Cats, Crocodiles, Cattle, and More: Initial Steps Toward Establishing a Chronology of Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummies

Abstract

The ancient Egyptians mummified animals as part of cultic activity from the Late Period into the Roman era (7th century BC to the 4th century AD). Necropolises have provided millions of animal mummies, reflecting the religious fervor of Egyptians with regard to sacred animal cults during this period. Despite the number of sites containing mummies, and the number of mummies themselves, surprisingly little is known with regard to the nuances in the dating of the cults’ popularity and activities. As part of a multidisciplinary project, we have conducted a series of radiocarbon dates based on a group of animal mummies from the collection of the Musée des Confluences in Lyon, France. Thus, 63 specimens of animal mummies and their wrappings were analyzed to provide a range of dates for this practice. Results show that some correlations can be made between the popularity of particular species and the time period in which they were mummified. Monkeys and goats appear to have been among the first mummified species (from 800 BC), while antelopes appear to be a later addition to the corpus (30 BC to 4th century AD), thereby reflecting changes in thought processes, religious beliefs, and economic imperatives over time.

Full text

CATS, CROCODILES, CATTLE, AND MORE: INITIAL STEPS TOWARD
ESTABLISHING A CHRONOLOGY OF ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ANIMAL MUMMIES
Pascale Richardin
1*
•Stéphanie Porcier
2
•Salima Ikram
3
•Gaëtan Louarn
1,4
•Didier Berthet
5
1
Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France (C2RMF), Paris, France.
2
Laboratoire CNRS “Histoire et Sources des Mondes Antiques”(HiSoMA-UMR 5189), Maison de l’Orient et de la
Méditerranée, Lyon, France.
3
American University in Cairo, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology and Egyptology, Cairo, Egypt.
4
Université Paul-Valéry, Labex ARCHIMEDE, Montpellier, France.
5
Musée des Confluences, Lyon, France.
ABSTRACT.The ancient Egyptians mummified animals as part of cultic activity from the Late Period into the
Roman era (7th century BC to the 4th century AD). Necropolises have provided millions of animal mummies, reflect-
ing the religious fervor of Egyptians with regard to sacred animal cults during this period. Despite the number of sites
containing mummies, and the number of mummies themselves, surprisingly little is known with regard to the nuances
in the dating of the cults’popularity and activities. As part of a multidisciplinary project, we have conducted a series
of radiocarbon dates based on a group of animal mummies from the collection of the Musée des Confluences in
Lyon, France. Thus, 63 specimens of animal mummies and their wrappings were analyzed to provide a range of dates
for this practice. Results show that some correlations can be made between the popularity of particular species and
the time period in which they were mummified. Monkeys and goats appear to have been among the first mummified
species (from 800 BC), while antelopes appear to be a later addition to the corpus (30 BC to 4th century AD), thereby
reflecting changes in thought processes, religious beliefs, and economic imperatives over time.
KEYWORDS: AMS dating, animal mummies, Egypt, Confluences Museum.
INTRODUCTION
Egyptian necropolises have provided millions of animal mummies, reflecting the ancient
Egyptian’s heartfelt belief in the efficacy of animal cults, and demonstrating the significant place
that these cults occupied in Egyptian religious practice from the 7th century BC through the
Roman period (~AD 300) (e.g. Kessler 1986; Charron 1996; Vernus and Yoyotte 2005; von den
Driesch et al. 2005; Ikram 2015a). For the ancient Egyptians, each god had at least one totemic
animal, and it was thought that part of the divine spirit of any particular god could enter the
body of its totemic animal, which could be recognized by distinctive markings. During its
lifetime, that animal would be worshipped as a god, and upon its death it would be mummified
and buried with all that was due to a divinity—one might liken this to the way in which the
Dalai Lama is conceived of and chosen (Kessler 1986; Ray 2001; Ikram and Iskander 2002;
Ikram 2015a). In addition, many animal mummies exist in the form of votive offerings
(Charron 1990; Ikram and Iskander 2002; Ikram 2015a, 2015b). These were creatures that were
sacrificed and offered to a particular deity in the hopes that the dedicants’prayers might be
answered, and are akin to the practice of lighting a candle in a church, although more perma-
nent and more bloody. This practice has created a significant group of animal mummies. Within
the group of votive mummies lies a subgroup: ancient falsified mummies. These consist of
fragments of animals (feathers, fur, bits of bone) or even mud, wrapped to look like a mummy
of whichever animal was offered in that catacomb. These mummies have been variously
interpreted as sacred relics from animals that were gathered up and wrapped and offered as an
act of piety, the idea that a part of a creature can symbolize the whole, or they were the result of
laziness on the part of the priests, or a deliberate defrauding of pilgrims (Kessler 1986, 1989;
Ray 2001; Ikram and Iskander 2002; Ikram 2015a). The number of mummies that were gen-
erated due to this intense religious belief influenced Egypt’s economy, religious beliefs, and
feelings of nationalism throughout the final phases of Egyptian civilization (Ikram 2015a,
*Corresponding author. Email: pascale.richardin@culture.gouv.fr.
Radiocarbon, Vol 59, Nr 2, 2017, p 595–607 DOI:10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Selected Papers from the 2015 Radiocarbon Conference, Dakar, Senegal, 16–20 November 2015
© 2017 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

2015b). Despite the popularity of these cults and the massive numbers of animal mummies that
have been found, the chronological range of the popularity of animal cults is still not fully
understood, with vague dates being assigned to this practice.
