A Re-Analysis of Part of Prince

Amenemhat Q’s Eternal Menu

Salima Ikram

Abstract
“Victual” or food mummies, encased in their own wooden coffinets, are a particular feature of
Theban burials from the late Second Intermediate Period through the New Kingdom. This article
deals with a group of such remains held in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art from
Tomb MMA 1021, possibly the original tomb of Prince Amenemhat Q, with a focus on the method of
preparation used for these mummies.

Amongst the many types of animal mummies found in Egypt, the most prosaic and also perhaps
most important for the continued survival of the dead is the “victual” or food mummy that sustains the
deceased throughout eternity. 1 Although this genre of mummy is well known now, their mode of fab-
rication still needs further analysis. This article deals with the re-examination of part of an assemblage
of such mummies that is currently held in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 2 coming
from Cliff Tomb MMA 1021, possibly the original tomb of Prince Amenemhat Q. 3 These mummies
(MMA 19.3.212-.292; tomb field number 7A 1248) were found in the burial chamber, and also in the
fill and around the mouth of the tomb shaft.

What are “Victual” Mummies?

“Victual” mummies are food offerings consisting of meat and poultry that have been specially pre-
pared and preserved for the dead so that they are ready for immediate consumption in the Afterlife.
They differ from earlier types of food offerings in that they follow the basic steps of preservation
used to make a mummy. Victual mummies are known from the New Kingdom onward, although their
origins lie in earlier periods. The basic method of production is known, although some details remain

1 S. Ikram, Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt (Levuen, 1995); idem, “Victual, Ritual, Or Both? Food Offerings From

The Funerary Assemblage Of Isitemkheb,” Studi di Egittologia e di Papirologia (2004) 1: 87–92; idem, ed., Divine Creatures: Animal
Mummies in Ancient Egypt (Cairo, 2005); S. Ikram and N. Iskander, Catalogue Général of the Egyptian Museum: Non-Human Mummies
(Cairo, 2002); S. Goodman, “Victual Egyptian Bird Mummies from a Presumed Late 17th or Early 18th Dynasty Tomb,” JSSEA
17 (1987), 67–77; L. Lortet and C. Gaillard, La faune momifiée de l’ancienne Égypte (Lyon, 1905–9); C. Gaillard and G. Daressy, La
faune momifiée de l’antique Égypte (Cairo, 1905).
2 This work was funded by an Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I am most grateful to the

museum for this opportunity. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Dorothea Arnold for inviting me to work on the Amenemhat Q
material, her unstinting support, invigorating discussions on victual mummies, and facilitating the scientific analysis of the mate-
rial. I would also like to thank my colleagues in the Egyptian Department at the MMA for all their help in the various projects
that I undertook during my fellowship, including this “food-fetishist” one.
3 The tomb’s discovery is related by A. Lansing, “Excavations at Thebes 1918–19,” BMMA 2 (December 1920), 4–12; also see

PM I.2: 667; Goodman, “Victual Egyptian Bird Mummies,” 67–77; Ikram Choice Cuts, 268–78.

119
120 JARCE 48 (2012)

Fig. 1. Scapula of cattle, 19.3.247. Photograph courtesy Metropolitan Museum

of Art.

