dog.

Fig. 5.71: Looking along gallery 34.

19 E

19 F

19 I

AX

B 16

18E

C 19

3306790

3306780

3306770

8

328170

33

14 AX

15

34

13

328180

Axial

14

B 35

A 35

328180

35

C 35

A 19

B 19

H 19

12

Fig. 5.72: Plan showing galleries 10-16. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

32

AX

13

AX

16

D 14

328170

B 13

36

7 AX

328190

328190

X 35

328160

12 AX

A 15

M 16

11

17

J 16

35Z

328150

19

AX9

I 16

19 K

C 16

18

16H 16G F 6 E1 6 1 16L 16K

19 J

16A

328140

18C

B 14

19 G

19 D

18 A

328160

C 14

3306760

0

11

37

Metres 5

5 AX

AX

4

9J

9H

9

9K

9G

10

Tombs

Faunal remains

Dog niches

Samples

39 Soot marks 38 Offering niches

Lamp niches

Humidity loggers

Small finds

10

9I

9L

328200

328210

9M

9E

328210

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

A 10

328200

3306790 3306780 3306770

328150

14A

3306750

328140

C 13

3306740

E 13

18D

D 16

3306760

D 13

3306750

9F

3306740

102 ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.73: The entrance to gallery 16 showing what may be the remains of blocking, though this is uncertain.

Fig. 5.74: Looking along gallery 16. Note the niches and the soot marks from the lamps.

103

104

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Lamp niches east wall: 1 Lamp niches west wall: 1 Total lamp niches: 2 This gallery, whose entrance on the south of the axial aisle overlaps with the entrance to gallery 15 on the north, runs at an oblique angle toward the west. No signs of blocking remain, though there is a mound of trampled rubble at the entrance on top of which were found small fragments of bronze. These appear to be fragments that have broken from small votive objects which may have been removed from the gallery. A larger fragment, possibly part of a figurine, was found just beyond the pile of rubble. The first 9.6m of the gallery have no remaining dog mummies but beyond this point they are present and can be up to 1.30m in depth. Amongst them are some very well preserved specimens. As is common, the lamp niches cease immediately before the pile of remains begins, suggesting that they belong to the phase of emptying the monument. Gallery 16 (Figs. 5.72, 5.73 and 5.74) L: 47.1m W: 3.6m H: 2.92m Blocking: Uncertain Presence of animal remains: None Sampled: N/A Dog niches east wall: 1 Dog niches west wall: 12 Total burial niches: 13 Lamp niches east wall: 19 Lamp niches west wall: 15 Total lamp niches: 34 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 2 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches west wall: 8 Total ‘R൵HULQJ¶ niches: 10 Gallery 16, on the north side of the axial aisle, may be considered to be the equivalent of gallery 35 on the south in that it appears to have been originally designed as a gallery of about 21.0m length but then extended to its current 47.1m. Whilst no in situ blocking is recorded it may be that the very neatly stacked pile of stones on the west of the opening, many of them more regular

than might be expected of spalling or rock fall, are from the demolition of the original blocking (Fig. 5.73). The gallery itself has no remaining animal remains but, as is usual, areas where the walls meet the floor have small piles of rubble that have fallen from them. Most, but not all, of the dog niches are in the first 21.0m of the gallery (Fig. 5.74). There are a large number of lamp niches, most of them are believed to be from the time when the mummies were removed. 2൵HULQJniches are also well represented, particularly on the west wall, most of them beyond the 21.0m mark. It is tempting to see G16 as the beginning of the extended phase of the catacomb even though G33 on the south side is of the standard length. A single dog niche (AX14) is located in the axial aisle immediately opposite the entrance to this gallery. Gallery 33 (Fig. 5.75 and 5.76) L: 21.0m W: 3.3m H: 2.81m Blocking: Yes Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, starting at 8.0m from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Lamp niches east wall: 1 Lamp niches west wall: 2 Total lamp niches: 3 Gallery 33 is located on the south side of the axial aisle. Its entrance faces the blank wall between G16 and G17. At 21.0m it should probably be regarded as the last deliberately produced ‘short’ gallery. However, it is clear from the plan that its south east corner is perilously close to the south west corner of the neighbouring G34 and had tunnelling continued there would have been a break through. This may be the reason why it was stopped at the hitherto ‘usual’ length rather than being made longer, as G16 opposite was. There are no dog mummies in the first 8.0m of the gallery and it is here that lamp niches are to be found, once again suggesting deliberate emptying of the gallery. A basket was found at the entrance to the gallery on its east side and may date to when the mummies were removed.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ On the west wall of G33 there is a break into G32, probably as a result of the cutting of that gallery, which subsequently changes angle toward the southwest. A single dog burial niche (AX8) is located in the axial aisle immediately opposite the entrance to this gallery. Gallery 17 (Fig. 5.77 and 5.78) L: 63.0m W: 3.5m H: 3.10m Blocking: No Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, starting at 30.8m from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Dog niches west wall: 1 Total burial niches: 1 Lamp niches east wall: 20 Lamp niches west wall: 10 Total lamp niches: 30 Gallery 17 opens at 90º from the axial aisle and continues largely straight for about 38.0m, whereupon it then turns towards the west. The point at which it turns is marked by a tomb shaft entering the gallery from above. It is not clear why the gallery turns at this point, possibly the tomb chamber which has been destroyed in cutting the gallery ran, at that angle and its form dictated a change, in order to make the best use of already cut space. The dog remains are present only from 30.8m into the gallery, at which point the lamp niches cease, again suggesting that such niches belong to the removal phase of the catacomb. Only one burial niche is known, on the west wall near the entrance. The gallery has been broken into by the cutting of the neighbouring G18, discussed below. A single dog burial niche (AX13) is located in the axial aisle opposite the entrance to this gallery. Gallery 32 (Fig. 5.79, 5.80 and 5.81) L: 60.0m W: 3.3m H: 2.78m Blocking: Yes? Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance.

105

Sampled: Yes Dog niches west wall: 7 Total burial niches: 7 Lamp niches east wall: 1 Total lamp niches: 1 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches west wall: 8 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches east wall: 1 µ2൵HULQJ¶ niches west wall: 9 Total ‘R൵HULQJ¶ niches: 18 The entrance of gallery 32 is marked by a long mound of rubble that obscures any remaining blocking. Pieces of rock that have spalled from the roof lie upon it and there are the usual mounds of debris along the walls of the gallery, though here lying on top of the mummy remains (Fig. 5.80). On top of the mummy pile were found two elaborately wrapped falcon mummies (Fig. 5.81). Their presence here is GL൶FXOW to explain. That they were placed here and are not in pots may suggest that they were placed here at a time when the Falcon Catacomb had already ceased to operate, though this is far from certain. The gallery is not straight and meanders first to the west before making a marked swing to the east after encountering G33. The roof of the gallery is in poor condition. Burial niches are present, some containing mummified remains and niche 32B containing the remains of a wooden FR൶Q Niche 32C remains largely blocked and still contains a mummy. The blocking stones, one of them a well cut rectangular block, are cemented into place with pink plaster. 2൵HULQJ niches are present, predominantly on the west wall and extend along most of the length of the gallery. It is worth noting that, with the exception of two R൵HULQJQLFKHVRQWKHD[LDODLVOHQHDU*DQG* and one in G24, this is the last gallery to have such niches, suggesting that they are a phenomenon mainly associated with the earlier phase of the catacomb. Two dog burial niches (AX9 and 10) are located in the axial aisle opposite the entrance to this gallery. Gallery 18 (Fig. 5.77, 5.82 and 5.83) L: 63.0m W: 3.6m H: 3.04m Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, starting at 28.5m from the entrance.

18 A

C 19

B 19

29

A 19

30

12

AX

31

33

14 AX

32F

31A

D 32

31B

30I

30A 30B

328170

34

Axial

328180

14

B 35

A 35

328180

35

13

36

7

AX

12

328190

328190

5J I3 35

F 35

C 35

E 31

31C 31D

30G 30H

30F

30C

29B

H 19

35 L 35 M

37

AX

5

35 S

Fig. 5.75: Plan showing galleries 33 and 34. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

32 B

32

32 A

13

AX

8 AX

16

15

328170

328200

0

Metres 5

39

40

10

Tombs

Faunal remains

Dog niches

Samples

Offering niches

Soot marks

Lamp niches

Humidity loggers

Small finds

328210

328220

328210

328220

Coordinate system: 5R Reconstruction 1978 Ministery of Housing 3and (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

38

328200

N 35

328160

A 15

C 32

328150

11

AX

31L

328140

18E

20

19

AX9

17

J 16

19 K

18

328160

I 16 M 16

19 J

328150

3306770 3306760

3306770

3306760

16G

19 I

328140

16L

3306750

16A

3306740

18C

B 14

X 35

3306730

C 13 E 35

T 35

3306720

E 16

18D

D 16 14A

3306750

E 13

3306740

B 13 35Z

3306730

C 14

U 35

3306720

106 ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Q 35

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

107

Fig. 5.76: Looking along gallery 33.

Sampled: Yes Dog niches west wall: 6 Total burial niches: 6 Lamp niches east wall: 10 Lamp niches west wall: 13 Total lamp niches: 23 Within a few metres of its opening from the north side of the axial aisle this gallery starts to meander. One reason for the early turn toward the east is probably a tomb chamber that has been broken through into the gallery on its west side. What is not clear is when this happened. There are soot marks on the roof at the point where the original gallery wall should be (Fig. 5.83) and no break is apparent on the de Morgan (1897) plan, which ought to suggest that the break happened after that plan was made. However, that plan does not show all of the tomb shafts/chambers (notably that in the axial outside G12 is absent). It may be that the sooting is recent and that its location is fortuitous. The shaft for

the chamber is within the thickness of rock between G18 and G19 and is currently blocked. This does not, however, mean that it must have been blocked at the time the gallery was cut. After the chamber the gallery straightens again before making an even more marked turn to the east for no apparent reason. In doing this it breaks through the west wall of G17, it then moves back toward the west and continues until it reaches two tomb shafts that mark the end of the gallery. There is a great deal of rubble along the floor of the galleries coming primarily from spalling (Fig. 5.82). The broken area of wall near the entrance, where the gallery cuts through the tomb chamber, must have had the rubble from this break removed whilst the gallery was being completed as there is no sign of it now. Dog remains are present, sometimes at a depth up to 1.60m, from the point of the break between the galleries until the end. Lamp niches run only as far as the dog mummies and again suggest that they are late in origin. Similarly, dog niches are exposed mainly in the first

108

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

part of the gallery where the mummies of the common pile have been removed. Of the burial niches 18A, located about half way up the west wall, is probably the most interesting and preserves most of its blocking as well as a mummified animal. This gallery also yielded the base of a vessel that contains resin and the toe of a dog (Chapter 7), as well as a small R൵HULQJ bowl with string cut base. This is the kind of vessel which was commonly used as the lid to bird mummy vessels and was cemented into place with plaster. There are traces of white gypsum plaster around the rim of this vessel, but such plaster is sometimes splashed onto ritual pottery and no firm conclusion can be drawn from the small amount present here. A single dog burial niche (AX12) is located opposite the entrance to this gallery. Gallery 31 (Fig. 5.84 and 5.85) L: 62.0m W: 3.5m H: 3.26m Presence of animal remains: None Sampled: N/A Dog niches east wall: 3 Dog niches west wall: 9 Total burial niches: 12 Lamp niches east wall: 19 Lamp niches west wall: 32 Lamp niches rear wall: 1 Total lamp niches: 52 This gallery opens from the south side of the axial aisle and is very straight and well cut over its whole length. The opening is almost exactly opposite that of G18 and this becomes the norm for galleries in this rear part of the catacomb. The result is a very long expanse of unsupported roof. Rubble near the entrance suggests that it did originally have a blocking but this is now buried or damaged such that it is unclear. A dog burial niche (AX11) is located on the wall almost opposite the entrance. There are no dog remains other than fragments that remain in some of the burial niches. The large number of lamps niches, often with very heavy sooting, suggests modern activity in removing the mummies. Some thick sherds of pink, low fired siltware pottery were found against the east wall of the gallery and may be fragments of a ceramic FR൶Q possibly for human

burial. Their location against a pile of rubble suggests that they had been dumped here in recent times, possibly when, or even after, removing the mummies from the gallery. Gallery 19 (Fig. 5.77, 5.86 and 5.87) L: 26.0m W: 3.2m H: 2.66m Presence of animal remains: None Sampled: N/A Dog niches east wall: 4 Dog niches west wall: 7 Total burial niches: 11 Lamp niches east wall: 9 Lamp niches west wall: 4 Total lamp niches: 13 Situated as it is amongst a series of long galleries, G19 seems something of an oddity. The gallery curves toward the west, starting at about 2.0m, perhaps to avoid the tomb shaft which descends within the thickness of the wall between it and G18 and which the stone-cutters would have been aware of from the cutting of G18. At about 6.0m from the entrance the gallery does cut through a tomb shaft and chamber within the wall space between it and its western neighbour, G20. Rubble from this break is present on the gallery floor and may suggest that the actual break was the result of later robbery, since it is unlikely that the original stone-cutters would have left the rubble here. At the end of the gallery it meets another shaft and a chamber, the latter at roof level. The shaft has been blocked by a large galvanised cauldron which may in some way be associated with the activities involved in removing the mummies, if only as a water container for the workers (Fig. 5.87). A great deal of sand has found its way down the shaft and past the cauldron to fill this end of the gallery from floor to roof. The west wall of the gallery has a break through into G20 possibly resulting from the cutting of the latter. Whilst there are a number of dog niches, some with remains and one (19E) completely blocked, there are no other remains in the gallery. Lamp niches, some with heavy sooting, are present. There is also a rusty food can and sooted glass from a modern oil lamp, probably all attesting to the presence of those who were removing mummies.

328120

328120

328130

328130

19 E 19 F

3306790

3306780

3306770

B 18

C 19

B 16

12 AX

328170

33

14 AX

Axial

34

14

A 35

328180

0

C 35

7

36

AX

Metres 5

12

328190

11

5 AX

10

Tombs

Faunal remains

Samples 37 Dog niches

Offering niches

Soot marks

Lamp niches

Humidity loggers

Small finds

A 10

10

328200

38

31L

A 19

H 19

328190

328200

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

35 B 35

328160

32

13 AX

16

15

13

328180

X 35

31A

B 19

Fig. 5 77: Plan showing galleries 14-19. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

11 AX

A 17

35Z

328150

19

AX9

8 AX

M 16

20

8F 18E 1

19 K

C 16

18

17

A 15

D 14

328170

B 13

328140

18C

16G

6J I 1 16 16L

19 I1 9J

16A

19 G

19 D

18 A

328160

E 16

B 14

3306760

D 16

14A

3306750

3306790 3306780 3306770 3306760

328150

C 13

3306740

C 14

18D

E 13

3306750

D 13

3306740

328140

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ 109

110

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.78: Looking along gallery 17.

Gallery 30 (Fig. 5.88, 5.89 and 5.90) L: 69.0m W: 3.2m H: 3.06m Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, starting at 18.6m from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Dog niches east wall: 6 Dog niches west wall: 3 Total burial niches: 9 Lamp niches east wall: 2 Lamp niches west wall: 7 Total lamp niches: 9 Gallery 30 begins at a right angle to the axial aisle but very quickly turns away to the west. It is not of uniform width and this is apparent even in a cursory visual inspection. No trace of any blocking remains. Just over half way along the gallery there is a break with the east wall of G29. Dog remains begin about 18.6m from the entrance and are approximately 0.9-1.0m in depth (Fig. 5.90).

There are burial niches, many in quite poor condition and it is notable that most are recorded in the cleared part of the gallery, suggesting that others probably remain hidden by the common pile. All but one lamp niche is present in the area cleared of mummies. Gallery 20 (Fig. 5.91 and 5.92) L: 71.0m W: 3.4m H: 3.11m Presence of animal remains: None Sampled: N/A Total burial niches: 0 Lamp niches east wall: 18 Lamp niches west wall: 38 Total lamp niches: 56 A pile of rubble on the west side of gallery 20 suggests that it once had a blocking, though this remains uncertain. Although the gallery is fairly straight, its appearance, at least from the entrance, is rather poor

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ and it looks more cavern- than tunnel-like. However, this is in part because the east wall is broken by a tomb chamber that runs between it and G19, where the shaft is located. There is another break in the west wall at about 3.7m where a tomb chamber from G21 meets it. The gallery is now empty of mummies and there are numerous lamp niches and accompanying soot marks. The find of a broken glass chimney from an oil lamp is again likely to be testament to how the gallery was lit whilst mummies were being removed. It is interesting that this gallery, the longest in the catacomb, has no dog burial niches, a feature it shares in common with its western neighbours G21-G24 and with G28-G26์ํ on the south side of the axial. One might wonder whether in this area of the catacomb the practice of niche burial was discontinued for a time and resumed only with what is believed to be the final gallery constructed, G25. There are two R൵HULQJniches on the axial aisle, one just before the entrance to G20 and the other just before G29 on the opposite side. These are two of only three such R൵HULQJ niches on the axial. It may be that they mark the point at which the longest galleries in the catacomb begin, though this cannot be said with any certainty. Gallery 29 (Fig. 5.88, 5.93 and 5.94) L: 69.0m W: 3.3m H: 3.08m Presence of animal remains: None Sampled: N/A Dog niches east wall: 1 Dog niches rear wall: 1 Total burial niches: 2 Lamp niches east wall: 19 Lamp niches west wall: 17 Total lamp niches: 36 Gallery 29, opening from the south side of the axial aisle, has its entrance directly opposite G20 on the north. No sign of blocking now remains. The gallery is slightly meandering from the outset and roughly mid-

12

Gallery 29 has two burial niches, one at its blind end.

111

way along its length it breaks into G30. There are very clear chisel marks at the break point between these galleries and it may be suggested that these marks might be made by those who were emptying the gallery trying to remove loose rock and to reassure themselves that the area was safe to work in (Fig. 5.94). The marks run in opposite directions with most of the rubble being in G29. Since the course of G29 runs first to the east and then veers somewhat west, essentially straightening it out again, one might assume that the original break, or near break, must have been from G29 into G30 and that this was perhaps expanded later by those engaged in the emptying of G29. As usual with empty, or partially empty, galleries there are numerous niches for lamps. There is a dog burial niche on the end wall, the only such positioning of a niche on this south side of the catacomb, and one of only six such in the catacomb as a whole. Gallery 21 (Figs. 5.91, 5.95 and 5.96) L: 68.4m W: 3.1m H: 2.44m free height above mummy remains. Blocking: Yes Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Total burial niches: Unknown The blocking of gallery 21 is well preserved, if somewhat obscured by rubble. The gallery is long and straight, if very slightly tapering, and at three points is broken into by G22. This has resulted in two long spans of roof that are poorly supported and consequently potentially unstable. Entry into these galleries was strictly limited and no major work was carried out there. A tomb shaft has been cut through by the gallery, after 6.2m its chamber is angled R൵to the east where it breaks into G20, albeit only marginally. Dog remains extend into this chamber. Dog mummies remain throughout the length of the gallery, though they are frequently covered by a layer of spalled material or more major roof collapse. No

3306750

3306740

30

11

AX AX

31

17

12

AX9

AX10

31B

31A

30I

30A

30G

30B

29B

328150

9

18

31L

3306730

31D

31C

30F 30E

328160

32 B

32

32 A

13 AX

A

X8

16

33

14 AX

328170

Axial

15

32F 31K

H 31

328170

34

328180

35

B 35

A 35

35 L

J 35

328190

35 H

35 M

37

35 S

328200

N 35

328200

38

35 R

328210

328210

Q 35

G 32

31J

31F 30D

30C

Fig. 5.79: Plan showing galleries 32-36. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

328180

36

328190

0

10

Tombs

Faunal remains

Dog niches

Samples

Offering niches

Lamp niches

Humidity loggers

Small finds

328230

328220

328230

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

Metres 5

328220

3306750 3306740

328160

C 32 D 32

E 32

3306720

A 19

3306730

328150

C 35

3306710

5F E3 35

3306700

X 35

3306720

16L

M 16 35Z

T 35

3306710

U 35

3306700

112 ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.80: Looking along gallery 32.

Fig. 5.81: Two raptor mummies found in gallery 32.

113

114

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.82: Looking along gallery 18.

Fig. 5.83: Scott Williams indicating the presence of soot marks on the ceiling where gallery 18 is broken through to gallery 19.

3306740

3306730

30

29B

328150

11

AX

30B

328140

29

19

18

17

328160

AX9 AX10 12 AX

31

30G

328130

26

27

28

Axial

19 K

30A

25

23

22

21

20

19 I

328150

30D

30E

33

14 AX

328170

H 31 31I

G 31

328170

34

328180

35

B 35

328180

328190

35 H 35 L

J 35

G 35

328190

35 M

35 S

328200

328200

N 35

G 32

31J

31F

30C

Fig. 5.84: Plan showing galleries 31-34. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

328160

32 B

32

32 A

13 AX

A

X8

0

Metres 10

Tombs

Faunal remains

Dog niches

Samples

Offering niches

Lamp niches

20

Humidity loggers

Small finds

328220

328210

328220

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

35 R

328210

3306740 3306730

328140

30I

3306720

31A

30F

3306710

31B 31K

3306700

31C 31D

E 31

25B

31L

D 32

3306690

32F

3306680

C 32

3306720

C 35

E 35

3306710

X 35

3306700

35Z

T 35

3306690

U 35

3306680

328130

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ 115

116

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.85: Looking along gallery 31.

Fig. 5.86: Looking along gallery 19. Rubble from a tomb shaft can be seen at left, probably broken through after the catacomb had ceased to function.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

117

Fig. 5.87: A galvanised cauldron has been used to block a tomb shaft at the end of gallery 19. It may relate to the period during which the catacomb was being emptied.

burial niches were observed, any which exist must be beneath the level of the mummies, but as has been observed above it may be that none are present in the galleries in this area. No lamp niches are present. It may be supposed that those charged with removing mummies from the catacomb felt that G21 and G22 were too unsafe to work in. The Catacombs of Anubis Project team reached the same conclusion. Gallery 28 (Figs. 5.88, 5.97 and 5.98) L: Uncertain due to collapse at rear, but at least 22.7m. W: 3.5m H: 3.11m Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, starting at 9.5m from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Total burial niches: 0 Lamp niches east wall: 2 Lamp niches west wall: 3 Total lamp niches: 5

This gallery opens south from the axial aisle but after 11.0m tapers. The rear part of the gallery has collapsed so that determining its length is not possible. The foot of the walls of the gallery are strewn with a continuous pile of rubble, probably attesting to the poor quality of the rock in this part of the catacomb. Mummy remains begin after 9.5m and continue as far as is accessible (Fig. 5.98). There are lamp niches leading up to the dog remains but none beyond them. The collapse may be due to a tomb chamber(s) beyond the end of the gallery, but G27 and G26 are also collapsed at their ends, suggesting that something has caused the instability in these areas. Gallery 28 veers toward G27 and may be a further reason for collapse. Gallery 22 (Fig. 5.91 and 5.99) L: 68m W: 3.8m

118

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

H: 2.17m free height above mummy remains. Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: No Total burial niches: 0

Lamp niches east wall: 2 Lamp niches west wall: 2 Total lamp niches: 4

Gallery 22, like its neighbour to the east (G21) is in a dangerous condition and no extensive work was carried out there. It has three breaks with G21 on its eastern wall and there is a major area of collapse towards the rear. The cutting of the gallery is generally good though the profile is slightly trapezoidal. Dog remains fill the gallery for its whole length, though no burial niches or lamp niches have been found. It may be assumed that the poor condition of the gallery deterred those interested in removing the animal remains.

This gallery is straight for most of its length with only slight deviation to the west and then back to the east in the last third of its length. There is a good thickness of wall between it and G22 on its east and although, like other galleries, there is debris from spalling, there is no sign of collapse here. The first 8.8m are devoid of mummy material and it is only here that lamp niches are found. In most galleries, if there were to be burial niches, some of them would have been visible within the first few metres of the gallery. This suggests that none were cut in this gallery, a phenomenon suggested for some of the neighbouring galleries too.

Gallery 27 (Fig. 5.88 and 5.100)

Gallery 26 (Fig. 5.88 and 5.102)

L: Uncertain due to collapse at rear, but at least 12.1m. W: 3.1m H: 2.03m free height above mummy remains. Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: No Total burial niches: 0

L: Uncertain due to collapse at rear, but at least 36.0m. W: 3.3m H: 2.10m free height above mummy remains. Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: No Total burial niches: 0

This gallery, on the south side of the axial aisle, may have had a blocking but this is no longer visible. There is, however, an elongated mound of rubble that suggests that it may be covering what remains of the blocking. Behind this, the gallery is filled with animal remains as far as the collapse at the rear, preventing further exploration. No niches for dog burials or lamp niches for the removal of mummies have been found.

Gallery 26 opens R൵the south side of the axial aisle immediately opposite to the entrance of G23. Like its eastern neighbours, G28 and G27, it contains mummy remains and is collapsed at the rear so that its full extent cannot be determined. At 16.0m along the eastern wall of the gallery there is a tomb shaft. It may be that the collapse in G27 is associated with a similar shaft or chamber that was cut through in making the catacomb. Certainly the stonecutters of G26 angled their gallery to the west somewhat until they felt confident that they had passed the area of potential weakness. No lamp or burial niches have been found in this gallery.

Gallery 23 (Fig. 5.91 and 5.101) L: 61m W: 3.2m H: 2.91m Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, starting at 8.8m from the entrance. Sampled: Yes Total burial niches: 0

Gallery 24 (Fig. 5.91 and 5.103) L: 3.4m W: 3.0m H: 2.13m

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ Blocking: No Presence of animal remains: Dog remains present, completely filled from the entrance. Sampled: No Total burial niches: 0 µ2൵HULQJ¶ Niche west wall: 1 Total ‘R൵HULQJ¶ niches: 1 Gallery 24 is very unusual in that it appears to be an unfinished gallery and extends only 3.4m to the north of the axial aisle. It may not have been cut to its full height either. However, despite its small size it does contain dog remains suggesting that all available space within the catacomb was used. There are no burial niches or lamp niches, though there is an R൵HULQJniche on the west wall. Gallery 25 (Figs. 5.88, 5.104 and 5.105) L: 32m W: 3.5m H: 3.56m Blocking: No Presence of animal remains: None Sampled: N/A Dog niches west wall: 2 Total burial niches: 2 Lamp niches east wall: 14

13

If indeed the axial aisle was filled, as we know happened with some of the bird catacombs, notably the North Ibis Catacomb.

119

Lamp niches west wall: 6 Total lamp niches: 20 Gallery 25, whose entrance from the south side of the axial aisle is directly opposite that for G24 is unusual in several respects. First, this appears to be the last completed gallery in the catacomb and seems also to represent a return to earlier practice, with the inclusion of burial niches. It is also unusual in that the floor level of this gallery, which has been emptied of animal remains, is about 1.0m lower than the axial aisle. This may in part be illusory because the mummies have been removed, but in the other galleries in this area one does not sink into the mummy pile to this kind of depth and it might be suggested that this gallery is a conscious attempt to cram in as many mummies as possible before resorting to filling the axial aisle.13 Neither of the two niches is at floor level, 25B being mid-way up the western wall of the gallery near its end. The end of the gallery itself is very well smoothed but at 5.9m is also wider than the entrance, giving this gallery a flared appearance at this point. The gallery curves to the west at the end, though the reason for this is not clear. There are numerous lamp niches suggesting that the gallery has been deliberately emptied. It is not clear why this one was emptied but G23 was not, since both are in a fairly stable condition.

3306730

3306720

3306710

328120

24

328120

25

23

328130

26

22

328130

27

21

328140

28

Axial

328140

20

29B

328150

31

328160

30D

30E

25A

328170

H 31

328170

328180

328180

35 H

328190

328190

G 35

328160

29A

32 B

32

32 A

35 L

J 35

G 32

31J 31I

31F

30C

Fig. 5.88: Plan showing galleries 24-30. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

29

30

328150

30B

3306700

30G 30H 30I

31D

3306690

31K

3306680

0

Metres 10

Tombs 20

Faunal remains

Dog niches

Samples

Offering niches

Lamp niches

Humidity loggers

Small finds

35 R

328210

328220

328200

328210

328220

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

35 M

35 S

328200

3306730 3306720

30A

N 35

3306670

31B

30F

25B

31C

3306710

2D C3 32

3306700

32F

3306690

E 35

T 35

3306680

U 35

3306670

120 ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.89: Looking along gallery 30. The mound marking the start of the mummy remains has been separately illuminated.

Fig. 5.90: The rear part of gallery 30 showing the extent of the remaining mummified remains.

121

328080

328080

3306790

3306780

328090

328090

328100

328100

23

H 19

29

19 K

19

30 30B

29B

328150

18 11 AX

30A

328140

28

20

J 19

30I

328160

31 0

12 AX

AX9

2A

32 B

32 3

A

3 X1

8 AX

16

Metres 10

Tombs 20

Faunal remains

Dog niches

Offering niches 34 Samples

marks

Lamp niches 14 AX Soot

33

14

Humidity loggers

15

13

328180

35

31C

31D

328160

328170

328180

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

17

A 15

D 14

328170

32F

328130

19 I

B 19

31B

27

19 G

C 19

21

19 F

19 D

18 A

328150

A 19

Axial

19 E

328140

B 16 31A

26

22

328130

18E

C 32

D 32

328120

24

328120

B 35

30C

Fig. 5.91: Plan showing galleries 19-24. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

328110

328110

3306790 3306780 3306770 3306760

3306770

3306760

18C

J I 16 16

3306750

E 16

18D

D 16 16G

M 16 16L

3306740

16A

A 35

3306730

4B C1 14

14A

3306750

C 16

E 13

3306740

D 13

3306730

C 13

3306720

122 ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

30G

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.92: Looking along gallery 20.

Fig. 5.93: Looking along gallery 29.

123

124

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.94: Scott Williams indicates chisel marks on the break between galleries 29 and 30.

Fig. 5.95: Looking along gallery 21 with tomb shafts coming in on the right where a tomb chamber (behind the pile of rubble at right) has been truncated.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.96: Looking toward the rear part of gallery 21 where collapse is so extensive that the neighbouring gallery 22 is also visible. Work in these galleries was restricted due to their unsafe condition.

Fig. 5.97: Looking along gallery 28. The remains of the mummy pile are visible in the middle distance.

125

126

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.98: Looking along the mummy remains in gallery 28.

Fig. 5.99: Looking along gallery 22 with extensive mummy remains.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.100: Looking along gallery 27, which is in poor condition.

Fig. 5.101: Looking along gallery 23.

127

128

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Fig. 5.102: Looking along gallery 26.

Fig. 5.103: Looking into the, apparently unfinished, gallery 24.

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Fig. 5.104: Looking along gallery 25.

Fig. 5.105: The rearmost part of gallery 25 which is unusually high.

129

3306800

3306750

3306700

23

22

328100

21

20

328100

24

18

19

328150

26

27 28

16

29

15

13

30

14

31

33

34

12

11

10

32

37

8

328200

36

9

328200

38

7

35

39

6

40

5

41

2

42

4

3

43

44

1

0

46

Metres 25

Tombs

Dog niches

328300

50

328300

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

2a

47

49

328250

45

48

328250

Fig. 5.106: Distribution of dog niches throughout the catacomb. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

25

17

328150

3306800 3306750 3306700

130 ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

3306800

3306750

3306700

23

22

328100

21

20

24

18

19

328150

26

27 28

16

29

15

30

14

13

31

33

34

12

11

10

32

37

8

328200

36

9

328200

38

7

35

39

6

40

5

41

2

42

4

3

43

44

1

0

46

Metres 25

Tombs

Lamp niches

328300

50

328300

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

2a

47

49

328250

45

48

328250

Fig. 5.107: Distribution of ‘lamp’ niches throughout the catacomb. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

25

17

328150

3306800 3306750 3306700

328100

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ 131

132

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇඌආංඅඅඌඌඐංඅඅංൺආඌൺඇൽඁඇඈඎඐൾඇඌ

Niches

Conclusion

The niches for dog burials have been described in passing above and are shown on the individual plans. Their overall distribution can be seen in Figure 5.106 and that for the ‘lamp’ niches is shown in Figure 5.107. Table 5.1 shows the lengths of the dog burial niches. Their heights are not uniform as they often follow the contours of the gypsum bands, similarly their depths are highly variable due to weathering and irregular cutting.

Previous publications dealing with animal catacombs have often paid little attention to the galleries themselves, or to their mummified occupants. Whilst this practice is understandable it runs the risk of missing a great deal of relevant detail and it is hoped that the foregoing has shown that all galleries are not alike. For example, only six galleries have burial niches at their ends and all but one of these belong to what has been identified as the earlier phase of the monument, i.e. the part running up to G16 and G33. 2൵HULQJ niches too seem to belong largely to the earlier part of the catacomb, with G32 being the last to have any significant number of these. Only three R൵HULQJ niches have been located on the axial aisle suggesting that they are predominantly a feature of the burial galleries.

133

ඍඁൾർൺඍൺർඈආൻ

Table 5.1: Lengths of the dog burial niches. Niche no. 04A 04B 04C 04D 04E 05A 05B 05C 05D 05E 06A 06B 06C 06D 06E 06F 06G 06H 06I 06J 07A 07B 07C 07D 07E 07F 07G 07H 07I 08A 08B 08C 08D 08E 08F 08G 09A 09B 09C 09D 09E 09F

Length (m) Niche no. Length (m) Niche no. Length (m) Niche no. Length (m) 0.94 0.84 1.06 0.93 0.75 0.73 0.64 0.84 0.67 0.87 1.00 1.07 0.69 0.76 1.01 0.73 1.08 1.08 1.13 1.13 0.98 0.98 1.21 1.14 1.10 0.98 1.08 1.11 0.59 0.73 1.11 1.29 1.10 0.54 1.64 0.98 0.86 1.06 0.91 1.23 0.72 0.71

09G 09H 09I 09J 09K 09L 09M 10A 13A 13B 13C 13D 13E 13F 14A 14B 14C 14D 15A 16A 16B 16C 16D 16E 16F 16G 16H 16I 16J 16K 16L 16M 17A 18A 18B 18C 18D 18E 18F 19A 19B 19C

0.68 1.25 0.95 1.09 0.91 1.06 1.51 1.08 0.48 1.14 0.94 1.04 1.13 0.35 0.96 0.65 1.04 1.07 2.38 1.46 0.97 1.33 1.26 1.12 0.97 0.89 1.04 0.85 1.06 1.02 1.01 1.23 0.43 0.88 0.98 1.06 0.87 1.04 0.64 0.62 0.55 1.15

19D 19E 19F 19G 19H 19I 19J 19K 25A 25B 29A 29B 2A-A 30A 30B 30C 30D 30E 30F 30G 30H 30I 31A 31B 31C 31D 31E 31F 31G 31H 31I 31J 31K 31L 32A 32B 32C 32D 32E 32F 32G 35A

1.04 1.17 0.99 0.90 1.17 1.01 0.99 0.73 0.74 1.74 0.75 1.06 1.30 1.15 0.92 0.98 1.02 1.26 0.74 1.00 1.14 0.87 0.94 0.89 0.86 0.99 0.53 0.90 0.76 0.85 1.70 0.91 1.31 0.58 0.98 1.38 0.83 1.30 1.15 1.02 1.49 0.89

35AA 35B 35BB 35C 35D 35E 35F 35G 35H 35I 35J 35K 35L 35M 35N 35O 35P 35Q 35R 35S 35T 35U 35V 35W 35X 35Y 35Z 38A AX1 AX2 AX3 AX4 AX5 AX6 AX7 AX8 AX9 AX10 AX11 AX12 AX13 AX14

0.66 0.77 0.80 1.68 0.92 1.15 0.97 0.81 0.78 0.72 0.47 0.96 1.74 1.00 1.18 0.79 0.38 1.36 1.66 1.13 0.88 1.49 0.67 1.09 1.10 0.75 1.06 0.47 0.96 0.33 0.75 1.01 0.66 0.58 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.53 0.88 0.88 1.13 1.51

CHAPTER 6

THE FAUNAL MATERIAL Salima IKRAM and Louise BERTINI with contributions by Delyth +ඎඋඅൾඒand Stephanie Vൺඇඇ

Introduction The results of the archaeozoological investigation are presented below.์ Following on from general remarks on the material, methodology, and mummification, the chapter is organised by species, followed by sections on pathology and a general discussion. The Material Faunal material was found in only 24 of the 49 galleries of the Dog Catacombs (Fig. 6.1), although originally all the galleries must have contained the remains of animals, as is attested by their residual remains (see Chapters 4 and 5). The material consists of deposits of mummies stacked up to an average of 1.10m in height. Unfortunately, the majority of these were poorly made (see below), and had largely lost their bandaging, with the result that, in many instances, the bones were loosely articulated, if at all, with the bandages and flesh having turned to powder. Only a few complete mummies were recovered from the upper levels of the deposit; no doubt more remain beneath the exposed surface mummies that have deteriorated due to the agencies of time and climate. Thus, the data set consisted of loose bones as well as wrapped mummies, and as the complete animals indicate, all anatomical elements are present in the sample. Additional specimens, in varying degrees of intactness, were found in niches that had been carved into the sides of the galleries, often close to floor level, although there was no uniform pattern as to the positioning of the niches. In addition to the animals in the galleries, a pile of bones, primarily of cattle, was noted in the main axial gallery of the catacomb, between galleries 12 and 37 (area 12/37). All of these were collected and examined.

1

The faunal analysis team consisted of: Ariel Singer, Sabine Harding, Mahmoud Mohamed Abdelhamid, Salima Ikram,

Skeletal elements of sheep/goat, equid and pig were identified from this deposit as well as from its immediate environs. It is possible that these bones represent an earlier use of a part of the subterranean area, posVLEO\DWRPEZKHUHWKH\PLJKWKDYHVHUYHGDVR൵HULQJV to the dead, or, perhaps in the case of the cattle or equids, as burials in their own right (see below). They may have been moved from their original position and dumped here when the catacombs were created for the cult of Anubis. If that is the case, the original context for this material might have been gallery 37 as this has the most diverse range of fauna in the catacomb and is the nearest gallery. Another, more prosaic, explanation is that the bones simply could have been thrown in from the shaft opening above (see Chapter 4). In addition to this deposit, species other than dogs were recorded (in small numbers) throughout the catacomb (see Tables 6.1 and 6.2). Unlike the 12/37 deposit, all but one of these (a pig bone in gallery 11, which might have strayed from the 12/37 group) seem to have been part of the mummified deposits that served as R൵HULQJV dedicated to Anubis. The limb bones of all animals were generally in quite a robust condition, although some gave the appearance of being abraded (particularly the skulls), as if embalming elements had rehydrated and caused a reaction with the bone. Some of the bones had tissue attached, and there were instances when flesh, skin and hair/fur were visible. The skulls, however, tended to be fairly brittle, due to a combination of the H൵HFWVof the embalming agents and the microclimate of the catacomb, which alternated between hot and humid, and relatively cool. The brittleness of the skulls made it GL൶FXOW to measure them, as they had a tendency to crumble when handled.

Louise Bertini and Delyth Hurley; the authors are indebted to team members.