The multidisciplinary research project MAHES (French acronym for Egyptian Mummies of
Animals and Humans) has been established by the University of Montpellier and in particular,
the CNRS Laboratory Archaeology of Mediterranean Societies (Charron et al. 2015; Porcier
et al. 2015), which is working on holistically studying a large collection of animal mummies held
in the Musée des Confluences at Lyon, in order to understand the history and culture of ancient
Egypt, religious beliefs, the chronology of this practice, the geographic distribution of these
cults, and their socioeconomic role in ancient Egyptian society.
Researchers have the opportunity to make use of the collection of animal mummies of the
Confluences Museum in Lyon (France), the largest group in the world outside of Egypt. This
exceptional collection, comprising 2500 specimens, includes a wide range of mummified
animals dating to a broad time period, from the New Kingdom until the first centuries of our era
(Porcier and Berthet 2014). The majority of these mummified remains was studied at the
beginning of the 20th century by Dr. Louis Lortet, director of the Natural History Museum of
Lyon, and the naturalist Claude Gaillard (Lortet and Gaillard 1903, 1907, 1909). These works
remain essential references for research on the fauna of ancient Egypt (Nicolotti and Postel
1994). However, although fundamental, these publications are now outdated in many respects
(only the external appearance of the wrapped mummies was investigated, outdated nomen-
clatures, appropriate research to that time, but not to current standards) and they mostly ignore
any archaeological data: the places and contexts of excavations, as well as the religious char-
acter of the mummies.
Generally, scholars have ascribed the apogee of animal mummies to a long period of time
spanning about 680 BC until AD 350 (Smelik and Hemelrijk 1984; Kessler 1986, 1989; Ray
2001; Ikram 2015a). However, increasingly there is an idea that the dating of activities related to
these cults can be better defined and that these nuances will reveal more about the Late and
Greco-Roman period (7th century BC to the 4th century AD) history, culture, and economy of
ancient Egypt’s history, culture, and economy during the Late and Greco-Roman periods (7th
century BC to the 4th century AD) (Ikram 2015a, 2015b; Wasef et al. 2015).
Thus, 63 samples from mummies and their wrappings, from the Musée des Confluences’
collection, were examined using
14
C, in order to establish a chronological framework for animal
cult activities in Egypt. Specimens were taken from different species of mummies (cattle, rams,
gazelles, cats, dogs, foxes, shrews, baboons, ibis, crocodiles, fish, etc.), in order to establish a
basis of dates for such cultic activity (Figure 1).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sampling
A total of 63 samples were collected from selected mummies stored at the Musée des
Confluences. Only mummies that were damaged in some way were sampled in order not to
compromise the integrity of museum objects. A variety of species were chosen in order to see if
there were chronological differences in the popularity of specific animals or cults. Between 10 and
30mg of textile or 200 and 500mg of bone were sampled with small pliers or very small scissors,
taking care to sterilize the tools and to avoid contamination. It should be noted that using
textiles to date mummies is slightly problematic in that mummy bandages often consist of reused
596 P Richardin et al.
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

textiles, and thus the fabric might be older—up to as much as 50 yr or possibly more—than
the mummy (Letellier-Willemin et al. 2015a, 2015b; Wasef et al. 2015).
The mummies themselves had been collected in the 19th century by L Lortet and C Gaillard
(1903, 1907, 1909) from a variety of sites, most of which were dated in a general way to the Late
Period to Roman era, with more specific dates assigned based on ceramic evidence (Berthet
2016). Had it not been for these scholars, most of these mummies would have been looted,
burned as fuel, or used as fertilizer (Ikram and Dodson 1998). Unfortunately, despite the fact
that Lortet and Gaillard kept fairly good notes for the time, some of the samples do not have
specific cemeteries associated with them, although educated guesses can be made as to their
origin based on our knowledge of the collection process and history as outlined by Lortet and
Gaillard (1903, 1907, 1909).
Sample Preparation
The varied nature of collected samples, which included biological tissues (hair, bones, cartilage,
and horn) or vegetal materials (in the form of linen textiles) required the establishment of a
special sample preparation protocols due to the presence of high quantities of exogenic organic
compounds such as bodily fluids, mummification balms, grease, fats, and oils (Figure 2). These
complex mixtures, if they are not correctly eliminated, could give false dates (older or younger)
for the objects (Quiles et al. 2014; Wasef et al. 2015).
Cleaning and Solvent Extraction
In order to eliminate all sources of organic contaminations, samples were submitted with a
protocol established for museum objects (Richardin and Gandolfo 2013a, 2013b; Richardin
Figure 1 Photographs of six mummies of the Confluences Museum, showing the diversity of animal species and
mummification techniques: (a) Nile perch mummy, Inv 90001178 (© Département du Rhône, Patrick Ageneau);
(b) ram skeleton, Inv 90001215 (© Département du Rhône); (c) shrew mummies bundle, Inv 90001224, this
wrapped bundle contains many mummified shrews (© Département du Rhône); (d) head of mummified calf, Inv
90001213 (© Département du Rhône, Patrick Ageneau); (e) Nile goose mummy, Inv 90001198 (© Département du
Rhône); (f) gazelle mummy, Inv 90001623 (© Projet MAHES, Stéphanie Porcier).
Establishing a Chronology of Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummies 597
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

et al. 2013). Samples were first washed with ultrapure water (Direct-Q system from Millipore),
then with a mixture of methanol/dichloromethane (v/v 1/1) (for analysis, VWR International),
and finally with acetone (AnalaR Normapur, VWR International) in an ultrasonic bath
for 10–15 min. After the last treatment, samples were thoroughly rinsed three times with
ultrapure water.
Textiles, Hair, and Wool Samples Preparation
Textiles, hair, and wool samples were treated with the classic AAA method (Richardin et al.