obscure. Dressed joints that might or might not be cooked are then, as was the case with other types
of mummies, desiccated in natron, anointed with oils and resins, and wrapped in linen. The best
examples of poultry offerings are extremely carefully treated: plucked, with the head and part of the
neck, wing-tips, and feet ( join between the femur and tibiotarsus) severed, and the internal organs
removed, preserved separately, wrapped, and then returned to the body cavity. In many instances what
have been identified as blood clots in the oesophagus suggest that the birds had been killed first by
having their necks wrung, and were subsequently beheaded. 4
Frequently the wrapped victual mummies are then placed in individual wooden coffinets, often tak-
ing the shape of their contents. The coffinets’ interiors are coated with a black substance (often re-
ferred to as bitumen in early publications) and the exterior is whitewashed or covered with a thin layer
of plaster. 5 Several of the more intact examples from Amenemhat’s Q’s burial indicate that the sealed
coffinets were bound by strips of linen, which were secured by knots (see below fig. 1). 6 In some cases,
as with those originating from the tomb of Amenemhat Q and Yuya and Thuyu (KV46), the exteriors
are also coated with a black substance. Not all victual mummies, however, are found in such cases. For
example, those of Maiherpri are simpler and without benefit of any coatings, and some examples of
victual mummies also have been found without any type of coffinets, such as the ones that were lying
loose in KV 60, 7 KV 21 and KV 28, 8 although they might originally have been placed in some sort
of container. A group presumed to belong to the noblewoman Henutmehyt was placed in a single
wooden box, 9 while those of Meryetamun (TT 358) presumably were originally kept in a series of
wooden boxes, 10 and some assemblages, such as that of Isetemkheb D, were found in baskets. 11
4 Goodman, “Victual Egyptian Bird Mummies,” 67–77.
5 Goodman, “Victual Egyptian Bird Mummies,” 67–77; Ikram, Choice Cuts, 268–78; Ikram, Divine Creatures, Chapter 1.
6 See Ikram, Choice Cuts, fig. 74.
7 See Ikram, Choice Cuts, Appendix II.
8 Personal observation and D. Ryan, pers. communication.
9 J. Taylor, “The Burial Assemblage of Henutmehyt: inventory, date and provenance,” in W. Davies, ed., Studies in Egyptian

Antiquities. A tribute to T. G. H. James (BMOP 123) (London, 1999), 59, 63, 64, 67, pl. 21.
10 H. Winlock, The Tomb of Queen Meryet-Amun at Thebes (New York, 1932), 28, 73.
11 Ikram, “Victual, Ritual, Or Both?”
 IKRAM 121

The origins of such offerings clearly lie in the Old Kingdom limestone cases found in the Memphite
necropoleis 12 that contained untreated food offerings, such as those found in the shaft tomb of Inti-
Pepi-Ankh at Abusir, 13 and that mirror the shape of their contents. In the Middle Kingdom the mate-
rial of the boxes changed, with Egyptian alabaster replacing limestone. At this time the orientation of
the boxes used for poultry offerings also changed. Instead of being carved to show the bird lying in a
natural way, with the breast either up or down, they were shown on their side, with one set of wings
and legs on the lid on top, and the other at the bottom, forming part of the trough or box of the cof-
finet. 14 Perhaps this mimicked the way in which human mummies lay on their sides during this era. To
this author’s knowledge, no meat offering coffinets have been found dating to this period.
The cases not only diverge from their Old Kingdom prototypes in material, but also in the social
status of the tombs in which they occur, moving from an elite offering to a royal one. This might, of
course, be an accident of archaeology rather than a reflection of the true state of affairs. As the con-
tents of the Middle Kingdom boxes have not been found, or perhaps in the case of the early examples,
recorded by their excavators, changes in the preparation (if any occurred) of these offerings cannot be
determined. The New Kingdom versions substitute wood containers for stone, the clientele they serve
comprises the high elite and royalty, with all known examples coming from Thebes.
At the present time, Amenemhat Q’s victual mummies are the earliest attested New Kingdom ex-
amples of this type of funerary offering, while the last clearly documented example of victual mum-
mies dates to the Twenty-first Dynasty, associated with the burial of Queen Isetemkheb D (TT320). 15
The latter were not placed in coffinets, but in a basket. From the extant evidence it seems that individ-
ual coffinets were abandoned during the late Nineteenth Dynasty in favor of baskets or large wooden
boxes, such as the one tentatively attributed to Henutmehyt in the British Museum (BM 1913,0111.7;
51812). 16 No doubt funerary offerings of meat and poultry continued to be made until the end of the
pagan era, if not beyond, but the archaeological (or publication) record is silent about the continua-
tion of this particular form of offering, even in the intact burials of the Tanite kings. 17

A Brief Description of Amenemhat Q’s Assemblage of Victual Mummies

In February of 1919 Ambrose Lansing was directing part of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s
(MMA) excavations in the second valley south of Deir el-Bahari. Following the tracks of plunderers he
chose a spot to excavate high up in a cleft in the cliff, above and to the north of the tomb of Meket-Re
(TT280). His workers cleared away large chunks of limestone that had plummeted down from the cliffs
above, and moved innumerable baskets of limestone chips, descending for five metres or so until they
came upon the mouth of a pit that was about two meters deep and opened into a roughly cut small
chamber that was relatively free of debris. In the surrounding debris as well as in the fill of the shaft
and the chamber proper Lansing’s workers found a scattered deposit of victual mummies ­ranging