3306800

3306750

3306700

23

22

328100

21

20

328100

25

19

328150

26

27 28

16

29

15

30

14

13

31

33

34

12

11

10

32

37

8

328200

36

9

328200

38

7

35

39

6

40

5

41

2

42

4

3

43

44

1

0

46

Metres 25

Tombs

Faunal remains

Dog niches

Faunal samples

328300

50

328300

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

2a

47

49

328250

45

48

328250

Fig. 6.1: Plan of the catacombs with the galleries containing the samples marked. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

24

18

17

328150

3306800 3306750 3306700

136 ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

137

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ Table 6.1: The total number of identified specimens (NISP) from all the galleries. Complete dog and cat mummies, miscellaneous bird, fish, and unidentified animals are not included in this table. *An entire cat mummy was found, but is not counted here, as the bones were not examined individually. TAXON

TOTAL (NISP)

Percentage (NISP)

Bos taurus (cattle)

535

8

Canis aureus lupaster/C. anthus (Egyptian jackal)

71

1.06

Canis familiaris (dog)

5633

84.23

Capra aegarus hircus (goat)

2

0.03

Equus africanus asinus (donkey)

8

0.12

Equus ferus caballus (horse)

9

0.13

Equus sp (unidentifiable equid)

8

0.12

Felis catus (cat)

342*

5.12

Felis chaus nilotica (Egyptian jungle cat)

24

0.36

Herpestes ichneumon (Egyptian mongoose)

15

0.22

Ovis/Capra (sheep/goat)

17

0.25

Sus scrofa (pig)

2

0.03

Vulpes sp. (fox)

22

0.33

MAMMAL TOTAL (NISP)

6688

100

Methodology The quantity of faunal remains present in the catacomb was enormous, and therefore, in order to extract information from these in the time available, a sampling strategy was developed for the galleries containing the canines. The distribution of the deposits was not XQLIRUPWKURXJKRXWWKHGL൵HUHQWJDOOHULHVDVVRPHJDOleries were only partially full. Thus, it was impossible to sample each gallery in the same stratigraphic location. As random sampling did not seem to add any value to the study, it was decided to sample, where possible, from what appeared to be undisturbed or minimally disturbed areas. Where more solid and complete mummified animals were available, these were also collected for study in a dataset separate from the bulk sample. This explains why, in some instances, there are several sampling spots highlighted within a single gallery (Fig. 6.1). The complete mummies were kept for radiographic and macroscopic examination and they,

together with the mummies found in the niches, were analysed separately. In the case of the cattle deposit in gallery 12/37, all of the bones were examined as this seemed to form a unique and complete group. For each gallery that contained canine remains, a 15-litre sample of mummified animals was taken from an area where no obviously wrapped mummies remained (in gallery 9 a 16-litre sample was taken). Initial samples were taken using trowels to carefully sweep the sample into the 15-litre container. The advantage of this technique was that it confined the sampling to a very specific area. However, the disadvantages were that a significant amount of mummy powder (decayed wrappings, fur and flesh) was collected within the sample, and not all elements from a single individual always found their way into the container. Additionally, bones might be broken in the sampling process. Therefore, a more H൵HFWLYHmethod was

138

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

developed and used: the more gentle hand scooping of bones and partial mummies (where they existed) from a defined area VX൶FLHQW to make up the sample. This may be regarded as a somewhat subjective method, but since the bones were frequently from the same individual (although often the entire individual did not make it into the sample) and, in some cases, in partial articulation, this maximized the information available to the analyst. This also significantly reduced the amount of debris collected and, most importantly, minimized potential damage to the bones. The sample was sorted by removing the larger bones by hand, and then sieving the remaining material using a 5mm mesh sieve. The identifications were made in the field using a comparative collection of skeletons from the Ibrahim Helmy Memorial Bioarchaeology Laboratory at the American University in Cairo (cat, dog, jackal (see discussion in the section below), red fox, as well as the basic domesticates). These were augmented by publications and online images. Ageing is based on Silver (1969), Crockford (2009), Barone (2010), Habermehl (1975), Schmid (1972), Sullivan and Haugen (1956), Wood (1958), Harris (1978), and Bingham and Purchase (2003). Measurements follow von den Driesch (1976). An attempt at sexing using humeri, based on the work of Ruscillo (2006) was made but not followed, as the faunal team was not VX൶FLHQWO\ confident in its use, and thus baculi and skull morphology were relied upon for sexing (Crockford 2009). The bones were sorted by anatomical element and then the following information was recorded: taxon, anatomical element, age, sex, pathology, gnawing, burning, weathering, and dimensions. Due to time constraints, ribs and fragments measuring less than 1cm were not recorded. The mature bones were measured and the immature ones (save for radii as they were very fragmented) were counted and grouped according to size (e.g. over 3cm, over 5cm, and so forth, depending on the anatomical element). The ulnae, vertebrae, ribs, and most of the fragmentary pelvises of all the animals

2

3

One should bear in mind that all the results are from samples and thus it is possible that some species that are present in the catacombs are not represented. Most of the foxes identified seem to be Vulpes vulpes aegyptiaca, but it is possible that a few Vulpes ruppelli individuals

were not measured as they provide little extra information; all the other bones were measured. Number of Specimens and Distribution of Species The Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) from the samples, excluding the complete mummies, was 6,688. $OWKRXJKWKHUHDUHSUREOHPVZLWKGL൵HUHQWTXDQtification methods (Gautier 1984), due to taphonomic issues relating to understanding and interpreting a faunal assemblage (Reitz and Wing 2008), the NISP system was employed as it is the most widely used method and one that provides easy comparison with other sites. Surprisingly, not all the animals found in the galleries were canines (this excludes the cattle deposit).ํ In addition to dogs (Canis lupus familiaris), the species included jackal/wolf (see discussion below, under ‘jackal’), goat (Capra aegagrus hircus), donkey (Equus africanus asinus), horse (Equus ferus caballus), cat (Felis catus), Egyptian jungle cat (Felis chaus nilotica), mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon), sheep (Ovis aries), pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) and fox (Vulpes sp.).๎ (Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3). Six unidentified mammal bone fragments and two bird ulnae unidentified to species and one fragmentary catfish (Clarias sp.) cranial fragment were also noted (Table 6.2). After dogs, excluding the cattle from the gallery 12/37 deposit, the most commonly represented animals were cats, jackals, followed by foxes, ovicaprids (from the cattle deposit as well as from gallery 40), equids, followed by mongoose and finally, pigs. The way in which the animals were distributed among the galleries does not seem to follow any particular pattern (Tables. 6.1 and 6.3). Jackals were represented in all the galleries save 10, 23, 33, and 35. Cats were found only in galleries 10 to 12, 21, 34 (containing the majority), 37, 39 and 43. There is neither a noticeable pattern in their location, as they are in galleries on either side of the axial gallery, nor in their numbers. Other animals are sparsely represented and there is no pattern for their deposition.

might have been part of the sample, based on the measurements. Unfortunately, no skulls were found in the samples and thus a clear division between the two species could not be made. No obvious examples of the Fennex Fox (Fennecus zerda) were identified.

719

Canis familaris (dog)

723

MAMMAL TOTAL (NISP)

TOTAL ASSEMBLAGE 723 (NISP)

Siluriforme (catfish)

Unidentifiable Bird

Unidentifiable Mammal

3

Vulpes vulpes (fox)

Sus scrofa (pig)

Ovis/Capra (sheep/goat)

Herpestes ichneumon (Egyptian mongoose)

110

110

1

210

1

209

1

255

255

14

6

330

330

349

3

346

7

254

254

119

119

1

103

103

1

447

2

445

3

546

546

249

1

248

291

291

6

367

1

366

1

9

112

359

359

77

77

208

2

18

37

259

1

258

1

190

190

189

1

38

213

213

212

1

39

369

369

7

2

147

211

2

40

335

335

4

13

314

4

43

0

509

542

542

1

9

5

6697

1

2

6

6688

22

2

17

15

29

337

8

9

8

2

5633

71

535

100

0.33

0.03

0.25

0.22

0.43

5.04

0.12

0.13

0.12

0.03

84.23

1.06

8.00

SHAFT TOTAL % 12-37 (NISP) (NISP)

8

1

76

1

36

Felis chaus nilotica (Egyptian jungle cat)

24

359

35

25

12

235

9

34

3

285

33

Felis catus (cat)

239

9

32

3

545

1

30

Equus sp. (unidentifiable equid)

432

7

3

28

8

102

23

1

112

6

22

Equus ferus caballus (horse)

249

4

21

8

324

13

2

18

Equus africanus asinus (donkey)

328

2

17

2

204

7

12

Capra hircus (goat)

192

1

1

11

Canis aureus (jackal) 98

10

3

9

Bos taurus (cattle)

TAXON

GALLERY

Table 6.2: Galleries and animals found therein within the samples.

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ 139

9

2

1

6

3

1

1

2

17

30 22 23 45 35

1

3

617

2 9

1 25

5

2

10

48

2

3

1

1

2

2

3

1

1

2

485

26

22

TOTAL (MNI)

0

15

SHAFT 12-37

1

21 21 22 24 29

1

5

1

1

1

2

10 11 12 17 18 21 22 23 28 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 43

TAXON Bos taurus (cattle) 3 1 1 Canis aureus 1 1 2 1 4 1 2 2 1 2 2 (jackal) Canis familaris 55 20 15 15 25 22 16 9 20 44 44 16 24 14 24 (dog) Capra hircus (goat) Equus africanus asinus (donkey) Equus ferus caballus (horse) Equus sp. (unidentifiable equid) Felis catus (cat) 2 3 3 1 17 Felis chaus nilotica (Egyptian jungle 2 2 2 cat) Herpestes ichneumon 1 1 (Egyptian mongoose) Ovis/Capra (sheep/ goat) Sus scrofa (pig) 1 Vulpes vulpes (fox) 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 MAMMAL TOTAL 57 25 23 23 26 29 18 12 21 48 45 18 26 36 24 (MNI)

GALLERY

Table 6.3: Numbers of Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) calculated for each species per sample per gallery.

140 ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ Mummification and Wrapping There might have been considerable variation in how the animals were mummified throughout the many galleries of the catacomb, depending on the time period, the ateliers used and the cost of the R൵HULQJThus, the information here is based solely on what was observed from the samples, the niches and the mummies seen on the surface of the deposits. On the whole, the mummification of the animals in the catacomb was not carried out to a very high standard. As far as could be ascertained, the mummy bundles contained single individuals, although it is possible that there were groups of animals wrapped together, particularly in the case of immature individuals. All the packages were very dark brown (Fig 6.2), as was the loose powder associated with them. They tended to crumble to dust at the least touch, and for the most part, very few complete examples were found, at least in exposed portions of the catacomb. Almost all of the more or less complete mummies were of dogs, with the notable exception of the two raptor mummies found in gallery 32 (see section on birds, below). Within their wrappings, the dogs appeared to have been positioned as if they were seated, with the tail placed flush against the belly. The hind paws were flexed, in the few cases, where they could be observed in situ. The birds were positioned with wings folded and legs extending along the belly and tail on the ventral side. All the animals were poorly mummified, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of them had lost much of their connective tissue (or indeed, all tissue). Only a few of the mummies bore evidence of the use of natron to desiccate the bodies.๏6FLHQWL¿FWHVWVRQWKH mummies, such as Scanning Electron Microscopy, would determine the extent to which natron or salt was employed in the mummification SURFHVV๐ It is possible that minimal amounts of natron were used after eviscerating the animals, which has left little trace on the bodies.๑Some dogs showed infestation of fly larvae in the form of desiccated pupae shells of Calliphorid or

4 5

Visual and taste test. These and other tests could not be carried out due to the absence of permissions for sampling and testing from the Egyptian State Security services.

141

blow fly. These are found not only when animals have been lying around in the open, but also when LQVX൶cient amounts of natron have been used to cover the body, allowing the flies to infiltrate the body and continue their life cycle there (Ikram 2015c; 2015d). There were, however, a few cases, where lime (or maybe gypsum) may have been used in the mummification process, as fragments of whitish material were found on the bodies, both within and beneath them. Similar whitish material was also found on the surface of the wrappings – the latter could be due to powdering limestone from the catacomb itself (Fig. 6.3).๒ Similar whitish inclusions have been noted, albeit to a lesser degree, on and in some of the raptor mummies found in the mud brick galleries at Quesna (Rowland et al. 2013) that Ikram has studied. Chemical tests should be carried out in the future to provide secure identification of this material. Were some of the dogs macerated by being put into lime for a short time, then removed (when somewhat decomposed) and anointed with a mixture of oil and resin before being wrapped? If this were the case, it is a departure from more traditional mummification methods (Ikram 2015c). Other forms of maceration, possibly using liquid (Charron 2013), have been used to create mummies, particularly cattle mummies (for example, Cairo Museum CG 29676). Similar maceration methods probably also were used to de-flesh the body of a canine that was wrapped and interred in a FR൶Q in the form of Anubis (Cairo Museum CG 29758). Other forms of mummification involve dipping creatures in mixtures of oil/resin/bitumen, before wrapping them (Nicholson 2005). Certainly, this did not hold true for all of the animals, as in some cases the fur and flesh was visible beneath the wrappings (often adhering to the wrappings). These would have been destroyed had the animals been placed in a lime pit for an appreciable amount of time. Since at least three examples of this white powder were found on mummies that retained their connective tissue, the white powder was probably not lime.

6 7

The relative absence of natron was judged using the taste test. Taste tests argue against this material being natron.

142

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

One thing is clear about the mummification process of the animals found here: they were anointed with a mixture of oils and resins prior to bandaging. These oils and resins were applied also to the bandages. Generous measures were used, as is attested by the clumping of these materials in the fur and the way in which they seeped through the bandages (Fig. 6.4). The lavish use of oils and resins partially explains the very dark colour of the mummy bundles and the surrounding powder. These were very hot in some cases when they were poured onto the animals, causing a sort of burning, and blackening of the animals’ bodies. In other cases, the oil/resin had even burnt through the bodies’ tissue and was attached to the bone (Fig. 6.5). It is also possible that the poor state of preservation of the mummies is due to the fact that the animals had been poorly desiccated and that when the hot oils and resins were applied prior to wrapping and placing in the catacomb, a chemical reaction occurred, leading to a spontaneous combustion that occurred slowly, as is seen in garbage heaps even today, that contributed to the destruction of the body. Of course, the environmental factors of fluctuating heat and humidity in the catacombs might also have contributed to the mummies’ destruction. All the animals were wrapped, often in more than seven or eight layers of linen bandages (14 to 18 layers were seen in some cases), with four to six layers being the average. In some examples, one could see that the limbs were placed close to the bodies and they were wrapped together with the body, with some extra rolls of linen added in to provide protection to the belly, tail, and foreleg areas (Fig. 6.3). The quality of linen used in the bandages varies. Some was of very loose weave, some was finer and denser, with thin linen thread (S-spun) being used. For the most part, the dogs seemed to have been simply wrapped in spiral bandages. However, there were a few exceptions, suggesting that a greater variation occurred. One puppy was wrapped, and folded papyrus (?) strips were then tied around him to keep the bandages in

8

Some of the more complete animals were named, and are referred to by their names, as well as specimen numbers in the text and tables. This avoided confusion in the field.

place, followed by more bandages, or maybe even a shroud (Fig. 6.6). Another dog was covered in spiral bandages, and then the final wrappings were kept in place by tidily folded linen strips that were tied horizontally around the body, producing a neat lined pattern (Fig. 6.7). A dog from niche 6E (see below for niche dog details) might have been placed in a FR൶QDVZHUH other niche animals, but the niche also contained the remains of cartonnage consisting of OLQHQVWL൵HQHGZLWK plaster and decorated with a checkerboard design in blue, white, and red paint, and edged in green. It is possible that the cartonnage had been placed here by a later visitor and had nothing to do with the canine remains found in the niche. However, if the cartonnage belongs to the dog entombed in the niche, it supports the idea that niche burials represented a GL൵HUHQWvalue of animal (see below and discussions in Nicholson et al. 2015 and Ikram et al. 2013b) and that quite elaborate wrapping, if not mummification, was carried out on these creatures. As far as could be determined, the dogs were positioned within their wrappings in a way that corresponds to the treatment of dog mummies from other sites: namely as if they were seated, in some instances with the hind paws pushed up toward the tibia and their tails on their bellies (Ikram and Iskander 2002; Raven and Taconis 2005; Ikram in preparation). It is possible that the position was maintained and wrapping made easier, by tying a linen bandage or string around the nether limbs or even the forepaws. One animal (9C, ‘Fido’)๓ was buried with his right forepaw crossed over the left; these might have been tied in this position, but it was impossible to be sure. The cats were also mummified in the same position as the dogs. It would have been interesting to see how the ichneumons were positioned, but this could not be determined. The two raptor mummies (Fig. 6.8; Fig. 6.9) in gallery 32 were interesting as, although their bandages were of the same colour and consistency of the dogs, one was much more elaborately bandaged, in a

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

143

Fig. 6.3: Cross-section of a dog mummy from gallery 39 showing the distribution of bandages between and around limbs as well as the distribution of white powder both inside and outside the mummy.

Fig. 6.2: A complete dog mummy from Gallery 35 (35DM-6).

Fig. 6.4: Dog mummy (11.I) from Gallery 11 showing flesh, skin, fur, textile and white powder.

144

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Fig. 6.5: Skull of a cat from gallery 40 showing evidence of mummification. It also suffered from tooth loss and alveolar resorption. Fig. 6.6: A well wrapped puppy mummy from gallery 39, with textile and possibly vegetal wrappings.

Fig. 6.7: Portion of a dog mummy from gallery 40 with tidy, folded linen bands creating a striped pattern over the shroud.

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

Fig. 6.8: Raptor mummy from gallery 32 wrapped in a herringbone pattern.

Fig. 6.9: Raptor mummy from gallery 32 with plain wrapping; the bottom portion is broken.

145

146

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

herringbone pattern (possibly the other had a similar shroud which had fallen R൵ with their facial features (beak and eyes) defined, to some extent, in linen. Such elaborate bandaging is common in both human and animal mummies of the Graeco-Roman era. The Animals The range of animals varied, with dogs dominating the group. They are presented below, from the most to the least plentiful. Dogs (with Delyth Hurley) A total of 5,633 dog (Canis familiaris) bones were identified from the samples, yielding a MNI of 485 individuals (Tables 6.2 and 6.3). This was the most common species found in the catacomb (it is possible that the post cranial bones include some jackal/wolf specimens (see below), but as these could not be positively separated from the dog bones, they are included within the dog group). It was not always possible to separate male from female animals, although, some identifications can be made based on the presence of baculum and skull morphology (Crockford 2009), suggesting a preponderance of males (Table 6.4). Bone size, even of the atlas, is not a reliable method of GL൵HUHQWLDWLRQ as GL൵HUHQW types of dogs were present. In the context of the Anubieion, one would expect males to outnumber females for two reasons: firstly, Anubis is a male deity and thus R൵HULQJ male animals would have been logical; secondly, it is possible that bitches were kept for breeding purposes, while males would have been more expendable (see discussion section below). TDEOH6H[LGHQWL¿FDWLRQRIGRJVEDVHGRQGL൵HULQJ elements. Two male dogs (35.1 (‘Sleepy’) and 18.1 (‘Varg’) were semi-complete and their sex was confirmed both by skull morphology and the presence of a baculum. Element Male Female Skull 27 6 Baculum 20 NA

The animals were of all ages, from foetal to neonates to old dogs, with far more immature animals being present in the samples (Fig. 6.14). Most of the animals

died between the ages of 7 and 8 months (about 75%), with only a small percentage (roughly 25%) dying when mature (greater than 3 years). Clearly, animals of DOODJHVZHUHDFFHSWDEOHDVR൵HULQJVThis might reflect the true state of D൵DLUVin the galleries, but it could also be slightly skewed, as the samples were only 15 litres in volume, and were taken from single areas. However, all of the galleries contained immature individuals, particularly galleries 9 and 28. The only gallery with slightly more mature animals than juveniles/immature animals was gallery 21. Thus, it seems as if these ages present a fair view of the catacomb’s overall contents. The dog remains at Asyut (Kitagawa 2016, 40-41) DUHUHSRUWHGDVVKRZLQJDGUDPDWLFDOO\GL൵HUHQWPRUWDOity profile to those found at Saqqara. The majority of bones came from animals over 3 years of age (Kitagawa 2016, 40-46). The mortality profile of the remains from el-Deir in the Kharga Oasis, however, is closer to that of Saqqara, with puppies of under 6 months of age and young adults (6 to 16 months) being in the majority, and only some examples of dogs being over 4 years of age (Dunand et al. 2015, 175). This suggests that strategies of animal management varied at GL൵HUHQW sites, which might be due to diachronic change or differences in cult practices, with that of el-Deir (and the nearby site of Dabashiya, that is yet to be formally studied) being closer to what was practiced at Saqqara, and the one at Asyut being of a GL൵HUHQWilk. The age profile at Saqqara certainly suggests that puppies were being killed deliberately (whether by drowning, strangulation, early separation from their mothers, or by some other means) in order to supply the cult. Older animals, both male and female, were also R൵HUHGbut in far lower numbers. The question of identifying breeds is a vexed one and it is GL൶FXOWto correlate ancient breeds with modern ones (Harcourt 1974; Drake and Klingenberg 2010). The term ‘breed’ is used loosely here as in antiquity, ‘breed’ names largely reflected geographic location or point of origin (either known, mythical or assumed), which may not correspond precisely to modern concepts of ‘breed’ as defined genetically (MacKinnon 2010). However, it is clear that GL൵HUHQW types (breeds) of dogs existed in ancient Egypt based on pictorial evidence as well as, to some extent, skeletal evidence, which shows varying morphological types of dogs based on metrics (Osborn and Osbornova 1998; Paton 1925; Rice 2006; Carter et al. 1900, 1-9, pl. 27; Klebs 1915; 1922; 1934; Zeuner 1963, 94-99;

147

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

Table 6.5: Age range using Barone 2010 (Here, puppy is defined as between 1 to 5 months, juveniles are 6 to 15 months, adults are over 15 months). Bone Element Scapula Ds. Humerus Px. Humerus Ds. Radius Px.. Radius Ds. Ulna Px. Ulna Ds. Metacarpal Acetabulum- Pelvis Ischal tuberosity- Pelvis Iliac Crest- Pelvis Ds. Femur Px. Femur Ds. Tibia Px. Tibia Ds. Metatarsal Calcaneus

Fused 169 184 169 7 5 72 148 86 155 155 155 157 149 205 143 10 37

Unfused 197 384 463 92 121 309 267 7 55 126 179 419 347 360 433 117 81

Wilkinson 1837, 99-100; Boessneck 1975; 1980; 1988, 83-85; Epstein 1971, 51-82; Brewer et al. 1994, 11617; Brewer 2002, 32-43; Listemann 2010, 15-22; Churcher 1993; Dunand et al. 2015; Lortet and Gaillard 1903; 1905; Kitagawa 2016; Chaix and Olive 1986). Indeed, some dogs were even imported in the form of tribute, which would have added to the diversity of dogs in Egypt. A tribute scene in the tomb of Amenmose (Theban Tomb 8๔), for example, depicts Nubians bringing a pack of dogs with lop ears and sabre tails. Kitagawa, in her work on the dog burials in Asyut, has listed six types (Kitagawa 2016, 46 and Fig. 8 a-f), which we follow here, with some modifications and additions. These are: • Tjesem type: narrow muzzles, slender bodies, erect ears, curled tails, varying colours, often shown in a hunting context or under owner’s chair, and one of the earliest dog types depicted (Fig. 6.10).

9

It is possible that the Tjesem type extends its tail in certain situations – a thorough iconographic study of dogs would be valuable, but is beyond the scope of the present work.

% Fused 46.2 32.4 26.7 7.1 4.0 18.9 35.7 92.5 73.8 55.2 46.4 27.3 30.0 36.3 24.8 7.9 31.4 • •

•

•

•

Majority Age Estimate c. 8 months c. 8 months < 15 months < 12 months < 10 months < 12 months < 8 months > 7 months > 6 months < 12 months < 24 months < 12 months < 12 months < 10 months < 12 months > 7 months < 13 months

Greyhound type: thin bodies, erect ears, sabre tail, varying colours, often shown in a hunting context (Fig. 6.11). Saluki type: broader muzzles than Tjesem or Greyhound type, slender bodies, lop ears, sabre tail, varying colours, often shown in a hunting context (Fig. 6.12). Pariah type: Broad head, erect ears, but pendulous in young, varying lengths of tails, cocked or pendant, various colours, shown with the master or mistress (Fig. 6.13). 0DVWL൵ type: robust heads and bodies, short muzzles, lop ears, pendant tails, more known in the Predynastic context, but also seen with master and mistress (Fig. 6.14). Basenji type: broad head, medium sized muzzle, erect ears, curled tail, short legs (shorter than a modern Basenji, males of which have withers height of 41-43cm, and females 38-41cm), shown with master or mistress as well as hunting (Fig. 6.15).

148

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Fig. 6.10: Tjesem from Beni Hasan (Tomb 15). (Photo: Courtesy of L. Evans and the Australian Centre for Egyptology, Macquarie University).

Fig. 6.11: Greyhound type (back) and Saluki type in foreground, from Beni Hasan tomb of Khnumhotep. (Photo: Courtesy of L. Evans and the Australian Centre for Egyptology, Macquarie University).

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

Fig. 6.12: Saluki type from the tomb of Paheri at El Kab. (Photo: S. Ikram).

Fig. 6.13: Pariah type from Beni Hasan (Tomb 17, Khety). (Photo: Courtesy of L. Evans and the Australian Centre for Egyptology, Macquarie University).

149

150

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Fig. 6.14: Mastiff type. (Drawing: I. Dennis, after Churcher 1993 (who based his image on material from Hierakonpolis, see Quibell 1900, pl. XII.7 and XIX).

Fig. 6.15: A small dog, together with a Saluki type, from the tomb of Sirenput at Kubbet el Hawa. (Photo: L. Bertini).

151

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

Fig. 6.16: Small dog from the Tomb of Khnumhotep (Tomb 3) at Beni Hasan. (Photo: Courtesy of and copyright of the Australian Centre for Egyptology, Macquarie University).

Table 6.6: Table with calculations of Withers heights (in cm) for each measurable dog, showing the GL൵HUHQWresults depending on the bones used to make the calculation. Humerus Radius Femur 33 38 33.9 33.7 40.4 35.4 35.4 43.4 37.8 35.8 44.3 38.3 40.5 44.4 38.4 40.7 44.6 41.3 41.3 45.1 42.6 41.8 45.2 44.5 41.9 45.2 45.5 42.1 45.2 46.1 42.3 45.2 46.3 42.5 45.2 46.7 42.6 45.2 46.9 42.6 45.2 47 43.2 45.2 47.2 43.3 45.2 47.4 43.3 45.2 47.4 43.5 45.2 47.7 43.7 45.3 48 43.7 45.4 48 44.3 45.4 48 44.3 45.5 48.2 44.5 46.1 48.2 44.8 46.2 48.3 44.9 46.3 48.3

Humerus Radius Femur 44.9 46.8 48.5 45.1 46.8 48.5 45.2 47.3 48.6 45.4 47.3 48.6 45.4 47.4 48.9 45.4 47.4 49.3 45.7 47.6 49.3 46.1 47.6 49.3 46.1 48 49.3 46.1 48.2 49.4 46.4 48.3 49.5 46.4 48.8 49.7 46.4 48.8 49.8 46.4 48.9 49.9 46.4 48.9 50.4 46.6 49 50.5 46.6 49 50.5 46.7 49.1 50.5 47.1 49.1 50.7 47.3 49.6 50.8 47.3 49.8 50.8 47.3 49.9 50.8 42.7 50 51.1 45.9 50 51.6 47.4 50.1 51.8

Humerus Radius Femur 47.5 50.1 52.1 47.8 50.3 52.2 47.8 50.3 53 47.9 50.4 52.9 48.4 50.4 53 48.4 50.4 53 48.5 50.6 53 48.5 50.8 53 48.6 50.8 53.2 48.7 50.9 53.2 49 51 53.3 49.2 51.2 53.8 49.2 51.2 54 49.4 51.3 54 49.5 51.6 54 49.5 51.9 54.2 49.6 51.9 54.6 49.8 52.2 55.1 49.8 52.5 55.2 49.8 52.8 55.2 49.8 52.8 55.2 49.8 52.8 55.4 49.9 52.8 56.2 50 53 56.5 50 54.1 56.5

Humerus Radius Femur 50.2 54.1 56.7 50.2 54.4 56.8 50.3 55.9 56.8 50.5 56.8 57.1 50.9 57 58.1 51.4 58.6 581 51.5 61.4 58.4 52.6 62.7 58.4 52.8 77.3 59.9 52.9 60.1 52.9 53.1 53.6 53.6 53.8 53.9 53.9 54.9 55.3 55.7 56.3 56.4 63.1 75.7

152

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Fig. 6.17: Distribution of withers heights in cm.

80

70

Number of Elements

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

30-40 4

40-50 68

50-60 24

60-70 1

70-80 1

Radius

1

46

34

2

1

Femur

5

34

45

1

0

Humerus

Fig. 6.18: Plot of withers heights in cm.

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ •

Small Dog: short legged dog, long muzzles, erect ears, pendant tails (about 20-30cm high at the withers) shown with master and mistress (Fig. 6.16). In a few instances the dogs’ coats could be observed. Some of the mummies comprised long-haired animals, while a few had shorter coats. The colour varied from a yellow/mustard, that is very commonly seen in modern dogs at the site, to one example that was dark brown or black – what one would expect for an animal dedicated to Anubis. In some instances, it was impossible to determine the colour of the pelage, as the embalming agents had coated the fur so that it was blackened. This kind of coating is seen with other animal mummies, so it is more likely that it was a normal part of the embalming process rather than a deliberate tribute to (and transformation into) Anubis, although it might have served both purposes. Although the fur could be discerned in some samples, the types of ears and tails could not. Thus, identifying types (breeds) depended on their size, and to a lesser extent (as it was GL൶FXOW to carry out all the necessary measurements on all the skulls), skull morphology. The withers heights of the dogs found in the Anubis catacombs, following Harcourt (1974), shows varying sized adult animals, spread throughout the catacombs. Humerus calculations indicate that the smallest dogs were only 33cm and the largest 75.7cm, with the majority falling within the 40 to 49cm range, a handful within the 50+cm range, and a single outlier of 63cm. The radius yielded heights of 37.9cm and 77.3cm (this is the same individual whose humerus yielded the 75.7cm height, indicating a range for his size), with most being in the 40+cm range, a handful in the 50+cm range, and two measuring 60+cm. Femurs gave similar numbers: 33.9cm to 60cm, with almost equal numbers in the 40+ and 50+cm ranges

10

As Kitagawa (2016, 54-61), in her comprehensive publication of the Asyut dog cemeteries, has laid out the shoulder sizes of dogs from GL൵HUHQWsites, as did Churcher (1993). The work is not repeated here, so interested readers should consult those works.

153

(Table 6.6, Fig. 6.17 and Fig. 6.18); for a comparison with modern dog breeds see Table 6.7. These measurements show that the overwhelming number of dogs fell within the 40-60cm height range, which is medium to large dogs (equivalent to Collies to Labradors). This was also the case with the dogs from other sites in Egypt,10 most notably, the burials at Asyut (Kitagawa 2016, 47-53). The pattern also corresponds to the dog burials from the Graeco-Roman period found at other sites, such as Ain Tirgi in Dakhla Oasis (Churcher 1993; Kitagawa 2016, 55), Tuna el-Gebel (Boessneck and von den Driesch 1987, 187-89; Kitagawa 2016, 55), and el-Deir in Kharga Oasis (Dunand et al. 2105, 175). Some dogs dating to other periods and from other sites also fall into this grouping: Merimde (von den Driesch and Boessneck 1985, 30-34), and Tell el-Dab‘a (Boessneck 1976, 34; Boessneck and von den Driesch 1992, 30-31). In terms of cranial variations, which also are helpful in defining morphotypes/phenotypes, the dogs broadly fell into three main groups (only a limited number of measurements could be taken due to the fragile nature of many of the skulls; see Table 6.8. Group I, with long, thin muzzles and a narrow cranium (dolichocephalic), similar to Tjesem, Saluki, and Greyhound (Fig. 6.20), Group II, with short muzzles and a narrow cranium, of about equal length, a little like a Basenji skull (mesocephalic) (Fig. 6.21), and Group III, with short muzzles and a broad cranium, similar to Pariah types (brachycephalic) (Fig. 6.22). In addition to these basic groupings, there was one unusually large dog (18.1, ‘Varg’), reminiscent of a wolf, although without replicating a wolf’s skull morphology (Fig. 6.23), while one very small dog was also noted (not in the sample, Fig. 6.19). The majority of the dogs sampled in the Saqqara catacomb seem to fall into Groups I and II.

154

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Table 6.7: Heights of modern dog breed (Information derived from www.dogtime.com/dog-breeds and www.dogbreedinfo.com/index, accessed July 2017). Shoulder height 20-30 cm 30-40 cm 40-50 cm 50-60 cm 60-70 cm 70-90 cm

Selected Examples of Modern Breeds Maltese, Welsh Corgi, Pug Italian Greyhound, Basenji, Beagle, English Cocker Spaniel Border Collie Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever (female; male is 57-62), German Shepherd (female), Indian pariah Borzoi, Saluki, Greyhound (female) 0DVWL൵Greyhound (male 71-76), St. Bernard (male; female is 65-80), Kangal, Anatolian

Table 6.8: Measurements of dog skulls that could be obtained, following von den Driesch 1976. The largest measurements belong to Varg (18.1). Measurements in mm. Measurement Cranial SKULL 1 SKULL 2 SKULL 7 SKULL 9 SKULL 13 SKULL 15 SKULL 17 SKULL 23 SKULL 25 SKULL 26 SKULL 27 SKULL 28 SKULL 29 SKULL 32 Mandible SKULL 1 SKULL 2 SKULL 4 SKULL 8 SKULL 18 SKULL 19 SKULL 20 Teeth SKULL M1L SKULL M1B SKULL M2L SKULL M2B

n

Min.

Max

Mean

Std Dev.

V

19 3 23 14 18 19 15 43 46 42 46 34 20 20

143.8 137.4 57.1 76.0 71.1 49.0 36.8 30.0 23.5 14.0 13.4 12.0 45.0 33.1

201.0 188.0 102.1 122.0 92.7 77.9 51.1 72.3 51.7 59.4 20.2 18.1 60.5 58.3

170.6 169.0 79.8 97.1 82.5 60.5 45.3 58.7 35.0 43.2 17.3 15.6 52.9 48.3

18.0 27.5 10.3 11.9 6.5 7.1 4.5 9.5 5.6 10.0 1.7 1.5 4.2 6.4

10.6 16.3 12.9 12.3 7.9 11.7 9.9 16.2 16.0 23.1 9.8 9.6 7.9 13.3

64 62 65 81 58 63 62

69.0 66.0 63.1 40.5 32.1 15.3 12.7

183.0 180.0 164.0 92.0 74.0 29.2 45.4

119.5 114.3 104.9 63.3 49.5 21.1 17.5

18.4 17.2 16.2 8.0 6.7 2.9 4.2

15.4 15.0 15.4 12.6 13.5 13.7 24.0

32 33 14 14

7.3 4.9 5.3 5.7

25.4 17.2 20.0 8.0

16.7 7.7 9.7 6.4

6.2 2.1 3.4 0.6

36.9 27.0 35.5 9.6

155

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ Table 6.9: Limb bone measurements of dogs; Varg (18.1) is the largest. Measurements in mm. Measurement Atlas Gl Atlas GB Atlas BFcf Axis LCDe Axis LAPa Axis H Scapula HS Scapula Glp Scapula SLC Humerus Gl Humerus Bd Humerus Bp Radius Gl Radius Bd Radius Bp Ulna Gl Femur Gl Femur Bd Femur Bp Tibia Gl Tibia Bd Tibia Bp Pelvis Gl Pelvis LA Pelvis Lfo Sacrum Gl Sacrum Bd Sacrum GB Sacrum BFcf Sacrum BFER Metacarpal 2 Gl Metacarpal 2 Bd Metacarpal 2 Bp Metacarpal 3 Gl Metacarpal 3 Bd Metacarpal 3 Bp Metacarpal 4 Gl Metacarpal 4 Bd Metacarpal 4 Bp Metacarpal 5 Gl Metacarpal 5 Bd Metacarpal 5 Bp Metatarsal 2 Gl Metatarsal 2 Bd Metatarsal 2 Bp Metatarsal 3 Gl Metatarsal 3 Bd Metatarsal 3 Bp Metatarsal 4 Gl Metatarsal 4 Bd Metatarsal 4 Bp Metatarsal 5 Gl Metatarsal 6 Bd Metatarsal 5 Bp

n 39 27 3 27 39 37 30 112 85 97 154 145 84 139 121 23 85 140 130 89 138 145 32 90 42 22 2 22 15 2 12 12 11 23 23 21 26 26 22 24 24 20 39 38 32 41 41 33 21 21 17 16 16 16

Min. 24.7 37.9 34.5 31.0 27.5 23.8 81.5 18.9 17.4 111.0 15.7 16.0 113.1 10.5 10.3 153.5 112.0 12.0 12.3 113.0 11.5 16.0 107.2 16.0 19.2 32.5 35.9 33.8 13.8 19.9 45.5 6.9 7.8 44.6 6.4 5.6 51.0 6.2 5.6 41.8 6.5 5.7 38.6 4.8 4.6 48.7 5.1 6.1 55.6 6.3 6.6 53.7 5.8 5.6

Max 49.0 82.5 39.0 65.0 72.3 54.0 139.0 36.2 31.5 191.6 46.0 45.1 237.0 34.0 27.0 197.0 195.5 39.0 43.0 201.0 38.0 40.4 213.0 32.1 28.7 51.0 39.8 50.0 38.4 20.4 58.0 9.0 12.0 78.0 9.2 12.0 75.1 9.0 12.0 76.7 9.0 12.1 73.0 9.0 13.5 81.0 10.0 15.5 82.3 9.5 14.0 70.4 8.5 10.3

Mean 33.2 66.2 36.6 45.7 45.9 32.2 117.6 26.0 22.7 146.8 28.8 32.7 149.5 20.1 16.0 173.7 165.1 27.8 32.1 160.8 20.4 29.2 132.8 20.2 24.0 40.3 37.8 42.1 22.2 20.1 52.0 7.8 10.4 63.0 9.0 9.2 59.1 7.6 8.5 50.2 7.7 8.6 59.3 7.0 8.6 64.2 7.5 10.5 66.8 7.9 11.0 59.0 6.9 7.9

Std Dev. 5.0 10.4 2.3 7.0 6.9 5.5 13.3 2.8 2.4 12.8 4.0 5.6 16.2 3.3 2.3 11.1 16.6 3.8 6.1 18.3 4.0 4.9 18.7 2.5 2.6 4.1 2.8 3.9 5.4 0.4 3.7 0.7 1.3 7.4 0.8 1.8 5.5 0.8 2.3 7.0 0.7 1.8 6.8 0.9 2.8 6.7 1.0 2.6 6.5 1.0 2.2 4.6 0.7 1.5

V 15.1 15.7 6.3 15.3 15.1 17.1 11.3 10.8 10.4 8.7 13.9 17.1 10.8 16.5 14.4 6.4 10.1 13.8 18.9 11.4 19.6 16.9 14.1 12.3 10.6 10.1 7.3 9.1 24.2 2.0 7.0 9.5 12.3 11.7 9.3 19.7 9.4 11.1 27.7 13.9 8.6 20.9 11.5 12.1 32.8 10.4 13.1 24.7 9.7 13.1 19.7 7.7 10.3 19.2

156

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Fig. 6.19: The skull of a dog (30.6 (Smush)) that was noted but not collected or measured during a check to make sure that the galleries had not suffered from inclement weather. The proportions strongly suggest that this is a Maltese type dog (thanks to D. Bennett for confirmation of this identification). Such smaller dogs were increasingly common in the Roman period, but have been noted before.