2010a, 2010b). This consisted of a series of washes at 80°C for 1 hr with a 0.5N hydrochloric
acid solution (HCl, VWR International), then with a 0.01N sodium hydroxide aqueous solution
(NaOH, VWR International), and once again with the 0.5N HCl solution. Before each treat-
ment, the supernatant was removed and the remaining fragments rinsed with water until neu-
trality of the washing waters was achieved. Finally, the cleaned samples were dried overnight
under low vacuum (100 mbar) at 5°C.
Extraction of Collagen from Bones
Collagen from bones, when preserved, is the most reliable source for
14
C dating. The extraction
of soluble collagen used was based on the method described by Longin (1971). A 2N hydro-
chloric acid (HCl, VWR International) treatment is used to solubilize the mineral fraction, in a
cold ice bath for 30–60 min. The solution was diluted with water, and then allowed to stand
Figure 2 Macrophotographs of three samples from animal mummies of the Confluences
Museum: (a) textile sample from an ibis mummy (Inv 90002478); (b) hair sample from a shrew
mummy (Inv 90001273A); (c) bone sample from a goat mummy (Inv 51000070) (©C2RMF,
Gaëtan Louarn).
598 P Richardin et al.
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

at 4°C for 4–5 hr. After centrifugation, acid was removed, the solid was washed with ultrapure
water to pH 4–5, and left at 4°C overnight. Further washings are performed until the
sample is neutral. The second step is a basic treatment with a 0.1N sodium hydroxide solution
(NaOH,VWR International) in an ice bath for 1 hr, followed by further rinses until neutrality is
achieved. A further acid treatment with the 2N HCl solution is performed in an ice bath for 1 hr,
followed by rinsing to pH 3. Then, hydrolysis is carried out at 9°C overnight. The obtained
solution is filtered on quartz-fiber filter. Finally, the filtrate is dried by lyophilization.
Combustion and Graphitization
The dried organic fraction is then combusted 5 hr at 850°C under high vacuum (10
–6
Torr).
Next, 2 to 2.5 mg of pretreated sample are combusted in a quartz tube with 500 mg CuO [Cu(II)
oxide on Cu(I) oxide heart for analysis, VWR International] and Ag wire (99.95%, Aldrich).
The combustion gas is separated by cryogenic purification and the CO
2
is collected in a sealed
tube. The graphitization is achieved by direct catalytic reduction of the CO
2
with hydrogen,
using Fe powder at 600°C and an excess of H
2
. During the process, the carbon is deposited on
the iron and the powder is pressed into a flat pellet.
Radiocarbon Measurements and Calibration
All measurements were performed at the Artemis AMS facility of Saclay, France (Moreau et al.
2013).
14
C ages were calculated with correcting the isotope fractionation δ
13
C, calculated from
accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) measurements of the
13
C/
12
C ratio. Calendar ages were
determined using OxCal v 4.2 (Bronk Ramsey 2009) and the most recent calibration curve data
for the Northern Hemisphere, IntCal13 (Reimer et al. 2013). Calibrated age ranges correspond
to 95.4% probability (2σ).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The
14
C ages and calibrated age ranges of samples are given in Table 1, and almost all date to
the Ptolemaic era (~323–30 BC), although some mummies are much earlier, and a few are later.
The first point of discussion concerns the wide range of dates obtained for the mummies:
between 3180 ± 30 BP [1506–1407 cal BC] for a single specimen, that of a Nile goose
(Inv 90001198), and 1800 ± 30 BP [130–326 cal AD] for a gazelle mummy (Inv 90001291), a
range of more than 2000 yr (Figure 3). These results correspond to dates starting in the New
Kingdom (~1539–1077 BC) and continuing until the Roman period (~30 BC–AD 391). As
noted above, on the basis of texts and ceramic evidence, animal cults are thought to have started
flourishing in the Late Period (starting in ~664 BC), and continuing through the Roman period,
ending with the establishment of Christianity as the state religion in Egypt.
Though the gazelle mummy fits into this timespan, as do all the other mummies studied, the
goose is much earlier. It is possible that the mummy type is neither sacred nor votive, but that of
a pet or, more likely, falling into the category of “other”(Ikram 2015a). A limited corpus of pet
mummies are known from ancient Egypt (Ikram and Iskander 2002; Ikram 2015a). Although
geese do not number among these examples, images and references to pet birds (including ducks
and geese) are recorded (Houlihan 1996; Vernus and Yoyotte 2005), and it is possible that this
goose is such a creature. However, as the bird was part of a foundation deposit of the Memorial
Temple of Thutmoses III (~1481–1425 BC) at Thebes (Lortet and Gaillard 1909: 155), it is more
likely that it was a special kind of sacrifice, thus far unique in foundation deposits (Weinstein
1973). Of course, it is also possible, although unlikely for this well-provenanced object whose
14
C dates fall within Thutmosis’reign, that the linen was far older than the bird, and this is an
Establishing a Chronology of Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummies 599
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Table 1
14
C age and calibrated age of all samples.