12 Ikram, Choice Cuts: Appendix I.

13 S. Ikram, “Portions of an Old Kingdom Offering List Reified,” in M. Barta, ed., The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology (Prague,
2006), 167–74.
14 Ikram Choice Cuts, Appendix I; D. Arnold, “Dahschur, Dritter Grabungsbericht,” MDAIK 36 (1980) 15–21, esp. 20, pl. 15.c.
15 Ikram, Choice Cuts, 262–64.
16 J. Taylor, “The Burial Assemblage,” 59–72. It should be noted that not all intact New Kingdom victual mummies were found

in individual coffinets that followed the shape of their contents. Some from Maiherpri’s burial (KV 36, S. Ikram Choice Cuts,
257–59) were square, while those of Meryetamun seem to have been placed in a basket, although Winlock reported finding one
duck-shaped box in the tomb (Winlock, The Tomb of Queen Meryet-Amun, 28; Ikram Choice Cuts, 278–83).
17 P. Montet, Les nouvelles fouilles de Tanis (1929–1932) (Paris, 1933); idem, Tanis: Douze années de fouilles dans une capitale oubliée

du delta Égyptien (Paris, 1942).

122 JARCE 48 (2012)

from legs of beef to pigeons and quails, but no tomb (or food) owner. 18 While clearing the bay in
which the shaft was situated, he and his workers came upon a Twenty-second Dynasty coffin contain-
ing the reburied (a damaged corpse that was re-wrapped) body of a young boy. A cartonnage-based
pectoral of Amenhotep I lay on his chest, and his own and the king’s name were crudely inscribed on
the coffin. The pectoral has been dated to the late Ramesside period. 19 All this led both Lansing and
Herbert Winlock (and later Hayes) to posit that this was the re-burial of a son of Amenhotep I, whose
original burial–probably in the same spot–had been violated, and that he had been re-buried in the
tomb, together with as many of his original offerings as possible, including the victual mummies. The
coffins in which he was buried (MMA 19.3.207-.209) were of a Third Intermediate Period date. 20 Thus,
until further archaeological evidence to the contrary is found, one can assume that the victual mum-
mies date to the late Seventeenth/early Eighteenth Dynasties, and were intended for someone of royal
blood.
The number of victual mummies recovered from the tomb totalled seventy-nine, one of the largest
assemblages of this type of offering. 21 It is only exceeded by the combined total of victual mummies
found in the tombs of Amenhotep II and Thutmose III (KV 35 and 34, respectively), 22 and is followed
by the group that comes from the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV 62), which boasted a total of forty-eight
victual mummies. Most of the victual mummies from the tomb of Amenemhat Q were brought to the
MMA, with a group remaining in Cairo (TR 17.7.20.1–6).
The entire assemblage consisted of twenty-three geese, twelve ducks of different sorts, ten pigeons/
doves, 23 twenty-six pieces of meat, two sets of ribs, one liver (it is possible that some of the wrapped
offerings identified as meat are actually parts of the liver or other offal, all of which was consumable),
one humerus, two scapulae, one foreleg, and two hind legs. The meat (beef) offerings possibly originate
from one individual, with an extra scapula and possibly humerus coming from an additional ox/cow.
The beef comes from animals that were under two and a half years of age, based on the epiphysial fu-
sion of the bone—relatively young and tender cuts of meat. 24 The meat offerings number 34, with the
poultry offerings number 45. Thus, although the total number of victual mummies is impressive, it is
noteworthy that there are fewer higher status beef mummies than the relatively cheaper and probably
slightly lower status avian offerings. 25 This might reflect the personal preference of the young prince
during his lifetime, or might be a reflection of his status—important, but not as important as a king. 26
The assemblage remained intact in the MMA until the 1950s when, due to spatial and financial con-
straints, many of them were deaccessioned and scattered throughout North American collections: the
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; the Oriental Institute, Chicago; the American Museum of Natural His-
tory, New York (AMNH); and the California Academy of Sciences (CAS). 27 The avian mummies held
in the American Museum of Natural History were first unwrapped and studied by Dr. S. M. Goodman,