Fig. 6.21: The long cranium and short-muzzled type (9C, Fido).

Fig. 6.20: The long muzzled, narrow cranium type (36.1 (Len), 36.2 (Mark), and 36.3 (Brut)).

Fig. 6.22: The short muzzled and broad cranium type (18.13, which also shows evidence of trauma to the head in the form of a circular depression).

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

Fig. 6.23: Varg (18.1), the largest dog found.

Jackals It is GL൶FXOW to GL൵HUHQWLDWH jackals from dogs; the only reliable anatomical element is the metaconid on the mandibular first molar, which is strongly defined and projects lingually (Payne 1983; Simon Davis, pers. comm.). As a general observation, based on examination of comparative collections, jackals tend to have more gracile bones than dogs, with more defined muscle attachments on the humerus. Thus, the long bones that have been identified as belonging to jackals use these criteria (or were clearly associated with an identified skull), with the caveat that a few of the jackal identifications might be disputed. It should be noted that, between the time of examining the bones and the time of writing this discussion, several changes have arisen with regard to the identification of jackals. Until 2011 or so, Egypt was thought to have been home to the Golden Jackal (Canis aureus or C. a. lupaster), a creature resembling a large dog, blackish on top, with yellow limbs, a dorsal mane and a relatively short, brush-like tail (Osborn and Helmy 1980, 361-71), similar in volume, if not in length, to that of Anubis. These nocturnal animals are also seen

157

in the late afternoon. Although primarily desert dwellers, they enter inhabited areas, and nowadays even make their dens in ancient Egyptian tombs (Osborn and Helmy 1980, 361-71; Hoath 2003, 73; Osborn and Osbornova 1998). There had been some debate, over time, as to whether these creatures were indeed golden jackals or relatives of the wolf (for example, Hilzheimer 1908; Flower 1933; Harrison 1968; Epstein 1971, 6-11; Harrison and Bates 1991; Ferguson 1981; Hoath 2003, 73). Recent genetic studies, however, have elucidated the debate, while throwing the nomenclature of these animals into some confusion (Rueness et al. 2011; Gaubert et al. 2012; Koepfli et al. 2015). These show that the animals in Egypt that had hitherto been classed as jackals actually have more in common with wolves (Canis lupus), rather than with the golden jackal (Canis aureus), and are in fact a subspecies of the grey wolf rather than a subspecies of the golden jackal. Indeed, according to the genetic findings, no golden jackal of the Eurasian type is found in Africa. As a result, there is also some debate about the nomenclature used for the Egyptian jackal. Proposals include Canis aureus lupaster (Rueness et al. 2011; 2015), which already was used by some scholars (Osborn and Helmy 1980, 361, referencing earlier scholars); Canis lupus lupaster or the African Wolf (Gaubert et al. 2012); or Canis anthus African golden wolf (Koepfli et al. 2015). In this publication, we will continue to use Canis aureus lupaster (or refer to it as the Egyptian Jackal), with the understanding that genetically, the animal in question is closer to a wolf. It is interesting that in the ancient world, a town associated with Anubis and Wepwawet, such as Asyut, was called Lycopolis, City of the Wolf – perhaps the ancients had a clearer understanding of the animals found in Egypt than we do today. A total of 71 specimens (MNI of 26, see Tables 6.1 and 6.3) of Egyptian Jackal were identified in the sample, based on dentition, morphology, and morphometrics. The majority of these are mature adults, with a few juveniles and one or two immature individuals (Fig. 6.24). Their number suggests that these animals might have been actively sought out to R൵HUto Anubis – certainly, save for their colouring, they resemble images of that god. Of course, these specimens may alternatively represent accidental finds of dead, injured, abandoned, hunted or trapped animals, which the priests decided to embalm and inter. The jackals that live near the Nile Valley tend to attack domestic animals and feed on cultivated crops, as well as destroying

158

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Fig. 6.24: Age distribution of jackals, n=51. Juvenile is classed as under 9 months (Deciduous teeth, scapula, distal metapodial epiphysis, and distal humerus all unfused); Young Adult is between 10-12 months (Permanent Canines erupted, proximal radius, femur (proximal and distal) all fused), and Mature Adult is over 12 months (all permanent teeth erupted, all bones fused). The ranges and criteria are based on established methodologies (Sullivan and Haugen 1956; Wood 1958; Harris 1978; Bingham and Purchase 2003; Barone 2010; Silver 1969).

Table 6.10: Skull measurements of jackals in mm. Measurement Skull 1 Skull 7 Skull 9 Skull 13 Skull 14 Skull 15 Skull 17 Skull 22

155 76 88 77 56.5 27

84.1 57.4 63.15

155 80.05 88 77 57.4 56.5 27 63.15

0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 6.11: Mandible measurements of jackals in mm. Measurement Mandible 1 Mandible 2 Mandible 4 Mandible 8 Mandible 18 Mandible 19 Mandible 20 P4B M1B M 1L M 2B M 2L

n 7 6 7 7 5 6 6 4 3 3 3 3

Min. 105.6 98.9 89.6 56.1 40.7 15.8 13.6 10 20.1 7.4 8.8 5.8

Max 124.3 117 100.8 67.8 45.2 20.6 15.6 11.1 21.8 8.5 10.6 6.4

Mean 112 105.4 94.9 62.8 43.5 18.5 15 10.6 20.9 7.9 9.7 6.1

Std Dev. 7.2 7.4 4.2 3.7 1.8 1.7 1.4 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.3

V 6.4 7.0 4.4 5.9 4.1 9.2 9.3 4.7 4.3 7.6 9.3 4.9

159

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

vulpes and more ubiquitous, particularly as, unlike V. vulpes, it can survive more successfully in waterless regions. A few bones of what are, probably, V. r. rueppelli are also within our sample. The third type, which is the smallest of the three, is most commonly found in the desert and is almost strictly nocturnal; no Fennec Fox remains have been recorded within the sample (see Table 6.12 for the measurements recorded). Fox remains have been found in other cemeteries associated with Anubis and Wepwawet, particularly Asyut (Kitagawa 2016, 71; Lortet and Gaillard 1909, 260 and 266) as well as el-Deir (Dunand et al. 2015, 174-75). All of these could have inhabited the area around Saqqara and Memphis, as they do today (Osborn and Helmy 1980, 360-94; Hoath 2003), providing ‘raw materials’ for the embalmers. Their low numbers and the fact that these are wild animals suggests that these creatures were chance finds of dead, injured, or maybe orphaned animals that were embalmed and R൵HUHG to the god, as supported by the age profiles (Fig. 6.25) that are far more limited than those of the dogs.

the fields themselves (Osborn and Helmy 1980, 379); perhaps these pests were actively pursued/caught by farmers or hunters and R൵HUHGto Anubis. Foxes A scant 22 fox bones (MNI 4, one clearly male) were recovered from the catacombs. 'L൵HUHQWLDWLRQ between foxes and other canids is often based on metapodial (III and IV) measurements (Heinrich and Ratjen 1978). In addition to the metapodia, the tooth morphology, general morphology, size, and gracility of the bones were also used as identification guides. At least three species of fox were present in ancient Egypt: Vulpes vulpes aegyptiaca, Vulpes rueppelli rueppelli, and Fennecus zerda (Osborn and Osbornova 1998; Osborn and Helmy 1980, 360-94; Hoath 2003; Anderson 1902). The first, which is physically the largest species, appears most commonly in both wet and dry areas, is both diurnal and nocturnal, and is clearly present in the sample. The second is smaller than V. Table 6.12: Bone measurements of fox in mm. Measurement Humerus Bp Femur Gl Femur Bd Femur Bp Tibia Gl Tibia Bd Tibia Bp

n 2 3 3 3 2 2 2

Min. 20 124.1 19.5 23.4 130.4 17.8 21.9

Max 23.5 136 23 25 148.5 21 24.4

Mean 21.8 129.3 21.3 24.5 139.5 19.4 23.2

Std Dev. 2.5 6.1 1.8 0.9 12.8 2.3 1.7

V 11.5 4.7 8.5 3.7 9.2 11.9 7.3

Fig. 6.25: Age distribution of foxes, n=8. Juvenile is classed as under 9 months (Deciduous teeth, scapula, distal metapodial epiphysis, and distal humerus all unfused); Young Adult is between 10-12 months (Permanent Canines erupted, proximal radius, femur (proximal and distal) all fused), and Mature Adult is over 12 months (all permanent teeth erupted, all bones fused). The ranges and criteria are based on established methodologies (Sullivan and Haugen 1956; Wood 1958; Harris 1978; Bingham and Purchase 2003; Barone 2010; Silver 1969).

160

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Cattle Cattle (Bos taurus) bones were recovered from three locations: the area of the axial gallery between galleries 12 and 37, gallery 37 (possibly spill-over from the deposit in the axial gallery), and from galleries 11, 18 and 28. The latter three galleries only yielded a total of 8 bones; gallery 37 had 18 bones, while that between 12 and 37, the ‘cattle deposit’, boasted 509 bones (Table 6.13). All anatomical elements were represented in the sample. The remains in gallery 11 consisted of fragments of an axis, a rib, and a lumbar vertebra of one immature and at least one mature animal. These could have been mixed in with the other bones accidentally. Gallery 18 contained one horn (320mm long) and the fragment of another (probably the pair to the first one), but no other portions of the skull were found. Gallery 28’s bovid remains consisted of part of the horn of a mature bovid, as well as the fragments of the first and second upper molar of a mature animal. It is possible that part or a whole skull was mixed in the remains, only a portion of which were sampled. These bones might be remQDQWVRIIXQHUDU\R൵HULQJVIURPSUHH[LVWLQJWRPEVWKDW were compromised when the catacomb was dug. The majority of cattle bones were in the area of galleries 12/37, with some bones spilling into gallery 37 (see Table 6.14 for measurements of cattle bones). The deposit in 12/37 took the form of a pile of bones that had either been dropped from above, or might have been the result of being dumped here, after being removed from a pre-existing human or bovine burial. Nicholson (pers. comm.) has tentatively suggested that the bones might be from a cow burial at the end of gallery 37, where he found a group of wooden fragments that might be from a large object that could have accommodated a bovid burial. Of the two individuals whose remnants were found in gallery 37, one was mature (over 4 years of age) and the other was under

1.5 years old, an age that is commonly associated with food R൵HULQJV (Ikram 1995, 236-90). The bones from 37/12 had an MNI of at least 10 individuals who were 1.5 years of age or younger, and 5 over 3.5 years, at least (Fig. 6.26). The younger age is more common for R൵HULQJV (Ikram 1995, 236-90). The presence of the older animals is curious, as it is unlikely that they were food R൵HULQJVas such R൵HULQJVare generally from animals under two years of age (one fused proximal humerus with a bit of shaft attached bore a mark that might have been the result of butchery) (Ikram 1995). Rather, these might be the remains of cattle burials associated with the Mother of Apis Catacombs, located not far from this site. Ovis/Capra A total of 19 ovicaprid bones (0.28% of bones identified) were recovered from the catacombs (see Tables 6.1 and 6.3). The bones seem to have fallen from the shaft in gallery 12/37 and were mixed in with the cattle bones (see above). Another ovicaprid bone came from gallery 37, again in the cattle mix, and seven were found in gallery 40. Clearly, the ovicaprid remains in gallery 12/37 were in some way related to the bovine remains, although the precise nature of this relationship remains unclear. All the ovicaprine bones were from mature animals. Only two bones were definitively identified as goat (based on Zeder and Lapham 2010 and Boessneck 1969) and one that might have belonged to a sheep. The range of anatomical elements included all parts of the skeleton save radius, ulna, ribs, and the extremities (metapodia and beyond), and portions of the axial skeleton (cervical and caudal vertebrae), and teeth. Only mature animals were present (for measurable bones, see Table 6.15).

Table 6.13: The count of cattle bones (NISP) from the various galleries, as well as the MNI that could account for the bones. Cattle NISP MNI

Gallery 11 3 2

Gallery 18 2 1

Gallery 28 3 1

Gallery 37 18 2

Gallery 12/37 509 15

Total 535 21

161

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ Table 6.14: Measurements of cattle bones in mm. Measurement

n

Min.

Max

Mean

Std Dev.

V

Scapula GLP

6

60.8

67

64.4

2.4

3.7

Scapula SLC

3

56.3

62.7

59.1

3.2

5.4

Humerus Bd

13

75.8

92.8

81.5

6.2

7.6

Humerus Bp

4

90.2

106.1

99.3

7.1

7.2

Radius Bd

5

69.9

80.3

74.9

4.6

6.1

Radius Bp

3

64.9

87.8

79.9

13.1

16.4

Metacarpal Gl

3

230.4

236.5

233.9

3.1

1.3

Metacarpal Bd

14

55.2

74.6

63

4.9

7.8

Metacarpal Bp

9

43.2

73.9

57.8

9.1

15.7

Femur Bd

8

89.4

101.9

91.9

9.4

10.2

Tibia Bd

2

65.9

69

67.4

2.1

3.1

Tibia Bp

7

64.7

105.2

91.4

15.6

17.1

Calcaneus Gl

3

150.4

154.6

152.9

2.2

1.4

Calcaneus Gb

3

43.1

50.5

47.3

3.8

8.0

Astragalus Gl

2

66.1

71.7

68.9

3.9

5.7

Astragalus Bd

7

39.1

48.7

44.4

2.9

6.5

Astragalus Dl

7

35.5

42.1

38.9

2.8

7.2

Astragalus L

5

69.3

75

72.2

2.1

2.9

Metatarsal Gl

2

255.3

276.9

266.1

15.3

5.7

Metatarsal Bd

5

51.6

65.4

58.4

4.9

8.4

Metatarsal Bp

5

50.9

57.3

53.8

2.3

4.3

Phalanx 1 Gl

10

62.5

72.9

69.2

3.6

5.2

Phalanx 1 Bd

10

24.3

30.6

28.3

2.3

8.1

Phalanx 1 Bp

10

26.4

32.6

29.2

2.3

7.9

Phalanx 2 Gl

5

46.7

51.3

49.1

2

4.1

Phalanx 2 Bd

5

24.3

30.8

27.3

2.5

9.2

Phalanx 2 Bp

5

30.3

34.8

32

1.9

5.9

162

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Fig. 6.26: The age range of the cattle remains, NISP (n=146).

It is possible that the bones originated from complete mummified animals, but it should be noted that not all portions of the skeleton were found. Ovicaprine mummies have been found at several sites (Ikram 2015b; Kessler 1986; Lortet and Gaillard 1903, 103-06), including Saqqara in the area of the Teti Cemetery (Lortet and Gaillard 1907, 71-82; Lortet and Gaillard 1909, 89-94).11 It is also possible that these bones are from funerary R൵HULQJV(Ikram 1995, 236-94; Ikram in preparation).

ally not placed in the burial chamber (Ikram 2011; Ikram in preparation, Bertini personal experience at Abydos). Equids

Only two pig bones were identified. Part of a pelvis of a juvenile pig was found in gallery 11, with possible gnawing marks on it, probably from a rodent or small mammal. This might have been dragged here or could have been moved by bioturbation from the 12/37 deposit at some point. A fragment of a mandible from a mature animal was found in the 12/37 deposit. Although pig bones are more common in settlements (Ikram 1995; Redding 2015), they are also known from cemeteries where they seem to have been given, at least LQWKH2OG.LQJGRPDVIXQHUDU\R൵HULQJVDOEHLWJHQHU-

All the 25 equid bones found within the catacombs (see Tables 6.1 and 6.3) came from the 12/37 deposit or from gallery 37, either because they originated there or because they had moved/scattered there from the main 12/37 deposit. Interestingly, both horses and donkeys were represented (see Table 6.16 for measurements). Deposit 12/37 yielded eight donkey bones and eight horse bones, while one horse bone was found in gallery 37. Unidentified (to genus) equid remains came from both the 12/37 deposit (5) and from gallery 37 (3). Equid remains appear in both settlement and funerary contexts (Osborn and Osbornova 1998; Ikram 2018; Rommelaere 1991), with donkeys being commonly found in Egypt from early Predynastic times and before (Epstein 1971; Rossel et al. 2008). The presence of horse bones indicates that the deposit is not from the Old Kingdom, but from any time after the Second Intermediate Period (Rommelaere 1991); the only other

S. Ikram has worked on some ovicaprine remains from D. Silverman’s excavations at the Teti Cemetery, and seen those exca-

YDWHGE\%2NLQJDDQG6%LQGHULQDGL൵HUHQWDUHDRIWKHVDPH cemetery (Hartley et al. 2011).

Suids

11

163

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ Table 6.15: Measurements of ovicaprine bones in mm. Location GAL 12/37 GAL 12/37 GAL 12/37 GAL 12/37 GAL 12/37

Species Goat Sheep? Ovicaprid Ovicaprid Ovicaprid

Element Tibia Femur Pelvis Tibia Scapula

Bd 29.12 41.38

Bp

Glp

LA

22.42 41.94 38.16

Table 6.16: Measurements for equid bones in mm. Taxon Donkey Donkey Donkey Donkey Donkey Donkey Donkey Donkey Horse Horse Horse Horse Horse Horse Horse Horse Equid Equid

Element Humerus Phalange 1 Tibia Tibia Metacarpal Astragalus Scapula Metacarpal Phalange 1 Tibia Metatarsal Scapula Metacarpal Femur Scapula Femur Acetabulum Astragalus

Gl 70.05

Bd 58.05 32.09 59.41

Bp

Glp

LA

GB

36.33

39.92 63.64 69.76 89.6

49.35 74.67 53.25

32.72 55.73

47.96 80.76 86.07 98.7

published horse remains from Saqqara date to no earlier than the Late Period and were found in a reused Old Kingdom mastaba (Quibell and Olver 1926). The location of the equid bones within the catacombs clearly indicates a relationship with the cattle deposit here, but the strange mixture of bones is once more GL൶FXOWto explain. Cats A total of 366 felid bones were found, about 5.5% of the total number of identified specimens (see Figs. 6.2-4). All anatomical elements, save the baculum, were represented. It is often GL൶FXOW to distinguish

54.94 66.35

between wild (Felis sylvestris) and domestic (Felis catus) cats from Egypt (Boessneck 1988, 86; Armitage and Clutton-Brock 1981), though both remain in Egypt today (Osborn and Helmy 1980, 440-44). Indeed, Egypt is thought to be one of the centres of cat domestication (Kurushima et al. 2012; Ottoni et al. 2017). However, due to the GL൶FXOW\in identification and the absence of F. sylvestris comparanda, despite size variations in the bones found, these have all been registered as cat, generically. Other wild cats, such as the Egyptian jungle/swamp cat (Felis chaus) seem to be amongst the sampled cats (NISP 24). These have been identified based on skull morphology and the morphology and measurements of long bones, using comparanda. No

164

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Table 6.17: Measurements of cat skulls using von den Driesch 1976; the considerable variations suggest the presence of F. chaus and F. sylvestris. Measurements in mm. Measurement Skull 1 Skull 2 Skull 6 Skull 10 Skull 12 Skull 13 Skull 14 Skull 15 Skull 16 Skull 17 Skull 18 Skull 19 Skull 20 Skull 22 Skull 28 Skull 29 Mandible 1 Mandible 2 Mandible 4 Mandible 18

n 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 5 4 4 6 3 5 2 2 24 18 5 20

Min. 95 92.5 77.5 23 23 12 11 22.7 14 13.5 43 14.5 13.5 39.5 33 36.5 40.7 38 35.9 16.5

Max 109 101 88 23.5 25.3 21 11.5 24.2 21.5 25.5 46.2 24.7 15.5 45 48 39.7 74.5 70 58.3 37.4

Mean 100.7 96.3 82.8 23.3 23.8 16.5 11.3 23.6 17.3 20.2 44 19.3 14.3 43.4 40.5 38.1 62.8 56.7 46.1 26.6

Std Dev. 7.4 4.3 7.4 0.4 1.4 6.5 0.4 0.8 3.3 6.2 1.5 4.7 1.1 2.3 10.6 2.3 10.1 10.2 9.9 6.2

V 7.3 4.5 8.9 1.7 5.9 39.4 3.5 3.4 19.1 30.7 3.4 24.4 7.7 5.3 26.2 6.0 16.1 18.0 21.5 23.3

Sand Cats (Felis margarita) were identified in the sample (Table 6.17). One complete tidily wrapped cat mummy (14.2; ‘Miw’) was recovered from gallery 14.12 A variety of age ranges were represented in the sample of cat bones, from 0-4 month to 13-16 months, based on epiphysial fusion and unfused bone size, with the majority of animals being under 10 months of age (Figs. 6.27-6.29). This is a somewhat similar pattern to what is observed with the dogs, although more mature animals were noted there.

It is possible that the cats buried here were supplied by the Bubastieion (Zivie and Lichtenberg 2005), whose workers might have raised animals in the same way as those associated with the Anubieion. It is equally possible, however, that the Anubieion workers independently raised or collected cats for mummification. The wild cats (F. chaus) could have been trapped, particularly from any vegetated or wet habitat (Osborn and Helmy 1980, 435-40).

‘Miw’ was wrapped in 25-35 layers of untidy wrappings (Diam. 113mm), held in place by linen thread, with more wrappings on top. These were secured by a series of (at least 15) folded bands

of linen tied horizontally around the body. The bandages were all dark brown, and the burn test suggested that bitumen might have been used in embalming, rather than resin.

12

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

Fig. 6.27: Age ranges of cats in months, n=198.

Fig. 6.28: Range in size of immature cat humeri.

165

166

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Fig. 6.29: Range in size of immature cat femurs.

Mongoose/Ichneumon Bones from the Egyptian Mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon) were recovered from two galleries: gallery 12 and gallery 23 (see Tables 6.1-6.3 & Tables 6.18-6.19). These represent two individuals, one from each gallery. The former gallery included the skull and teeth of a mature individual with well-worn teeth, while the latter provided the tibia of a mature individual (Table 6.3). It is possible that the mongoose entered the gallery by accident, either entering by their own volition and dying there, being dragged in (either complete or partial) by another creature, or by falling in from one of the openings in the roof of the catacomb. However, the bones look very similar to the dog bones in terms of colour and overall texture, which suggests that these animals were mummified and interred in the catacomb as R൵HULQJV The mongoose has been associated with the sun god (Brunner-Traut 1965, 123-63), but has no direct link to Anubis or any of the canine deities. It is possible that a dead mongoose was found within the sacred precincts

of the Anubieion and consecrated to the god, a custom that has been posited by Kessler (1986; 1989; 2007). Another explanation is that a mongoose was wrapped to look like a dog, creating an ancient fake or false mummy (Ikram 2015b; Raven and Taconis 2005). Alternatively, it has been suggested that the goddess Mafdet, a protective divinity, might have been a mongoose, although a feline has also been suggested as her totemic animal (Wilkinson 2003, 196-97). This might tie in with the feline mummies mentioned above. Table 6.18: Measurements of the mongoose tibia in mm. Bone Tibia

Gl 85.5

Bd 12.5

Bp 18.5

Table. 6.19: Measurements of the mongoose skull (12.1, Rikki) from gallery 12 in mm. Meas. 1

Meas. 2

Meas. 13

Meas. 15

Meas. 27

Meas. 29

105

104

59

43

12

35

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ Birds Gallery 32 contained two bird mummies. They were part of the top layer of the dog mummies and were far better preserved than the dog mummies. One was beautifully wrapped in a basic herringbone pattern of linen bandages and had an unusually long leg area, compared with samples found in other catacombs (Fig. 6.8; Ikram and Iskander 2002). Radiographs show that the bird in the herringbone wrapping was a Falco tinnunculus, one of the most common raptors to be mummified. The second bird mummy took the same shape, but if it had an elaborate shroud originally, none survives (Fig. 6.9). It too appears to be a raptor, although its precise species is unclear, even after radiography. The bandages were extremely dark for both of these mummies, in part due to the accumulation of desert dust and the dust created by decomposing flesh, as well as due to embalming agents. Raptors have solar associations and thus are identified with the sun god, Horus, and thus sometimes the king. Their inclusion in these catacombs is inexplicable, unless they, like the mongoose and to some extent the felines, are a tribute to solar deities and to the king (Kessler 1989). Maybe modern visitors who had first been to the Falcon Catacomb in the Sacred Animal Necropolis (Smith 1974; Smith and Davies 2005), to the north of the Dog Catacomb, abandoned them here? It is also possible that a priest who worked at the Falcon Catacombs wished to give some sort of R൵HULQJto Anubis and gave from what was available to him. The quality of these mummies, particularly the one with the herringbone pattern, is remarkable, and in keeping with some exemplars found in the Falcon Catacombs, albeit of a darker hue than many from there. Two fragmentary bird ulnae were also found, but these did not seem to belong to the mummies and might have fallen or been blown into the catacomb at some time in the more recent past. Their coloration did not suggest that they had ever been mummified. Niche Animals Several rectangular niches were cut into the galleries (Fig. 6.30) and originally sealed with pieces of stone that were probably derived from the cutting of the galleries, secured with mortar (gypsum or lime based). The bird galleries in the Sacred Animal Necropolis contain similar niches, blocked by limestone slabs (Nicholson 2015). These once contained mummies;

167

indeed, some of the open niches still held mummified remains or parts thereof, as did the sealed remains, whose contents could be viewed through cracks (Fig. 6.31). Most of the niches were closer to the floor of the galleries, although many were between 50cm to 100cm above floor level. Obviously, a full count of niches throughout the catacomb was impossible as many galleries were full of mummies, thereby obscuring any niches. However, it seems as if many of the galleries would have had at least one if not more niches cut into their walls (see Fig. 6.30), sometimes in a row. Some of the niches contained the remains of wooden ER[HVWKDWKDGSUHVXPDEO\VHUYHGDVFR൶QVVDUFRSKDJL for the mummies, together with fragmentary remains of animals. These seemed to be fairly simple wooden rectangles, which, in many instances, had deteriorated severely due to the humidity. They did not show any evidence for plaster and paint. Quite possibly, had any more elaborate cR൶QV been found, they would have been removed by thieves or those engaged in collecting the mummies for fertiliser or for other purposes (see Chapter 9). It is possible that these niche burials indicated a special status of the animal(s) that were interred within; perhaps these were Sacred Animals that had been revered during their lifetimes and given a special tomb, or perhaps a pilgrim had paid dearly for these burials (Ikram 2015b; Nicholson et al. 2015). Most of the niches were empty, but a few contained mummies or portions thereof. In some cases, where mummies lay in isolation at the base of a niche, it was assumed that these originated from that niche, and were counted as such. A total of 19 niches contained specimens that could be examined in detail (Table 6.20), yielding 25 animals. For the most part these were in a somewhat fragmentary state, although most still retained evidence of mummification (Table 6.21). The majority of animals in the niches were dogs (22), generally mature individuals (17), with Niche 15A containing two cats. Both of the latter were fragmentary, and one could argue that these niches, as with many of the others, might have been tampered with after the catacombs had been breached in the more recent past. The cats in the niche were not ordinary specimens, however: one had very large bones (only the atlas was in a VX൶FLHQWO\ good state to be measured: GL 15.5, GB 37.5), and was possibly a F. sylvestris, while the other was tentatively identified as a F. chaus. Perhaps their wild nature was the reason for the special privilege of a niche burial? Only three of the

3306800

3306750

3306700

23

22

21

24

18

25

17

19

328150

26

27 28

16

328150

29

15

13

30

14

31

33

34

12

11

10

32

37

8

328200

36

9

328200

38

7

35

39

6

40

5

41

2

42

4

3

43

44

1

0

46

Metres 25

Tombs

Faunal remains

Dog niches

328300

50

328300

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

2a

47

49

328250

45

48

328250

Fig. 6.30: Plan showing the distribution of burial niches throughout the galleries. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

328100

20

328100

3306800 3306750 3306700

168 ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

169

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

Fig. 6.31: Image of a niche within the gallery.

Table 6.20: The distribution of animal types and ages found in the niches. Niche 4A 5B 6B 6E 6H 7D 7H 7I 9C

Dog, mature 1 1

15A

1

19I 31C 32A 32B 32D 34I 35A 35Q 39A Total Animals

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 (male) 1 1 1 1 (male?)

17

Dog, immature

Cat

Fox

1 1 1 1 (male) 1 2 (1 F. chaus; 1 maybe F. sylvestris )

1 5

2

Total 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 3

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25

170

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Table 6.21: Details of the GL൵HUHQWanimals found in the niches. Measurements in cm. Animal & Niche

Lies on

Dimen. (cm)

Unsure

Head To axis, muzzle to niche To axis; muzzle to gallery Unsure To axis, muzzle to niche Head to axial, muzzle to niche Unsure

4A ‘Punk’ (imm.)

Right

5B ‘Snik’

Right

5B ‘Mars’

Unsure

6B ‘Otis’

Left

6E ‘Wormy’

Left

6H ‘Big’ (dog) 6H ‘Trudy’ (fox)

Unsure

NA

NA

15 linen layers

Whole mummy

7H ‘Long’

Right

L 71 W 11

>8 linen layers

Whole mummy

7H ‘Small’ (imm.)

Right

NA

>12 linen layers

Almost whole

7I ‘Half’

Right

NA

5 linen layers

Almost whole

NA

Femur

L 65

Whole mummy

NA

Cartonnage, FR൶Q

NA

Forelimbs Femur, pelvis Femur, Metatarsal

Fragments

NA

>6 linen layers

Front half

NA

>5 linen layers

Front half

NA

Almost whole

L 64

Almost whole

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Osteoarthritis &R൶Qbits Fur; >15 linen layers

Skull, verts, ribs Hindleg Forelimbs Almost whole Axis Forepaw

Pathology Forelimbs

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ dogs could positively be identified as being male, although it is possible that at least three more were male. Parts of a fox (6H.2, also known as ‘Trudy’) were found in niche 6H. The way in which it was placed within the niche suggests that it was an intrusive element, placed there by someone who was tidying up the area. The humerus in 35Q might also have been placed here out of context. This bone is of note as it showed evidence of disease (see below), which might indicate that the animal to which it once belonged lived for a longer time than it would have in nature as it was being well looked after by humans. Based on the few available remains, it is GL൶FXOWto establish whether or not there was any pattern to the orientation of the animals as they were deposited within the niches (see Table 6.18). From the evidence that we have, there did not seem to be any hard and fast rule as to which way the head or muzzle should face. Although it is clear that the niches were special burial places within the catacombs, and that some might have contained even more important burials as they were supplied with FR൶QV it remains unclear if the animals in the niches were Sacred Animals from the temple of Anubis, members of a special group of animals, or merely more expensive o൵HULQJV The presence of the wild cats in Niche 15A also serves to confuse the issue. Pathology (with Stephanie Vann and Delyth Hurley) Out of the samples, 188 dog bones (3.25% of the total) and 15 bones from other species showed evidence of pathology (Table 22 and Table 23). All anatomical elements were D൵HFWHGin one way or another, with vertebrae being the most D൵HFWHGDiagnosing the causes of skeletal pathological conditions is complicated, especially because osteological markers are often non-specific and can result from multiple agents and pathogens (MacKinnon 2010). For example, in assessing trauma, intra-specific (dogs fighting each other) as well as inter-specific (for example dog and human) aggression need to be considered. That said, one can make a general statement saying that the majority of pathologies of the skull and mandible were tooth related, mainly alveolar resorption, and that the majority of long bone pathology was most probably related to trauma. It should be noted that other assemblages of dog mummies have similar types of disease and trauma to those found in this sample from Saqqara, as dis-

171

cussed below (Kitagawa 2016; Churcher 1993; Hartley et al. 2011). Fractures/Trauma Certain bones within the sample showed evidence of trauma in the form of broken and healed fractures, including some that might have resulted from human intervention in the form of splinting, and others not. These various breaks may have been the result of human abuse or could as easily have been the result of a fall or fight with another dog/animal: it is impossible to tell. The sample contains examples of oblique fractures (Mann and Murphy 1990, 158-159) that subsequently healed (Table 6.19; Table 6.20), but without human intervention, as the bone is vertically displaced and new bone has formed around the site of the fracture as part of the stabilisation and healing process. This is smooth, compact bone that, as it is slower forming than porous, less well-organised bone (Ortner 1994, 75), may indicate an old break. A radius from gallery 37 (Fig. 6.34) shows a healed oblique fracture exhibiting vertical displacement of the two segments by at least 3cm. The radius on the upper row has a healed fracture exhibiting vertical displacement of the two segments by at least 4cm. The angle of fracture would appear to be oblique. The bone around the site of the fracture is smooth, cortical bone. There is no evidence of porosity or pitting that might indicate infection although there is a ‘hole’ in the middle of the site of the break. It did not seem to be a cloaca for pus to escape, but rather a product of the way in which the two parts of the bone healed back together. Other fractured long bones show minor displacement in their healing, and it is possible that they were splinted, indicative of some of the dogs having human care (Udrescu and Van Neer 2005). A radius from gallery 17 shows evidence for this, as does a humerus from gallery 40 (Fig. 6.35), which has a well-healed oblique fracture with minor vertical displacement. The bone is smooth with no evidence of porosity or pitting and no evidence of a cloaca, indicating an absence of infection, and its relative straightness raises the possibility of human intervention in the form of splinting. Another dog, ‘Fido’, found in a niche (gallery 9, niche 3C), showed evidence of healed fractures of the metapodia. The bone has mended reasonably straight, leaving a bony callus around the site of the fracture. This callus appears to have left an impression on the bone

172

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

lying alongside, most likely due to general friction. The bone has healed well, which might indicate human intervention. However, it is hard to splint paws (or even hands and feet), and often one leaves the bones alongside to support each other. It is possible this bone healed straight because the presence of neighbouring bones meant it could not displace as much as some other skeletal elements might do. Vertebrae also show possible evidence of trauma (Fig. 6.36) in the form of an unusual bend to the spinous process that might be a result of a healed fracture. Ribs too show evidence of being broken and healing (Fig. 6.37), although there are far fewer examples of these. Had the dogs been kicked, it is likely that more ribs would have shown signs of trauma. Rib and vertebral fractures in medieval dogs from Northern Germany (Teegan 2005) have been linked to human maltreatment. This condition has been seen on other sites, particularly in the Archaic period of the United States, where it has been proposed that vertebral process fractures could be the result of heavy packs or travois-like poles placed on the back (Scarre 2005, 326; Warren 2000). Some of the problems with bones might be due to rickets, rather than trauma. Not more than four of the dog skulls (for example, Fig. 6.22) and one cat skull show evidence for trauma to the head in the form of a circular depression. The depression suggests that the animals were hit with a stick with a rounded end, examples of which have been recovered from Egyptian tombs and are even in use in Egypt today. This might have been done to control obstreperous animals, particularly males who might be kept in close proximity. Similar evidence for trauma has been found in the Teti Cemetery dog burials at Saqqara (Hartley et al. 2011) and elsewhere (Baker and Brothwell 1980). There is evidence for animal mummies in other catacombs, particularly cats, meeting their end violently, either by having their necks broken or their skulls bashed in (Zivie and Lichtenberg 2015; Raven and Taconis 2005; Armitage and Clutton-Brock 1981; Ikram and Iskander 2002). It is possible that some of the animals in the Anubis Catacomb met their death in this way, but no evidence for this was found within the sample studied. The blows to the head noted in this sample would not have been lethal. Had a greater number of complete mummies been examined, perhaps a

GL൵HUHQWFRQFOXVLRQPLJKWKDYHEHHQUHDFKHGViolence in the form of drowning, starving, or poisoning would not leave any marks on the bones. Arthroses – Osteophytosis Several dogs, as well as five cat bones and three fox bones (Table 23), showed examples of osteoarthritis in long bones, as well as spinal osteoarthritis or spondylosis deformans (apparent in 47 dog vertebrae) (Fig. 6.38 and Fig. 6.40). This is a proliferation of bone that occurs within the intervertebral ligaments (Bick 1956) and is characterised primarily by the presence of osteophytes on the bodies at the intervertebral spaces as well as degeneration of the intervertebral discs themselves, which is quite common in domestic dogs (Morgan et al. 1967; Morgan 1967). Often, in severe cases, new bone formation occurs between each vertebral body to such an extent that adjoining elements become bridged or fused tightly together (Hultgren et al. 1987) (Fig. 6.39). This is a common disease even in wild canids, such as wolves and foxes (Rothschild et al. 2001; Harris 1977). Apparently, advanced stages of spondylosis deformans can be uncomfortable for dogs, but despite this, many canids with the condition can function without physical handicap (Harris 1977). Many factors can be linked to this condition (although this might vary dependent on species), including age, body mass, trauma, type and level of activity and maleness (Kramer et al. 2002), though trauma is most often given as its cause (Duckler 1997). Most of the cases are attributed to mechanically induced defects such as excessive flexion or hyperextension of the spine or a blunt crushing blow to the back (Duckler 1997). This indicates that some of the dogs may have been housed in cramped conditions so their spines were in a constant flexed position due to lack of space, or that some of the individuals in the sample VX൵HUHGblows to the back, perhaps as a method to control or separate aggressive animals. Given the state of many of the vertebrae, it is unsurprising that ribs also bear evidence for osteoarthritis. Sometimes the articular surfaces are destroyed and osteophytes form about the margin of the head of the rib (Fig. 6.40 and Fig. 6.41). A few other bones, such as the distal ends of an ulna and radius from gallery 18, also show indications of osteoarthritis.

Element/Animal Gal. 9 Atlas Dog Axis 1 Dog 1 Bone Unid. Dog Calcaneum Dog Calc.&Astrag. Dog Carpal/tarsal Dog Femur 1 Dog 1 Cat Humerus Dog Cat Mandible Jackal Dog Cat Manubrium Dog Cat Metacarpal Dog Metacarpal 3 Dog

10

1 1 1 1

11

1 1

1 1

1

1

1 1

12

3

2 2

6 6

3

2 2

21

2 2

3 3

18

1 1

1 1

1 1

22

2 2

28

1 1

1 1 3 3 4 4 1 1

30

2 1 1

2 2

1 1

1 1

32

1

1 1

1

1 1

1 1

34

Table 6.22: Distribution of pathological bones by element, species, and gallery. *F. chaus.

1 1

35

1

1

1 1

36

1 1

1

1

2 2

37

39

2 1 1

40

1 1

43

1

1

1

1

1 1

15A 35Q

2 2

9C

1 1 4 4 5 5 8 8 2 2 1 1 10 9 1 14 12 2 11 3 7 1 2 1 1 7 7 1 1

Total

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ 173

Element/Animal Gal. 9 Metacarpal 5 Dog Metacarpal 2/4 Dog Metapodial Dog Metatarsal Dog Metatarsal 5 Dog Pelvis Dog Phalange Dog Phalange 1 Dog Phalange 2 Dog Radius Jackal Dog Fox Rib Dog Radius/Ulna Dog Sacrum Dog Scapula Dog 1 1

10

1 1

1 1

11

1

1 2 2 2

1 1

1 1

1

3

1 1

2 2 1 1

21

2 2

1 1 4 4

18

2 2

1 1 1 1

12

1 1

1 1

1

1

2 2

22

1

1

1 1

2 2

28

1 1

1 1

3 3 2 2

1 1

30

1

1

1 1

32

3 3

2 2

34 2 2

35

Table 6.22 (cont.): Distribution of pathological bones by element, species, and gallery. *F. chaus.