Animal types
(number) Inventory nr Designation Site of excavation Sample type Lab code
14
C age (BP) Calibrated age 2σ
Smaller
mammals (10) 90002397 Cat mummy Mansourah Hair + biological
tissues SacA41762 2335 ± 30 506 cal BC (0.6%) 500 cal BC
490 cal BC (94.8%) 362 cal BC
90002360 Cat mummy Egypt Textile SacA42786 2250 ± 30 395 cal BC (31.3%) 346 cal BC
320 cal BC (64.1%) 206 cal BC
90002373 Cat mummy Stabl Antar Textile SacA41071 2215 ± 30 373 cal BC (95.4%) 201 cal BC
90001325 Dog mummy Asyut Textile SacA42625 2175 ± 30 360 cal BC (94.7%) 163 cal BC
128 cal BC (0.7%) 121 cal BC
90001273A Shrew mummy Asyut Hair SacA43414 2155 ± 30 357 cal BC (35.4%) 282 cal BC
258 cal BC (1.3%) 245 cal BC
236 cal BC (58.7%) 94 cal BC
90002096 Shrews bundle Akhmim Textile SacA42635 2145 ± 30 354 cal BC (24.6%) 290 cal BC
232 cal BC (68.7%) 88 cal BC
75 cal BC (2.0%) 58 cal BC
90001279 Shrew mummy Dra abou’l Naga Hair SacA44180 2140 ± 35 354 cal BC (21.0%) 290 cal BC
232 cal BC (74.4%) 54 cal BC
90001224 Shrew bundle Sheikh Abd
el-Gourna Textile SacA42624 2120 ±30 345 cal BC (4.2%) 322 cal BC
206 cal BC (91.2%) 50 cal BC
90001327 Fox mummy Asyut Textile SacA41066 2075 ± 30 180 cal BC (93.4%) 19 cal BC
12 cal BC (2.0%) 1 cal BC
90002317 Dog mummy Asyut Hair SacA38733 2050 ± 30 166 cal BC (95.4%) 20 cal AD
Textile SacA38732
Comb 1990 ± 30
2020 ±22 49 cal BC (95.4%) 72 cal AD
57 cal BC (95.4%) 31 cal AD
Monkeys (3) 90001206 Monkey mummy Egypt Textile SacA40592 2545 ± 35 803 cal BC (44.3%) 732 cal BC
690 cal BC (12.1%) 660 cal BC
650 cal BC (39.0%) 544 cal BC
90002664 Monkey mummy Egypt Textile SacA40598 2325 ± 30 480 cal BC (3.2%) 440 cal BC
434 cal BC (90.0%) 358 cal BC
276 cal BC (2.2%) 257 cal BC
90002666 Monkey mummy Egypt Textile SacA40599 2255 ± 35 398 cal BC (33.7%) 346 cal BC
321 cal BC (61.7%) 206 cal BC
Ovicaprines (7) 90002311 Goat mummy associated
with crocodile bones Saqqara Textile SacA40596 2420 ± 30 748 cal BC (15.5%) 685 cal BC
666 cal BC (4.7%) 642 cal BC
586 cal BC (0.4%) 581 cal BC
556 cal BC (74.8%) 402 cal BC
51000073 Ram mummy
(Ovis aries)Esna Bone SacA41763 2215 ± 30 373 cal BC (95.4%) 201 cal BC
90001215 Ram skeleton & skin
(Ovis aries)Elephantine
Island Hair SacA41761 2190 ±30 506 cal BC (0.6%) 500 cal BC
490 cal BC (94.8%) 362 cal BC
51000168 Ram mummy
(Ovis aries)Abydos Bone SacA42341 2185 ± 40 377 cal BC (93.6%) 158 cal BC
133 cal BC (1.8%) 117 cal BC
600 P Richardin et al.
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

51000065 Barbary sheep mummy
(Ammotragus lervia)Giza Bone SacA43336 1965 ±30 42 cal BC (94.5%) 85 cal AD
110 cal AD (0.9%) 115 cal AD
51000069 Barbary sheep mummy
(Ammotragus lervia)Giza Bone SacA42618 1925 ±30 4 cal AD (95.4%) 134 cal AD
51000159 Barbary sheep mummy
(Ammotragus lervia)Giza Bone SacA42340 1920 ±30 2 cal AD (95.1%) 138 cal AD
199 cal AD (0.3%) 204 cal AD
Gazelle (7) 90002281 Young gazelle mummy Kom-Ombo Textile SacA40761 1920 ±30 2 cal AD (95.1%) 138 cal AD
199 cal AD (0.3%) 204 cal AD
90002282 Gazelle mummy Kom-Mereh Textile SacA42781 1920 ± 30 2 cal AD (95.1%) 138 cal AD
199 cal AD (0.3%) 204 cal AD
90001623 Gazelle mummy Touna el-Gebel Textile SacA40604 1895±30 52 cal AD (95.4%) 215 cal AD
90002285 Gazelle mummy Egypt Textile SacA44181 1890 ±30 56 cal AD (95.4%) 217 cal AD
51000043 Gazelle mummy (Gazella
dorcas)Kom-Ombo Bone SacA43335 1860 ± 30 80 cal AD (95.4%) 230 cal AD
90001211 Gazelle mummy Kom-Mereh Textile SacA40594 1845 ± 30 85 cal AD (95.4%) 238 cal AD
90001291 Gazelle mummy Kom-Mereh Textile SacA41065 1800 ± 30 130 cal AD (79.1%) 260 cal AD
279 cal AD (16.3%) 326 cal AD
Cattle (6) 51000200 Cattle mummy (Bos
taurus)Egypt Horn SacA42343 2340 ±30 507 cal BC (1.0%) 500 cal BC
491 cal BC (94.4%) 366 cal BC
90001214 Mummified head of ox Asyut Textile SacA42623 2270 ± 30 400 cal BC (49.3%) 350 cal BC
304 cal BC (46.1%) 210 cal BC
51000195 Cattle mummy (Bos
taurus)Saqqara Textile SacA42634 2265 ± 30 399 cal BC (44.4%) 350 cal BC
306 cal BC (51.0%) 209 cal BC
51000193 Cattle mummy (Bos
taurus)Saqqara Bone SacA42342 2240 ± 30 390 cal BC (25.0%) 344 cal BC
322 cal BC (70.4%) 205 cal BC
90001235 Anciently falsified
mummified calf Thebes Textile SacA42632 2235 ± 30 388 cal BC (22.7%) 342 cal BC
326 cal BC (72.7%) 204 cal BC