18 Lansing, “Excavations at Thebes,” 7–8.

19 W. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt II (Cambridge, 1959), 52.
20 Lansing, “Excavations at Thebes,” 8–10; Hayes, Scepter, 51–52. My thanks to Dr. J. Kamrin for searching through the MMA

documents for confirming the details of the discovery and the dispersal of the objects.
21 For a list of these, see Ikram, Choice Cuts, 268–78. However, please note that not all of these were x-rayed for that publica-

tion, thus the identifications are not all equally secure.

22 Ikram, Choice Cuts, 239–50.
23 It should be noted that it is quite difficult to differentiate between many species of ducks and geese, and thus often Anas

sp. or Anser sp. is the only identification possible.

24 I. A. Silver, “The Ageing of Domestic Animals,” in D. Brothwell and E. Higgs, eds., Science in Archaeology (London, 1963),

282–302; E. Schmid, Atlas of Animal Bones (London, 1972).

25 Ikram, Choice Cuts, 199–229.
26 For the number and types of victual mummies from the different Theban tombs, see Ikram, Choice Cuts, 133, fig. 43.
27 See Ikram, Choice Cuts, 268–78, for details.
 IKRAM 123

whose insights into victual mummies have proved invaluable. He identified 12 geese, 5 ducks, and 3
turtle-doves. 28 Subsequently, as part of her dissertation research in the 1990s, this author re-examined
that collection, as well as those held in the other museums. 29 In all cases the mummies were subjected
to a visual test, with a selection that are held in the AMNH and CAS also being studied through radi-
ography and gustatory tests. It was only in 2006 that the victual mummies still held in the MMA were
subjected to further analysis.

The Re-Examination of Amenemhat Q’s Victual Mummies Remaining in the

Metropolitan Museum of Art

In 2006, this author had the chance to re-examine the six remaining victual mummies still held at
the MMA of the original 79. 30 In addition to being re-examined macroscopically, the mummies were
x-rayed by MMA conservator Ann Heywood. 31 Further analyses were carried out on one coffinet for
meat and another for poultry (19.3.278; 19.3.280). The black material (dubbed “bitumen” by Lansing) 32
that coats both them and their coffinets were analysed by assistant research scientist, Adriana Rizzo,
and the salts identified by assistant research scientist Mark Wypyski. 33 Rizzo carried out a number of
analytical techniques including Fourier transform infrared micro-spectroscopy, gas-chromatography/
mass spectrometry, pyrolysis/gas chromatography mass spectrometry techniques and enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in order to identify the individual chemical components in the mixture
which was used for the preservation of the meats. Microscopic samples of meat, the brownish binder
of the wrappings and glossy reddish droplets adhering to them were analyzed. Wypyski used electron
microscopy/energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy to identify the desiccant used to make the mummies.
Megan Spitzer of the Smithsonian Institution kindly checked my identifications of the birds. I am most
grateful to them all for their assistance. The results of those investigations are included in the relevant
entries below, and are discussed in the remainder of this article.
Ed: set these off?
19.3.247 (mummy) & 19.3.278 (case) Half a Case in the Shape of a Shoulder of Beef
Case Measurements: L 49 W 31 Th 2–2.5
Mummy Measurements: L 36 W 22 Th approximately 4.5
The case consists of half of a wooden coffinet containing the mummified remains of a joint of
meat (fig. 1). The case is carved to resemble the upper part of the hieroglyph for fore-leg, khepesh. Its
exterior is carved with a slight indication of a spine running along the center, echoing the spine in the
shoulder bone (scapula). The case is covered by a thin layer of plaster both inside and out, with the in-
terior further embellished with a thick layer of a black gooey substance that spills over the edge of the
case. In some areas the material was brushed over the sealed edge to help secure it; the individual fi-
bers of the brush are visible in the black substance. The box was closed by means of tenons, two on the
wide (distal) side, and one at the narrow (proximal) end. The coffinet might have been further secured
by linen bandages tied around its exterior, as is the case with 19.3.275 and 19.3.276, but there are none
in evidence now. The bandages are spirally bound around the piece of meat, and are only two layers
in depth in most areas of the mummy. Radiographs show that the mummy is that of a very fleshy left