1

1

1 1

1 1

36

2 2

2

2

1 1

1 1

37

1 1

39

1 1

1

1

1 1

40

1 1

1 1

43

15A 35Q

1 1

9C

2 2 1 1 12 12 1 1 1 1 14 14 4 4 6 6 1 1 12 1 9 2 9 9 1 1 1 1 3 3

Total

174 ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Element/Animal Gal. 9 Skull Dog Cat Sternum Dog Tibia Dog Ulna Dog Cat Fox Vert-cervical Dog Vert-thoracic Dog Vert-lumbar Dog Vert-caudal Dog Vertebra Dog Total 2 4

2 2

1 1

10

5 5 9

11

13

1 1 1 1

1

1

1 1

12

3 3 26

1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1

18

24

1 1

1 1 1 1

3 3

1 1

21

12

2 2 2 2

22

9

2 2 1 1

28

1 1 26

3 3 1 1 1 1

2 2

30

13

2 2

1 1

1 1

1 1

32

11

1 1

1

1

34

4

1 1

35

1 1 7

1 1

36

Table 6.22 (cont.): Distribution of pathological bones by element, species, and gallery. *F. chaus.

16

3 3 1 1

2 2

37

3

1 1 1 1

39

5

40

12

1 1 5 5 1 1

1 1 1 1

43

3

1*

1

1

15A 35Q

3

9C

7 5 2 1 1 9 9 4 2 1 1 11 11 12 12 12 12 3 3 10 10 203

Total

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ 175

176

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Table 6.23: Totals of pathological bones by element and species. *Two cat bones were of F. chaus, one from gallery 12 and another from 15A. Element Atlas Axis Bone Unid. Calcaneum Calc./Astrag. Carpal/tarsal Femur Humerus Mandible Manubrium Metacarpal Metacarpal 3 Metacarpal 5 Metacarpal 2/4 Metapodial Metatarsal Metatarsal 5 Pelvis Phalange Phalange 1 Phalange 2 Radius Rib Radius/Ulna Sacrum Scapula Skull Sternum Tibia Ulna Vertebraecervical Vertebraethoracic Vertebrae-lumbar Vertebrae-caudal Vertebrae Total

Dog 1 4 5 8 2 1 9 12 7 1 7 1 2 1 12 1 1 14 4 6 1 9 9 1 1 3 5 1 9 2 11

Jackal

Fox

1 2 1 1

3

1

Cat*

2

2

1

1

Total 1 4 5 8 2 1 10 14 11 2 7 1 2 1 12 1 1 14 4 6 1 12 9 1 1 3 7 1 9 4 11

12

12

12 3 10 188

12 3 10 203

4

3

8

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

Fig. 6.32: A tibia (30.1) showing a healed oblique fracture, from gallery 30.

Fig. 6.33: Humerus with a well-healed oblique fracture that has displaced, resulting in a curvature of the shaft and leaving the animal (Varg, 18.1) with a limp.

Fig. 6.34: A radius with an oblique fracture (37.4), from gallery 37.

177

178

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Fig. 6.35: A fractured and healed humerus that might have been splinted.

0

5cm

Fig. 6.36: Bent spines of thoracic vertebrae, suggestive of trauma (gallery 17.4, 5).

Fig. 6.37: A rib (10.1) that might show evidence of trauma. (Photo: S. Ikram).

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

Fig. 6.38: A group of vertebrae with osteophytes from gallery 43 (43.1-5). (Photo: S. Ikram).

Fig. 6.39: Fused vertebrae from gallery 33 (33.1). (Photo: D. Hurley).

179

180

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Fig. 6.40: Ribs with osteophytes, from gallery 18 (18.1, Varg). (Photo: S. Ikram).

Fig. 6.41: Ribs with osteophytes, from gallery 18 (18.1, Varg). (Photo: D. Hurley).

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

Fig. 6.42: Fused and infected radius and ulna (11.5). Fig 6.66 Fused and infected radius and ulna (11.5). . (Photo: P.T. Nicholson)..

Fig. 6.43: Specimen of humerus with new bone formation covering the entire shaft (35Q, Sicko). (Photo: S. Ikram).

Fig. 6.44: Infected metapodia fusing together (18.2). (Photo: D. Hurley).

181

182

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Fig. 6.45: Bone with a curious growth in the centre (19.1). (Photo: S. Ikram).

Fig. 6.46: Examples of alveolar resorption in mandibles. (Photo: S. Ikram).

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ Infection and Disease Some of the bones show indications of being D൵HFWHG by bacterial infections, or osteomyelitis, the bacterial infection of bone and bone marrow (Burns 1999). These are sometimes the result of open wounds, which can be manifested by pitting and remodeling (Fig. 6.42). One curious specimen (a humerus) (Fig. 6.43) has extensive new bone formation covering the entire length of the shaft and encroaching upon the articulations of the bone. The new formation is disorganised in appearance and uneven, most likely woven bone rather than smooth bone. This may result from reaction to inflammation and/or infection of the bone or of the periosteal layer surrounding it. Periositis can be caused by minor injuries that subsequently become inflamed. Infection by pyogenic microorganisms (e.g. bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, etc.) may occur as a consequence. As infection spreads and results in osteophyte formation, periositis can combine with osteitis to deform the entire bone (Bartosiewicz 2013, 93-94). The absence of a cloaca suggests that the infection is possibly external and not within the bone marrow cavity, as would be the case with something like osteomyelitis. As other bones from the same individual were not recovered, it is impossible to discern the distribution pattern, if any. If it is the only bone thus D൵HFWHGas it seems, it is more likely that it is periositis or osteitis. If more than one bone was D൵HFWHGthen it might be hypertrophic osteopathy, “a progressive, symmetric and bilateral periosteal reaction secondary to chronic, space-occupying lesions of the inter-thoracic region such as pneumonia, cancer or tuberculosis” (Bathurst and Barta 2004, 918). What is notable is that the bone was found in a niche (35Q; ‘Sicko’). If the bone were part of a dog that originally occupied the niche, then this might suggest that the sick animal was nurtured and cared for in some way, prior to its demise, possibly as a result of the disease. The only other dog in a niche to show evidence of trauma was the third of the three animals in niche 9C, ‘Fido’, whose paw might have been splinted (see below). There is an example where two metapodia from gallery 18 exhibit new bone formation along the shaft, and

183

this growth has crossed the space between them, causing the two bones to fuse together (Fig. 6.44). Such proliferative periosteal reaction is a possible indicator of hypertrophic osteopathy (Bathurst and Barta 2004, 918). A fully articulated dog skeleton, from a 16th century Neutral Iroquoian site in Ontario, Canada, exhibited this condition and the metapodials were one area D൵HFWHG Other examples of dogs with this condition are also known from prehistoric sites in Alabama (Cole and Koerper 2002, 177). Most commonly recorded in dogs and humans, although other animals may also be D൷LFWHG the condition results in thick periosteal new bone exostoses, primarily on the appendicular skeleton (Bathurst and Barta 2004, 918). One very curious bone was found (9.1; Fig. 6.45) that had an unusual bony growth in the middle of the shaft. Possibly this formed during the development of the bone, as the bone has curved around the growth to form a wide U-shape. Alternatively, there may be secondary pathological fracturing as a result of the growth, which has resulted in the bend. The growth is ‘lumpy’ and nodular. It appears to contain smooth, cortical bone although there are more porous patches. These are more likely pathological than taphonomic. The growth is situated in a hollow formed by the bend. It appears to grow out of the bone itself, suggesting it may be a tumour. Tumours or neoplasms are typically divided into two categories: benign and malignant. Benign growths grow slowly and are usually discrete entities that displace rather than invade adjacent tissues. Malignant growths, however, tend to grow much faster and have an indistinct surface due to their invasion of other tissues. Unlike benign growths, malignant tumours often spread to other parts of the body where they produce secondary lesions, also known as metastases (Baker and Brothwell 1980, 96). The presence of cortical bone, the absence of the ‘moth-eaten’ holes left by aggressive metastasis, and the fact that the animal has apparently lived with this condition long enough for the bending to occur suggests that this growth is more likely to be benign than malignant. It could be a myeloma, that is a tumour of the bone marrow and related cells, as it does appear to grow out of the middle of the bone, or an osteoma, that is a tumour of the bone itself.

184

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Osteochrondroma also D൵HFWlong bones but, being an overgrowth of cartilage and bone, typically occur around the growth plates.13 Dental Pathologies Almost all of the dental pathologies noted in the sample (eight examples out of nine in dogs; two cats; and two Egyptian Jackals) took the form of alveolar resorption following tooth loss, indicating that the animals thus D൵HFWHG lived for a significant period after losing their teeth (Fig. 6.46). This is particularly common in older animals but is not exclusive to them (Zmystowska et al. 2007), and is found in other dog burials from Egypt (Churcher 1993; Kitagawa 2016). In addition to old age, other causes leading to tooth loss include pregnancy (Ringstorf et al. 1961), diet, which can also be related to pregnancy, disease, infection, and trauma (Lukacs 2006). There is evidence that muscle and organ meat that might be considered ‘good’ or higher quality meat in some cultures (Ikram 1995), if fed to dogs with no other form of nutrition, makes them highly susceptible to periodontal disease, due to the high phosphorous and low calcium levels found in these diets (Frost 1990). This imbalance can lead to demineralisation of the alveolar bone that supports the roots of the teeth, resulting in gum recession and eventually loosening and loss of dentition (Frost 1990). Thus, it is possible that the dogs were either underfed or fed the wrong types of food, resulting in nutritional deficiencies. In addition to alveolar resorption, one example of an abscess was noted. Discussion A vast number of animals have been deposited in the Catacombs of Anubis. Based on calculations of area, volume, and MNIs of the samples, it is estimated that the galleries contained up to 8 million mummies. As the mummies were not placed in pots, as is seen in other catacombs at Saqqara (Nicholson 2015; Kessler and Nur el-Din 2015), the mode of their deposition is

13

For a synopsis of tumors in dogs, see M. H. Goldschmidt and D. E. Thrall’s work: http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/projects/saortho/ chapter_75/75mast.htm consulted 3-5 August 2017.

unclear. Possibly, in some cases, they were brought in baskets and dumped into the galleries, rather than being carefully stacked, which would explain the disarticulation of many animals. There were some galleries, or parts thereof, where the mummies seemed to have been more carefully placed (for example, gallery 9). As with the galleries in the other catacombs of the Sacred Animal Necropolis, once full, the dog galleries were also walled up to seal them. Types of Mummies Most, if not all, of the mummies in the Dog Catacombs are probably votive R൵HULQJV given to the god Anubis, who was revered at the nearby Anubieion (Jeffreys and Smith 1988; Smith 1974; Smith 1982; Ray 1976), and at other sites throughout Egypt (Fig. 6.47). Votive mummies were R൵HUHG typically by pilgrims/ devotees as alternatives to statues or stelae (Ikram 2015b; Smith 1974; Smith 1969; Kessler 1986; Ikram 2013b; Ikram 2019). Perhaps the mummies had more value than other kinds of R൵HULQJV as the animals, associated with the god, had sacrificed their lives for him. Regarding the dog burials at Asyut, a suggestion has been made that some of the animals might have been part of a temple ‘pack’, as pictured and listed on the stelae recovered from the area, notably Salakhana (T. DuQuesne, discussions during the 1990s/early 2000s; DuQuesne 2002; DuQuesne 2007; Kahl and Kitagawa 2016; Munro 1963, 53-56). There is no corresponding evidence from the Anubieion, though the idea of a pack of dogs associated with a temple is not impossible. If such a phenomenon did exist, then one might posit that the animals interred in niches may have been members of the pack rather than Sacred Animals. Additionally, some scholars (notably Kessler 1989) have hypothesised that animals that have died within the sacred precinct could also be mummified and given as an R൵HUing, as they might be perceived as willing sacrifices to the god. This also could explain the inclusion of noncanine species in the assemblage. Certainly, throughout

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ Egypt, catacombs dedicated to a particular deity often contain a variety of species (Kessler 1989; Kessler and Nur el-Din 2015). Some of the animals in the catacomb, however, could have been Sacred Animals. Such animals contained the spirit of the god, recognisable by distinct physical features, revered during their lifetime and then buried with great ceremony after their death. At that time, the ‘divine spark’ would move to another similarly distinctive animal, which would take its place in the temple to be revered in its turn (Ikram 2015b; Smith 1974; Ray 2001a). Such animals seemed to have been de rigueur in temples of the Ptolemaic Period, if not earlier (von Lieven 2003, 126-27; Quack 2003, 116). They might have been buried together with the more common votive R൵HULQJV or they might have had a completely separate, dedicated, catacomb such as that of the Apis Bulls at Saqqara. In the case of Sacred Dogs, such a catacomb has yet to be discovered if it exists. Even if Sacred Dogs were buried together with votive mummies, it is possible that they had special burial places and equipment within the galleries, perhaps in the niches. Many of the niche burials were placed in FR൶QV which further sets them apart from the wrapped animals that were placed directly into the catacombs. The 18 niches that were examined contained dogs as well cats and parts of a fox, and this last might have been intrusive. The majority of dogs were mature, and two displayed pathologies that would accord with the idea that they were special dogs that were carefully kept and fed to ensure a long and comfortable life. However, the presence of immature animals in the niches is harder to explain – were they sacred animals that died young? Were they placed as companions to the sacred animal burials, or did they KDYHSDUWLFXODUUHODWLRQVKLSVVLEOLQJR൵VSULQJ ZLWKWKH sacred animal? Niche 6B was the only one to contain parts of a single immature animal and no mature creature; possibly the adult in the niche had fallen out/been removed. The presence of wild animals, as mentioned above, might be due to a special status given to wild creatures that had died within the sacred precincts and

14

The cattle deposit is ignored here as it has been discussed already.

185

thus were thought to have a unique relationship with the god. Range of Species14 Anubis is one of the older gods in the Egyptian pantheon, and maintained a significant position in it throughout Egyptian history. He has been associated with death: mummifying the dead and escorting them from this world to the next. This role extended to opening the way for travellers and protecting them on their journeys, and therefore was popular with soldiers. He also protected mothers giving birth and was thus related to themes of rebirth and resurrection (Wilkinson 2003; Altenmüller 1975). Traditionally, Anubis has been viewed as the quintessential canine deity (Altenmüller 1975; Fisher 1980, notes 36 and 37; Charron 2001; DuQuesne 1996, 40-41; DuQuesne 2007; Lortet and Gaillard 1905, 2-3), and was depicted possibly as an amalgam of all that was best and strongest in a canine (Houlihan 1996, 78-79). Thus, it is not surprising that the majority of mummified animal R൵HULQJV to him ZHUHRIGL൵HUHQWFDQLGVGRJMDFNDOfox). Similar mixtures of animals have been found at other sites dedicated to Anubis (Gaillard 1927; Lortet and Gaillard 1905; Osborn and Helmy 1980, 367; Kitagawa 2016). Certain towns might have given preference to one species over the other, thus more dogs in Cynopolis/ Sheikh Fadl, and more animals identified as wolves at Lycopolis/Asyut (Lortet and Gaillard 1907, v).15 Indeed, the late Ptolemaic Papyrus Jumilhac lists dL൵HUHQW canines with varying coloration and attributes that were associated with the Anubis cult (Vandier 1961). Hyenas, supposedly found from Anubis/Wepwawet burial sites in Asyut (examples now in the Agricultural Museum), have not been identified amongst the animal mummies in the Dog Catacombs at Saqqara (or indeed in the new excavations at Asyut). The presence of non-canids (cats, mongoose, birds) in the catacombs is harder to explain. It is possible that they died within the sacred precincts and were thus buried there (Kessler 1986; 1989), which is easy to under-

15

For an overview of the history of the canine cult in the Asyut/Sheikh Fadl area, see Rouvière (2017).

186

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

stand in the case of the cats due to the proximity of the Bubastieion. They may well have been found by priests and interred as an act of generosity/piety. Another explanation for the inclusion of other animals in these catacombs is their mythological relationships to Anubis (DuQuesne 2007; Wilkinson 2003). Aside from dogs, the second most commonly found animal in the catacomb is the cat; cats were also found in the Asyut burials dedicated to Anubis and Wepwawet (Kitagawa 2016), but not in other cemeteries associated with these gods (Dunand et al. 2015). Cats are traditionally associated with the goddess Bastet, divinity of motherhood, protector of children, love, beauty, and self-indulgence, whose temple at Saqqara adjoined that of Anubis, and who has her own catacombs (Zivie and Lichtenberg 2005). By the Graeco-Roman period, if not earlier, Bastet had been syncretized with Isis, Mut, Hathor (Bastet was viewed as the northern counterpart of Hathor as early as the 4th Dynasty), Sekhmet, and Shesmetet (Wilkinson 2003, 177–83). The Greeks saw her as a manifestation of Artemis (Wilkinson 2003, 178).16 Through syncretism, Bastet was also identified as the daughter of the sun god, and thus could be identified with the Eye of Re; in this association she would slay the evil serpent Apophis, an act also in keeping with her feline nature. She was also viewed as the Eye of the Moon, no doubt due to the nocturnal activities of felines, and linked closely to New Year festivities (Wilkinson 2003, 177–78). In the &R൶QTexts, Anubis is said to be the son of Bastet (as well as Hathor; Wilkinson 2003, 187), thus, possibly, burying his ‘mother’ with him is in keeping with the tradition of the Mother of Apis Catacomb. A more tenuous link between the two deities is the fact that Anubis was also seen as a guardian of mothers – albeit royal ones – as he played an important role in protecting Isis when she gave birth to Horus; by extension, this links him to Bastet’s role as protector of birthing mothers (Wilkinson 2003, 189). It is more dL൶FXOW to explain the inclusion of the mongoose within the Dog Catacombs on religious

grounds, though they might have been equated with the aspect of Bastet/Sekhmet as slayer of Apophis. Certainly, this animal has solar connections (Brunner-Traut 1965; Kessler 2007), which could be linked with the role of protector that Anubis plays as the deceased makes his/her way to eternal life. As very few mongoose were found here, it is more likely that they were included in the catacombs as they died on sacred ground. None were recovered from other cemeteries associated with Anubis (Dunand et al. 2015; Kitagawa 2016). The two raptor mummies are anomalies, particularly as they were so well wrapped. It is possible that they were considered appropriate R൵HULQJV to Anubis as a cosmic deity, in charge of earth and sky (Wilkinson 2003, 188), or were placed there due to a connection between Horus and Anubis (Vandier 1961, 91). It is also possible that for whatever reason (probably expediency), the priests had deposited them here instead of in the nearby Falcon Catacomb – although this is hard to imagine unless priests were shared between catacombs/deities.

It is worth noting that in their more fearsome and less nurturing aspects, all of these goddesses were also closely associated with lionesses although Bastet was most closely associated with a cat, particularly so by the end of the Late Period. Interestingly, in the representations of their leonine forms, the goddesses

more closely resembled a maned lion rather than a lioness. In the Bubastieion at Saqqara, that yielded many hundreds of cat mummies, one male lion was also identified (Callou et al. 2004; Ikram 2015a).

16

Sourcing and Caring for the Animals Granted that the time period during which the catacombs were in use is undetermined, and could have spanned several hundreds of years, nonetheless, neither the total number of animals that were buried in the catacombs nor the number contained in each gallery is negligible. Clearly these animals must have been purpose-bred as R൵HULQJV and the catacombs in which they were placed must have been administered by priests who were dedicated to their life, death, and ritual preservation, as was probably the case with other animal necropoleis, such as Tuna el-Gebel (Kessler and Nur el-Din 2015). Textual evidence for similar cults at Saqqara, such as that of Thoth, supports this idea (Ray 1976), as do ostraca and JUD൶WLfound associated with other cults that form part of the Sacred Animal

ඍඁൾൿൺඎඇൺඅආൺඍൾඋංൺඅ

Fig. ൦Map showing the distribution of canine burials throughout Egypt (N. Warner).

187

188

ඌං඄උൺආൺඇൽඅൻൾඋඍංඇං

Necropolis at Saqqara (Ray 2011; 2013; Smith et al. 2011). *UD൶WL found in tombs at Asyut also indicate that canids were kept in special locations (enclosures) near the Wepwawet temple from the reign of Ramesses II or even before (Munro 1963, 55-56 and discussion in Kahl and Kitagawa 2016, 18-20), suggesting possible areas where the raw materials for mummy production were housed. Thus far, no enclosure or mention thereof has been found in the environs of the Anubieion, although the pathology on some of the animals suggests that they were kept corralled and disciplined with sticks, and in some cases were cared for when VX൵HULQJtrauma. The vast number of animals of all ages suggests an active breeding programme carried out on an almost industrial scale by the priests, and also, possibly by dependents of the temple who would have bred animals and brought them to the temples to be sold on as R൵HULQJV(Nicholson et al. 2015 and Chapter 8 this volume; Ikram et al. 2013; Charron 2015).17 The high number of neonates and immature animals (over 75%) suggests that entire litters were killed, possibly by drowning, exposure, or separation from the mother immediately after birth.18 Certainly, there are records of other animals, such as ibises, VX൵HULQJat the hands of the priests in a variety of ways (Ray 1976), and deliberate deaths of votive mummies are well attested (Ikram and Iskander 2002; Armitage and Clutton-Brock 1980; Zivie and Lichtenberg 2005). Of course, natural causes might also have been (partially?) responsible for the death of so many

17

Apparently a single bitch and her R൵VSULQJcan produce up to 67,000 puppies in six years (https://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animal-issues/overpopulation/spay-neuter/), if females in the litters are allowed to mature, clearly making it easy for a cottage industry in puppy/dog production to flourish with a minimum outlay.

puppies. In one study it was noted that within 11 different litters, which yielded 40 pups born alive, 28 died within 70 days from birth, 9 within 120 days, and 1 within a year (Serpell 1995, 223). It should be noted that if puppies were removed from their mothers, this would force bitches to go into oestrus more than the usual twice a year, as is found in puppy farms today. Thus, a bitch could potentially deliver 24 puppies a year (on average there are six puppies per litter). Of course, females will not remain fertile for too long if they are intensively bred, and will sicken (some of the alveolar resorption might be explained by this) and die early as well, adding to the number of dogs ready for mummification. The production of these animal mummies would have played a significant role not just in the religious life of Egypt, but also in its economy. In terms of the former, the mummies are a manifestation of personal piety and the need that people felt to connect with a god more directly. In terms of the latter, the acquisition of the animals, their care, upkeep, and mummification, with all the necessary materials and personnel, would have played a major role in the Egyptian economy, particularly from the Third Intermediate Period onward, when royal support to temples was slightly more limited than before (Ikram 2015e). Thus, the animals from the Dog Catacombs of Saqqara provide us with a rare insight into the complex relationship between humans, gods, and animals in ancient Egypt.

18

There is no evidence for poisoning or strangulation, although both options are possible. Additionally, it should be noted that taking away entire litters from the bitches would make it possible for them to breed more frequently.

CHAPTER 7

THE FINDS Paul T. NICHOLSON

Introduction In their current state the Catacombs of Anubis preserve very few artefacts. However, it is likely that this picture is a distortion of the ancient situation resulting from several factors. Firstly, the catacombs have been extensively robbed in ancient times. This is evident from the condition of the mummies, many of which have been dug through and turned over, probably in the hope of locating artefacts that might either be re-cycled or sold. In addition, there may well be later looting from the 18th and 19th century to provide objects that could be sold to early travellers to Saqqara. This removal of objects is likely to have continued during the time in which, it is believed, the site was used for the procurement of mummies as fertiliser or for other industrial uses (Chapter 9). Any artefacts that were found at this time are likely to have been looted or, if the work was R൶cially sanctioned, collected and sold. In either instance the result has been to deplete the monument of most of its material culture other than mummified remains. Secondly, the catacombs have not been excavated. The project reported on here has been minimally invasive and is essentially a survey of the monument and its remains. The mummified remains which are still in the catacomb are extremely fragile and it has been the intention of the project to survey the monument and to sample the animal remains with as little damage to them as possible. Artefacts may therefore remain amongst the mummies and might be located at some future time. It is worth noting however, that no artefacts were uncovered from within the mummy pile during the authorised sampling of the animal remains.

์

For convenience the term ‘bronze’ is used here to refer to all copper-alloy objects.

Despite the likely distortion to the picture caused by looting and lack of excavation, it is clear that the site RQFHKRXVHGDUWHIDFWVDQGVX൶FLHQWRIWKHVHUHPDLQIRU some picture of their type and function to be gained. The location of the finds is shown on Figure 7.1. Bronzes Bronze, more correctly copper-alloy1, objects from the catacomb have been located in several galleries. That they were once more numerous may be suggested by the number of small niches occurring on the gallery walls (see Chapter 5). These niches are frequently located next to the larger ones intended for dog mummies. Thus far, all of these small niches have been found to be empty, but their neatly cut rectangular shape and small size might suggest that they were originally repositories for bronzes, particularly situlae. Whilst other uses could be suggested, such as niches for the remains of puppies, this seems unlikely given that such remains sometimes accompany larger animals in the mummy niches. These niches show no indication of ever having been used for lamps and a use as repositories seems much the most likely. It is known from other sites, such as Tuna el-Gebel that bronze objects were sometimes buried with the mummified animals (von den Driesch et al. 2005) and this might also have been the case at Saqqara. However, the turning over of the mummies in the galleries is not of itself evidence for this, but simply of the hopeful seeking of valuable objects, a practice which has led to much fruitless destruction of ancient monuments. At present it is impossible to be sure whether or not bronzes or other objects were located amongst the mummies.

3306800

3306750

3306700

23

22

328100

21

20

328100

24

18

19

328150

26

27 28

16

29

15

30

14

13

31

33

34

12

11

10

32

37

8

328200

36

9

328200

38

7

35

39

6

40

5

41

2

42

4

3

43

44

1

0

46

Metres 25

Type

Tombs

Wood

Stone

Pottery

Plaster

Modern

Bronze

50

328300

328300

Coordinate system: Ministery of Housing and Reconstruction 1978 (MHR1978 UTM Zone 36 North)

2a

47

49

328250

45

48

328250

Fig. 7.1: Plan of the catacomb showing the location of finds. (Plan: S. Mills and S. Williams).

25

17

328150

3306800 3306750 3306700

190 ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ Careful observation of the way in which the mummy piles have been dug into suggests that most of the digging took place immediately next to the walls. This was probably because the thieves knew that those mummies most likely to be accompanied by bronzes were those in the wall niches. These might have been in the actual burial niche or in the small rectangular niches already referred to. Those niches examined that still contain burials show no trace of bronzes, perhaps a further indication of the purpose of the smaller rectangular niches. Situla Figure 7.2 Gallery 10. Beside south east wall at entrance to the gallery. Dimensions: Maximum length 14.9cm, Maximum width (base) 4.2cm. Wall thickness 0.3cm. The first bronze object to be recovered was a situla. This was found lying on a mound of heavily disturbed and broken mummy remains near to the axial corridor (Fig. 7.1). The situla lacks its rim and handle (Figs. 7.2-7.4) and is in poor condition. It is, however, somewhat unusual amongst situlae recovered from the Sacred Animal Necropolis in that it is square in section and has a pyramidal base whereas most are of round section and are markedly bi-conical in profile. Square section situlae are known from other locations, including the cache found outside the Falcon Catacomb (Nicholson and Smith 1996), but they are not common and this one would have been a large, if plain, example. The size of the vessel would make it suitable to fit into the small rectangular niche to its north, but whether or not it came from this location is unknown. Fragment of figurine? Figure 7.5 Gallery 34 near junction with axial aisle. Dimensions: Maximum length 5.4cm, Maximum width 1.9cm. From G34 comes a roughly L-shaped fragment of bronze (Figures 7.6 and 7.7). When first seen in situ this appeared to be the broken upper part of a situla, however, closer examination shows it to be solid and it is more likely to be the lower part of a seated deity

191

figurine, probably Isis. The area of the feet seems disproportionately large but this is probably because it represents the goddess’s feet on a base, with the detail being lost in the corrosion. Bronze scraps Gallery 34 at junction with axial aisle. Although not recorded as finds it should be noted that there are traces of corroded bronze at the entrance to G34 where it opens from the axial aisle. These have not been recorded as finds, since they survive only as tiny flecks of corrosion and are likely the result of robbers having examined a bronze find in this area. Bronze scraps Gallery 43 A small piece of corroded bronze was identified here. Bronze arrowhead Figure 7.8 Gallery 37 Dimensions: Maximum length 4.5cm, Maximum width 1.6cm. From the surface of G37 comes a small cast bronze arrowhead. It is Y-shaped in cross section with a socket to receive the arrow shaft (Fig. 7.9). The type is known from the Third Intermediate and Late Periods as well as later and there are many typological parallels including UCL72009 and UCL37386. The arrowhead is unlikely to have served any practical purpose in the catacomb and so must be regarded as votive. Arrows are commonly associated with Neith, one of whose epithets is “Opener of the Ways”, a name shared with Anubis through conflation with Wepwawet (Wilkinson 2003, 187-192). It is therefore possible that the inclusion of an arrowhead may have been regarded as a general reference to this epithet (rather than to Neith specifically). There is a further possible ‘pairing’ of Neith and Anubis in that Neith in her capacity of patroness of weaving, was seen as providing the linen for burial shrouds and bandages whilst Anubis oversaw the task of embalming. An arrow votive might be an appropriate way of linking the two deities.

192

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.3: The situla as found at the mouth of gallery 10. The scale is 10cm. Fig. 7.2: The square section situla found at the entrance to gallery 10. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

Fig. 7.4: The situla as found on top of the mummy pile and debris at the mouth of gallery 10. The scale is 10cm.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.5: Bronze foot (or feet) from a figurine from gallery 34 at the junction with the axial aisle. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

Fig. 7.6: The bronze foot from gallery 34 as found at the junction with the axial aisle. The scale is 5cm.

193

194

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.7: The bronze feet from gallery 34 at the junction with the axial aisle.

Fig. 7.8: Bronze arrowhead from gallery 37. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

Fig. 7.9: Bronze arrowhead from gallery 37.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ Stone Objects Limestone shrine or ‘FR৽Q¶ER[ Figure 7.10, Figure 7.11 Gallery 43 Dimensions: Maximum length 10.9cm, Maximum width 8.8cm, Thickness 6.1cm. At the far end of G43 is a distinct shelf (see Chapter 5) where the quarrying of the gallery was, for some reason, abandoned. From amongst the rubble on this shelf come some interesting finds including approximately half of a limestone shrine. The piece is undecorated and is in a very soft limestone that preserves traces of tool marks. The workmanship is not particularly good and the base tapers toward the left (as viewed from the front as in Fig. 7.11). The underside of the base is not fully smoothed and the piece stands awkwardly suggesting that it was made in rather a careless manner since such soft stone could easily have been smoothed by rubbing it on a stone surface or by more careful chiselling. The piece seems, however, to be most stable when laid on its back, perhaps suggesting that its function was as a miniature FR൶Q This same area of the gallery yielded finds of two wooden figurines as well as a plaster head from a figurine and it may be that one of these finds was originally placed in the shrine/FR൶QER[(see below). Worked limestone block Figure 7.12 Gallery 39 at junction with axial aisle. Dimensions: Maximum length 17cm, Maxium width 16cm, Thickness 6cm. There are probably two pieces of this limestone object. However, one of them remains buried under fallen rubble (Fig. 7.13) and only its broken edge and profile can be seen. The piece that is free from rubble was found on top of the rubble pile, suggesting that it may have been placed there by thieves searching for objects. The piece shows clear vertical chisel marks around the edge and a well worked corner. It is in soft limestone.

ํ

I am indebted to Dagmar Winzer and Dr. Margaret Serpico for their advice on this object.

195

The purpose of the piece is unclear. It may be a fragment of masonry re-used from an earlier monument (in which case it may have been dropped into the catacomb via the shaft outside G12) and served as part of the blocking of the gallery, but since there is plenty of rubble to hand this seems unlikely. It bears no trace of an inscription either carved or inked, which argues against it being part of a stele. 2ৼHULQJtable2 Figure 7.14 Axial aisle outside gallery 40. Dimensions: Maximum length 34cm, Maximum width 28.5cm, Thickness 11.6cm. From the axial aisle outside G40 comes what may be a limestone R൵HULQJ table. The object was initially found partly buried in rubble that may have come from the destroyed blocking of the gallery along with roof/ wall debris (Figs 7.15 and 7.16). It was not, however, firmly buried and could be removed without danger to the object or the finders. Its discovery in the rubble outside the gallery might suggest that it was part of the blocking, in which case the two recesses might have been used to hold small dedicatory stele though again this seems unlikely since the stele could have been recessed into the walls as in other catacombs such as the Serapeum or Mothers of Apis. The block is rectangular and made of very soft, powdery, limestone into which have been cut two roughly rectangular recesses. The workmanship is crude and the upper surface of the object is very rough. It is uninscribed and undecorated. It is tempting to suppose that the piece may originally have stood at the junction of the gallery with the axial aisle and been one of several such stones. However, no trace of other similar pieces have been found – unless the block from G39, which remains buried in rubble, is a similar – albeit better made – piece. At the time of discovery it was considered that this piece might be a double sarcophagus for two small mummies. However, the absence of other stone sarcophagi for the dogs makes this unlikely. Dagmar Winzer (pers. comm.) kindly examined illustrations of

196

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.11: Cartouche-shaped stone shrine or FR൶Qfrom gallery 43. Fig. 7.10: Cartouche-shaped stone shrine or FR൶Qfrom gallery 43. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

Fig. 7.12: Part of a worked limestone block from gallery 37. A probable second part remains buried in rubble.

Fig. 7.13: Part of worked limestone block buried in rubble at the entrance of gallery 37.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.14: Limestone object believed to be a crudely made or unfinished R൵HULQJtable from the axial aisle outside gallery 40. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

Fig. 7.15: Hendrikje Nouwens examines the ‘R൵HULQJtable’ as found in the rubble in the axial aisle outside gallery 40.

197

198

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.16: The ‘R൵HULQJtable’ found in the rubble in the axial aisle outside gallery 40.

the piece and believes that it may not be an R൵HULQJ table. However, R൵HULQJtables with twin oval recesses are not unknown and an example is currently displayed at Tuna el-Gebel (see Bleiberg 2013, 78). For these reasons the piece has tentatively been identified as an R൵HULQJtable here. Plaster Finds Small plaster head Figure 7.17 Gallery 43 Dimensions: Height 2.5cm, Width 2.4cm, Thickness 2.8cm. This small plaster head comes from the partially quarried shelf at the rear of G43, the same place as the cartouche-shaped shrine or FR൶Qand the wooden figures. All were found amongst the rubble lying on top of the shelf. The remains of two human mummies also

๎

Note that this is the head on the far right of Hastings (1997, Pl. LIX) which shows her numbers 224 and 225.

come from here. It may be that the objects and mummies are part of the same burial. The head (Fig. 7.18) has the facial features modelled, though the mouth/lips are not distinct. The eyes are large and bulging and have been painted black. The top of the head is painted red and is presumably meant to represent a close-fitting cap. There is a hole behind the left ear of the head and the piece appears to be hollow although there is no hole in the neck, the underside of which is rough. Plaster heads were recovered by Emery from his work on the west side of the plateau. There are three which are broadly of the type found here, particularly that now in the Petrie Collection UC30555 (Hastings 1997, 61 and Pl. LIX no. 224)3 though that example is unpainted. The Petrie Museum catalogue makes particular reference to the “egg-shaped head” (www1; Bothmer and De Meulenaere 1986) that is typical of the 4th century B.C. and is ascribed to Dynasty 30. The example from G43 is more squat and looks less like the head of a child than does the Petrie example. It prob-

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.17: Small head made in painted plaster and found in gallery 43. This is one of several finds from this gallery which are not paralleled elsewhere in the catacomb. They may be related to the human remains found in the same gallery. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

Fig. 7.18: Small head made in painted plaster and found in gallery 43.