90001213 Head of mummified calf Asyut Textile SacA41070 2170 ± 30 360 cal BC (92.9%) 156 cal BC
134 cal BC (2.5%) 116 cal BC
Reptiles (10) 90001193 Mummified head of
crocodile Egypt Textile SacA40591 2255 ± 30 396 cal BC (35.1%) 348 cal BC
316 cal BC (60.3%) 208 cal BC
90002669 Mummified snakes
bundle Egypt Textile SacA42797 2180 ± 30 361 cal BC (95.4%) 168 cal BC
90002668 Mummified snakes
bundle Egypt Textile SacA40603 2040 ±30 162 cal BC (6.9%) 131 cal BC
118 cal BC (88.1%) 26 cal AD
44 cal AD (0.4%) 46 cal AD
90001372 Constructed crocodile
mummy Esna Textile SacA42628 1995 ± 30 52 cal BC (95.4%) 71 cal AD
90001944 Crocodile mummies
bundle Egypt Textile SacA42630 1950 ±30 21 cal BC (2.6%) 10 cal BC
2 cal BC (92.8%) 125 cal AD
90001591 Crocodile mummy Egypt Textile SacA40595 1935 ±30 1 cal AD (95.4%) 130 cal AD
90001390 Crocodile mummy Egypt Textile SacA42629 1885 ± 30 60 cal AD (95.4%) 220 cal AD
90001984 Mummified baby of
crocodile Egypt Textile SacA41067 1880 ±30 66 cal AD (95.4%) 222 cal AD
Establishing a Chronology of Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummies 601
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Table 1: (Continued )
Animal types
(number) Inventory nr Designation Site of excavation Sample type Lab code
14
C age (BP) Calibrated age 2σ
90001387 Crocodile mummy Kom-Ombo Textile SacA42782 1845 ± 30 85 cal AD (95.4%) 238 cal AD
90001192 Crocodile mummy Kom-Ombo Textile SacA40590 1845 ± 30 85 cal AD (95.4%) 238 cal AD
Fishes (2) 90002254 Nile perch mummy
(Lates niloticus)Egypt Textile SacA41068 2030 ±30 156 cal BC (2.7%) 137 cal BC
114 cal BC (92.7%) 52 cal AD
90001178 Nile perch mummy
(Lates niloticus)Esna Textile SacA42620 2010 ± 30 345 cal BC (4.2%) 322 cal BC
206 cal BC (91.2%) 50 cal BC
Birds (17) 90001198 Nile goose mummy Sheikh Abd el-
Gourna Textile SacA44179 3180 ±30 1506 cal BC (95.4%) 1407 cal BC
90002482 Ibis mummy Egypt Textile SacA44182 2390 ±30 728 cal BC (1.9%) 715 cal BC
708 cal BC (2.3%) 694 cal BC
542 cal BC (91.3%) 396 cal BC
90001367 Ibis mummy Egypt Textile SacA42627 2315 ±30 414 cal BC (88.2%) 356 cal BC
285 cal BC (7.2%) 235 cal BC
90002461 Ibis mummy Egypt Textile SacA42787 2260 ±30 397 cal BC (39.7%) 350 cal BC
308 cal BC (55.7%) 209 cal BC
90002471 Ibis mummy Egypt Textile SacA42788 2245 ±30 392 cal BC (27.9%) 346 cal BC
321 cal BC (67.5%) 206 cal BC
90002450 Ibis mummy Saqqara Textile SacA41072 2235 ±30 388 cal BC (22.7%) 342 cal BC
326 cal BC (72.7%) 204 cal BC
90002451 Ibis mummy Saqqara Textile SacA41073 2225 ±30 380 cal BC (95.4%) 203 cal BC
90001245 Ibis mummy Kom-Ombo Textile SacA42633 2175±30 360 cal BC (94.7%) 163 cal BC
128 cal BC (0.7%) 121 cal BC
90010164 Bird mummy (without
precision) Luxor Textile SacA40600 2160 ±50 363 cal BC (92.4%) 88 cal BC
76 cal BC (3.0%) 56 cal BC
90002499 Ibis mummy Sheikh Abd el-
Gourna Textile SacA42796 2140 ±30 353 cal BC (19.5%) 295 cal BC
230 cal BC (1.5%) 220 cal BC
212 cal BC (71.2%) 88 cal BC
77 cal BC (3.2%) 56 cal BC
90002477 Ibis mummy Egypt Textile SacA42790 2090 ± 30 195 cal BC (95.4%) 42 cal BC
90002478 Ibis mummy Egypt Textile SacA42791 2085 ± 30 192 cal BC (95.4%) 40 cal BC
90010128.1 Eagle mummy ? Textile SacA40762 2070 ±30 174 cal BC (92.6%) 19 cal BC
12 cal BC (2.8%) 1 cal BC
90010128.2 Eagle mummy ? Textile SacA40605 2065 ±30 171 cal BC (95.4%) 2 cal AD
90002481 Ibis mummy Egypt Textile SacA42792 2035 ±30 160 cal BC (4.9%) 132 cal BC
116 cal BC (88.3%) 30 cal AD
38 cal AD (2.2%) 50 cal AD
51000143 Ibis mummy Thebes Bone SacA43334 2030 ±30 156 cal BC (2.7%) 137 cal BC
90002491 Ibis mummy Roda Textile SacA42795 2010 ±30 92 cal BC (4.2%) 68 cal BC
61 cal BC (91.2%) 65 cal AD
602 P Richardin et al.
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

early example of recycling. As noted above, using textiles to date the mummies could poten-
tially be an issue (Letellier-Willemin et al. 2015a, 2015b; Wasef et al. 2015). Nonetheless, it does
seem that, on the whole, whether bones or textiles were sampled, the date range of the samples is
similar, regardless of the site (e.g. specimens 51000043, 90002317, and 90001211), suggesting
that for large-scale industrial-type burials of animals, there was a quick turnover in embalming
materials, including mummy bandages.