28 Goodman, “Victual Egyptian Bird Mummies,” 67–77.

29 Ikram, Choice Cuts, 268–78.
30 This work was carried out thanks to a Metropolitan Museum of Art Fellowship, and the encouragement of Dorothea Arnold,

the Lila Acheson Wallace Curator, head of the Department of Egyptian Art.
31 Department of Scientific Research, MMA.
32 Lansing, “Excavations at Thebes.”
33 Both of the Department of Scientific Research, MMA.
124 JARCE 48 (2012)

scapula of a cow (Bos taurus) (fig. 2). A section of

the mummy is visible through the wrappings, and
this shows the clearly and sharply cut edge of the
meat near the proximal end of the bone.
Previously scholars had speculated that the meat
might have been boiled or cooked in some way, 34 as
well as heavily salted (or natroned), prior to being
wrapped. However, Wypyski’s electron microscopy/
energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy analysis on the
sample undisputedly identified the material used to
desiccate this joint as natron, and indicated that the
meat had only been dry cured and not cooked in
any way.
The bandages are discolored to a very dark brown
in places, either due to contact with the black mate-
rial that coated the coffinet, or possibly due to oils
used during the preservation process. It looks as if
some sort of black gooey substance was painted or
perhaps even poured over this victual mummy prior
to its being sealed in its coffinet. The original excava-
tors speculated that the black material was bitumen
or resin. Rizzo’s test showed that the black material
that coated the coffinet consisted of a mixture of
Fig. 2. Radiograph of cattle scapula, 19.3.247. Photo- beeswax and pistacia resin (also known as terebinth
graph courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art. resin, originating from the Pistacia palaestina tree).
The evidence for asphalt/bitumen was inconclusive,
though the results lean more to an absence than a
presence of this material. Rizzo reports that the dark brown color on the bandages might be due to
the presence of a black-brown organic component, probably a combination of animal fats, proteins,
sugars (maybe from wrapping and from a polysaccharide gum [?]), an unknown component (awaiting
further investigation), and possibly a vegetable oil. Surprisingly, no evidence for resin was found on
the bandages, although one might have expected that some would have adhered to them from within
the coffinet. Despite the malleability of this material, it would appear that it was relatively dry when the
wrapped mummy was placed within.

19.3.275 Poultry Case

Case Measurements: L 30.5 W 14.3 H (of sealed case) 10.5
As the case is sealed, the mummy is not visible.
This wooden case is carved in the shape of a water-bird, with its head, feet, and wing-tips missing
(figs. 3 and 4). The lid is carefully modelled to indicate the sternum or breast side. This case is closed
and secured by what seems to be one long bandage that is criss-crossed over the top of the body, start-
ing from around the neck, looping back repeatedly around each of the two legs and around the neck.
The linen strips are secured with a square knot, one at the neck, and the other at the leg. The exterior
of this case was plastered and might also have been covered by whitewash. The interior is not visible,
but the edges between the lid and box show trickles of a black gooey substance, like that found on
34 See discussions in Ikram, Choice Cuts, Appendix II.
 IKRAM 125

Fig. 3. Coffinet of poultry mummy, 19.3.275, viewed

from the top. Photograph courtesy Metropolitan Mu-
seum of Art.

Fig. 4. Coffinet of poultry mummy, 19.3.275, side-view, showing the linen bindings that criss-cross the coffinet, and
the curious, drooping neck, reminiscent of images from two-dimensional art of poultry offerings. Photograph courtesy
Metropolitan Museum of Art.
126 JARCE 48 (2012)