199

200

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

ably belongs to the Late Period, as Hastings (1997, 61) suggests for the published examples, or to the Ptolemaic era. Wooden Finds Wooden sculpture Many of the pieces described below are covered in a thin white layer. Where this survives more thickly it appears to be gesso and has been described as such in the descriptions below, though in some cases it may be no more than a thin white wash. Wooden figure of seated female Figure 7.19 Gallery 37 Dimensions: Height 20.6cm, Maximum width 9.5cm, Maximum thickness 8.2cm. This piece is among a number of wooden pieces found in rubble in G37 (Figs. 7.20, 7.21, 7.22). It is the lower part of a seated female figure wearing a calflength sheath dress (Fig. 7.23). The hands, which might have been expected to be on the lap of the figure, are not clear, though some very faint grooves on the right thigh suggest that at least one hand was originally modelled. The thick coating of white gesso obscures any detail and the left hand is not present. The feet and plinth are also missing but it is clear that they would have been made as a separate piece; this is apparent from an unpainted line left where the figure fitted onto the base. The rear side of the figure is unpainted and has been hollowed out toward the middle. Tool marks are visible in this area, particularly behind the knees that are hollowed to a deeper level than the rest of the legs. The underside of the figure as it survives has a channel cut into it at an angle. This may be a defect in the original wood or have helped in joining the figure to the base. The identity of the figure is problematic. It may be that it was originally a seated Isis figure, in this case

๏

I am indebted to Ed Bleiberg, via Salima Ikram for information on Brooklyn 37.1371E.

without the child Horus. Alternatively it may represent another female deity or a piece of private sculpture. The date is uncertain but it is likely to belong to the Late Period or early Ptolemaic era. The concave rear of the piece might suggest that it originally held a papyrus, as suggested by Hastings (1997, 29) for an Osiris figure found during Emery’s work (BM EA 68150 referred to below). Wooden hand from a figure Figure 7.24 Axial aisle outside gallery 37. Dimensions: Length 5.6cm, Width 2.4cm, Thickness 0.9cm. A small wooden hand covered in white gesso (Fig. 7.25). The fingers are clearly carved and the piece survives to a point above the wrist. It is tempting to see the piece as having originally come from the seated female figure found in G37 but it seems too large and therefore out of proportion with the piece. Wooden seated figure of Isis?4 Figure 7.26 Gallery 43 Dimensions: Height 5.5cm, Width 1.6cm, Thickness 2.4cm. From the partly quarried ledge at the back of G43 come four seated wooden figures, possibly intended as pairs. The first of these (Fig. 7.27) can probably be identified as Isis. She wears a calf-length sheath dress and holds something in her hands. The object held is very damaged and so is unclear but it could be intended as a figure of the child Horus. The whole is crudely carved and has rather spindly limbs. It has been covered in a thin layer of white gesso, traces of which are clearly visible. The neck and head of the figure are missing. On the back, the throne is carved with an arched top. The Brooklyn Museum has a similar piece (37.1371E) though in more complete condition and with the child more clearly and prominently carved. That example is gilded and has a linen wrapping and it

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ is possible that this piece from G43 too was originally gilded as flecks of gilding have been found nearby (see below). The piece is probably to be dated to the end of the Late Period or early Ptolemaic era. Wooden seated figure of Osiris Figure 7.28 Gallery 43 Dimensions: Height 4.0cm, Width 2.4cm, Thickness 3.0cm. This figure, also from the ledge at back of G43 is less well preserved than the previous one, having become broken at the waist (Fig. 7.29). The carving is of a higher standard than the previous one and the form is much less angular. Some attempt has been made to shape the legs of the throne and to show details of the feet that are slightly out-turned. The end of the god’s sceptre is visible running along his lap to the broken waist. The plinth has been rounded at the front. The back of the figure is slightly concave and looks unfinished. It may have had a separate back piece that included the back of the throne seat. This figure has similarities to the much larger example from G37 and like it, and its partner from G43, is covered in a layer of white gesso – though very thinly, flecks of gold leaf were found nearby. Hastings (1997, 29 and Pl. XXX) has published a more complete example of this type from Emery’s work. The piece, which she ascribes to the Late Period, is now in the British Museum (EA 68150). Although carved in one piece, she notes that the obelisk against which the figure sits is hollow in order to receive a roll of papyrus, perhaps with an oracle question. Ikram (pers. comm.) however, notes that such voids sometimes contain the mummies of birds or shrews and are usually larger than the concavity on this piece suggests. Examples seen by Ikram in Turin are dated from the 7th to 1st century B.C., the majority being dated to the Ptolemaic period (Ikram in preparation). Wooden seated figure of Isis Figure 7.30 Gallery 43 Dimensions: Height 7.6cm, Width 2.0cm, Thickness 2.9cm This figure, found in 2017 in two parts and readhered, is a clear representation of Isis with the child

201

Horus (Fig. 7.31). She wears a long wig on top of which the base of a crown is visible. The carving is comparable, perhaps marginally better, than that of the other two figures described above. The figure was coated in gesso which is very obvious in the eye sockets. Wooden seated figure Figure 7.32 Gallery 43 Dimensions: Height 7.0cm, Width 1.8cm, Thickness 4.2cm. This piece is also likely to be a seated figure of a deity but is badly damaged (Fig. 7.33) and cannot be determined with certainty. Some small pieces of gilding were found amongst the rubble on the ledge of G43 and these probably came from one or more of these figures, making them more comparable to others such as Brooklyn 37.1371E and those discussed by Hastings (1997, 29). Gallery 43 Wooden fragments All of these are in very poor condition and very fragile. 43-1. Two joining fragments with small dowel holes. Measured as one piece. Dimensions: Length 8.4cm, Width 5.1cm, Thickness 0.7cm. Diameter of holes 0.4cm. 43-2. Similar to 43-1 but as well as two holes in the face one edge is also drilled with two holes. Dimensions: Length 8.4cm, Width 4.4cm, Thickness 0.5 cm. Diameter of holes 0.4cm. 43-3. Probably a FR൶Q side with dowel hole into a half-lap joint. Dimensions: Length 25.2cm, Width 6.0cm, Thickness 1.2cm. Diameter of hole 0.5cm. Five very small fragments of wood, possibly from figurines. Wooden Head and Torso Figure 7.34 Gallery 37

202

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Dimensions: Height 5.4cm, Width 3.1cm, Thickness 2.0cm. A sculptured wooden fragment that preserves a dowel hole just below the shoulder where an arm was originally attached (Fig. 7.35). The fragment is coated with gesso and preserves traces of gilding. Its scale is VX൶FLHQWO\ similar to the large seated female figure from this gallery, believed to be Isis, that they may be part of the same object, though they cannot be joined. Wooden Fragments5 See Fig. 7.20 for plan of the fragments in G37 listed below. Most of these were not individually drawn. 37-3. Figure 7.36 Dimensions: Length 14.1cm, Width 10.0cm, Thickness 11.2cm. A substantial piece of timber with a mortise cut into one side. It may come from a piece of furniture or a shrine (Fig. 7.37). 37-4. One long piece of timber with smaller pieces on its east end, trapped under rubble (Fig. 7.38). The rubble is actually on the west side of G12 but it is believed that the wood is probably from G37, hence the numbering. This was photographed with the overburden partly in place. It is currently held tightly in place by some of the stone rubble and has therefore not been moved. 37-5. Two wooden fragments (Fig. 7.39). Dimensions: Length 15.0cm, Width 7.5cm, Thickness 6.0 cm. Length 17.5cm, Width 5.7cm, Thickness 2.3cm. The larger has been cut with a slot/mortise. The edges of this feature are parallel and the surface has been heavily coated with gesso. The smaller fragment seems to have a slot cut along its thin edge. These too are from the axial outside G37 where they are thought to have originated. 37-8. Rectangular wooden rail fragment lightly gessoed on two surfaces.

5

I am indebted to Dr. *HR൵UH\ Killen for his help with these fragments, any errors in interpretation are my own.

Dimensions: Length 9.0cm, Width 8.2cm, Thickness 2.8cm. 37-AA. Wooden fragment with the suggestion of a cut mitre joint at one end (Fig. 7.40). Dimensions: Length 8.0cm, Width 3.1cm, Thickness 3.3cm. Perhaps the corner of a frame or box. Appears to be curved in profile as a cavetto cornice, perhaps from a small shrine. 37-B. Wooden fragment, badly decomposed on one surface (Fig. 7.41). Dimensions: Length 14.2cm, Width 6.1cm, Thickness 3.8cm. Decomposition is possibly as a result of prolonged water contact, resulting in grain separation forming a loose fibre structure. 37-BB. Wooden fragment with two parallel edges. Dimensions: Length 6.0cm, Width 4.0cm, Thickness 1.2cm. One surface is largely free of gesso (Fig. 7.42) while the other has a gesso foundation, indicating that this might be the top surface of a rail. 37-C. Wood fragment. Dimensions: Length 12.2cm, Width 3.0cm, Thickness 2.1cm. Rectangular in cross-section, possibly originating from a wooden plank. All surfaces are finely finished, being smoothed and covered with a fine layer of gesso (Fig. 7.43). 37-D. Two wooden fragments. Dimensions: (1) Length 7.5cm, Width 5.5cm, Thickness 2.0cm. (2) Length 5.5cm, Width 4.0cm, Thickness 1.8cm. (1) Mortise on one end and white all over. (2) Good white surface on one side (Fig. 7.44). 37-DD. Two wooden fragments. Dimensions: Length 6.4cm, Width 4.7cm, Thickness 1.6cm.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ Parallel marks on the surface of the smaller fragment indicate that the surface was either scraped flat with a metal blade or was planed (Fig. 7.45). 37-EE. Wooden fragment possibly with a rebate along one edge (Fig. 7.46). Dimensions: Length 7.2cm, Width 4.0cm, Thickness 1.8cm. 37-F. Wooden fragment in poor state of preservation (Fig. 7.47). Dimensions: Length 10.7cm, Width 5.6cm, Thickness 3.2cm. 37-FF. Wooden fragment. Dimensions: Length 13.7cm, Width 6.1cm, Thickness 1.5cm. Parallel marks on the surface indicate that the surface was either scraped flat with a metal blade or the surface was planed (Fig. 7.48). 37-G. Wooden fragment (Fig. 7.49). Dimensions: Length 10.5cm, Width 6.0cm, Thickness 4.5cm. One end shaped to form a rounded surface while the opposite end has a broken slot/mortise and the remains of a dowel. 37-H. Wooden fragment with adhering linen fragments as well as white gesso (Fig. 7.50). Dimensions: Length 37.8cm, Width 6.0cm, Thickness 4.5cm. The linen seems to be adhered with resin suggesting that this might be a fragment from a dog FR൶Q 37-HH. Wooden fragment with parallel sides (Fig. 7.51). Dimensions: Length 6.4cm, Width 3.8cm, Thickness 2.1cm. The shape possibly indicates that it formed part of a wooden rail. 37-L. Wooden fragment (Fig. 7.52). Dimensions: Length 30.1cm, Width 9.2cm, Thickness 4.7cm. 37-M. Wooden fragment (Fig. 7.53). Dimensions: Length 24.0cm, Width 10.0cm, Thickness 6.5cm.

203

Possibly a statue fragment? 37-N. Wooden fragment (Fig. 7.54). Dimensions: Length 11.0cm, Width 7.5cm, Thickness 6.0cm. 37-OO. Wooden fragment (Fig. 7.55). Dimensions: Length 11.3cm, Width 3.7cm, Thickness 2.4cm. Diameter of hole 0.5cm. Rectangular in cross-section with smooth flat surfaces that are lightly gessoed. Shape possibly indicates a rail fragment. 37-P. Tapered wooden fragment (Fig. 7.56). Dimensions: Length 13.5cm, Width 6.0cm, Thickness 2.0cm. One surface is finished with a gesso foundation on which has been applied yellow paint (?). Another surface has been rebated. Top edge is chamfered and there is a tenon socket. 37-RR. Wooden fragment with two parallel sides (Fig. 7.57). Dimensions: Length 5.5cm, Width 6.5cm, Thickness 1.1cm. White gesso on both sides. 37-S. Wooden board (Fig. 7.58). Dimensions: Length 48.5cm, Width 7.9cm, Thickness 1.4cm. Diameter of hole 0.4cm. Forming part of a larger fabricated panel, the edge of this board has been drilled at regular intervals to accept dowels that would allow this board to be edge jointed to a similar board. Possibly forming the base or side panel of a box. 37-SS. Two wooden fragments (Fig. 7.59). Dimensions: (1) Length 19.0cm, Width 3.8cm, Thickness 0.4cm. (2) Length 7.2cm, Width 2.2cm, Thickness 1.7cm. Diameter too damaged to measure. The larger piece (1) badly decayed, the smaller piece (2) appears to have been drilled to accept a dowel. 37-W. Wooden fragment (Fig. 7.60). Dimensions: Length 15.0cm, Width 11.5cm, Thickness 4.0cm. Shaped to a rounded form at one end, while the other is finished with a mitred surface.

204

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

37-X. Wooden fragment (Fig. 7.61). Dimensions: Length 8.4cm, Width 3.4cm, Thickness 1.8cm. Hole, broken away, has diameter of 0.5cm. Fragment has parallel sides, forming part of a rail or panel. One surface has been applied with a foundation of gesso. 37-Y. Wooden fragment (Fig. 7.62). Dimensions: Length 15.0cm, Width 4.0cm, Thickness 1.0cm. Badly decayed with evidence of gesso foundation on both surfaces with a stripe painted across the surface on one side. 37-Unnumbered. Two wooden carved fragments badly decayed. &R৽Qfrom Niche 5B Figure 7.63 Dimensions: Length 49.6cm, Width 18.7cm, Height 16.4cm. Although found in pieces (Figs. 7.64, 7.65) in niche 5B, most of the pieces of this FR൶Q are preserved (Figs. 7.66, 7.67). The FR൶Q is constructed using tongue and groove joints. The pairs of grooves in each corner pillar have been accurately worked along the grain (Fig. 7.68). This technique was not used in woodwork of Pharaonic times but can be seen on Roman woodwork (see Ulrich 2007, fig. 4.2 (H)). Though very little evidence of Ptolemaic date has survived, the use of the plane was known at this time and Ulrich cites the use of smoothing planes, jack planes as well as moulding planes and rebate planes. He says the rebate plane can cut grooves (Ulrich 2007, 42) but Killen disputes this and states that “a plane that can cut this joint should be called a tongue and groove plane” (Killen pers. comm.). Without further examination it is not clear whether the groove has been cut by hand with a chisel or the wood has been sliced using a plane. Secondly, the mortise seen in Figure 7.69 that forms a loose mortise and tenon joint appears to have round shoulders. This would indicate that the mortise was chain drilled out and then finished with a chisel. It again would be interesting to look at the bottom of the mortise to establish whether you can see drill marks (circular) or chisel marks (straight chopped marks across the grain). Also, the dowel hole that once secured the joint appears to have a diameter similar in width to

the mortise. If so, it would confirm that one tool performed both machining operations. Killen (pers. comm.) suggests that the earliest that the FR൶Q could have been made is within the Ptolemaic era. &R৽Qfrom Niche 32B Figures 7.70 (32B-5) and 7.71 (32B-6) Dimensions: (32B-5) Length 23.2cm, Height 13.7cm, Thickness 1.3cm. Dimensions: (32B-6) Length 18.2cm, Height 5.7cm, Thickness 2.1cm. These pieces were found in niche 32B (Fig.7.72), but it is not certain that they are from the same FR൶Q certainly the wood thickness GL൵HUV between the two pieces (Figures 7.70 & 7.73; 7.71 & 7.74). There were other fragments but only those parts which could be removed from their disturbed context without damage were taken for detailed recording (Fig. 7.75). 32B-1. Figure 7.76 Dimensions: Length 22.2cm, Width 4.2cm, Thickness 1.7cm. Diameter of hole 0.6cm. 32B-2. Figure 7.77 Dimensions: Length 35.5cm, Width 4.3cm, Thickness 1.7cm. 32B-3. Figure 7.78 Dimensions: Length 23.8cm, Width 3.7cm, Thickness 1.2cm. 32B-4. Figure 7.79 Dimensions: Length 24.1cm, Width 5.7cm, Thickness 1.8cm. 32B-5. Figures 7.70 and 7.73 Dimensions: Length 23.2cm, Width 13.7cm, Thickness 1.3cm. 32B-6. Figures 7.71 & 7.74 Dimensions: Length 18.2cm, Height 5.7cm, Thickness 2.1cm. 32B-7. Figure 7.80 Dimensions: Length 23.7cm, Width 5.8cm, Thickness 1.9cm.

205

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.19: Wooden seated figure, probably of Isis, found in gallery 37. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

Wood Wood with gesso 0

1

2m

Fig. 7.20: Plan showing the position of wooden fragments from gallery 37. The wood with gesso is the probable Isis figure. (Plan by Paul T. Nicholson and Scott Williams).

206

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.21: Wooden seated figure, probably of Isis, as found in gallery 37.

Fig. 7.22: Wooden seated figure, probably of Isis, as found in gallery 37. The scale is 10cm.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.23: Wooden seated figure, probably of Isis, found in gallery 37.

Fig. 7.24: Wooden hand from the axial aisle outside gallery 37. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

207

208

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.25: Wooden hand from the axial aisle outside gallery 37.

Fig. 7.26: Seated wooden figure of Isis from gallery 43. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.27: Seated wooden figure of Isis from gallery 43.

Fig. 7.28: Seated wooden figure of Osiris from gallery 43. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

209

210

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.29: Seated wooden figure of Osiris from gallery 43.

Fig. 7.30: Seated wooden figure of Isis from gallery 43. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.31: Seated wooden figure of Isis from gallery 43.

Fig. 7.32: Seated wooden figure from gallery 43. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

211

212

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.33: Seated wooden figure from gallery 43.

Fig. 7.34: Wooden head from gallery 37. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.35: Wooden head from gallery 37.

Fig. 7.36: Mortised wooden fragment possibly from a shrine or FR൶Q(Drawing by Scott Williams).

213

214

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.37: Mortised wooden fragment possibly from a shrine or furniture.

Fig. 7.38: Wooden fragment 37-4 trapped beneath rubble in the axial aisle at the mouth of gallery 37, from whence it probably came. The scale is 10cm.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.39: Two wooden fragments 37-5, from the axial aisle outside gallery 37 from whence they probably came.

Fig. 7.40: Wooden fragment 37-AA, perhaps part of a cornice from gallery 37.

215

216

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.41: Badly preserved wooden fragment 37-B from gallery 37.

Fig. 7.42: Gessoed wooden fragment 37-BB from gallery 37.

Fig. 7.43: Gessoed wooden fragment 37-C from gallery 37.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.44: Gessoed wooden fragments 37-D from gallery 37.

Fig. 7.45: Gessoed wooden fragments 37-DD from gallery 37.

Fig. 7.46: Gessoed wooden fragment 37-EE from gallery 37.

217

218

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.47: Badly preserved wooden fragment 37-E from gallery 37.

Fig. 7.48: Smoothed wooden fragment 37-FF from gallery 37.

Fig. 7.49: Wooden fragment 37-G with rounded end. From gallery 37.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.50: Wooden fragment 37-H with adhering linen fragments (visible immediately above the scale bar). From gallery 37.

Fig. 7.51: Wooden fragment 37-HH from gallery 37.

Fig. 7.52: Wooden fragment 37-L from gallery 37.

219

220

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.53: Wooden fragment 37-M from gallery 37.

Fig. 7.54: Shaped wooden fragment 37-N from gallery 37.

Fig. 7.55: Wooden fragment 37-OO from gallery 37.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.56: Wooden fragment 37-P which preserves traces of what is believed to be yellow paint. From gallery 37.

Fig. 7.57: Wooden fragment 37-RR preserving two parallel sides. From gallery 37.

Fig. 7.58: Wooden fragment 37-S which has dowel holes along one edge, perhaps suggesting that it was from a FR൶Qor box. From gallery 37.

221

222

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.59: Wooden fragments 37-SS, the smaller may have been drilled. From gallery 37.

Fig. 7.60: Wooden fragment 37-W. From gallery 37.

Fig. 7.61: Wooden fragment 37-X. From gallery 37.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.62: Painted wooden fragment 37-Y, possibly from a FR൶Qor shrine. From gallery 37.

Fig. 7.63: Wooden FR൶Qfrom niche 5B of gallery 5. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

223

224

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

N

Wood Mummy wrapping

0

1

2m

Fig. 7.64: Wooden FR൶Qfragments as found in and around niche 5B of gallery 5. (Plan by Tessa Baber, Mari Rygh and Scott Williams).

Fig. 7.65: The pieces of the FR൶Qfrom niche 5B after conservation by Mari Rygh.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.66: The FR൶Qfragments reunited after conservation by Mari Rygh. The co൶Qis too fragile to be permanently reassembled and the conserved pieces have been stored flat.

Fig. 7.67: Detail of a mortise joint with dowel hole from one of the long sides of the FR൶Qfrom niche 5B of gallery 5. The scale bar is 5cm.

225

226

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.68: One of the corner pillars from the FR൶Qfrom niche 5B illustrating the use of a tongue-and-groove plane.

Fig. 7.69: A mortise with round shoulders from the FR൶Qfrom niche 5B indicates that it was chain drilled before being finished with a chisel. The tenon would have been held in place with a dowel as indicated by the drill hole.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.70: An end section of the FR൶Qfrom niche 32B from gallery 32. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

Fig. 7.71: Part of the side of the FR൶Qfrom niche 32B from gallery 32. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

227

228

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.72: Niche 32B in gallery 32 as found. Only the most complete and least friable pieces were removed for study.

Fig. 7.73: End section (32B-5) from the FR൶Qfragments from niche 32B.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.74: Part of the side panel (32B-6) of a FR൶Qfrom niche 32B.

Fig. 7.75: A further fragment of FR൶Qfrom niche 32B.

Fig. 7.76: Fragment 32B-1 from niche 32B.

229

230

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.77: Fragment 32B-2 from niche 32B.

Fig. 7.78: Fragment 32B-3 from niche 32B.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.79: Fragment 32B-4 from niche 32B.

Fig. 7.80: Fragment 32B-7 from niche 32B.

231

232

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.81: Fragment 32B-8 from niche 32B.

Fig. 7.82: Fragment 32B-9 from niche 32B.

Fig. 7.83: Fragment 32B-10 from niche 32B.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.84: Fragment of a ceramic head of Harpocrates from gallery 43. The piece probably belongs to the late 4th century B.C. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

32B-8. Figure 7.81 Dimensions: Length 21.5cm, Width 5.5cm, Thickness 1.9cm. 32B-9. Figure 7.82 Dimensions: Length 11.1cm, Width 2.0cm, Thickness 1.4cm. 32B-10. Figure 7.83 Dimensions: Length 3.2cm, Width 2.2cm, Thickness 1.5cm.

Ceramic Finds Ceramic Head of a Youth/Harpocrates

๑

I am indebted to Dr. Ross Thomas of the British Museum for his help in dating this piece.

233

Fig. 7.85: Fragment of a ceramic head of Harpocrates from gallery 43. The piece probably belongs to the late 4th century B.C.

Figure 7.84 Gallery 43 Dimensions: Height 3.1cm, Width 2.7cm, Thickness 2.6cm. This piece is hollow and is moulded in Nile silt clay and has numerous voids from the burning out of organic matter (Fig. 7.85). The piece has been coated in a pinkish slip that has then been painted, a trace of blue paint now remains on the sidelock of youth, positioned on the left side of the head as viewed. There is no remaining trace of the lips or of a finger touching them, though the piece is most likely to be representative of Harpocrates. Dr. Ross Thomas6 suggests that the piece is known from 4th Century B.C. contexts at Naukratis, and probably belongs late in the series. The type disappears early in the Ptolemaic era but is common as a residual find at that time.

234

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Pottery Unlike most excavations in Egypt the work at the Catacombs of Anubis yielded very little pottery. I am indebted to Peter French and Janine Bourriau for their comments on that which was found. The following is based on their work on the pottery. Fabric descriptions used are based on those set out by Aston and Aston (2010). Jar from gallery 35 Figure 7.86 Dimensions: Rim diameter 12.5cm. Rim and upper body of a jar of a type common at Saqqara, with two or more small vertical handles, here not preserved (Figure 7.87). The type is already known in at least two fabrics. It held embalming material, which has spilt down the outside. These jars are normally found in this condition and may even have been made specifically to hold embalming material. Probably Mixed Clay fabric L7. Inclusions: Sand: fine [1], medium [1]; Plant remains: medium 2-5mm [2], coarse [1]; Limestone: fine [1], medium [1]; Red brown particles, soft, medium [1], coarse [1]. Sorting is fair and porosity is medium. The fabric is medium hard with decomposed limestone particles. The wall thickness is thin (partly due to surface wear) 4mm and the colour of the fracture and the surface is a uniform brown 7.5YR 6/4. The vessel is likely to belong to the Persian period, c.525/500-400 B.C. (see Aston and Aston 2010, 179183). Jar from gallery 37 Figure 7.88 Dimensions: Base diameter 11.6 cm. Ring base from a jar of the same type as that from G35. Embalming material spilt down the outside (Figure 7.89), as on No. 1. Marl Clay fabric K5. Inclusions: Sand: fine [2], medium [1]; Plant remains: < 2mm [1]; Limestone: medium [1]; Red-brown particles, soft, medium [2]; Black rock particles, medium [1]. Sorting is fair and porosity is medium. The fabric is medium hard with decomposed limestone particles.

The wall thickness is medium (8mm wide) and the colour in the fracture is as follows: Outer zones 5YR 6/6 yellowish red with a pink core, 7.5YR 7/4. Published examples of this type of jar include: (a) From the Saqqara tomb of Horemheb (Aston and Aston 2010, Fig. 1, No. 120) from Cache 4 (previously designated Cache I) (six examples), Fig. 18, No. 120 from Shaft ii (four examples), all in Mixed Clay fabric L7 (previously thought to be Nile Clay fabric J3). (b) From the Saqqara tomb of Maya (Aston and Aston 2010, Pl. 40, No. 342 in Marl Clay fabric K5 with white slip and ring burnish). (c) From the New Kingdom necropolis (surface), (Aston and Aston 2010, Pl. 45, No. 405 in Mixed Clay fabric L7 and Pl. 46, No. 428 in Marl Clay fabric K5 with slip and burnish). (d) From tombs on the south side of the causeway of Unas (French and Ghaly 1991, 105 and Photograph 1, Type 18: at least 14 examples, all in Marl Clay fabric K5 with thick white slip and burnish). The jar probably belongs to the Persian period, c.525/500-400 B.C. (see Aston and Aston 2010, 179183). Jar from gallery 18 Figure 7.90 Dimensions: Base diameter 8.5cm. Ring base, apparently from a jar of a GL൵HUHQWtype to those described above. Medium coarse Nile Clay, equivalent to Late Dynastic J2 (= Ptolemaic Nile 3). Inclusions: Sand: fine [2]; Plant remains: fine < 2mm [1]; Limestone: fine [1], medium [1], coarse [1]. Sorting is fair and porosity is dense. The fabric is medium hard with decomposed limestone. The wall thickness is medium (5mm) and the colour of the fracture and the surface is a uniform reddish brown 5YR 4/4. The exterior is covered with a white slip. Significantly, this piece has, embedded in the resin on the interior, part of the phalange of a dog, linking it clearly to the mummification of the animals (Figure 7.91). No information can be given on the composition of the resin until such time as scientific analyses are permitted. The piece cannot be dated with certainty but is probably Late Dynastic to Ptolemaic.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

235

Shallow open-form vessel from gallery 18

Complete profile of jar from gallery 29

Figure 7.92 Dimensions: Rim diameter 8.5cm, Base diameter 5.2cm, Height 3.6cm. A roughly made carinated bowl with string-cut base and distorted from careless handling (Fig. 7.93). No chip was available for fabric analysis (because the vessel is complete) but it is clearly a Nile clay, almost certainly unslipped. Whilst it is not a fine ware the temper is not visible: the voids on the underside could be from plant remains but also from ‘skidding’ sand particles. This open form may have served as a lid on a jar; it has some similarity to those lids from the falcon/ibis galleries. It is likely to be either Late Dynastic or Ptolemaic but cannot be more closely dated.

Figure 7.94 Dimensions: Rim diameter 7.5cm, Base diameter 6.0cm, Height 18.6cm. This vessel is almost complete (Fig. 7.95). The body is decorated with painted black stripes running around the circumference but these are obscured by the large quantity of resin which has spilled down the vessel walls. It is probably to be dated between c.525 and 400 B.C. Vessel base from gallery 10 Figure 7.96 Dimensions: Base diameter 4.3cm. This piece, in a marl or mixed clay, is currently undated.

Fig. 7.86: Jar from gallery 35, probably dating between 525 and 400 B.C. (Drawing by Paul T. Nicholson and Scott Williams).

236

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.87: Jar from gallery 35, probably dating between 525 and 400 B.C. Note the resin splashed down the vessel wall.

Fig. 7.88: Jar base from gallery 37, probably dating between 525 and 400 B.C. (Drawing by Paul T. Nicholson and Scott Williams).

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.89: Jar base from gallery 37, probably dating between 525 and 400 B.C. As well as resin/unguent on the exterior the interior is lined with the same.

Fig. 7.90: Jar base from gallery 18. (Drawing by Paul T. Nicholson and Scott Williams).

237

238

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.91: Jar base from gallery 18. The thick resin coating inside preserved the phalange of a dog (visible beneath the scale on the right image), clearly linking it to the embalming process.

Fig. 7.92: Small bowl from gallery 18. Probably Late Dynastic or Ptolemaic in date. (Drawing by Paul T. Nicholson and Scott Williams).

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.93: Small bowl from gallery 18. Probably Late Dynastic or Ptolemaic in date.

Fig. 7.94: Complete profile of jar from gallery 29. Possibly dating between 525 and 400 B.C. (Drawing by Scott Williams).

239

240

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.95: Complete profile of jar from gallery 29. Possibly dating between 525 and 400 B.C.

Fig. 7.96: Undated vessel base from gallery 10. (Drawing by Paul T. Nicholson and Scott Williams).

241

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ Modern Finds Because it seems that the catacomb was used as a source of mummies for industrial or agricultural purposes during the 19th or early 20th century and has subsequently been used by the Service des Antiquités and its modern successors as a storage place, the presence of modern finds at the site is of interest.

Alexander Pirie in 1860 and merged with the Wiggins Teape company in 1922. This is likely to have been purchased in Britain and brought to Egypt by one of the expeditions working at Saqqara sometime before 1922.

Agfa Plate Negative Box

Figure 7.99 In the sand in G1 where finds, mainly of pottery, had been stored a fragment of an English language newspaper dated November 4th, 1910 was unearthed. This proved to be from the High Court of Justice section from page three of The Times.

Figure 7.97 The remains of a glossy red cardboard box with printed manilla label was found amongst a selection of small antiquities in G4. The box preserved VX൶FLHQWof the label to make it clear that it was for Agfa gelatine photographic material. The Agfa company was founded in 1873 but did not begin to manufacture gelatine bromide until 1893.7 This box is to be dated just before or just after 1900 and certainly before 1914.8 Gelatine plates continued to be made by the company until 1925. The original contents of the box were probably used by an expedition in the period 1900-1910 and the box then reused for the packaging of finds from their excavation. The fact that the box is by a German company and the contents labelled in French does not give any certain clue as to the nationality of the expedition since Agfa was widely exported and the plates may have been purchased in Cairo rather than in Germany or France. Fragment of cardboard box for envelopes Figure 7.98 The remains of a cardboard box marked with a gothic-style decorative label reading ‘Pirie’s Antique Parchment Envelopes Finest Quality’ and of ‘Baronial Albert’ type was found in the sand of G1. The envelopes were made by the Pirie company founded by

๒

Information kindly provided by Colin Harding of the National Media Museum and to Dr. Roosens of Agfa’s historical archives and Christine Le Piez.

Fragment of ‘The Times’ newspaper

Fragment of ‘Melkonian’ box Figure 7.100 Also from the drift sand of G1 is the remains of a cardboard box labelled ‘Maden’ and ‘K. & G. Melkonian’ with Arabic script underneath. The style of box label, in the form of a shield surmounted by a solar falcon, may belong to the period 1910-1940. K. & G. Melkonian were a company supplying tobacco, alcoholic beverages (except beer) and clothing. The size of the box fragment suggests that it may have come from tobacco.9 Envelope Figure 7.101 Found in the drift sand of G1 is an envelope marked OHHS (On His Highness’s Service) and bearing a red ‘Service de l’état’ postage stamp as well as postmarks, one of which is for Badrashein and reads ‘Bedrashen 9-1-12 7.30 [P]M’. Like the other finds in G1 it was found near the cache of finds stored at the foot of the stairs. It bears no name or address.

๓ ๔

I am indebted to Prof. Dr. Bodo von Dewitz of the Museum Ludwig, Köln, for this information. Information on Melkonian is GL൶FXOW to find, but www3 is a useful source on the family and its business interests.

242

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Rusty metal ‘mug’/lamp Figure 7.102 From G3 is an iron cylinder with a mug-style handle. The rim is reinforced and has a corroded metal (brass?) plate which seems to read 888. This may be a measure of some kind or perhaps part of a 19th or early 20th century lantern held with the handle at the top, like a railway lamp, possibly left over from the original surveying of the catacomb or placing of the finds. Glass chimney from oil lamp Gallery 3 Fragment of glass chimney from an oil lamp. It is not possible to know whether this comes from the modern exploitation of the mummified material or whether it comes from the surveying of the catacomb in the 19th century (the two events may be related). Such lamps were in use in the area well into the 1980s and though it is unlikely to be of such recent origin no date can be given to it. Glass chimney from oil lamp Gallery 20 Fragment of glass chimney from an oil lamp as above. Glass chimney from oil lamp Gallery 29 Fragment of glass chimney from an oil lamp as above. Workman’s basket Gallery 33 Where G33 meets the axial aisle are the remains of a plant fibre basket of the type used by agricultural workers and excavation hands. That it is fibre rather than rubber tends to place it before the 1980s and the

fact that it is some distance into the catacomb, which has not been open for scientific or other work for many years, makes it likely that it is left over either from the exploitation of the mummy material or has been left by an intruder at some more recent date. Galvanised ‘cauldron’ Figure 5.87 Gallery 19 tomb shaft This find was not retrieved during the project as it has evidently been placed to block a tomb shaft coming in from the surface. It is possible that the original use of this large galvanised ‘cauldron’ was the storage of fresh water for those working on the removal of remains from the catacomb. An industrial use is also possible but as it is not possible to see inside the vessel this must remain uncertain. Conclusions: Modern Finds Where the modern finds can be dated they seem to belong to the period 1900-10 and are probably to be associated with the storage of excavated material by one or more expeditions working around that time. The fact that some of the language on the material is English might suggest that the finds are from the work conducted by J.E. Quibbell (1867-1935) who worked on the monastery of Jeremias and on archaic tombs from the time of his becoming Chief Inspector of Antiquities at Saqqara in 1905 (Bierbrier 2012, 450). Quibell, as Chief Inspector, would not only have been well aware of the presence of the Dog Catacomb but would have been in a position to sanction the use of the foreparts of the catacomb for finds storage. That much of the pottery stored in G1, G2 and G4 is Archaic in date would tend to support the conclusion that it came from his work at Saqqara. Some other material may have been added to the collection in more recent times.

ඍඁൾൿංඇൽඌ

Fig. 7.97: The remains of a box of Agfa plate negatives dating from between the very end of the 19th century and 1914.

Fig. 7.98: The remains of a box from Pirie’s Antique Parchment Envelopes Finest Quality. Probably dating before 1922.

243

244

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 7.99: A fragment of the Times newspaper dating to November 4th, 1910.

Fig. 7.101: An envelope with postmarks from the 9th of January 1912 and marked On His Highness’s Service. It was postmarked at Badrashein.

Fig. 7.100. A fragment from a box labelled ‘Maden’ and ‘K. & G. Melkonian’. Probably to be dated between 1910 and 1940.

Fig. 7.102: Remains of a mug or lamp bearing the number 888 on a metal plate. The function and date of the piece are unclear.

CHAPTER 8

PRIESTS, PROCURERS, PREPARATORS AND PILGRIMS: AN OVERVIEW OF THE SACRED ANIMAL CULTS AT SAQQARA Paul T. NICHOLSON

“The aspect of Egyptian religion which above all startled and intrigued outsiders, then as now, was the worship accorded to animals. The ubiquity of animal cults was both shocking and hard to understand. The Greeks were amazed; the Romans laughed. For those, however, who came to live in Egypt these peculiar practices seem soon to have lost their strangeness, and immigrants joined with the Egyptians in rendering cult to the animals…” (Thompson 2012, 177).

Introduction Thus far this volume has examined the catacombs, their construction and their occupants but in concluding it is necessary to consider why the animal cults, notably that of the dogs, existed and how they might have operated. What drove Egyptians and foreigners alike to pay homage to deceased animals and birds and how were these cults operated? Pilgrims and the purpose of the animal mummies Salima Ikram (2019, 171) has identified six types of animal mummy: (1) pets, (2) victual or food mummies, (3) sacred animals worshipped in their own lifetime, (4) votive mummies dedicated by pilgrims, (5) false/amalgam and (6) other. It is clear that the great majority of the dogs, as well as the ibises, falcons and cats fall into this fourth category. It is possible that a few animals, perhaps those who found burial in the special wall niches, had lived within the temples and so enjoyed some measure of worship in their own lifetimes but there is no direct evidence for this. They may simply have been dedicated by persons of greater than average wealth.

However, this immediately raises the question of who those persons who dedicated votive mummies were and why they should have chosen to do so. Dieter Kessler in his important work Die heiligen Tiere und der König (1989) took the view that the dedications of votive animals were not made by pilgrims, a view which he strongly re-stated in his more recent article dealing with supposed misconceptions concerning the animal cults (Kessler 2003). Rather, Kessler sees the animal mummies as a long established part of royal cult. The English summary to his 2003 work makes clear his view that “animal cult never has been a phenomenon of locally based peasant piety but always an element of royal cult” (www2). The focus was evidently on the New Year Festival (von den Driesch et al. 2005, 236-237). However, this view has not been widely shared, particularly by those working at Saqqara (Davies and Smith 2005; Nicholson 2019; Ray 2001a). Ray (2001a, 346) summarises the view that the cults were part of ‘popular’ religion very well, noting that “they attracted worshippers and pilgrims in the thousands” and that this “mass appeal is evident in the large numbers of oracular questions and responses that survive”. He goes on to state that “Oracles were a mechanism for decision making … in a sense they occupied the niche nowadays filled by personal therapists and professional advisors … they were tangible and accessible in a way that conventional cults were not” (Ray 2001a, 346). The large numbers of votive situlae, figures of deities and the oracular questions themselves seem to the writer to clearly support the view that those who made dedications of such things, including mummies, should be regarded as pilgrims. “Peasant piety” (www2) perhaps does not do justice to the scale of the cults from the Late Period onward, but there seems little doubt that even very humble visitors to Saqqara wished to make dedications, in much the same way that

246

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

RUGLQDU\SHRSOHOHDYHR൵HULQJVWRGD\DWPDMRUUHOLJLRXV shrines such as Lourdes. Though Bleiberg (2013, 81-82) stresses that the votive mummies are not simply inducements or R൵HULQJV of thanks but their “souls acted as messengers between people on earth and the gods” (Bleiberg 2013, 81-82). This “messenger”1 function separates them somewhat from modern Christian practice. Ray (2001a, 347) makes the important point that some of those who made dedications of bronzes (in this instance temple furniture at the Falcon Catacomb) were women. He therefore suggests that the animal cults (in this case that of Thutmose in his ibis form) appealed to both genders and gives us an all too rare glimpse into female interaction with religious cults. The dedication of an actual mummy however, a (formerly) living representative of the deity, may have been regarded as a still more e൵HFWLYH dedication (Ikram 2015e, 213) and one must consider the relationship between donor, dedication and deity. It is worth stating that there are areas of common ground between the views of Kessler (1986; 2003) and von den Driesch et al. (2005) at Tuna el-Gebel, and the view taken by the writer and by other excavators at Saqqara. These are two separate sites and need not be analogues of one another: one might expect some differences as local tradition is incorporated into wider Egyptian themes. Kessler is no doubt correct in stating that common ‘pilgrims’ would not be allowed to enter the catacombs or take any very active role in the ceremonies. The Archive of Hor (Ray 1976; 2001a) makes it clear who is to be formally present at the mass burial of the ibis, but that does not preclude a procession in front of onlookers, and it seems entirely plausible that the burial procession might be witnessed by members of the general population, perhaps with the choicest positions being given to those who belonged to particular cult organisations (von den Driesch et al. 2005, 236-7). Some such burial events may have been linked to New Year or other state-level celebrations but that does not preclude their being an aspect of popular devotion and celebration. The presence of oracle texts (Ray 2001a, 346) makes it clear that the cults, at least

at Saqqara, had popular appeal even though they were the subject of state-level regulation (Ray 1976, 73-90). If the view taken here is correct in accepting the animal cults as ‘popular’, why were the animals buried in the first place and who were these pilgrims who paid for their interment? One answer may be that these votive mummies served as a conduit between the dedicatee and the deity whose manifestation they were. Thus the dogs communicated between the donor and Anubis, between the world of man and that of the gods.2 In contemporary eyes it may seem strange that animals that we now know to have been killed for burial in the cult should act favourably on their donor’s behalf. After all, it was he or she whose actions had shortened their lives, in the case of many of the dogs shortened them very considerably, since many of the mummies were only days or hours old at the time of their mummification. It is the small size of these very young animals that allows us to suggest that the Catacombs of Anubis might originally have held several million mummies. The fact that the animals were killed, or at least allowed to die of dehydration following separation from their mothers at birth (see Chapter 6), is clearly at odds with the statements made by Herodotus (Histories II, 66-67) which have coloured our view of the relationship of the Egyptians with their animals. The relationship is evidently a more complex one than Herodotus suggests (see Ikram et al. 2013, 48-50) and one must look to the nature of the pilgrims and their interaction with the priests of Saqqara (or indeed other animal mummy sites) in order to answer it. The ancient Egyptian language has no word for ‘pilgrim’ (H.S. Smith, pers. comm. on concepts of pilgrimage, see also Frankfurter 1998, 3-48). However, ‘pilgrim’ or ‘devotee’ are the terms that seem best suited to describing those who visited Saqqara and who venerated the sacred animals. That visitors to Saqqara were already coming as ‘tourists’ is clear from New Kingdom JUD൶WL left in the House of the South within the Djoser complex (Peden 2001, 61) and many made their visits for pious reasons. With the expansion of the ani-

The term ‘messenger’ has sometimes been used but this may imply a more direct communication than is evidenced. The term ‘conduit’ may be preferable. Bleiberg (2013, 68-69) regards the animals as containing the ba soul of the god. This presents some GL൶FXOWLHV in that the ba

is also the living image of the god and it is clear that not all bulls were the ba of Ptah, i.e. the Apis, whilst all ibis, cats or dogs might be regarded as manifestations of the relevant deities.