The spectrum of dates gathered from the different animals may suggest changes in the popu-
larity of different gods and their associated animals, or points during which particular cults in
specific locations flourished. Sacred Ibis mummies (Threskionis aethiopicus; 13 samples) are
dated to between 2390 ± 30 and 2010 ±30 BP, from just before the “official”date assigned to
the start of the Late Period, and continuing to the beginning of the Roman period. This range
fits in very well with the whole span of time during which animal mummies were popular, and it
should be noted that ibis burials were associated with Thot, the god of learning and divine
justice, and the focus of one of the most widespread and enduring of Egyptian cults. Although
this range is wider than that found by other studies on ibises, albeit ones that had far fewer
specimens (Wasef et al. 2015), the majority of our ibises also fall within the Ptolemaic to Roman
(~332 BC–AD 391) timeframe, the same period as for the other specimens (Wasef et al. 2015).
Further analyses of ibis mummies from diverse locations should help to more precisely docu-
ment the rise and fall of the cult of Thot.
Some trends have emerged from this study, such as the earlier presence of shrew and cattle
mummies at Asyut compared to canine mummies. Canines were associated with the city gods:
Anubis and, more significant, Wepwawet; one should bear in mind that for the Egyptians the
phenotype was the basis of classifications for animals; thus, foxes would fall within canine types
for the Egyptians (Houlihan 1996; Charron 2011). Shrews and cattle were both associated with
the sun god Re, with the former being the nocturnal manifestation of that god (Brunner-Traut
1965; Ikram 2005) and bulls being associated with him from the earliest times (Dodson 2015).
Canines are associated with Wepwawet/Anubis, god of travel and embalming, and long revered
in Asyut (Charron 2011; Ikram 2013). Thus, it is somewhat surprising that animals associated
with the sun cult should antedate those associated with the deity of the city. Either our findings
indicate that the practice of animal mummification started with the sun god, the main god of
Egypt, and then extended to other divinities, or indicate that our understanding of the impor-
tance of Wepwawet/Anubis at Asyut is flawed. If the former, this will mean a re-examination of
scholarly understanding of the foundation and evolution of animal cults. This conundrum can
only be clarified by further analyses of samples of different types of animal mummies from
Asyut, but already, the dating has opened new avenues of inquiry.
Analyses of additional samples might clarify the situation in terms of tracking the geographical
popularity of the cult: quite possibly the vogue for a particular cult rose and fell. According to
our study, monkey and goat mummies fall into a range of dates similar to the ibises, dating from
the Late Period and into the Ptolemaic period. The cattle sampled from three necropolises
(Saqqara, Asyut, and Thebes), however, seem to be slightly later in date, while the small
mammal mummies (shrews, dogs, foxes, and cats), fish, and reptiles seem to span the entire time
period during which animal cults flourished.
However, the Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia) and gazelle (Gazella spp.) date exclusively to
the Roman period (Inv 51000065 is 1965± 30 BP, which corresponds to around 40 cal BC–cal
AD 85, and Inv 90001291, 1800 ±30 BP, or cal AD 130–330), and are found in diverse sites, from
Giza to Kom Ombo. These results suggests the rise of certain cults during this time or changes in
Establishing a Chronology of Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummies 603
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

how particular gods were revered. This might indicate the rise of a new cult or the renaissance of
an old one, possibly associated with the goddess Anukis, daughter of Re, who was part of the
Elephantine island triad of divinities (Wilkinson 2003: 138) and associated with gazelles. The
discovery of gazelle mummies might provide evidence for her cult being celebrated in the
Memphite region. Perhaps there was some association with the Roman goddess Diana, mistress
of the hunt, as well. Alternatively, gazelles were associated with Reshep, a Near Eastern divinity
who was incorporated into the Egyptian pantheon in the New Kingdom, and who might have
enjoyed a renaissance in the Roman era, perhaps due to an increased international population
(Wilkinson 2003: 126). In any case, the presence ofthese mummiesprovides an interesting insight
into changing religious beliefs in terms of new cults, resurgence of old ones, or a change in how
gods were revered, and which are possibly associated with the advent of the Romans.
It would thus seem that many animals that were readily available (notably ibis, cattle, ovicaprines,
dogs, and shrews) were mummified throughout the timespan when animal cults were active.
Monkeys are documented from the Late Period into the mid-Ptolemaic period, but not before,
unless aspets (at present). However, the clustering of dates for all creatures, in the late 3rd to the 1st
centuries BC, might indicate that this was the apogee of this form of worship, which started to
decrease during the 1st century AD, dying out slowly, except in certain places and with certain
animals (cattle and crocodiles, to name but two) by the late 3rd century AD. Thisis a change from
the earlier idea that the phenomenon was most popular in the 5th and 6th centuries BC.
Also, it is possible that issues of economy and trade can be better understood by the
dating of animal mummies. For instance, the (admittedly few) examples of baboon mummies
date to the Late Period and the Ptolemaic era, perhaps indicative of a flourishing trade in
exotic animals between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa during this time. The possible absence of
such animals being available for mummification in the Roman period might indicate
Egypt’s waning power and Rome’s ascendancy, as animals that previously would have been
Figure 3 Range of calibrated
14
C dates for all animal species
604 P Richardin et al.
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

brought to Egypt and kept there were now being sent on to Rome as animals kept as pets,
in zoos, or in circuses.
CONCLUSION
The dates reported here (Table 1) represent the first chronological results obtained from
the Musée des Confluences in Lyon’s collection of animal mummies. For the first time ever, a
large-scale research project (MAHES) has launched an extensive program of
14
C dating of
animal mummies of diverse species coming from all over Egypt. The
14
C dating has confirmed
the textual and ceramic dates that indicate that animal mummification became popular from
the 7th century BC and continued into the Roman era, and refined on these cult practices in
terms of documenting the changing popularity of certain cults.
Although this work represents only a selection of the Museum’s collection, we already have
been able to identify broad trends in the history of animal cults. A considerable range of species,
including shrews, cats, foxes, dogs, monkeys, cattle, ibises, crocodiles, and fish, were prepared
as offerings for a variety of gods during the Late Period, with an apogee reached during the mid-
Ptolemaic period, with a tapering off of some species during the Roman period, when an
increased popularity in the cults associated with gazelle and Barbary sheep emerged. This raises
questions about changes in religious beliefs and changing popularity of different divinities, as
well as the economics associated with obtaining different species of animals for mummification,
such as monkeys, which are the subject of a new and more detailed research project. Of course,
further samples of any particular species might change the picture that has emerged thus far, but
the current data serve as a starting point upon which we can build.
More
14
C work on the Musée de Confluences collection, as well as on other museum collections
of animal mummies and mummies that are being excavated in Egypt, will further flesh out our
understanding of the timespan of activity in different necropolises or even specific portions of a
particular catacomb. This will enhance our comprehension of economic and sociocultural
factors associated with ancient Egyptian animal cults.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors want to thank the staff of the LMC14 (Laboratory of Radiocarbon Measurement)
from Saclay (France) for their contribution to the analytical work (graphitization and
14
C
measurements). The authors also thank the Museum of Confluences in Lyon, the Agence
Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), ARCHIMEDE Labex project and MAHES project for the
partial funding of this project. This project supported by LabEx ARCHIMEDE from the
Investissement d’Avenir program ANR-11-LABX-0032-01.
REFERENCES
Berthet D. 2016. Les momies animales du musée des
Confluences à Lyon: une collection unique au
monde. ISAAE 1 –First International Symposium
on Animals in Ancient Egypt. Lyon (France), 1–4.
June 2016.
Bronk Ramsey C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of
radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1):337–60.
Brunner-Traut E. 1965. Spitzmaus und Ichneumon als
Tiere des Sonnengottes. Nachrichten der Akademie
der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 7:154.
Charron A. 1990. Massacres d’animaux à la Basse
Epoque. Revue de l’Égypte 41:209–13.
Charron A. 1996. Les animaux et le sacré dans l’Egypte
tardive: fonctions et signification [PhD thesis]. Paris:
Ecole pratique des hautes études (EPHE).
Charron A. 2011. Les momies d’animaux: une classi-
fication des espèces de l’Égypte ancienne. Espèce
1:58–65.
Charron A, Porcier S, Ikram S, Pasquali S,
Lichtenberg R, Mérigeaud S, Tafforeau P,
Richardin P, Vieillescazes C, Piques G, Letellier-
Willemin F, Bailleul-LeSuer R, Servajean F. 2015.
Etude des momies animales du Musée des
Confluences à Lyon (France) - premiers résultats.
Establishing a Chronology of Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummies 605
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

ICE XI International Congress of Egyptologists XI.
Florence, Italy, 23–30 August 2015.
Dodson AM. 2015. Bull cults. In: Ikram S, editor.
Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies in Ancient
Egypt. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
p72–105.
Houlihan P. 1996. The Animal World of the Pharaohs.
Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.
Ikram S. 2005. A monument in miniature: the eternal
resting place of a shrew. In: Janosi P, editor.
Structure and Significance. Vienna: Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften. p 335–40.
Ikram S. 2013. Man’s best friend for eternity: dog and
human burials in ancient Egypt. Anthropozoologica
48(2):299–307.
Ikram S. 2015a. Divine Creatures: Animal Mummies in
Ancient Egypt. Cairo: American University in
Cairo Press.
Ikram S. 2015b. Speculations on the role of animal cults
in the economy of ancient Egypt. In: Massiera M,
Mathieu B, Rouffet F, editors. Apprivoiser le
sauvage/Taming the Wild (CENiM 11).
Montpellier: University Paul Valéry Montpellier 3.
p211–28.
Ikram S, Dodson AM. 1998. The Mummy in Ancient
Egypt: Equipping the Dead for Eternity. London:
Thames and Hudson.
Ikram S, Helmi A. 2002. The history of the collection
of the animal mummies at the Egyptian Museum,
Cairo. In: Eldamaty M, Trad M, editors. Egyptian
Museum Collections. Cairo: Supreme Council of
Antiquities. p 563–8.
Ikram S, Iskander N. 2002. Catalogue Général of the
Egyptian Museum: Non-Human Remains. Cairo:
Supreme Council of Antiquities.
Kessler D. 1986. Tierkult. In: Helck W, Westerndorf W,
editors. Lexicon der Ägyptologie.Band6.Weisbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz. p 571–87.