์

ํ

ඉඋංൾඌඍඌඉඋඈർඎඋൾඋඌඉඋൾඉൺඋൺඍඈඋඌൺඇൽඉංඅ඀උංආඌൺඇඈඏൾඋඏංൾඐඈൿඍඁൾඌൺർඋൾൽൺඇංආൺඅർඎඅඍඌൺඍ ඌൺඊඊൺඋൺ 247 mal cults from the Late Period onwards it seems likely that visitor numbers increased markedly and this increase R൵HUHG opportunities for temple and state to prosper. Ray (2001b, 124) notes that “… religiosity and the economy went hand in hand, for the Thirtieth Dynasty as well as for its predecessors. It is notable that Cleopatra … [was] favouring the native temples and encouraging their economic expansion as a means of paying for the defence of the country and restoring its former glory.” The economic power of the cults should not be underestimated. Ray gives a very clear picture of their place in the economy: “The driving force behind these enormous cults was that they paid. They were expensive to run, but they attracted worshippers and pilgrims in the thousands, some from outside Egypt…” (Ray 2001a, 346). One of the ways in which the temples, state and population of Saqqara/Memphis might enrich themselves was by drawing on the piety of their visitors. This might take several forms. First, some of the sacred animals, including the Apis, were oracular and could provide – through priests – answers to questions put to them by pilgrims. This would no doubt involve some financial reward to the temple and the priests involved. The shrines of the sacred animals on the Temple Terrace at Saqqara may also have had this oracular function as Davies (2006, 26-27) has suggested for the baboon chapel there. Pilgrims might also be induced to purchase votive bronzes such as situlae or figurines of deities which could be presented to the shrines or temples in the hope of a favour from the god, or as a thank R൵HULQJ for some benefit already received and which the recipient attributed to the deity. That these bronzes were presented in great numbers is apparent from finds such as that made at Saqqara in 1995 (Nicholson and Smith 1996), where a large number of situlae and figurines had been buried in an abandoned tomb near to the Falcon Catacomb, probably the result of the need to clear a shrine to make way for yet more such votives. Deposits like this are well known from the Sacred Animal Necropolis (Green 1987) and testify not only to the popularity of the cults and the piety of those visiting but also to a thriving local bronze industry, which must have depended in large measure on these pious visitors. Such bronzes would most likely have been sold along the approaches to the temples and quite possibly within the temple complexes themselves. It is well known from the Serapeum archive (see Thompson

2012; Ray 2001b) that there was a thriving community around the Serapeum and this along with the Archive of Hor (Ray 1976) detail something of the daily life of those who made their living by in some way serving the gods and those who visited them. However, perhaps the ultimate dedication to a deity was the provision of a fitting burial for a representative of that god or goddess and it is at this point that gaps in our evidence become very apparent. It is the provision of such a fitting burial that must have taken precedence over the killing of an animal; a short life on earth in return for a glorious and eternal afterlife. As befits a god associated with embalming it is known that the Anubieion temple served as a residence and business place for embalmers (Thompson 2012, 55-56), but there must have been other establishments in the area; perhaps each sacred animal cult had its own preferred establishment. However, it is not clear how a votive animal might be procured and what the pilgrims knew of the lives of these creatures. One might suspect, perhaps with the cynical eye of the 21st century observer, that pilgrims newly arrived at Saqqara might visit the Anubieion, indeed it may have served as a main entry point to the plateau (Nicholson 2016, 23; Williams 2018), where they would no doubt have seen dogs representing the god within the compound there. These would doubtless be mature and well fed animals, possibly benefitting from additional food given to them by visitors. If a pilgrim wanted to pay for the mummification of a dog as a pious deed in honour of Anubis did s/he perhaps think that it would be an animal like this that they were paying for? On the other hand, visitors would have realised that what might be called the ‘temple pack’ were in good health and so might be some years away from requiring mummification. They must then have known that the animal for whose burial they were paying was to be sourced elsewhere. Perhaps the priests of Anubis acted as brokers in this and assured them that a suitable animal would be found and would be prepared on their behalf. Unless written evidence comes to light we cannot know whether the visitors knew, or suspected, that the animal would be killed on their behalf and whether they realised that it might be only days or hours old at the time of its death. Similarly, we cannot know if these pilgrims saw the mummy for which they had paid or whether they might already have left Saqqara by the time it was prepared. In speaking of the ibises, Martin (1981, 9) suggests that “a range of specimens was

248

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

available for purchase, perhaps from booths or shops in or near the temple enclosure, their treatment and cost varying according to the wealth of the intending purchaser or dedicant”. This may be so, and we must surely envisage such stalls selling votive objects, but whether actual mummies were available there is unknown. It may be that models could be viewed as an indication of what would be prepared for the dedicant. However, if the donor had left Saqqara before the mummy was ready then they would not have seen that many of the dog mummies were often of very small size and probably of very poor quality, wrapped in only a few layers of linen and probably no more than sundried on the sand. Some animals may not have received any bandaging (see Ikram 2013a). One might suspect that many visitors, perhaps those who had seen (or heard) puppy farms in and around Memphis knew the fate of these animals but preferred not to have their suspicions confirmed. The provision of a mummy may have been an act of blind faith and one that was best left that way. It may have been more comfortable not to know the details of the trade. If some, perhaps most, lowly donors did not see the mummy for which they had paid, we might reasonably assume that some of the more wealthy did. These individuals might be those who were paying for a burial within a niche and who, in the case of the dogs, might be paying for the burial of one of the temple pack when it finally died. These would be large mummies, often well wrapped and sometimes provided with wooden FR൶QVWhether they be dogs, falcons or ibises, such ‘special’ animals would be the minority and we might imagine that only a minority of individuals saw them. What is clear is that many of those who paid for mummies of whatever size and quality would not have seen them at the time they were buried. It is known from the Archive of Hor that burials for the ibis took place only once a year (Ray 1976, 140). In the period leading up to such an event the mummies, presumably dedicated throughout the year, must have been stored – probably in what the Archive refers to as the ‘house of waiting’ (Ray 1976, 140). No doubt a similar structure existed for the dogs and for other animals. The mummies would have been removed from this place to the ‘house of rest’ (the galleries themselves) during the annual (in the case of the ibis) funeral procession. The Archive of Hor gives a snapshot of the ibis cult in the 2nd century B.C. and R൵HUVmany valuable clues to cult practice. However, if it is correct to think of the

larger of the two Dog Catacombs as housing more animals than the ibis catacombs (and perhaps being later than them) then it may not be unreasonable to assume that there was more than one burial event each year. Irrespective of whether the pilgrim donors of these animal mummies knew the details of their, often short, lives and whether or not they saw the mummies or their burial, the donation had the same purpose. The votive mummy was, at least in part, an R൵HULQJof thanks or a ‘bribe’ for good fortune in the future. The animal mummy would serve as a conduit between its dedicatee and the god and would intercede with the god on his or her behalf. It follows from this, that the 21st century view of the cult as in some way callous or cruel is an entirely modern perception. The donor of a mummy wanted it to bring good things and it would bring these because the donor had provided it with a burial appropriate for a representative of a god. He or she had provided for its life in eternity, its earthly life was but a brief and insignificant phase, but it would now live on in glory forever and some of that glory might fairly be reflected upon its pious donor. The Priests Of the priests who administered the cult of Anubis at Saqqara we know very little. It is clear that they would have been based at the Anubieion and, as at other temples, would have been arranged in a series of grades. One might assume that it would be the lower levels of the priestly hierarchy who would have to deal with pilgrims and who presumably had direct links with the breeders/procurers of the dogs in and around Memphis. These individuals were probably rotated on a monthly basis, as we know was usual for priests in Egypt (Shafer 1997, 9-10; Wilkinson 2000, 90). This would mean that some, quite possibly all, had access to some other form of income – which might include the raising of animals for the cults. From Ray’s work (1976; 2001) we know that there were wab-priests and prophets as well as individuals who took care of the animals by providing food for them and carrying out manual labour. Ikram (2015e, 217) drawing upon the work of Ray (1976 and 2011) estimates that the cults would have employed at least fifty personnel, possibly ranging into the hundreds. The cults were not entirely independent but were subject, at least in Ptolemaic times, to inspection by a royal inspector (epistates) and received funding from the crown (syntaxis) (Ray

ඉඋංൾඌඍඌඉඋඈർඎඋൾඋඌඉඋൾඉൺඋൺඍඈඋඌൺඇൽඉංඅ඀උංආඌൺඇඈඏൾඋඏංൾඐඈൿඍඁൾඌൺർඋൾൽൺඇංආൺඅർඎඅඍඌൺඍ ඌൺඊඊൺඋൺ 249 2001a, 348), though this does not of itself make the cults ‘royal’. As Thompson (2012, 55-56) notes, the Anubieion was a centre for embalmers and whilst, in the view of the author, it is unlikely that all animal embalming took place there, some probably did and would have been overseen by the priest responsible. If we are correct in believing that there would have been a temple-pack of dogs then it is most likely that they would find their place of mummification within the confines of the Anubieion and under the supervision of some of those who had taken care of them in life. The priests of the Anubieion Temple would also have charge of the Catacombs of Anubis and would have been responsible for carrying out the rites around the burial of the votive animals. Sadly, we know nothing of how these rites might have taken place, though thanks to the Archive of Hor (Ray 1976) it may be suspected that the burials would have required the presence of a group of selected SULHVWVDQGR൶FLDOVDQGWKDW only one or two ceremonies would have taken place annually. The distance between the Anubieion Temple and the catacombs is very short, so it may be that if there was a procession, as seems likely, that it took a circuitous route, perhaps visiting other temples or shrines before turning to the catacombs themselves. Once in the catacomb we know that the mummies were piled up one on top of another to a height which probably did not exceed c.1.50m. The remaining piles of mummies are about 1.10m high and even allowing for decay and settling of the deposit it is unlikely that they were ever very much deeper. What ceremonies took place within the burial galleries is unknown, but the find of a jar neck covered in resin from G35, along with splashes of what appears to be resin3 around niche 35W, suggests that at least those animals buried in wall niches were D൵RUGHG some kind of ritual purification involving the splashing of resin or oil of some kind. It should be noted that those making the burials would have had to deal first with those animals destined for niches, since the stacking of animals in the common pile would ultimately cover the niches and

๎

Because the removal of samples for scientific analysis is not permitted, the splashes cannot be confirmed as resin nor linked definitively to the apparent resin on the jar.

prevent access to them. It is almost certain that the galleries filled up gradually and that any given burial gallery would receive animals from several years or even decades of deposition. This raises the intriguing possibility that some of the niched burials would not have been covered by animals deposited at the same ceremony in which they were interred. Indeed it may be that niched burials began in one gallery before its predecessor was full of ‘ordinary’ mummies, wall space having already been considered to be used up. Once a gallery was finally filled to capacity, a low wall was usually built across the end of it, to prevent mummies spilling onto or impinging upon the axial aisle. This would be the work of masons, but no stelae relating to their work have been found. The find of what may be a crude R൵HULQJ table from outside G40 suggests that there may have been some R൵HULQJritual performed, at least annually, outside the closed galleries. Unlike in the Falcon or Ibis Catacombs where the blocking extended from floor to roof, it would be possible to see over the blocking walls in the Dog Catacomb onto the stack of mummies behind it. Most of the niche burials would, however, be hidden by the common pile. Also hidden would be the small niches that it is believed held bronzes. Although only one bronze situla was found during the project, it is clear from areas of decayed bronze in other galleries that there were originally others. The digging of pits into the mummy pile along the walls of those galleries that still have mummies in them attests to attempts to rob the niches, presumably of the bronzes that accompanied them rather than of the dog mummies themselves. The situla found in G10 would conveniently fit into a small niche there and the same is likely to be true of the other small niches. Other bronzes may have been placed within the large burial niches for the dogs. Whether such bronze votives featured in part of the burial ritual is uncertain. It is, however, unlikely that most pilgrims would have been allowed into the catacomb to see their votive mummy buried. It is possible that the niched burials were provided by the priests themselves, in which case

250

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

they might witness the burial or that the donors of these animals and their accompanying bronzes had (bought?) the right to be present at the burial, but this can only be speculation. Thompson (2012, 191) states that the vaults of the Serapeum, which were usually closed except for the burial of an Apis, opened each year for the festival of Imhotep and it is possible that a similar situation existed for the Catacombs of Anubis. Such an occasion would provide an opportunity for regular inspection of the catacombs and the performance of further ritual. Given the economic importance of the animal cults to the Egyptian economy from the Late Period onwards one might expect that the opportunity to attract visitors to Saqqara for such an event would not be missed. The Dogs and their procurers However one calculates the possible numbers of animals within the Catacombs of Anubis the figure is a high one. As Kaiser (2011, 198) notes, the making of such mummies “had become a veritable industry” by the Late Period. Assuming that all the galleries and the axial aisles were filled to a depth of c.1.10m, then almost 8 million animals might have been present, which would suggest that they must surely have been buried in their hundreds or thousands annually. Sadly, we do not know the duration of the catacomb’s use, so no indication of the numbers needed each year can be made. Such high figures for canines may not be unusual, and Ikram (2007, 420) – based on the work of Peet (1914) and Haddon (1914) – suggests that tens of thousands were buried at Abydos. The form of the Dog Catacomb (see Chapters 4 and 5) suggests that at some time during the use of the monument the cult expanded, necessitating longer galleries and the larger catacomb itself seems to suggest that the cult expanded greatly from its original size. The animals that filled the catacomb had to be procured from somewhere and this raises questions of how and where. Given the numbers involved, it is unlikely (if not impossible) that these animals could have all been bred within the confines of the Anubieion temple or even in its immediate surroundings. The noise and smell from such an operation would have been considerable and with the Bubastieion cats next door it hardly seems feasible to have large numbers of either animal in close proximity to one another.

It seems more likely therefore that the dogs would have been bred in ‘puppy farms’ in and around Memphis, where manageable numbers of bitches could have been kept confined and their puppies removed from them at a very early age (see Chapter 6). It is not unlikely that many puppies would have been taken away at birth and simply allowed to die of natural causes (dehydration in particular) on the desert surface. Their small size would make them easily desiccated by the sun so that mummification, by whomever it was performed, would have been a fairly perfunctory D൵DLU carried out with no need for evisceration and using only a minimum of wrapping – unless it was desirable to make the bundle look larger and therefore more convincing as a ‘dog’ mummy. It must be admitted at once that we have no records dealing with puppy farms or indeed the killing, by neglect or otherwise, of animal representatives of the god – essentially sacred animals. It may be that, as suggested above, this was a well-kept secret or at least something that was considered inappropriate for the written record. Nor have any puppy farms been recognised in the archaeological record, but this is not surprising given how little of the settlement at Memphis has been uncovered and the fact that puppy farms would look little GL൵HUHQWto any other domestic building with its courtyard. The only evidence we have therefore is the testimony of the large number of very young animals found in the catacomb itself. As stated, it is not known where the mummification of these farmed animals took place. It is quite likely that this happened near to the farms themselves. If the animals were raised by some of the minor priests and R൶FLDOV as a business they would be well placed to undertake or arrange such activities (cf. Ikram 2015e, 219). That votive animals were indeed bred and killed (Zivie and Lichtenberg 2005, 117-8; Ikram 2015e, 213) for the relevant cults has (contra Kessler 1989 and 2003) come to be regarded as the most likely means of procurement (Dunand and Zivie-Coche 2004, 332). Ikram (2015e, 225) has estimated that if the Dog Catacomb did indeed contain 8 million animals and if it remained in use for 500 years (which is probably an over-estimate) then this would require 16000 animals each year. The work presented in this volume suggests that the duration of the larger of the Catacombs of Anubis may span a still shorter period, from the end of the Late Period to the end of the Ptolemaic/very early Roman (below). That being so one might allow for

ඉඋංൾඌඍඌඉඋඈർඎඋൾඋඌඉඋൾඉൺඋൺඍඈඋඌൺඇൽඉංඅ඀උංආඌൺඇඈඏൾඋඏංൾඐඈൿඍඁൾඌൺർඋൾൽൺඇංආൺඅർඎඅඍඌൺඍ ඌൺඊඊൺඋൺ 251 only 350 years, meaning that almost 23000 animals would be required annually. Whichever figure is used, it is hard to imagine that such a great quantity could have been processed at the Anubieion itself, lending support to the idea of ‘private’ workshops beyond the Saqqara plateau. Dating the Catacombs of Anubis At the time of writing, there are no known inscriptions from the Dog Catacombs and therefore we have no historical dates to aid our understanding of the monument. Radiocarbon dates R൵HU considerable potential and the SCA generously allowed removal of samples of material for testing. One result, from bone coming from G43, yielded a date of 2160 BP ± 37, which at 2 sigma would give a calibrated date of 357-259 or 263-94 B.C. At earliest, the date would be in the reign of Nectanebo II, but more likely in the Ptolemaic era. As it is a single date it would be wrong to put too much reliance on it. However, there are some interesting indications of date from the catacomb itself and from finds made within it. It has been noted in Chapter 4 that the tool marks visible in the monument seem to be consistent with those dated to the Ptolemaic and Roman eras by Klemm and Klemm (2008), whilst the woodwork on the FR൶QIRXQGLQniche 5a in G5 has been dated to the same period by Dr. *HR൵UH\Killen. The wooden figurines found in G43 have been dated to the Late Period by Hastings (1997). However, like the many votive bronze situlae and the animal mummies themselves there is considerably uncertainty over their correct dating4 and they may continue well into the Ptolemaic era, something also noted by Ikram for those in the Turin collection (Ikram in preparation). Gallery 43 is also the site of two human burials, and the practice of mixing human and canine remains in the same burials is attested elsewhere (Ikram 2014, 351).

๏

The author has seen museum specimens labelled ‘animal mummies Predynastic-Roman period’ which, whilst an extreme case, emphasises how little we know of the dating of many specimens.

The location of a FR൶QLQniche 5B, not far from the entrance of the catacomb, suggests that it ought to have been placed there early in the life of the monument. However, it may be that it was a replacement for an earlier FR൶Q which had become damaged since the practice of restoring damaged burials is known at Tuna el-Gebel (von den Driesch et al. 2005, 218). Killen (Chapter 7 this volume) dates it to no earlier than the Ptolemaic era. The FR൶Qin niche 5B, the human remains in G43, the wooden figurines and the tool marks on the wall all suggest that the catacomb is probably created no earlier than the last years of the Late Period and that it continues well into the Ptolemaic or early Roman period. The pottery from the catacomb is not from undisturbed FRQWH[WVDQGVRPHLVGL൶FXOWWRGDWH+RZHYHU, none is earlier than c.500 B.C. and most fits into the period between 400-30 B.C. The single available radiocarbon date, from Gallery 43, also falls in the span from the end of the Late Period to late in the Ptolemaic era. It is suggested here that the dating of the catacomb should be regarded as later than originally thought. It seems likely that the larger of the Catacombs of Anubis should be seen as spanning from the end of the Late Period to late in the Ptolemaic era, perhaps even to the first few years of Roman rule. The smaller catacomb has not been investigated and is believed to be in poor condition. Jacques de Morgan (1897) considered both catacombs to be of New Kingdom date, though on what basis is unknown. It may be that his early dating was based on finds from the smaller catacomb which he considered early. We have taken the view that the cult expanded over time and that the smaller catacomb is therefore the earliest, though it might be expected that it belongs to the Late Period rather than the New Kingdom. However, without examining the smaller of the Catacombs of Anubis its date must remain speculative and it is possible that it succeeds the larger catacomb, in which case it could be of Roman date. That Egyptian

252

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

cults, particularly that of Isis and Serapis, were popular in the Roman world is well known and at this time in particular Anubis came to be seen as the adopted son of Isis (DuQuesne 2005), something which would increase his appeal to the Roman(ised) population of Egypt. Ikram (2014, 353) makes the point that the Anubis cult might well have been popular with Roman soldiers. Anubis is certainly attested in Roman military dress (e.g. Vatican museo Gregoriano 22840, see Ikram 2014, 353 n.28) and canine cults were celebrated by military personnel in earlier periods (Durisch 1993, 229). One should also keep in mind that those who dedicated the mummies may not necessarily have done this for Anubis alone but for any of a number of canine deities (Duquesne et al. 2007).

Whilst the dating evidence from the Dog Catacomb must be regarded as circumstantial, it does reinforce the sentiments expressed by Thompson (2012, 177) at the opening of this chapter that “For those who came to live in Egypt these peculiar practices seem soon to have lost their strangeness, and immigrants joined with the Egyptians in rendering cult to the animals…”. It is perhaps time to reconsider these generally poorly dated monuments and at least consider the possibility that the Ptolemies and even Romans followed aspects of traditional Egyptian religion more closely than is often supposed (Ikram 2013b; 2014; Ray 2001a, 348) and that the animal cults, or at least some of them, thrived under foreign rule.

CHAPTER 9

POSTSCRIPT: THE RE-USE OF THE MONUMENT Paul T. NICHOLSON

Introduction The Catacombs of Anubis as they survive today are, like any other archaeological monument, a product of their entire history and not just their original use. From the outset one of the aims of the Catacombs of Anubis Project has been to try to understand the complete narrative of the monument in order to better interpret it and place it in its more recent context. Beginning of the end? The status of two human burials discovered on the ledge of G43 is uncertain. They were buried on top of an area of the gallery that had not been completely quarried and had been badly crushed by a subsequent rock fall. Although the unfinished nature of this gallery might at first suggest that it was cut late and abandoned, its position within the catacomb makes it likely that it was actually cut early on and abandoned for structural reasons. It cannot therefore be assumed that the burials are ‘late’ on grounds of their location. The cutting of the gallery and the burials may be separated in time, possibly by some centuries. The poor condition of these human burials makes them GL൶FXOWto date but it is tentatively suggested on the basis of the mummification technique that they may be from the end of the Late Period/Ptolemaic era. It is possible too, that they belong to the period immediately after the catacomb ceased to be used for animal burials. They are the only human burials recorded from the catacomb. It is possible that the wooden figurines, of Osiris and Isis (see Chapter 7) originally accompanied

์

A human burial, believed on account of its jewellery, to be that of Khaemwaset, was recorded at the Serapeum by Mariette (1882, 146) but this is now thought unlikely and the badly

these burials. The gold foil found in the rubble around them probably derived from the figurines. Such figures are dated by Hastings (1997, 29 and Pl.XXX) to the Late Period, although it is quite possible that they are later. The human burials pose some interesting questions. Tessa Baber (unpublished thesis) has examined the possibility that during the Late Period in particular burial rites were amended, at least for the lower ranks of society, such that collective burials of non-family members became common. Often such burials seem to have taken place in animal catacombs; it may be that these were being re-used or re-purposed for human burial or that the acceptability of collective burials for votive animals led to the greater uptake of this practice for humans. In the case of the Dog Catacomb, from which only two human burials have been found so far, it cannot be said that the tomb was being re-used as a collective burial site, but those making the burials in it would have been well aware of its purpose, suggesting either the acceptability of burial amongst the animals or a direct connection between these particular individuals and the cult. Other human and dog burials are known, but these tend to have more humans than dogs (Ikram 2013b). The possibility that priests or others associated with animal cults might be buried with the animals they served has been raised by Davies (2006, 34-35) in dealing with Vault 1a of the Mother of Apis Catacomb, which is recorded from stela MoA70/18.1 It is therefore possible that these two burials are of persons who were in some way connected with the cult. That they are buried on a ledge at the rear of a gallery otherwise

decomposed mummy may be that of an Apis (see Dodson 1999, 66).

254

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

used for animals might be a convenient way of marking their role whilst not actually burying them directly amongst the animals themselves. An alternative explanation is that these burials are later than the use of the animal catacomb and so simply making use of a convenient location. If that is so then they may not be associated with the wooden figurines which are conventionally said to belong to the Late Period. However, if one accepts that such figures may either be mis-dated or, more likely, continue into the Ptolemaic period then they may well belong to the burials. Initial Abandonment The animal cults at Saqqara, as in the rest of Egypt, seem to decline within the Roman period and are certainly gone by the time Egypt undergoes “a nearly total conversion” to Christianity (Bagnall and Rathbone 2004, 18) in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. Indeed the cult of Anubis at Saqqara may well have declined earlier and the catacombs have fallen out of use. Little thought has generally been given to what becomes of a large-scale monument, such as the Anubieion Temple and its Catacomb, during periods of decline. It must be assumed that once the temple ceases to receive income from the state and its assets gradually decline then it will fall into disrepair and disuse. However, a monument on the scale of the Anubieion would still have remained visible well into Christian times as -H൵UH\V and Smith (1988, 59) have noted, and it is quite possible that there would have been some settlement occupation within its walls. -H൵UH\Vand Smith (1988, 59) state that the inhabitants of the Antiquities Organisation settlement2 claim to recall “many small mudbrick walls visible on the surface” before some of the modern houses were built there. It is likely that these would have been only the last of a series of dwellings constructed around the animal cult temples at Saqqara. It is clear that the Saqqara plateau had long been home to numerous individuals who served the cults and visitors to the temples in various ways and whose dwellings were within, close-by or abutting the monuments themselves. Such settle-

ํ

Now largely abandoned following the removal of the Taftish from the plateau to a new building in the valley.

ments inevitably spread and whilst the rationale for the settlements may have declined along with the temples, it is unlikely that the population immediately left. Rather, as a temple fell out of use it may have been encroached upon for settlement and related activities, before such time as the religious use of Saqqara declined to the extent that most of the population shifted. The development of a Christian village at the Anubieion, as in the area around the Temple Terrace on the West side of the plateau (Martin 1981, 119), would simply have been a continuation of settlement at Saqqara. It is not known how long the Christian village remained in use -H൵UH\Vpers. comm.). Whilst the settlements and cemeteries of the Copts at Saqqara are documented in the works already cited, their impact upon the animal catacombs is less well known. It is not clear how accessible the catacombs would have been to these later populations and therefore to what extent they were visited during these times. It is known, however, that at least one of the Ibis Catacombs was already open by the time Napoleon’s savants found themselves at Saqqara and it is unlikely that this was a new development; rather it is likely that it had been known about and visited sporadically ever since its abandonment. The Dog Catacomb shows evidence of the mummy piles having been rifled but it is not clear at what time. The likelihood is that treasure seekers entered the site on numerous occasions from at least the late Roman era onwards. However, the fact that the catacomb does not seem to explicitly feature in the accounts of early travellers (though there are mentions of dog burials, for example by Lepsius) might argue for its location having been lost by the early 19th century. Disturbance in Late Antiquity The evidence for visitors to the Dog Catacomb in Late Antiquity and Medieval times is circumstantial. Several galleries where mummified material survives show evidence of digging having taken place at intervals along the walls. This is particularly obvious in G11 where a series of pits can be seen along the walls (see Fig. 5.50). What seems to have happened is that the

ඉඈඌඍඌർඋංඉඍ: ඍඁൾඋൾඎඌൾඈൿඍඁൾආඈඇඎආൾඇඍ robbers were aware that niches had been cut into the walls and that these R൵HUHGthe best chance of yielding valuable items, whether in burial niches or niches cut to take bronze R൵HULQJ such as situlae, and it is most likely these metal objects which were sought. The find of a situla on top of a pile of disturbed mummy material near the entrance of G10 may support this view. In a few places, such as G37, there is evidence of larger scale disturbance. Toward the rear of the gallery a large pit has been excavated amongst the mummified remains and around it is a considerable scatter of wooden fragments (see Chapter 7). These may have come from a wooden shrine or other item of funerary furniture discovered by the robbers and broken up in situ. Fragments of the wood are also to be found where the gallery meets the axial corridor, perhaps the residue of carrying away material or of further sifting of it. By the time of the Arab conquest of Egypt the Saqqara plateau seems to have been largely uninhabited and does not seem to have been re-settled on a regular basis until the settlement for the Antiquities Service’s Qufti employees was constructed in the early 20th century, along with the building which became the Antiquities 2൶FH(Taftish/saray). Once the area of the Dog Catacomb was abandoned it would quickly have sanded up and been lost. Whilst other catacombs seem to have been periodically opened in order for early travellers to visit, the Dog Catacomb may have gone largely unnoticed until its rediscovery in the late 19th century. Large-scale exploitation of the catacomb At an unknown time, probably but not certainly in the 19th century, the Dog Catacomb was rediscovered, as witnessed by its inclusion on the de Morgan Carte of 1897 (de Morgan 1897). The scale of the de Morgan plan is very small (1:5000) and lacks many features of the new survey presented in the present volume (Chapters 3-5). It might, however, have been expected to show the connecting passage between galleries 5 and 6 but it does not. This might imply that it was a later addition, and if that is so, then it is probably to be linked to ‘industrial’ exploitation of the catacomb. When one enters and walks through the catacomb today it is immediately obvious that many of the galleries are empty. Whilst it is usual to see disturbed gal-

255

leries in the ibis catacombs, and for that matter in those of the bovids, there are usually very clear traces of the original presence of mummies. In the Dog Catacomb, however, such indications are confined to only slight traces of black powder that have come from the decay of the bandages. The individual galleries have been very carefully and systematically emptied, something which suggests that this was not random robbing by local people who were either taking mummies to sell or, more likely to use as fertiliser or fuel, but the wholesale removal of mummies in an organised fashion. It may be suggested that the mummies were removed under the direction of someone who had been granted a licence to do so by the authorities. Such licences for the removal of material were granted for the exploitation of Karanis for example (Berlin and Gazda 1983, 2). That the work seems to have been well organised might be suggested by the fact that many of those galleries which are considered the least safe by the Catacombs of Anubis Project (and which have therefore been avoided on safety grounds) are also those which retain mummified material. Most of the stable galleries have been cleared. In addition, if we are correct in assuming that the connecting passage between galleries 5 and 6 is a modern addition, then there was a clear intention to make an access to the axial aisle which avoided the rock fall and unstable galleries near to the entrance. It is likely that the steps that are currently used to gain access to the site were cut at the same time as the connecting passage and are part of the same scheme to remove mummies from the catacomb. We believe these steps to be later because, if one stands on the desert surface immediately north of the steps (now enclosed within the modern entrance building) and looks down the western side of the stairway, it appears that there may originally have been a rectangular shaft whose eastern side has been cut away to make the steps (Fig. 9.1). An original tomb chamber may have been cut away in the construction of the catacomb and would have been in the area of what is now G1. Furthermore, a shaft at the end of G19 has been blocked with a large galvanised cauldron (Fig. 5.87), which has been inverted to close the lower part of the shaft and prevent access from the surface. It is possible that this shaft had been opened in order to allow some additional light and air into the gallery during the

256

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

Fig. 9.1: Looking almost vertically down what may have been a cut-away shaft where the modern steps to the catacomb have been cut.

period in which the mummies were being removed. It may even have served as a convenient means by which they could be lifted to the surface. However, perhaps the most telling clue with regard to the systematic removal of the mummies is the correlation between the soot marks from lamps and the absence of mummies. It is noticeable that those galleries that are still filled with mummies usually have few if any soot marks from lamps, whereas those which are empty have many. G9 is particularly instructive in this respect (Fig. 5.42), in that the lamp marks end just before the remaining part of the mummy pile is reached at the end of the gallery. It would appear that those

extracting the mummies were well aware that they were highly inflammable and so tried to position their lamps away from the working face, moving them closer as the face retreated so as to minimise accidents. The combustibility of the mummies is clearly witnessed by the signs of a huge conflagration that evidently took place in the North Ibis Catacomb at some time in the past, presumably in the era of the early travellers (Nicholson 2019 and in preparation). Where one finds lamp soot in a gallery that still has mummies it might be suggested that these belong to an earlier phase of exploitation or that some of them could be original to the cutting of the catacomb.

ඉඈඌඍඌർඋංඉඍ: ඍඁൾඋൾඎඌൾඈൿඍඁൾආඈඇඎආൾඇඍ That G9 was not completely emptied may be an indication that the market for mummies collapsed or that the license agreement with the authorities had come to an end. This raises the question of why the mummies might be required and in such large numbers. If our estimate of the numbers originally contained within the monument is correct then hundreds of thousands, and more likely millions, of mummies would have been removed in the operation, but to what purpose? Cooke (2015) notes the practice of shipping loads of mummified cats to Liverpool, where they were auctioned R൵for use as fertiliser, a practice that was satirised in a Punch cartoon of February 15th, 1890. Although the cats did not come from Saqqara the point is clearly made – namely that mummies were a suitable form of fertiliser. Their potential combustibility has already been mentioned and Wainwright, after describing a visit to the Ibis Catacombs, notes that “near one of them were strewed ox-bones, large heaps of the more perfect being piled up to be carried R൵probably, and burnt into animal charcoal for the sugar refineries of Ibrahim Pasha” (Wainwright 1852, 158). Whilst fuel and fertiliser are probably the most likely causes of the disappearance of so many mummies, it is possible that any which were in better condition, at least in so far as their textile wrappings were concerned, might have been given over to the paper making industry as Baber has shown from her research into so-called ‘mummy pits’ (Baber 2019). However, there is no evidence that the well-wrapped and well-preserved mummies attested from sites such as Asyut (see Kitagawa 2016) existed in any quantity at Saqqara, though it must be admitted that this absence of evidence need not be evidence of absence. Whatever the ultimate destiny of the mummies, it is clear that they were removed en masse, and probably over a fairly short period of time, in a well organised, industrial operation presumably operating under a licence. It may well be that it was at this time, or shortly afterwards, that the de Morgan (1897) plan was made.

257

Use of the catacomb for antiquities storage That the forepart of the catacomb has been used for antiquities storage was known to the writers from Nicholson’s visit to the site in December 1995. The SCA representatives have record of the site as a listed storage magazine. Use of the site for storage may provide a useful terminus ante quem for the removal of the mummies. The records for the date of establishment of the site as a storage magazine are no longer known, but the packaging of the finds stored there (mostly pottery) are useful in this respect. Most of the packaging is in the form of re-used cardboard boxes intended for other purposes. As described in Chapter 7, most of these seem to belong to the period 1890-1920 and a fragment of newspaper from 1910 may therefore date from the approximate time the material was deposited, or at least the start of such a period of deposition. This would mean that the removal of the mummified remains was already over by c.1910 and would fit well with the view that the de Morgan plan, published in 1897, was made at a time around the cessation of the emptying of the monument. The most recent finds to be stored in the catacomb are potsherds from the work at the Anubieion which had previously been stored in the Emery house and which have been recorded by Mr. Peter French on behalf of the Egypt Exploration Society. These finds are boxed and stored in G2. Future Work A great deal is still to be gained from the study of ancient Egypt’s animal cults. As will be clear from the current work (especially Chapter 8), we know very little of the way(s) in which animal mummies were procured and prepared and in the case of the Catacombs of Anubis we know little of the cult itself. Written sources will no doubt be discovered in due course, but for the moment we can work only with the evidence of

258

ඉ. ඍ. ඇංർඁඈඅඌඈඇ

the monuments themselves and make cautious use of the Archive of Hor (Ray 1976). There remain many questions around the dating of the Catacombs of Anubis. These are unlikely to be resolved until such time as multiple radiometric absolute dates are permitted. The question of dating is also hindered3 by the lack of firm dating for bronzes, for dated styles of mummy wrapping, and for wooden figurines associated with the animal cults. Progress is being made in these areas but there is still much to do. With regard to the Catacombs of Anubis themselves, clearance of the modern garden area in front of the entrance might well prove useful but will have to wait until such time as the Ministry for Antiquities and Tourism feel that it is VX൶FLHQWO\secure. Further sampling of the mummies could be carried out, but we have tried to limit ourselves to a sample which gave an overview and which was minimally intrusive. Ideally a 3D laser scan of the monument might be carried out. This would yield clear evidence of the tool marks on the monument and might help to refine phasing. However, the cost of doing this, not least in terms of computing power, was beyond the scope of the present project.

๎

One hesitates to say ‘dogged’.

The Catacombs of Anubis Project has attempted to document the history of a much neglected monument from its construction through to its use and abandonment, before its re-opening in modern times as a possible source of mummies for use in fertiliser. In carrying out this work we have attempted to redress a historical bias toward the temples associated with catacombs rather than the catacombs themselves. Whilst this bias has been understandable, we feel that much can be learned from the subterranean galleries in terms of their architecture and phasing and from their mummified inhabitants. In carrying out this study we hope to have established a pattern on which similar work can build and improve. It is unfortunate that thus far it has not been possible to secure a large number of radiometric dates which would have helped to more firmly established the phasing proposed here and which would have helped in interpreting the various characteristics of each phase. It is to be hoped that such dates might be forthcoming in the future and that they can then be used to amend, confirm or correct the phasing proposed in this work.

APPENDIX

A SIRENIAN FROM THE MAADI FORMATION (UPPER EOCENE) FROM THE CATACOMBS OF ANUBIS AT NORTH SAQQARA (EGYPT) D. Cary WOODRUFF์,ํ,๎, Manja VOSS๏, John HARRISON๐Ying 4,1๑and Paul T. NICHOLSON๒

Introduction Historically, the Saqqara region of Egypt has been thought or treated as devoid of vertebrate fossil material. While the Eocene sequence in the Saqqara region is incompletely understood, elsewhere the Eocene of Egypt is better known, particularly from the multiple cetacean and sirenian genera of Wadi Al Hitan (better known as the Valley of the Whales) in the western desert of the Fayum region. Within the catacombs, the fossil bearing marlstone of the Eocene aged Maadi Formation (Priabonian, approximately 36 Ma ago), which here is up to 2.0m in thickness, is argillaceous with a high smectite content, and contains abundant gypsum veins. These features distinguish it from the other marlstones within the Maadi Formation. Within the Eocene of Egypt there are three known genera of Sirenia – Eosiren, Eotheroides and Protosiren. Throughout this analysis we shall refer to the catacomb specimen as the “Saqqara Sirenian”. Taphonomically the specimen appears to represent a “whale fall” assemblage consisting of numerous associated post-cranial (vertebrae, thoracic ribs, girdle) and possible cranial (basicranium) elements. It is hoped that further palaeontological analysis can be undertaken, but due to the archaeological significance of the monument, it is unlikely that the fossils can be removed. This find represents a further example of the long history of interaction between ancient peoples and fossils. The paleontological significance of the Saqqara Sirenian is manifold: it represents the first vertebrate remains from the region, it extends and enhances

์ ํ ๎ ๏

Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, ON, Canada. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Great Plains Dinosaur Museum, Malta, MT, U.S.A. Center of Natural History (CeNak) University of Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, 20146 Hamburg, Germany.

the Egyptian sirenian fossil record, and this site has in one guise or another served as a vertebrate necropolis for millennia. Material and Methods During the 2009 field season, the fossil material (situated on the ceiling of gallery 8 where it meets the axial corridor) was first examined by Y. Qin (Fig. 1). Initially the material was tentatively identified as sedimentologic clasts, and only later as fossil material. As examination or excavation of this fossil material was not an objective of the season’s field research, only basic photographic documentation was undertaken. Due to the archaeological significance and provenance of the Catacomb of Anubis, it is highly improbable that the fossil material will ever be excavated and extracted from the ceiling. However, future expedition research goals include conducting a thorough and detailed physical and photographic analysis of the fossil material and treating the exposed bones with a fossil preservative to ensure the longevity of the exposed material. Description Geology and Taphonomy The Catacomb of Anubis is cut into alternating grey calcium carbonate rich mudstones (marlstones) and limestones. These beds, averaging 0.5m in thickness,

๐ ๑ ๒

Lassonde Institute of Mining, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada University of Cambridge, Darwin College, Silver Street, Cambridge, CB3 9EU, U.K. School of History, Archaeology, and Religion, &DUGL൵University, &DUGL൵U.K.

260

ൺඉඉൾඇൽංඑ

A

B

C

D

Fig. 1: Location of the Catacombs of Anubis and the sirenian fossil. A: The country of Egypt highlighted in red. B: The country of Egypt with Saqqara marked with a red sirenian. C: North Saqqara showing the various catacomb complexes with the Catacomb of Anubis highlighted in red. D: The location of the sirenian fossil within the ceiling of gallery 8 marked in red.

ൺඉඉൾඇൽංඑ are argillaceous and specifically rich in the clay mineral smectite. The fossil bearing marlstone of the catacomb’s ceiling is up to 2.0m thick and contains prevalent gypsum veins. While the stratigraphic resolution is less than absolute, the Saqqara plateau is generally agreed to represent the late Eocene Maadi Formation (El Ghar 2007; some 36 Ma B.C.). The Maadi Formation is distinguished into three parts: a lower portion representing a EX൵ coloured sandy conglomerate that grades into a grey-green claystone, a middle portion consisting of interbedded yellow, brown, and grey marlstones and limestones, and an upper portion of a massive basal yellowish limestone grading into brown, sandy claystones. Collectively, the Maadi Formation is interpreted to represent a regressive event of the Tethys seaway (El Ghar 2007; Gingerich 1993). Based on the correlative strata, we believe the fossil bearing marlstone of the catacomb is representative of the middle portion of the Maadi Formation. Taphonomically the skeletal material is very loosely associated with representative pelvic, vertebral, thoracic ribs, and possible cranial material identified to date. As of this analysis there is absolutely no evidence of predation or scavenging marks upon any of the bones. However, given that the rest of the marlstone is devoid of any other fossil material (vertebrate or invertebrate) and coupled with the geology and taphonomy associated with the skeleton, we suggest that the sirenian remains resemble a “whale fall” assemblage (Fig. 2). Though sirenians are considered as inhabiting nearshore shallow waters, in such an assemblage, vertebrate remains sink below the mesopelagic zone and become a nutritional oasis for marine organisms (Smith 1983). The disassociation of the skeletal material seems suggestive of Smith and Baco’s (2003) Stage 1, which entails initial scavenging of the carcass. However at this time there appears to be no evidence of invertebrate borings or other scavenging traces that indicate successive stages of bone breakdown. Future examinations of the skeletal material will be observant of such possible indicators. Systematic Palaeontology and Description of the “Saqqara Sirenian” Class Mammalia Linneaus, 1758 Superorder Afrotheria Stanhope et al., 1998 Mirorder Tethytheria McKenna, 1975

261 Order Sirenia Illiger, 1811 Family “Dugongidae” Gray, 1821 Genus Eotheroides Palmer, 1899 cf. Eotheroides sandersi Zalmout & Gingerich, 2012

From the disassociated partial skeleton, the following bones could be identified with the utmost probability: remains of the skull, the scapulae, pelvic bones, vertebrae from the cervical, thoracic and lumbar/caudal region, and thoracic ribs (Fig. 3). Skull: A large piece of bone with an irregular outline is here tentatively identified as belonging to the skull, most likely representing the basicranium (Fig. 4). The surface of this element is weathered and no further details on its morphology can be drawn from the photographs at this time. Scapula: Two sickle-shaped bones are identified here as representing the left and the right scapula. Despite their incomplete preservation, the anatomical assignment of these elements is corroborated by their equal dimensions and similar outlines. Both scapulae are overall slender with the scapular blade having a relatively constant anteroposterior width. The scapular blade tapers distally into the constricted neck, which widens again at the level of the glenoid cavity. Anterodistally, the coracoid process is moderate in size, blunt and not disjointed from the anterior apex of the articular glenoid. Innominate: The catacomb sirenian includes a completely preserved right (Fig. 5) and a partial left innominate, the latter with the ilium broken and dislocated. All three pelvic elements, the anterior ilium, the posteroventral pubis and the dorsoposterior ischium, are continuous and firmly fused. The ilium forms an overall long and slender element. Its shaft is narrow and the proximal end “club-like” bearing an elongated depression dorsally for the sacroiliac ligaments. The shaft of the ilium broadens again at the acetabulum. Though weathered, the acetabulum still forms a distinct, ellipsoidal cavity that is surrounded by a prominent semicircular margin dorsoanteriorly suggesting the presence of a femur. The pubis has a roughly rectangular shape, lacking its ventral-most end, and houses a well-developed, rounded obturator foramen. The latter is proportionally smaller and lies posteroventral to the acetabulum. In distal direction, the pelvis widens into a plate-like ischium. In relation to the long axis of the innominate, the ischium is inclined forming an angle of about 145° with the ilium. Collectively, the ischium

262

ൺඉඉൾඇൽංඑ

Fig. 2: A typical “whale fall” assemblage (from Peters et al. 2009).

Fig. 3: Colour coded skeletal diagram of the “Saqqara Sirenian”. Note the disassociation that highlights the taphonomic condition. Skeletal reconstruction of the extinct sirenian Halitherium (reconstruction by M. Voss) illustrating the overall similarities to Eotheroides. Note the skeletal reconstruction is not to scale with the fossil assemblage.

ൺඉඉൾඇൽංඑ

263

Fig. 4: Saqqara Sirenian basicranium (A) compared to a modern West African Manatee basicranium (B & C). West African Manatee (images from DigiMorph).

Fig. 5: Comparison of sirenian innominates. A: The Saqqara Sirenian (blue). B: Protosiren (green; from Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). C: Eotheroides (red; from Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). D: Outline comparisons of the three sirenian innominates.

Fig. 6: Comparison of sirenian thoracic vertebrae. A: The Saqqara Sirenian (blue). B: Protosiren (green; from Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). C: Eotheroides (red; from Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). D: Outline comparisons of the three sirenian thoracic vertebrae.

264

ൺඉඉൾඇൽංඑ

and pubis comprise approximately half of the entire innominate length. Vertebrae: Numerous vertebrae and vertebral fragments of all segments are preserved, there are seven potential cervicals, three thoracics, and 20 of the lumbar and/or caudal column. The provenance of the remaining 25 vertebral elements cannot be unambiguously determined. A vertebra with a characteristically broad convex upper and lower arch surrounding the neural canal is identified here as the atlas. The articular facets appear to be large and kidney-shaped and the transverse processes are short and blunt. Another vertebra with typical aliform transverse processes and an ovoid outline is designated here as the axis. All other supposed cervical vertebrae are identified either by the presence of a foramen transversarium and/or by roughly rectangular centra and, if preserved, by a large and triangular neural canal. The most clearly distinguishable vertebra of the catacomb sirenian belongs to the middle to posterior part of the thoracic spine (Fig. 6). In cranial or caudal view (the exact orientation is indeterminable at this time), the centrum is roughly ovoid being wider than high. A slight keel is developed on the ventral side, whereas a shallow depression forms the ventral margin of the neural canal resulting in an overall heart-shaped outline of the vertebral body. The epiphysis appears to be flat. The neural canal is sub-triangular in shape and possesses a vaulted and somewhat tapered dorsal apex. “Knob-like” transverse processes, which are typical for sirenian thoracic vertebrae, attach close to the root of the neural arch, but do not strongly project laterally. On their lateroventral ends, the costal facets for the corresponding ribs can still be clearly defined. Dorsal to the neural canal, the zygapophyses (pre- or post is indeterminable at this time) also slightly project laterally. The neural spine is over two times the height of the centrum, and approximately halfway along the spine length the width tapers. The apex of the spine is bulbous, with a nearly flat to gently sub-rounded dorsal apex. The centra of the caudal vertebrae exhibit a characteristic elliptical to hexagonal outline, and that is why they are distinguished from the rounded to elliptical cross sections assigned to the thoracic ribs. Those vertebrae that have transverse processes with a distinct transversal length and a more or less horizontal lateral extension either represent the anteriormost caudals or lumbars or even the sacral vertebrae. In such cases, the

distal ends of the transverse processes are often thickened and blunt. The transverse processes originate laterally either from about the centre or from the upper third of the vertebral body. Where preserved, the neural canal is transversely oval and surrounded by a low neural arch, from which a moderately high neural spine extends. Thoracic Ribs: A total of 34 elements are designated as thoracic ribs and rib fragments, respectively. Where preserved in the total length, the ribs form long and overall slender bones that, dependant on their taphonomic orientation, also appear to be voluminous (pachyostotic) as it is typical for sirenian bones. They attain a maximum curvature in the angulus, which is more or less evenly retained up to the sternal ends. The neck of the ribs, i.e. the collum, is constricted and widens proximally into the capitulum, or the head of the ribs. In some elements, the paired articulation facets can still be seen on the capitulum. Both the left and the right first rib (R1) are confidently identified. Beside a well-developed head and prominent tuberculum, the shaft shows a distinct mediolateral extension that reaches its maximum in the distal end. The latter is straight and truncated and bears a slight concavity for the cartilage attachment to the sternum. Though for the other ribs the exact position within the column cannot be determined, the distance between the capitulum and tuberculum, i.e. the collum length, allows estimation of the relative position of the ribs. Hence, a long collum characterises cranial ribs whereas a short collum designates more caudally positioned elements. Those elliptical remains that are interpreted as rib cross sections reveal the characteristic dense (osteosclerotic) condition of sirenian bones. Taxon Designation Due to the inability to examine freed elements or any of the material first-hand, the taxonomic designation of the fossil in the Catacomb of Anubis has been problematic. Taxonomic assignment has had to rely solely on morphologic interpretations via photographs of previously described material, which largely consisted of comparisons to the documented Egyptian sirenians of Zalmout and Gingerich (2012). Within the late Eocene of Egypt, the predominant marine vertebrates are cetaceans (Basilosaurus isis and Dorudon atrox) and sirenians (Eosiren sp., Eotheroides sandersi, and Protosiren smithae). Comparison of the

ൺඉඉൾඇൽංඑ catacomb material to temporally equivalent cetaceans UHYHDOVGUDVWLFDOO\GL൵HULQJPRUSKRORJLHV±SDUWLFXODUO\ in regards to the pelvic elements. In Basilosaurus the pelvis is characterised by greatly elongated pubic bones, which articulate with each other on their proximal ends, while the innominates in Dorudon are very small compared to the long axis of its vertebrae (Thewissen 1998). None of these conditions are found in the pelvis of the catacomb specimen, which is composed of three continuous, but clearly distinguishable elements and which does not articulate with its counterpart. The other easily identifiable skeletal material in the catacomb specimen are the numerous thoracic ribs, which appear to exhibit the typical sirenian pachyosteosclerotic condition. Thus we confidently believe that the catacomb fossil is not cetacean. Conversely, the respective specimen exhibits numerous morphologies much more akin to temporally occurring sirenians. Between the three known sirenian genera, the catacomb specimen compares most favourably to Protosiren smithae and Eotheroides sandersi according to our present knowledge on the stratigraphic and paleogeographic distribution of Eocene sirenians. Given the incomplete preservation of the find, the scapulae, pelvic bones, thoracic vertebrae and first ribs are diagnostic to some extent and therefore are most crucial for a reliable taxonomic assignment. The scapulae of the catacomb sirenian reveal similarities to E. sandersi as well as to P. smithae in that they appear to be slender and show a moderately sized coracoid process that is merged with the anterior apex of the glenoid cavity (Domning and Gingerich 1994; Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). In contrast to P. smithae, the scapular blade of E. sandersi has a widely concave cranial border, which however cannot be detected in the catacomb specimen. This feature may not be developed, which would then argue for a closer relationship of the catacomb sirenian with P. smithae, or the taxonomic value of the catacomb scapulae is obscured by the fragmentary preservation. Hence, we cannot assign a particular genus to the catacomb sirenian on the mere basis of the scapulae at this time. With respect to the pelvis, the obturator foramen is distinct in the catacomb sirenian as in both E. sandersi and P. smithae. Though some variation in the size of the foramen must be expected, considering the pelvis being in a state of reduction (e.g. Zalmout and Gingerich 2012, table 27), the obturator foramen in the catacomb specimen is proportionally small compared to the

265

maximum dimensions of the acetabulum. This condition is most similar to E. sandersi rather than to P. smithae, in which the obturator foramen is as large as or even somewhat larger than the acetabulum (Domning and Gingerich 1994, fig. 11). Considering the relative dimensions of the three pelvic elements, the ilium of P. smithae appears to be longer than the ischium and pubis taken together (Domning and Gingerich 1994). The opposite condition is present in the catacomb sirenian and in E. sandersi both showing an ilium that makes up about half of the total innominate length (Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). A third pelvic feature for comparison is the angle between the ilium and the ischium. That angle is relatively low in P. smithae estimated at 115°. Zalmout and Gingerich (2012) give an angle of about 135° for E. sandersi, which comes closest to the condition in the catacomb specimen considering some degree of intraspecific variation. Considering the overall morphology of the unambiguously identified thoracic vertebra described above, the catacomb sirenian seems to be more akin to P. smithae. This refers, in particular, to the high neural spine that has its maximum constriction about halfway along its length (compare Domning and Gingerich 1994, fig. 6). However, Zalmout and Gingerich (2012, fig. 51) illustrate some thoracic vertebrae of E. sandersi revealing neural spines that likewise show the tendency for a constriction at mid-length. Hence, the specific outline of the spinal processes is not necessarily a unique feature only applicable to P. smithae. The morphology of the first rib (R1) in the catacomb sirenian is distinct and mostly resembles that in E. sandersi (Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). In both sirenians, R1 has a mediolaterally extended shaft that reaches its maximum dimensions in the distal or sternal end. By contrast, the extension of the shaft is weak in P. smithae and R1 shows a more or less constant mediolateral width (Domning and Gingerich 1994, fig. 8). Additionally, the genus Protosiren is considered to be distinctive among sirenians in that the ribs are lacking bone addition or pachyostosis (Zalmout et al. 2003; Zalmout and Gingerich 2012). Since the ribs of the catacomb sirenian are not only osteosclerosis, but also pachyostotic, a generic assignment to Protosiren can be excluded with the utmost probability. In summary, the Saqqara Sirenian appears to be more closely related to Eotheroides sandersi rather than to Protosiren smithae based on significant morphological similarities in the pelvis and the ribs. The

266

ൺඉඉൾඇൽංඑ

features of the scapula and thoracic vertebrae are indifferent and do not argue for a closer relationship with either of the two species for comparison. Therefore, we provisionally assign the catacomb sirenian to E. sandersi at this time pending further analysis. Due to some practical GL൶FXOWLHV such as the preservation of the specimen and the limited scientific access, we also conclude that the specimen’s designation is not certain and therefore indicated with “confer” (cf.). The Ancient Egyptians and their Interactions with the Fossil Despite the contrast between the sirenian fossil and the catacomb ceiling, there is no physical evidence of the Egyptian’s recognition of this material. It is possible that because the quarrying was undertaken with only simple lamps that the material was not noticed – though we cannot be certain of this. The ceiling appears to be cut and shaped to the same degree as the opposing walls, and there are no distinguishable tool marks or features that allude to suspicion or recognition of the fossil. However, other ancient cultures are known to have interacted with fossils (Mayor 2001) and there is some evidence that the Egyptians did the same. For example a large quantity of fossilized bones were recovered at Qau by Brunton in 1922-3, and in the 1923-4 season (Brunton et al. 1927; Brunton 1930), Petrie located further examples, some of them wrapped as mummy bundles. Two such bundles survive and are currently in the Bolton Museum, U.K. The bones are often black or dark in colour and polished smooth, and Mayor (2000, 177-8) has referred to these as the “black bones of Seth” since it is believed that the Egyptians probably associated them with that deity. The detailed examination of these remains is only now taking place

as part of the Iron from the Sky project by D. Johnson and P. Nicholson. It seems likely that the remains were collected by the Egyptians because of their large size and generally dark colour; but their geologic and geographic provenance is currently unknown. It is hoped that as part of the Iron from the Sky project the source of these remains may be located. What does seem clear is that the “black bones of Seth” were most likely weathered surface float, and were thus easily transported to Qau. The sirenian bones at Saqqara are firmly embedded in the rock matrix and, if they were seen by the quarrymen and priests, were left in place either for practical or ritual reasons. Conclusion The Saqqara Sirenian has a manifold significance: it represents the first vertebrate remains from the Saqqara region and most likely the first occurrence of Eotheroides sandersi outside Wadi al Hitan, it enhances the Egyptian sirenian fossil record, and although there is no evidence of interaction, regardless it represents the rare combination of the interaction between fossils and ancient peoples. Upon seeing the fossil in the catacomb, one cannot help but imagine the stone cutters or High Priests walking by and taking notice. Did any of them curiously examine the exposed bones, and might any have wondered what these strange objects were? Unfortunately all represent imaginary scenarios with unattainable answers. This dual archaeological and paleontological site serves as an example that in such a rich and diverse area that any locality could potentially be significant for multiple disciplines. In addition, the Catacomb of Anubis demonstrates that this site has in one guise or another served as a vertebrate necropolis for millennia.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ago, F., E. Bresciani, and A. Giammarusti (eds). 2003. The North Saqqara Archaeological Site: handbook for the environmental risk analysis. Pisa. Akarish, A.I.M. and A.S.A. Shoeib. 2011. The role of rock composition in the deterioration of wall paintings, Saqqara Area, Egypt: Information from petrography and mineralogy. Australian Journal of Basic Applied Sciences 5(5): 1144-1153. Allonso, E.E., I.R. Berdugo, and A. Ramon. 2013. Extreme expansive phenomena in anhydritic-gypsiferous claystone: the case of Lilla Tunnel. Géotechnique 63(7): 584-612. Altenmüller, B. 1975. Anubis. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie I, W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), 327-333. Wiesbaden. Anderson, J. 1902. Zoology of Egypt, Mammalia. London. Andrews, C. 1984. Egyptian Mummies. London. Armitage, P.L. and J. Clutton-Brock. 1980. Egyptian mummified cats held by the British Museum. MASCA, Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 1: 185188. ———. 1981. A radiological and historical investigation into the mummification of cats from ancient Egypt. Journal of Archaeological Science 8: 185-196. Aston, D.A. and B. Aston. 2010. Late Period Pottery from the New Kingdom Necropolis at Saqqara. London. Baber, T.T. 2016. Ancient corpses as curiosities: mummymania in the age of early travel. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 8: 60-93. ———. 2019. Early travellers and the animal ‘mummy pits’ of Egypt. Exploration and exploitation of the animal catacombs in the age of early travel. In Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky, S. Porcier, S. Ikram, and S. Pasquali (eds), 67-86. Leiden. ———. In preparation. The Mummy Pits of Ancient Egypt: an investigation into a lost burial form. School of History, Archaeology and Religion, &DUGL൵ University Unpublished PhD Thesis. Bagnall, R.S. and D.W. Rathbone. 2004. Egypt: From Alexander to the Copts. London. Baker, J. and D. Brothwell. 1980. Animal Disease in Archaeology. London. Barone, R. 2010. Anatomie comparée des mammifères domestiques. Paris (5th ed.). Bartosiewicz, L. 2013. 6KX৾LQJ Nags, Lame Ducks: The Archaeology of Animal Disease. Oxford.

Bathurst, R.R. and J.L. Barta. 2004. Molecular Evidence of tuberculosis induced hypertrophic osteopathy in a 16th-century Iroquoian dog. Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 917-925. Berlin, A.M. and E.K. Gazda. 1989. Karanis in perspective. In Karanis: an Egyptian town in Roman times, E.K. Gazda (ed.), 1-7. Ann Arbor, MI. Bick, E.M. 1956. Vertebral osteophytosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 10: 828-829. Bierbrier, M. 1982. The Tomb-builders of the Pharaohs. Cairo. ———. 2012. Who Was Who in Egyptology. London (4th revised ed.). Bingham, H. and G.K. Purchase. 2003. Age determination in jackals (Canis adustus Sundevall, 1846, and Canis mesomelas Schreber, 1778; Carnivora: Canidae) with reference to the age structure and breeding patterns of jackal populations in Zimbabwe. African Zoology 38(1): 153-160. Bleiberg, E. 2013. Animal mummies: the souls of the gods. In Soulful Creatures: animal mummies in ancient Egypt, E. Bleiberg, Y. Barbash and L. Bruno (eds), 63-105. London. Bloxam, E. 2010. Quarrying and mining (stone). In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, W. Wendrich (ed.). Los Angeles. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/ zz0026jkd5 Boessneck, J. 1969. Osteological GL൵HUHQFHVbetween sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and goat (Capra hircus Linné). In Science in Archaeology: A Comprehensive Survey of Progress and Research, D. Brothwell and E.S. Higgs (eds), 331-358. London. ———. 1975. Ein altägyptisches Hundeskelett aus der 11. Dynastie. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 31: 7-13. ———. 1976. Tell el Dab’a III: Die Knochenfunde 1966-1969. Vienna. ———. 1980. Teilskelett eines Hundes aus Elephanatine. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 36: 39-41. ———. 1988. Die Tierwelt des Alten Ägypten. Munich. Boessneck, J. and A. von den Driesch. 1987. Die Tierknochenfunde aus den Pavian- und Ibisgalerien von Tuna el-Gebel. In Tuna el-Gebel I: die Tiergalerien, J. Boessneck (ed.), 39-221. Hildesheim.

268

ൻංൻඅංඈ඀උൺඉඁඒ

———. 1992. Tell el Dab’a VII: Tiere und historische Umwelt im Nordost-Delta im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Anhand der Knochenfunde der Ausgrabungen 19751986. Vienna. Bommas, M. 2012. Isis, Osiris and Serapis. In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt, C. Riggs (ed.), 419-435. Oxford. Bosworth, A.B. 1996. Alexander III. In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds), 57-59. Oxford. Bothmer, B.V. and H. De Meulenaere. 1986. The Brooklyn statuette of Hor, son of Pa-Wen (with an excursus on ‘egg heads’). In Egyptological Studies in Honour of Richard A. Parker, Presented on the Occasion of His 78th Birthday, Decmeber 10th, 1983, L.H. Lesko (ed.), 1-15. Hannover and London. Brewer, D. 2002. The dogs of Ancient Egypt. In Dogs in Antiquity: Anubis to Cerberus, the Origins of the Domestic Dog, D. Brewer, T. Clark, and A. Phillips (eds), 28-48. Warminster. Brewer, D., D. Redford, and S. Redford. 1994. Domestic Plants and Animals: The Egyptian Origins. Warminster. Brunner-Traut, E. 1965. Spitzmaus und Ichneumon als Tiere des Sonnengottes. Göttingen. Brunton G. 1930. Qau and Badari III. London. Brunton, G., A. Gardiner, and W.M.F. Petrie. 1927. Qau and Badari I. London. Buongarzone, R. 2003. Archaeological documentation and Egyptological database. In The North Saqqara Archaeological Site. Handbook for the Environmental Risk Analysis, E. Bresciani (ed.), 122-131. Pisa. Burns, K.R. 1999. Forensic Anthropology Training Manual. Englewood &OL൵VNJ. Callou, C., A. Samzun, and A. Zivie. 2004. A lion found in the Egyptian tomb of Maïa. Nature 427: 211-212. Carter, H., M.W. Blackden, P. Brown, and P. Buckman.1900. Beni Hassan IV. London. Cauville, S. 2010. Imhotep: un avatar de Thot. Göttinger Miszellen 224: 17-25. Černý, J. 1973a. A Community of Workmen at Thebes in the Ramesside Period. Cairo. ———. 1973b. The Valley of the Kings. Cairo. Chaix, L. and C. Olive. 1986. Annexe II: La faune du Mastaba V (2200 BC) à Balat (République arabe d’Égypte). In Balat I: Le Mastaba de Modou-Nefer, 1, M. Valloggia with N.H. Henein (eds), 201-213. Cairo. Charron, A. 1996. Les animaux et le sacré dans l’Égypte tardive: fonctions et signification. Ph.D. thesis. Paris. ———. 2001. Les Canidés sacrés dans l’Égypte de la Basse Époque. Égypte, Afrique, et Orient 23: 7-22. ———. 2013. De bien particulières momies animals. In Le Myrte et la rose. Mélanges RৼHUWV à Françoise Dunand par ses élèves, collègues et amis, G. Tallet and C. Zivie-Coche (eds), 229-247. Montpellier.

———. 2015. Les animaux sacrés, du sauvage à l’élevage. In Apprivoiser le sauvage – Taming the Wild, M. Massiera, B. Mathieu, and F. 5RX൵HW(eds), 67-92. Montpellier. Churcher, C.S. 1993. Dogs from Ein Tirghi Cemetery, Balat Dakhleh Oasis, Western desert of Egypt. In Skeletons in her Closet: Festschrift for Juliet Clutton-Brock, A. Clason, S. Payne, and H.-P. Uerpmann (eds), 34-39. Oxford. Classen, C.J. 1959. The Libyan god Ammon in Greece before 331 B.C. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 8(3): 349-355. Cole, B.F. and P.E. Koerper. 2002. The domestication of the dog in general – and dog burial research in the southeastern United States. Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science 73(4): 174-179. Cooke, A. 2015. Auctions and air raids: Liverpool’s animal mummy collection. In Gifts for the Gods, L. McKnight and S. Atherton-Woolham (eds), 48-53. Liverpool. Crockford, S.J. 2009. A Practical Guide to In Situ Dog Remains for the Field Archaeologist. Victoria, BC. Davey, C.J. 2001-2. The excavation technology used in the Cow Catacombs of the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara, Egypt. Buried History 37-38: 15-24. Davies, N. de G. 1908. The Rock Tombs of El Amarna: Part VI. – Tombs of Paennefer, Tutu and Ay. London. Davies, S. 2006. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The Mother of Apis and Baboon Catacombs: The Archaeological Report. London. ———. 2008. Bronzes from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara. In 2ৼUDQGHV aux dieux d’Égypte, M. Hill and D. Schorsch (eds), 174-187. Martigny. Davies, S. and H.S. Smith. 2005. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The Falcon Complex and Catacomb: The Archaeological Report. London. Depraetere, D. and M. Depauw. 2009. The limestone quarries in the Wâdî Nakhla and Dayr al-Barshā qualitative stone material for Temple Building. In 7. Ägytologische Tempeltagung: Structuring Religion, R. Preys (ed.), 47-61. Wiesbaden. Dereser, C. 2009. Imhotep – vom Baumeister zum Heilgott. Kemet 18(2), 4-7. Description 1809-26. Description de l’Égypte. Paris. Dio, Historia Romana. (Roman History. Trans. E. Cary and H.B. Foster, Cambridge MA 1917). Dodson, A. 1999. The canopic equipment from the Serapeum of Memphis. In Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour of H.S. Smith, A. Leahy and J. Tait (eds), 59-75. London. ———. 2005. Bull cults. In Divine Creatures: animal mummies in ancient Egypt, S. Ikram (ed.), 72-105. Cairo. ———. 2012. Afterglow of Empire. Cairo. Domning, D.P. and P.D. Gingerich. 1994. Protosiren smithae, new species (Mammalia, Sirenia) from the late middle Eocene of Wadi Hitan, Egypt. Contributions from the

ൻංൻඅංඈ඀උൺඉඁඒ Museum of Paleontology of University of Michigan 29: 69-87. Drake, A.G. and C.P. Klingenberg. 2010. Large-scale diversification of skull shape in domestic dogs. American Naturalist 17(3): 289-301. Driesch, A. von den. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Cambridge, MA. Driesch, A. von den and J. Boessneck. 1985. Krankhaft veränderte Skelettreste von Pavianen aus altägyptischer Zeit. Tierärztliche Praxis 13: 367-372. Driesch, A. von den, D. Kessler, F. Steinmann, V. Berteaux, and J. Peters. 2005. Mummified, deified and buried at Hermopolis Magna—the sacred birds from Tuna el-Gebel, Middle Egypt. Ägypten und Levante 15: 203-244. Duckler, G.L. 1997. A case of spondylosis deformans in the defleshed skeleton of a wild coyote and its significance to osteopathologic interpretation. Journal of Wildlife Disease 33: 211-219. Dunand, F. and C.M. Zivie-Coche. 2004. Gods and Men in Egypt: 3000 BCE to 395 CE. Ithaca. Dunand, F., R. Lichtenberg, and C. Caillou. 2015. Dogs at El Deir. In Egyptian Bioarchaeology: Humans, Animals, and the Environment, S. Ikram, J. Kaiser, and R. Walker (eds), 169-176. Leiden. Dunand, F., R. Lichtenberg, C. Caillou, and F. LetellierWellemin. 2017. El-Deir Nécropoles IV: Les chiens momifiés d’El-Deir. Paris. Dundas, G.S. 2002. Augustus and the kingship of Egypt. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 51(4): 433-448. DuQuesne, T. 1996. Black & Gold God. Colour symbolism of the god Anubis. London. ———. 2002. Documents on the Cult of the Jackal Deities at Asyut—Seven more Ramesside Stelae from the Salakhana Trove. Discussions in Egyptology 53: 9-30. ———. 2005. The Jackal Divinities of Egypt I: Dynasties 0-X. London. DuQuesne, T., W. El-Sadeek, S.A. Razek, Z.A. Hawass, and M.A. Fatah. 2007. Anubis, Upwawet, and Other Deities. Personal Worship and 2৽FLDO Religion in Ancient Egypt. Cairo. Durisch, N. 1993. Culte des canidés à Assiout: Trois nouvelles stèles dédiées à Oupouaout. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 93: 205-221. Emery, W.B. 1965a. Preliminary report on the excavations at North Saqqâra 1964-5. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 51: 3-8. ———. 1965b. The search for Imhotep in Sakkara. The Illustrated London News 6-3-1965: 20-23. ———. 1967. Preliminary report on the excavations at North Saqqâra 1966-7. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 53: 141-145. ———. 1969. Preliminary report on the excavations at North Saqqâra 1968. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 55: 31-35.

269

———. 1970. Preliminary report on the excavations at North Saqqâra 1968-9. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 56: 5-10. ———. 1971. Preliminary report on the excavations at North Saqqâra 1969-70. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 57: 3-13. Epstein, H. 1971. The Origin of the Domestic Animals of Africa, vol. 1. New York. Eyre, C. 2013. The Use of Documents in Pharaonic Egypt. Oxford. Fentress, E. 1978. Dii Mauri and Dii Patrii. Latomus 37(2): 507-516. Ferguson, W.W. 1981. The systematic position of Canis aureus lupaster (Carnivora: Canidae) and the occurrence of Canis lupus in North Africa, Egypt and Sinai. Mammalia 45(4): 459-465. Fisher, H.G. 1980. Hunde. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie III, W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), 77-81. Wiesbaden. Flower, S.S. 1933. Notes on the recent reptiles and amphibians of Egypt, with a list of the species recorded from that kingdom. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 103(3): 735-851. Frankfurter, D. 1998. Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt. Leiden. French, P. and H. Ghaly. 1991. Pottery chiefly of the Late Dynastic Period, from excavations by the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation at Saqqara, 1987. Cahiers de la Céramique Égyptienne 2: 93-124. Frost, P. 1990. Canine Dentistry: A Compendium. Vero Beach, FL (3rd ed.). Gaillard, C. 1927. Les animaux consacrés à la divinité de l’ancienne Lycopolis. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 27: 33–42. Gaubert, P., C. Bloch, S. Benyacoub, A. Abdelhamid, P. Pagnai, C. Adéyèmi, M.S. Djagoun, A. Couloux, and S. Dufour. 2012. Reviving the African wolf Canis lupus lupaster in North and West Africa: A mitochondrial lineage ranging more than 6,000 km wide. PLoS ONE 7.8. e42740. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042740. Gautier, A. 1984. How do I count you, let me count the ways. Problems of archaeozoological quantification. In Animals and archaeology 4: Husbandry in Europe, C. Grigson and J. Clutton-Brock (eds), 237-251. Oxford. Ghar, M.S. Abu El 2007. Eocene stratigraphy, facies, sequences and depositional history in Shabrawet area, north of Suez, Eastern Desert, Egypt. Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) 3: 23-42. Gingerich P.D. 1992. Marine mammals (Cetacea and Sirenia) from the Eocene of Gebel Mokattam and Fayum, Egypt: Stratigraphy, age, and paleoenvironments. University of Michigan Papers on Paleontology 30: 1-84.

270

ൻංൻඅංඈ඀උൺඉඁඒ

———. 1993. Oilgocence age of the Gebel Qatrani Formation, Fayum, Egypt. Journal of Human Evolution 24: 207-218. Gordon, R.L. 1996. Sarapis. In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds), 13551356. Oxford. Gray, J.E. 1821. On the natural arrangement of vertebrose animals. London Medical Repository 15(1): 296-310. Green, C.I. 1987. The Temple Furniture from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara 1964-1976. London. Guilmot, M. 1962. Le Serapieion de Memphis. Étude topographique. Chronique d’Égypte 37: 359-381. Habermehl, K.H. 1975. Die Altersbestimmung bei Hausund Labortieren. Berlin. Haddon, K. 1914. Report on a small collection of mummy dogs. In The Cemeteries of Abydos I, E. Naville, T.E. Peet, and W.L.S. Loat, 40-48. London. Hamernik, G. 1997. Auf den Spuren einer vergessen Entdeckung. Kiwanis International 11: 27-29. Harcourt, R.A. 1974. The dog in prehistoric and early historic Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science 1: 151175. Harris, S. 1977. Spinal arthritis (spondylosis deformans) in the red fox, (Vulpes vulpes), with some methodology of relevance to zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 4, 183-195. ———. 1978. Age determination in the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes ±DQHYDOXDWLRQRIWHFKQLTXHH൶FLHQF\DVDSSOLHG to a sample of suburban foxes. Journal of Zoology 184, 91-117. Harrison, D.L. 1968. The Mammals of Arabia, vol. 2. London. Harrison, D.L. and P.J.J. Bates. 1991. The Mammals of Arabia, vol. 2. Sevenoaks. Hart, D. 2000. Asclepius: the god of medicine. London. Hart, G. 1986. A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. London. Hartley, M., A. Buck, and S. Binder. 2011. Canine interments in the Teti Cemetery North at Saqqara in the GraecoRoman period. In Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2010/1, M. Barta, F. Coppens, and J. Krejci (eds), 17-29. Prague. Hastings, E.A. 1997. The Sculpture from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara 1964-76. London. Hawass, Z. 2010. The Anubieion. In Egyptian Culture and Society: studies in honour of Nagib Kanawati, A. Woods, A. McFarlane, and S. Binder (eds), 181-191. Cairo. Heinrich, D. and H. Ratjen. 1978. Vergleichende Untersuchungen an den Metapodien von Füchsen und Hunden. Kiel. Herodotus. Histories. (The Histories. Trans. A. de Selincourt, Harmondsworth 1954). Hilzheimer, M. 1908. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Nordafrikanischen Schakale nebst Bemerkungen über deren Verhältnis zu den Haushunden inbesondere Nordafrikanischen und Altägyptischen Hunderassen. Stuttgart.

Hoath, R. 2003. A Field Guide to the Mammals of Egypt. Cairo. Houlihan, P. 1996. The Animal World of the Pharaohs. Cairo. Hultgren, B.D., E. Wallaner-Pendleton, B.J. Watrous, and L.L. Blythe. 1987. Cervical dorsal spondylosis with spinal cord compression in a black swan (Cygnus atratus). Journal of Wildlife Disease 23: 705-708. Ibrahim, M. and D. Rohl. 1988. Apis and the Serapeum. Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 2: 6-26. Ikram, S. 1995. Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt. Leuven. ———. 2005. Divine creatures: animal mummies. In Divine Creatures: animal mummies in ancient Egypt, S. Ikram (ed.), 1-15. Cairo. ———. 2007. Animals in a Ritual Context at Abydos, A Synopsis. In The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in honor of David B. O’Connor, Z. Hawass and J. Richards (eds), 417-432. Cairo. ———. 2011. Food and Funerals: Sustaining the Dead for Eternity. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 20 (Research 2008): 361-371. ———. 2013a. A curious case of canine burial at Abydos. In Tuna el-Gebel 4: Kleine Götter – Grosse Götter, M.C. Flossmann-Schütze, M. Goecke-Bauer, F+R൵PDQQ A. Hutterer, K. Schlüter, A. Schütze, M. Ullmann, and P. Brose (eds), 265-271. Vaterstetten. ———. 2013b. Man’s best friend for eternity: dog and human burials in Egypt. Anthropozoologica 48(2): 299-307. ———. 2014. Canine cults in Kharga Oasis: the dogs of Dabashiya. In Le Myrte et la Rose. Mélanges RৼHUWV à Françoise Dunand par ses élèves, collègues et amis, G. Tallet and C. Zivie-Coche (eds), 349-355. Montpellier. ———. (ed.) 2015a. Divine Creatures: animal mummies in ancient Egypt. Cairo (2nd ed.). ———. 2015b. Divine creatures: animal mummies. In Divine Creatures: animal mummies in ancient Egypt, S. Ikram (ed.), 1-16. Cairo (2nd ed.). ———. 2015c. Manufacturing Divinity: The Technology of Mummification. In Divine Creatures: animal mummies in ancient Egypt, S. Ikram (ed.), 17-43. Cairo (2nd ed.). ———. 2015d. Experimental archaeology: from meadow to embalming table. In Egyptology in the Present: Experiential and Experimental Methods in Archaeology, C. Graves-Brown (ed.), 53-74. Swansea. ———. 2015e. Speculations on the role of animal cults in the economy of ancient Egypt. In Apprivoiser le sauvage – Taming the Wild: Glimpses on the Animal World in Ancient Egypt, M. Massiera, B. Mathieu, and F. 5RX൵HW (eds), 211-228. Montpellier. ———. 2018. The equids of Tell el-Borg. In The “Dwelling of the Lion” on the Ways of Horus: Excavations in North Sinai: Tell el-Borg II-+R൵PHLHUHG  Winona Lake, IN. ———. 2019. Shedding new light on old corpses: developments in the field of animal mummy studies. In Creatures

ൻංൻඅංඈ඀උൺඉඁඒ of Earth, Water and Sky: Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia, S. Porcier, S. Ikram and S. Pasquali (eds), 169-181. Leiden. ———. In preparation. The Animal Mummies of the Museo Egizio, Turin. Turin. Ikram, S. and N. Iskander. 2002. Catalogue General of NonHuman Mummies. Cairo. Ikram, S., P.T. Nicholson, L. Bertini, and D. Hurley. 2013. Killing man’s best friend? Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28(2): 48-66. Ikram, S., R. Slabbert, I. Cornelius, A. du Plessis, L.C. Swanepoel, and H. Weber. 2015. Fatal force-feeding or gluttonous gagging? The death of Kestrel SACHM 2575. Journal of Archaeological Science 63: 72-77. Illiger, C. 1811. Prodromus Systematis Mammalium et Avium Additis Terminis Zoographicis Utriusque Classis, Eorumque. Versione Germanica. Berlin. -H൵UH\V'*DQG//*LGG\. 1989. Memphis, 1988. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75: 1-12. -H൵UH\V D.G. and H.S. Smith. 1988. The Anubieion at Saqqara. London. Jurman, C. 2010. Running with Apis: the Memphite Apis cult as a point of reference for social and religious practice in Late Period elite culture. In Egypt in Transition: social and religious development of Egypt in the first millennium BCE, L. Bareš, F. Coppens and K. Smoláriková (eds), 224-267. Prague. Juvenal. Satires. (The Sixteen Satires. Trans. P. Green, Harmondsworth 1974). Kahl, J. and C. Kitagawa. 2016. Canids at Asyut: tombs and temples. In The Tomb of the Dogs at Asyut, Faunal Remains and Other Selected Objects, C. Kitagawa (ed.), 1-20. Wiesbaden. Kaiser, J. 2011. Gifts for the gods: votive dog mummies at Giza. In Giza Plateau Mapping Project Season 2009 Preliminary Report, M. Lehner (ed.), 197-199. Boston, MA. Kessler, D. 1986. Tierkult. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie VI, W. Helck and E. Otto (eds), 571-587. Wiesbaden. ———. 1989. Die heiligen Tiere und der König, Teil 1. Weisebaden. ———. 2003. Tierische missverstandnisse: grundsätzliches zu fragen des tierkultes. In Tierkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich, M. Fitzenreiter, S. Kirchner, and O. Kireleit (eds), 33-68. London. ———. 2007. Spitzmaus und Ichneumon im Tierfriedhof von Tuna el-Gebel. Bulletin of the Egyptian Museum 4: 71-82. Kessler, D., and A.H. Nur el-Din. 2015. Tuna el-Gebel, millions of ibises and other animals. In Divine Creatures: animal mummies in ancient Egypt, S. Ikram (ed.), 120163. Cairo. Kitagawa, C. 2016. The Tomb of the Dogs at Asyut: faunal remains andother selected objects. Wiesbaden. Klebs, L. 1915. Die Reliefs des Alten Reiches. Heidelberg.