Kessler D. 1989. Die Heiligen Tiere und Der Konig.I.
Wiesbaden: Harrasssowitz.
Letellier-Willemin F. 2015a. Les textiles. In:
Dunand F, Heim J-L, Lichtenberg R, directors.
El-Deir Nécropoles III: La nécropole Est et le
Piton aux chiens. Paris: Cybèle.
Letellier-Willemin F. 2015b. The long-and-narrow-
sleeved tunic of the mummy W 14 of el-Deir.
8
th
Conference of Textiles from the Nile Valley,
Textiles, tools and techniques, 5–6 October 2013,
Antwerp, Lannoo 2015.
Longin R. 1971. New method of collagen extraction
for radiocarbon dating. Nature 230(5291):
241–2.
Lortet L, Gaillard C. 1903. La faune momifiée
de l’ancienne Égypte I. Archives du Muséum
d’histoire naturelle de Lyon 8.
Lortet L, Gaillard C. 1907. La faune momifiée
de l’ancienne Égypte II. Archives du Muséum
d’histoire naturelle de Lyon 9.
Lortet L, Gaillard C. 1909. La faune momifiée de l’anci-
enne Égypte et recherches anthropologiques III.
Archives du Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Lyon 10.
Moreau C, Caffy I, Comby C, Delqué-KoličE,
Dumoulin J-P, Hain S, Quiles A, Setti V,
Souprayen C, Thellier B, Vincent J. 2013. Research
and development of the Artemis
14
C AMS Facility:
status report. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):331–7.
Nicolotti M, Postel L. 1994. L’animal et le monde de
l’au-delà: les momies du Muséum d’Histoire
Naturelle de Lyon. Bulletin du Cercle lyonnais
d’égyptologie Victor Loret 8:35–48.
Porcier S, Berthet D. 2014. Quand momies animales et
Museum d’histoire naturelle font bon ménage: la
prestigieuse collection du musée des Confluences
à Lyon. Archéothéma 37:41–5.
Porcier S, Charron A, Ikram S, Pasquali S,
Lichtenberg R, Mérigeaud S, Tafforeau P,
Richardin P, Vieillescazes C, Piques G, Letellier-
Willemin F, Bailleul-LeSuer R, Servajean F. 2015.
Projet MAHES - Momies Animales et Humaines
EgyptienneS - Perception de la mort en Égypte
ancienne à travers l’étude des animaux sacrés.
ICE XI International Congress of Egyptologists
XI. Florence, Italy, 23–30 August 2015.
Quiles A, Delqué-KoličE, Bellot-Gurlet L, Comby-
Zerbino C, Ménager M, Paris C, Souprayen C,
Vieillescazes C, Andreu-Lanoë G, Madrigal K.
2014. L’embaumement comme une source de
contamination pour la datation radiocarbone de
momies égyptiennes: vers un nouveau protocole
chimique pour extraire le bitume. ArcheoSciences
38:135–49.
Ray JD. 2001. Animal cults. In: Redford DB, editor.
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. p 345–8.
Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell
PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Cheng H,
Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM, Guil-
derson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatté C,
Heaton TJ, Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen
KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, Manning SW, Niu M,
Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM, Southon
JR, Staff RA, Turney CSM, van der Plicht J.
2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age
calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radio-
carbon 55(4):1869–87.
Richardin P, Gandolfo N. 2013a. Datation et
authentification des œuvres de musée - Apports de
la datation par le carbone 14. Spectra Analyse
292:55–60.
Richardin P, Gandolfo N. 2013b. Radiocarbon dating
and authentication of objects from ethnographic
museums. Radiocarbon 55(3–4):1810–8.
Richardin P, Gandolfo N, Moignard B, Lavier C,
Moreau C, Cottereau E. 2010a. Centre of
Research and Restoration of the Museums of
France: AMS radiocarbon datelist 1. Radiocarbon
52(4):1689–700.
Richardin P, Cuisance F, Buisson N, Asensi-Amoros
V, Lavier C. 2010b. AMS radiocarbon dating and
scientific examination of high historical value
manuscripts: application to two Chinese
606 P Richardin et al.
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

manuscripts from Dunhuang. Journal of Cultural
Heritage 11(4):398–403.
Smelik KAD, Hemelrijk EA. 1984. Who knows not
what monsters demented Egypt worships? Opi-
nions on Egyptian Animal Worship in Antiquity
as Part of the Ancient Conception of Egypt. In:
Haase W, editor. Aufstieg und Niedergang der
römischen Welt 17(4):1853–2000.
Vernus P, Yoyotte J. 2005. Bestiaire des pharaons.
Paris: Librairie Académique Perrin.
von den Driesch A, Kessler D, Steinmann F, Berteaux
V, Peters J. 2005. Mummified, deified and buried
at Hermopolis Magma –the sacred ibis from
Tuna El-Gebel, Middle Egypt. Ägypten und
Levante XV:204–44.
Wasef S, Wood R, El Merghani S, Ikram S, Curtis C,
Holland B, Willerslev E, Millar CD, Lambert DM.
2015. Radiocarbon dating of sacred ibis mummies
from ancient Egypt. Journal of Archaeological
Science: Reports 4:355–61.
Weinstein JM. 1973. Foundation deposits in ancient
Egypt [unpublished dissertation]. University
of Pennsylvania. http://repository.upenn.edu/
dissertations/AAI7324237.
Wilkinson R. 2003. The Complete Gods and Goddesses
of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames & Hudson.
Establishing a Chronology of Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummies 607
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2016.102
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. INRA - Versailles-Grignon, on 26 Jun 2017 at 08:57:39, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at