271

———. 1922. Die Reliefs und Malereien des Mittleren Reiches. Heidelberg. ———. 1934. Die Reliefs und Malereien des Neuen Reiches. Heidelberg. Klemm, R. and D. Klemm. 2008. Stones and Quarries in Ancient Egypt. London. Koepfli, K.-P., J. Pollinger, R. Godinho, J. Robinson, A. Lea, S. Hendricks, R.M. Schweizer, O. Thalmann, P. Silva, Z. Fan, A.A. Yuchenko, P. Dobrynin, A. Makunin, J.A. Cahill, B. Shapiro, F. $OYDUHV-&%ULWR(*H൵HQ J.A. Leonard, K.M. Helgen, W.E. Johnson, S.J.O. Brien, B. Van Valkenburgh, and R.K. Wayne. 2015. Genomewide evidence reveals that African and Eurasian golden jackals are distinct species. Current Biology 25(16): 2158-2165. Kramer, P.A, L.L. Newell-Morris, and P.A. Simkin. 2002. Spinal degenerative disk disease (DDD) in female macaque monkeys: epidemiology and comparison with women. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 20: 399-408. Kurushima, J.D., S. Ikram, J. Knudsen, E. Bleiberg, R.A. Grahn, and L.A. Lyons. 2012. Cats of the pharaohs: genetic comparisons of Egyptian cat mummies to their feline contemporaries. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(10): 3217-3123. Łajtar, A. The Theban region under the Roman empire. In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt, C. Riggs (ed.), 171-188. Oxford. Lauer, J-P. 1976. Saqqara. The Royal Cemetery of Memphis: excavations and discoveries since 1850. London. Lepsius, K.R. 1849-1859. Denkmäler aus Ægypten und Æthiopien: Text Band I. (Geneva 1975; originally Leipzig 1897). Lieven, A. von. 2003. Wo faß ich Dich, göttliche Natur. In Tierkkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich, M. Fitzenreiter and S. Kirchner (eds), 125129. London. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturæ Per Regna Tria Naturæ, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, Cum Characteribus, 'LৼHUentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Stockholm (10th ed.). Listemann, K. 2010. Kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung des Hundes im Alten Ägypten: Untersuchungen anhand archäozoologischer und archäologischer Quellen. Munich. Lortet, L. and C. Gaillard. 1903. La Faune Momifiée de l’Ancienne Égypte (t. I). Lyon. Lortet, L. and C. Gaillard. 1905. La Faune Momifiée de l’Ancienne Égypte (t. II). Lyon. Lortet, L. and C. Gaillard. 1907. La Faune Momifiée de l’Ancienne Égypte (t. III). Lyon. Lortet, L. and C. Gaillard. 1909. La Faune Momifiée de l’Ancienne Égypte et Recherches Anthropologiques (t. IV). Lyon. Lukacs, J.R. 2006. Dental trauma and antemortem tooth loss in prehistoric Canary Islanders: prevalence and

272

ൻංൻඅංඈ඀උൺඉඁඒ

contributing factors. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 17(2): 157-173. Lurker, M. 1974. The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt. London. MacKinnon, M. 2010. ‘Sick as a dog’: zooarchaeological evidence for pet dog health and welfare in the Roman world. World Archaeology 42: 290-309. Mann, R.W. and S.P. Murphy. 1990. Regional Atlas of Bone Disease: A Guide to Pathologic and Normal Variation in the Human Skeleton. Springfield, IL. Mariette, A. 1856. Choix de monuments et de dessins découverts ou exécutés pendant le déblaiement du Sérapeum de Memphis. Paris. ———. 1857. Le Sérapéum de Memphis. Paris. ———. 1882. Le Sérapéum de Memphis par Auguste Mariette-Pacha; publié d’àpres le manuscrit d’auteur par G. Maspero. Paris. ———. 1889. Les Mastabas de l’Ancien Empire. Paris. Martin, G.T. 1979. The Tomb of Hetepka and Other Reliefs and Inscriptions from the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqâra, 1964-1973. London. ———. 1981. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara. London. Martin, C.J. 2009. Demotic Papyri from the Memphite Necropolis. Leiden. Mathieson, I., E. Bettles, J. Clarke, C. Duhig, S. Ikram, L. Maguire, S. Quie, and A. Tavares. 1997. The National Museums of Scotland Saqqara Survey Project 19931995. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 83: 17-53. Mathieson, I., E. Bettles, J. Dittmer, and C. Reader. 1999. The National Museums of Scotland Saqqara Survey Project, Earth Sciences 1990-1998. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 85: 21-43. Mathieson, I. and J. Dittmer. 2007. The Geophysical Survey of North Saqqara, 2001-7. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 93: 79-93. Mathieson, I. and A. Tavares. 1993. Preliminary Report of the National Museums of Scotland Saqqara Survey Project, 1990-91. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79: 17-31. Mathieson, P. 2013. Seeing Under the Sand of Saqqara. Edinburgh. Mayor, A. 2001. The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman times. Princeton, NJ. McKenna, M.C. 1975. Toward a phylogenetic classification of the Mammalia. In Phylogeny of the Primates: a multidisciplinary approach (Proceedings of WennerGren Symposium no. 61, Burg Wartenstein, Austria, July 6–14, 1997), W.P. Luckett and F.S. Szalay (eds), 21-46. New York. McKnight, L. 2015. What lies beneath: imaging animal mummies. In Gifts for the Gods, L. McKnight and S. Atherton-Woolham (eds), 72-81. Liverpool.

Mekkawi, M., F. El-Sayed, H.A.S. Hawad, S. Saleh, and G. Hassib. 2007. Subsurface structure and seismicity studies in the Nile Delta area, Egypt. Journal of Applied Geophysics 6(2): 29-46. Morgan, J. de. 1897. Carte de la Nécropole de la Memphite: Dahchour, Sakkarah, Abou-Sir. Cairo. Morgan, J.P. 1967. Spondylosis deformans in the dog. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica Supplementum 38(96): 1-88. Morgan, J.P., G. Ljunggren, and R. Read. 1967. Spondylosis deformans (vertebral osteophytosis) in the dog. Journal of Small Animal Practice 8: 57-66. Munro, P. 1963. Einige Votivstelen an Wp wꜢwt. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 88: 48-58. Nicholson, P.T. 2005. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: the cults and their catacombs. In Divine Creatures: animal mummies in ancient Egypt, S. Ikram (ed.), 44-71. Cairo. ———. 2015. British work at the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara. In Gifts for the Gods, L. McKnight and S. Atherton-Woolham (eds), 38-41. Liverpool. ———. 2016. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: narrative of a ritual landscape. In Mummies, Magic and Medicine in Ancient Egypt: multidisciplinary essays for Rosalie David, C. Price, R. Forshaw, A. Chamberlain, and P.T. Nicholson, with R. Morkot and J. Tyldesley (eds), 19-31. Manchester. ———. 2019. The North Ibis Catacomb at Saqqara. In Creatures of Earth, Water and Sky: Procoeedings of the International Symposium of Animals in Ancient Egypt, S. Porcier, S. Ikram, and S. Pasquali (eds), 251-258. Leiden. ———. In preparation. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The North Ibis Catacomb: The Archaeological Report. Nicholson, P.T. and H.L. Patterson. 1985. Pottery making in Upper Egypt: an ethnoarchaeological study. World Archaeology 17(2): 222-239. Nicholson, P.T. and H.S. Smith. 1996. An unexpected cache of bronzes. Egyptian Archaeology 9: 18. Nicholson, P.T., C.M. Jackson, and K.J. Frazer. 1999. The North Ibis Catacomb at Saqqara: ‘The Tomb of the Birds’. In Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour of H.S. Smith, A. Leahy and J. Tait (eds), 209-214. London. Nicholson, P.T, J. Harrison, S. Ikram, E. Earl, and Y. Qin. 2013. Geoarchaeological and environmental work at the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara, Egypt. In The Memphite Necropolis (Egypt) in the Light of Geoarchaeological and Palaeoenvironmental Studies, L. Marks (ed.), Studia Quaternaria 30(2): 83-89. Nicholson, P.T., S. Ikram, and S. Mills. 2015. The Catacombs of Anubis at North Saqqara. Antiquity 89(345): 645-661.

ൻංൻඅංඈ඀උൺඉඁඒ Ogden, J. 2000. Metals. In Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, P.T. Nicholson and I. Shaw (eds), 148-176. Cambridge. Ortner, D.J. 1994. Descriptive methodology in paleopathology. In Skeletal Biology in the Great Plains: Migrations, Warfare, Health and Subsistence, D.W. Owsley and R.L. Jantz (eds), 73-80. Washington, DC. Osborn, D.J and I. Helmy. 1980. The Contemporary Land Mammals of Egypt (including Sinai). Chicago. Osborn, D.J. and J. Osbornova. 1998. The Mammals of Ancient Egypt. Warminster. Otto, E. 1938. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Stierkulte im Ägypten. Leipzig. Ottoni, C., W. Van Neer, B. De Cupere, J. Daligault, S. Guimaraes, J. Peters, N. Spassov, M.E. Prendergast, N. Boivin, A. Morales-Muniz, A. Balasescu, C. Becker, N. Benecke, A. Boroneant, H. Buitenhuis, J. Chahoud, A. Crowther, L. Llorente, N. Manaseryan, H. Monchot, V. Onar, M. Osypinska, O. Putelat, E.M.Q. Morales, J. Studer, U. Wierer, R. Decorte, T. Grange, and E.M. Geigl. 2017. The palaeogenetics of cat dispersal in the ancient world. Nature: Ecology and Evolution 1: 2-18. Palmer, T.S. 1899. Review of Catalogus Mammalium tam viventium quamfossilium. Science 10: 491-495. Paton, D. 1925. Animals of Ancient Egypt. Princeton, NJ. Payne, S. 1983. The animal bones from the 1974 excavations at Douara Cave. University Museum, Univeristy of Tokyo Bulletin 21: 1-108. Peden, A.J. 2001. The *UD৽WLof Pharaonic Egypt. Leiden. Peet, T.E. 1914. The Cemeteries of Abydos II. London. Peters S.E., M.S.M. Antar, I.S. Zalmout, and P.D. Gingerich. 2009. Sequence stratigraphic control on preservation of late Eocene whales and other vertebrates at Wadi Al-Hitan, Egypt. PALAIOS 24(5): 290-302. Porter, B. and R.L.B. Moss. 1981. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings. III/2. Memphis. Part 2: Saqqara to Dashur. Oxford. Preisigke, F. and W. Spiegelberg (eds). 1914. Die PrinzJoachim-Ostraka: Griechische und demotische Beisetzungsurkunden für Ibis- und Falkenmumien aus Ombos. Strassburg. Price, C. 2015. Votive practice in ancient Egypt. In Gifts for the Gods, L. McKnight and S. Atherton-Woolham (eds), 21-22. Liverpool. Punch 1890. [Cartoon] Horrible result of using the “Egyptian furtiliser”. Punch 15-2-1890: 83. Quack, J.F. 2003. Die Rolle des heiligen Tieres im Buch vom Tempel. In Tierkkulte im pharaonischen Ägypten und im Kulturvergleich, M. Fitzenreiter and S. Kirchner (eds), 111-123. London. Quibell, J.E. 1900. Hierakonpolis I. London. Quibell, J.E. and A. Olver. 1926. An ancient Egyptian horse. Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 26: 172-176.

273

Raven, M.J. and W.K. Taconis. 2005. Egyptian Mummies: Radiological Atlas of the Collections in the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden. Turnhout. Ray, J.D. 1972. The House of Osorapis. In Man, Settlement and Urbanism, P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G.W. Dimbleby (eds), 699-704. London. ———. 1976. The Archive of Hor. London. ———. 1978. The world of North Saqqara. World Archaeology 10(2): 149-157. ———. 2001a. Animal cults. In The Oxford Encylopedia of Egyptology, D.B. Redford (ed.), 345-348. Oxford. ———. 2001b. Reflections of Osiris. London. ———. 2011. Texts from the Baboon and Falcon Galleries: demotic, hieroglyphic and Greek inscriptions from the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara. London. ———. 2013. Demotic Ostraca and Other Inscriptions from the Sacred Animal Necropolis, North Saqqara. London. Redding, R. 2015. The pig and the chicken in the Middle East: modelling human subsistence behavior in the archaeological record using historical and animal husbandry data. Journal of Archaeological Research 23(4): 325-368. Reisner, G.A. 1936. The Development of the Egyptian Tomb Down to the Accession of Cheops. Cambridge, MA. Reitz, E. and E. Wing. 2008. Zooarchaeology. Cambridge. Rhoné, A. 1877. L’Égypte à petites journées. Études et souvenirs. Paris. Rice, M. 2006. Swifter than the Arrow. London. Ringstorf, W.M., R.F. Flatland, K.G. Lindsey and E. Cheraskin. 1961. Clinical tooth mobility and pregnancy. Obsterics and Gynecology 17: 434-438. Romer, J. 1984. Ancient Lives. London. Rommelaere, C. 1991. Les chevaux du Nouvel Empire égyptien: origines, races, harnachement. Brussels. Rossel, S., F. Marshall, J. Peters, T. Pilgram, M.D. Adams, and D. O’Connor. 2008. Domestication of the donkey: timing, processes, and indicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(10): 3715-3720. Rothschild, B.M., C. Rothschild, and R.J. Woods. 2001. Inflammatory arthritis in canids: spondyloarthropathy. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 32: 58-64. Rouvière, L. 2017. Le culte des canidés dans la région de Hardai/Cynopolis. Enquête épigraphique et archéologique. In Géographie et archéologie de la religion égyptienne: Espaces cultuels, pratiques locales, C. Cassier (ed.), 109-128. Montpellier. Rowland, J., S. Ikram, G.J. Tassie, and L. Yeomans. 2013. The Sacred Falcon Necropolis of Djedhor(?) at Quesna: recent investigations from 2006-2012. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 99: 53-84. Rueness, E.K., M.G. Asmyhr, C. Sillero-Zubiri, D.W. Macdonald, A. Bekele, A. Atickem, and N.C. Stenseth. 2011. The cryptic African wolf: Canis aureus lupaster is not

274

ൻංൻඅංඈ඀උൺඉඁඒ

a golden jackal and is not endemic to Egypt. PLoS ONE 6.1, e16385. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016385. Rueness, E.K., P. Trosvik, A. Atickem, C. Sillero-Zubiri, and E. Trucchi. 2015. The African wolf is a missing link in the wolf-like canid phylogeny. BioRxiv (The Preprint Server for Biology). Doi: 10.1101/017996. Ruscillo, D. 2006. The table test: a simple technique for sexing canid humeri. In Recent Advances in Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones, D. Ruscillo (ed.), 62-67. Oxford. Russell, T.M. 2005. The Discovery of Egypt: Vivant Denon’s travels with Napoleon’s army. Stroud. Said, R. 1981. The Geological Evolution of the River Nile. New York. Scarre, C. (ed.). 2005. The Human Past: World Prehistory and the Development of Human Societies. London. Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones. London. Serpell, J. (ed.). 1995. The Domestic Dog: its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people. Cambridge. Shafer, B. 1997. Temples, priests and rituals: an overview. In Temples of Ancient Egypt, B. Shafer (ed.), 1-30. New York. Shaw, I. 2012. Ancient Egyptian Technology and Innovation. London. Silver, I.A. 1969. The ageing of domestic animals. In Science in Archaeology, D. Brothwell and E.S. Higgs (eds), 282302. London. Smelik, K.A.D. and E.A. Hemelrijk. 1984. Who knows not what monsters demented Egypt worships? Opinions on Egyptian animal worship in antiquity as part of the ancient conception of Egypt. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 17(4), W. Haase (ed.), 18532000. Berlin. Smith, C.R. 1983. Enrichment, disturbance and deep-sea community structure: the significance of large organic falls to bathyal benthos in Santa Catalina Basin. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Smith, C.R. and S.R. Baco. 2003. Ecology of whale falls at the deep-sea floor. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 41: 311-354. Smith, H.S. 1969. Animal domestication and animal cult in dynastic Egypt. In Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, P.J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby (eds), 307-314. London. ———. 1974. A Visit to Ancient Egypt. Warminster. ———. 1982. The excavation of the Anubieion at Saqqara: a contribution to Memphite topography and stratigraphy. In L’égyptologie en 1979, Axes prioritaires de recherches, Tome 1, 279-282. Paris. Smith, H.S., C.A.R. Andrews, and S. Davies. 2011. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The Mother of Apis Inscriptions 1–2. London. Smith, H.S. and S. Davies. 2005. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The Falcon Complex and Catacomb: the Archaeological Report. London.

Smith, H.S., S. Davies, and K.J. Frazer. 2006. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The Main Temple Complex: The Archaeological Report. London. Smith, W.M.S. 1936. Appendix C. Topography of the Old Kingdom cemetery at Saqqarah. In G.A. Reisner, The Development of the Egyptian Tomb Down to the Accession of Cheops, 390-413. Cambridge, MA. Spencer, A.J. 1974. Researches on the topography of Saqqara. Orientalia N.S. 43: 1-11 and Table. Stadler, M.A. 2012. Egyptian cult. In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt, C. Riggs (ed.), 457-473. Oxford. Stambaugh, J.E. 1972. Sarapis under the Early Ptolemies. Leiden. Stanhope, M.J., V.G. Waddell, O. Madsen, W. de Jong, S.B. Hedges, G.C. Cleven, D. Kao, and M.S. Springer. 1998. Molecular evidence for multiple origins of Insectivora and for a new order of endemic African insectivore mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 9967-9972. Steiner, W., P.K. Kaiser and G. Spaun. 2010. Role of brittle fracture on swelling behaviour of weak rock tunnels: hypotheis and qualitative evidence. Geomechanics and Tunneling 3(5): 3-16. Strabo. Geography. (The Geography of Strabo. Trans. H.L. Jones, Cambridge, MA 1989). Strong, M. 2018. Illuminating the Path of Darkness: social and sacred power of artificial light in Pharaonic period Egypt. Cambridge: Unpublished doctoral thesis, Cambridge University. ———. 2019. Smelling fat and hearing flame: Sensory experience of artificial lighting in ancient Egypt. In Sounding Sensory Profiles in the Ancient Near East, T. Krüger and A. Schellenberg (eds), 321-341. Atlanta. Suetonius. The Caesars. (The Twelve Caesars. Trans. R. Graves, Harmondsworth 1957). Sullivan, E.G. and A.O. Haugen. 1956. Age Determination of foxes by x-ray of forefeet. The Journal of Wildlife Management 20(2): 210-212. Teegan, W.R. 2005. Rib and vertebral fractures in medieval dogs from Haithabu, Starigard and Schleswig. In Diet and Health in Past Animal Populations: Current Research and Future Directions, J. Davies, M. Fabiš, I. Mainland, M. Richards, and R. Thomas (eds), 34-38. Oxford. Thewissen, J.G.M. 1998. The Emergence of Whales: evolutionary patterns in the origin of Cetacea. New York. Thompson, D. 2012. Memphis under the Ptolemies. Princeton, NJ (2nd ed.). Udrescu, M. and W. Van Neer. 2005. Looking for human therapeutic intervention in the healing of fractures of domestic animals. In Diet and Health in Past Animal Populations: Current Research and Future Directions, J. Davies, M. Fabiš, I. Mainland, M. Richards, and R. Thomas (eds), 24-33. Oxford.

ൻංൻඅංඈ඀උൺඉඁඒ Ulrich, R.B. 2007. Roman Woodworking. New Haven, CT. Vandier, J. 1961. Le Papyrus Jumilhac. Paris. Vyse, R.W.H. 1842. Appendix to Operations Carried Out on the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837: containing a survey by J.S.Perring Esq. Civil Engineer, of the pyramids at Abu Roash, and those to the southward, including those in the Faiyoum. Vol. III. London. Wainwright, J.M. 1852. The Land of Bondage; its ancient monuments and present condition; being the journal of a tour in Egypt. New York. Warren, D.M. 2000. Palaeopathology of Archaic period dogs from the North American Southeast. In Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective, S.J. Crockford (ed.), 105-114. Oxford. Wildung, D. 1977. Imhotep und Amenhotep: Gottwerdung im alten Ägypten. Berlin and Munich. Wilkinson, J.G. 1837. Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, III. London. Wilkinson, R.H. 2000. The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt. London. ———. 2003. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. London. Williams, S. 2018. Visualising a complex ritual landscape: Gaining a new perspective on the Late Period/Early Ptolemaic sacred landscape of North Saqqara through the application of digital technologies. &DUGL൵University School of History, Archaeology and Religion: Unpublished PhD Thesis. Wood, J.E. 1958. Age structure and productivity of a gray fox population. Journal of Mammalogy 39(1): 74-86. Youssef, M., O. Cherif, M. Boukhary, and A. Mohamed. 1984. Geological Studies on the Saqqara Area, Egypt. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie Abh. 168: 125-144. Zalmout I.S. and P.D. Gingerich. 2012. Late Eocene sea cows (Mammalia, Sirenia) from Wadi Al Hitan in the Western

275

Desert of Fayum, Egypt. University of Michigan Papers on Paleontology 37: 1-158. Zalmout, I.S., M. Ul-Haq, and P.D. Gingerich. 2003. New species of Protosiren (Mammalia, Sirenia) from the early middle Eocene of Balochistan (Pakistan). Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 31: 79-87. Zanbak, C. and R.C. Arthur. 1986. Geochemical and engineering aspects of anhydride/gypsum phase transitions. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists 23(4): 410-433. Zeder, M. and H. Lapham. 2010. Assessing the reliability of criteria used to identify postcranial bones in sheep, Ovis, and goats, Capra. Journal of Archaeological Science 3: 2887-2905. Ziegler, M., R. Colldeweih, A. Wolter, and A. LoprienoGnirs 2019. Rock mass quality and preliminary analysis and the stability of ancient rock-cut Theban tombs at Sheikh ‘Abd el-Qurna, Egypt. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 78(8): 6179-6205. Zeuner, F.E. 1963. A History of Domesticated Animals. London. Zivie, A. and R. Lichtenberg. 2005. The cats of the goddess Bastet. In Divine Creatures: animal mummies in ancient Egypt, S. Ikram (ed.), 106-119. Cairo. Zmystowska, E., S. Ledzion, and K. Jedrzejewski. 2007. Factors D൵HFWLQJ mandibular residual ridge resorption in edentulous patients: a preliminary report. Folia Morphologica 66: 346-352. www1: http://petriecat.museums.ucl.ac.uk/detail.aspx# (accessed 2-4-2015). www2: http://www2.rz.hu-berlin.de/nilus/net-publications/ ibaes4/summary.html#kessler (accessed 3-30-2019). www3: http://www.melkoniannews.org/ (accessed 22-1-22020).

INDEX

A Abu Sir 39 Abwab al-Qutat 13 Africa 11, 157 African golden wolf 157 Ageing 138 Agfa 241, 243 Ain Tirgi 153 Alexander the Great 14 Amenhotep III 9 Amenmose 147 Ammon 14 anhydrite 49 Anubis 1, 5, 9, 14, 17, 19, 39, 43, 45, 57, 69, 117, 135, 141, 146, 153, 157, 159, 166, 167, 171, 172, 184, 185, 186, 189, 191, 234, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 264, 266 Apis 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 44, 46, 160, 185, 186, 195, 246, 247, 250, 253 Apophis 186 Architect’s house 31, 33, 37, 54 Archive of Hor 13, 246, 247, 248, 249, 258 arrowhead 191, 194 Arthroses 172 Asklepios 12 Asyut 146, 147, 153, 157, 159, 184, 185, 186, 188, 257 Augustus 11, 15 B Baber, Tessa 224, 253, 257 Baboon Catacomb 13 bacteria 183 bandage 142 bandaging 135, 142, 146, 248 Basenji 147, 153, 154 Basilosaurus isis 264 Bastet 13, 186 battle of Philippi 10 Beit Emery/Emery House 1, 33, 37, 49, 257 Beni Hasan 148, 149, 151 bird 13, 17, 108, 119, 137, 138, 167

‘bird pits’ 17 bitumen 141, 164 Bleiberg, Edward 1, 15, 198, 200, 246 blow fly 141 Bos taurus 137, 139, 140, 160 bowl 108, 235, 238, 239 bronze copper alloy 14, 15, 16, 45, 46, 51, 78, 104, 189, 191, 193, 194, 247, 249, 251, 255 Brunton, Guy 266 Buchis Bull 16 butchery 160 C Cairo University 19 Calliphorid 141 Calves 11 Canis anthus 157 Canis aureus 137, 139, 140, 157 Canis aureus lupaster 137, 157 Canis lupus familiaris 138 Canopus 15 Capra aegagrus hircus 138 cartonnage 142 Cassius 15 cat 13, 16, 137, 138, 139, 140, 144, 163, 164, 165, 166, 172, 176, 186 catfish 138, 139 cattle 15, 88, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 160, 161, 162, 163, 185 cauldron 108, 117, 242, 255 chapel 42, 247 Christianity 254 Clarias sp. 138 Cleopatra VII 10 FR൶Q 11, 44, 68, 72, 89, 105, 108, 141, 142, 170, 195, 196, 198, 201, 203, 204, 213, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 251 Collies 153 cult 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 33, 39, 42, 43, 44, 57, 135, 146, 185, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 257 Cynopolis 185

278

ංඇൽൾඑ

D Dabashiya 146 Dakhla Oasis 153 Davies, Sue 4 Deir el-Gharbi 46 den 138, 153, 154, 164, 189, 245, 246, 251 Dewitz, Bodo von 241 Djoser (Netjerikhet) 10, 246 Dog 4, 5, 6, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 58, 65, 66, 68, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 88, 89, 90, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 117, 118, 119, 135, 143, 153, 167, 169, 173, 174, 175, 176, 184, 185, 186, 188, 242, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255 donkey 137, 138, 139, 140, 162 Dorudon atrox 264 E EDM 5 Egypt Exploration Society 1, 19, 257 Egyptian jungle cat 137, 138, 139, 140 el-Deir 146, 153, 159 embalm 157 embalming 135, 153, 164, 167, 191, 234, 238, 247, 249 Emery, Walter Bryan 1, 4, 5, 12, 17, 18, 49, 198, 200, 201, 257 Eocene 39, 259, 261, 264, 265 Eosiren sp. 264 Eotheroides sandersi 261, 264, 265, 266 epistates 248 equid 88, 135, 137, 139, 140, 162, 163 equids 135, 138 Equus africanus asinus 137, 138, 139, 140 Equus ferus caballus 137, 138, 139, 140

fish 16, 137 flax 45 foetal 146 foil 253 fossil 39, 45, 76, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266 fox 137, 138, 139, 140, 159, 170, 171, 172, 185 fractures 49, 171, 172 Frazer, Ken 1, 274 French, Peter 12, 234, 257 fur 135, 137, 141, 142, 143, 153 G Galvanised 242 Ghafir 31, 37 GIS (Geographical Information System) 19, 21, 24, 25, 33, 34, 36, 37 Golden Jackal 157 Graeco-Roman 146, 153, 186 JUD൶WL 186, 246 Greece 10, 14 Greeks 10, 14, 186, 245 gypsum 11, 39, 40, 49, 69, 77, 89, 108, 132, 141, 167, 259, 261 H Harding, Colin 241 Harrison, John 5, 30, 46, 56, 59 Herodotus 9, 10, 246 Herpestes ichneumon 137, 138, 139, 140, 166 Hetep Ka 29, 33 Hor (of Sebennytos) 13, 14, 246, 247, 248, 249, 258 Horus 12, 13, 33, 56, 167, 186, 200, 201 Horus Qa-a 33 human burials 75, 251, 253 humidity 5, 28, 29, 31, 37, 46, 48, 49, 50, 65, 142, 167 hunters 159

F

I

fake mummies 13 Falco tinnunculus 167 Falcon Catacomb 13, 33, 42, 105, 167, 186, 191, 246, 247 farmers 159 Felis catus 137, 138, 139, 140, 163 Felis chaus nilotica 137, 138, 139, 140 Felis margarita 163 Felis sylvestris 163 Fennecus zerda 138, 159 fertiliser 13, 167, 189, 255, 257, 258

Ibis Catacomb 1, 11, 12, 33, 46, 48, 57, 119, 256 ichneumon 137, 138, 139, 140, 166 Ikram, Salima 1, 135, 141, 200, 201, 248, 250, 251, 252 Imhotep 4, 11, 12, 17, 250 Isis 10, 12, 88, 186, 191, 200, 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 251, 253 J Jackal 19, 157, 173, 174, 176 Jackson, Caroline 1

ංඇൽൾඑ jar 90, 234, 235, 239, 240, 249 -H൵UH\VDavid 1, 19, 39, 254 Juvenal 16, 272 K kalathos 16 Karanis 255, 267 Kasinebef 33 Kessler, Dieter 14, 166, 245, 246 Khaemwaset 253 Kharga Oasis 146, 153 Khnumhotep 148, 151 Kom Ombo 12 Kubbbet el Hawa 150 L Labradors 153 larvae 141 Late Period 12, 14, 44, 45, 163, 186, 200, 201, 245, 246, 250, 251, 253, 254 Lauer, Jean-Philippe 18, 19, 33 Laurin, Anton 10 LED 5 Le Piez, Christine 241 Lepsius, Karl Richard 18 Libyans 14 lime 141, 167 limestone 40, 46, 58, 75, 78, 89, 95, 141, 167, 195, 196, 234, 261 limestone block 78, 195, 196 linen 142, 144, 146, 164, 167, 170, 191, 200, 203, 219, 248 Liverpool 13, 257 Lycopolis 157, 185 M Maadi formation 39, 46, 49 maceration 141 Mark Anthony 10 marl 39, 40, 44, 46, 235 0DVWL൵ 147, 150, 154 Mathieson, Ian 19, 21 McKnight, Lidija 14 Melkonian 241, 244 Memphis 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 159, 247, 248, 250 Merimde 153 Middle Kingdom 12

279

Mills, Steve 23, 30, 51 MNI 140, 146, 157, 159, 160 Montu 16 Moringa Tree 11 Morgan, Jacques de 1, 3, 10, 19, 33, 34, 39, 42, 50, 64, 66, 68, 69, 75, 107, 251, 255, 257 mortar 75, 88, 167 Mother of Apis 1, 11, 46, 160, 186, 253 mug 242 mummies 1, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 25, 27, 28, 29, 37, 44, 56, 57, 68, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 88, 90, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 113, 117, 118, 119, 135, 137, 138, 141, 142, 146, 153, 162, 166, 167, 171, 172, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 195, 198, 201, 241, 245, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 258 mummification 10, 13, 15, 135, 141, 142, 144, 164, 167, 188, 234, 246, 247, 249, 250, 253 mummy 242 ‘mummy pit’ 17 N Napoleon 17, 254 Napoleonic 1, 13, 17 natron 141 Nectanebo II 12, 13, 251 neonates 146, 188 New Kingdom 3, 12, 13, 39, 46, 234, 246, 251 niche 13, 23, 25, 44, 48, 51, 59, 66, 68, 69, 73, 75, 78, 88, 89, 90, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 108, 110, 111, 119, 142, 167, 169, 170, 171, 183, 185, 191, 204, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 245, 248, 249, 251 Nicholson, Paul T. 46, 160, 257, 266 NISP 137, 138, 139, 160, 162, 163 Nouwens, Hendrikje 75, 85, 94, 99, 197 Nubians 147 nutrition 184 O Octavian 11, 15 R൵HULQJ 51, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 88, 89, 90, 104, 105, 108, 111, 119, 132, 141, 146, 167, 184, 195, 197, 198, 247, 248, 249, 255 R൵HULQJtable 195, 197, 198, 249 oil 45, 108, 111, 141, 142, 242, 249 oracle 201, 246 Osiris 9, 13, 15, 200, 201, 209, 210, 253 Osiris-Apis 9, 15 Osorapis 9, 10, 15

280

ංඇൽൾඑ

Osteophytosis 172 ovicaprid 160 ovicaprids 138 Ovis aries 138 P paint 142, 167, 203, 221, 233 Palermo Stone 9 papyrus 142, 200, 201 Papyrus Jumilhac 185 Pariah 147, 149, 153 pathology 135, 138, 171, 188 pelage 153 Persia 14 Persians 14 phase 21, 42, 43, 45, 51, 56, 65, 100, 104, 105, 132, 248, 256, 258 phasing 40, 258 pig 88, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 162 pilgrim 1, 9, 10, 167, 246, 247, 248 pilgrims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 184, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 Pirie’s 241, 243 plaster 11, 66, 89, 105, 108, 142, 167, 195, 198, 199 pottery 45, 61, 65, 66, 68, 90, 108, 234, 241, 242, 251, 257 priests 9, 44, 76, 157, 186, 188, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 253, 266 Prinz Joachim Ostraca 12 prophets 248 Protosiren smithae 264, 265 ‘pseudo’ mummies 13 Ptah 9, 10, 11, 12, 246 Ptolemaic 10, 12, 14, 15, 44, 46, 185, 200, 201, 204, 233, 234, 235, 238, 239, 248, 250, 251, 253, 254, 278 Ptolemy I Soter 9 Ptolemy VI 15 Ptolemy XV Caesarion 10 Punch 13, 257 puppies 146, 188, 189, 250 puppy 142, 144, 147, 188, 248, 250 Q Qau el-Kebir 45 Quesna 141, 276 Quibell 18, 242

R Ray, John 9, 11, 12, 245, 246, 247, 248 resin 68, 90, 108, 141, 142, 164, 203, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 249 Reisner, George 18 Roman 12, 15, 16, 44, 46, 146, 153, 156, 186, 204, 250, 251, 252, 254 Roosens 241 Rygh, Mari 224, 225 S Sacred Animal Necropolis (SAN) 1, 12, 17, 21, 29, 33, 44, 167, 184, 186, 191, 247 salt 45, 141 Saluki 147, 148, 149, 150, 153, 154 sample 13, 24, 37, 135, 137, 138, 140, 153, 157, 159, 160, 163, 164, 171, 172, 184, 189, 258 samples 25, 27, 28, 29, 37, 43, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 146, 153, 167, 171, 184, 249, 251 Saqqara 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 76, 146, 153, 159, 162, 171, 172, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 234, 241, 242, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 254, 255, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 265, 266 Sarapis 167 savants 17, 254 sculpture 39, 200 Sekhmet 186 Serapeum 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 15, 195, 247, 250, 253 Serapis 9, 14, 15, 16, 251 Serpico, Margaret 195 Seth 266 sexing 138 Shaft 24, 234 shafts 5, 6, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 44, 45, 48, 57, 107, 124 sheep 88, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 160 sheep/goat 88, 135, 137, 139, 140 Sheikh Fadl 185 shroud 142, 144, 146, 167 sirenian 29, 76, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266 situlae 15, 189, 191, 245, 247, 251, 255 smectite 46, 49, 259, 261 Smith, Harry S. 1, 4, 39, 246, 254 Smith, William Stevenson 18 soldiers 185, 252

ංඇൽൾඑ soot 28, 29, 31, 37, 51, 84, 89, 95, 103, 107, 111, 114, 256 sooting 51, 66, 76, 77, 78, 89, 107, 108 Spencer, Alan -H൵UH\ 18, 19 Step Pyramid 10, 11 stone-cutters 4, 39, 43, 44, 45, 57, 68, 69, 75, 76, 77, 108, 118 Strong, Meghan 45 sugar refineries 257 Supreme Council for Antiquities (SCA) 1 Sus scrofa domesticus 138 syncretism 186 syntaxis 15, 248 Syria 10 T Taftish 254, 255 teeth 158, 159, 160, 166, 184 Temple 3, 29, 33, 247, 249, 254 Temple Terrace 29, 33, 247, 254 The Times’ newspaper 241 Thomas, Ross 233 Thompson, Dorothy 10, 249, 250, 252 Thoth 11, 12, 186 Tjesem 147, 148, 153 trauma 156, 171, 172, 178, 183, 184, 188 Tuna el-Gebel 44, 153, 186, 189, 198, 246, 251 tunnels 1, 12, 42, 43, 48, 50, 57 turiya 46

281

V Valley of the Kings 45, 46 vertebrate 39, 45, 76, 259, 261, 266 Vulpes rueppelli rueppelli 159 Vulpes sp. 137, 138 Vulpes vulpes aegyptiaca 138, 159 Vyse, Col. Howard 18 W Wadi Al Hitan 259 Wepwawet 157, 159, 185, 186, 188, 191 whale fall 259, 261, 262 Williams, Scott 23, 51, 114, 124 Winzer, Dagmar 195 withers 147, 152, 153 wolf 138, 146, 153, 157 wood 24, 138, 158, 159, 202 wooden 11, 44, 68, 75, 88, 89, 105, 160, 167, 195, 198, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 223, 248, 251, 253, 254, 255, 258 wrapping 141, 142, 145, 167, 200, 250, 258 wrappings 45, 137, 141, 142, 144, 164, 257