other cases in this assemblage. This probably covered the in-

terior of the box and also was used to secure the two halves.
Rizzo has identified it as Pistacia resin, mixed with beeswax,
as was the case with the others in this collection.
The case is very finely carved, with the bird’s body nicely
modeled, and the ends of the femur carved so as to be recog-
nizable. This case is unusual in that the severed neck of the
duck reflects what is seen in real butchered birds—the slight
length of the neck that droops down before the area of the
neck and severed head. None of the other cases that this au-
thor has examined shares this feature; in them the necks are
shown as very short stubs, with the head cut-off, instead of
this rather graceful and realistic (for ducks and geese) way
of preparing the body that also reflects what is often seen in
the art. The lid was secured by wooden tenons at the tail and
head ends. No inscription or label hinting at the contents,
such as was found on the Tutankhamun boxes, 35 is visible.
Based on the radiographs (fig. 5), the morphology and size
of the bird suggests that it is a duck, Anas sp., an identifica-
tion that is confirmed by Spitzer. Unfortunately the species
cannot be established as the bones of all of these birds are
very similar, with size being one of the few differentials.

19.3.276 Bird shaped Case

Case Measurements: L 15.5 W 8 H 7
Fig. 5. Radiograph of poultry mummy,
19.3.275, with the internal filling in evi- The case is sealed so no very accurate measurements of the
dence. The unusual shape of the coffinet is mummy could be obtained.
also well defined in this image. Photograph This small wooden case is realistically carved in the shape
courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art. of bird that is ready to eat: the head, wing-tips, and feet have
been severed, and the general anatomy of the bird with its
pronounced sternum (particularly characteristic of pigeons
and doves), is clearly reproduced (figs. 6 and 7). The ends of the legs are rounded in order to suggest
the ends of the femurs, but are not as clearly carved as with the other poultry coffinets that comprise
this group. The lid was secured with tenons located at the head and tail ends, as well as with a linen
bandage that was wrapped at least thrice around the middle of the box and knotted into place just left
of the carved sternum.
The bird is clearly not a duck or goose, not only because of its small size, but also because of the
proportions and location of the legs with relation to the tail. The neck is very short, in keeping with a
pigeon or dove, whose necks are short and when prepared for eating, cut off close to the torso. The
case is plastered white on the outside, and might also have been similarly covered on its interior—as
it is securely sealed, this cannot be ascertained. The interior was coated with a black substance that
also served to seal the two halves of the case together. It was used very liberally and has dripped over
the sides and onto the exterior of the case, particularly at the neck and the leg and tail end. Perhaps
the Egyptians used this material so liberally as the two edges of the case did not fit together properly,
either because the bird was too big for the box or the artisans had miscalculated the size of the bird
35 See Ikram, Choice Cuts, 250–55; J. Černy, Hieratic Inscriptions from the Tomb of Tutankhamun (Oxford, 1965).
 IKRAM 127

Fig. 6. Coffinet of poultry mummy, 19.3.276, side view showing the excess of black substance oozing out of the side and the
pins that secured the box. Photograph courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Fig. 7. Coffinet of poultry mummy, 19.3.276, top

view showing linen ties and the excess of black sub-
stance oozing out of the sides. Photograph courtesy
Metropolitan Museum of Art.
128 JARCE 48 (2012)

Fig. 8. Radiograph of poultry mummy, 19.3.276, showing very clearly

how the head was cut off. Photograph courtesy Metropolitan Museum of
Art.

relative to the case. Rizzo has identified this as Pistacia resin,

possibly with some beeswax mixed into it.
The radiographs of the bird within the case show that the
exterior form is an echo of the skeleton: it has an exagger- Fig. 9. Poultry mummy, sternum up, in a
ated sternum and is quite small, the correct size for a pigeon coffinet, 19.3.280. The linen bandages are
(fig. 8). The humerus, with its exaggerated proximal end, is clearly visible with several crossovers used to
also in keeping with that of a pigeon. Spitzer confirms this secure them; one of the leg bones is emerging
from the wrappings. Photograph courtesy
identification and adds that the coracoid, like the humerus,
Metropolitan Museum of Art.
has the shape and proportions that are appropriate for
columbids (pigeon and doves). Such birds are amongst the
canonical offerings found in tombs, 36 and others (now in the
American Museum of Natural History) have been identified
from this tomb assemblage. 37

19.3.280 Case Containing a Poultry Victual Mummy

Case Measurements: L 50.5 W 25 H (of trough) 10.5 Th 1.5–7
Mummy Measurements: L 35 W 14.5 H 10
The wooden case is carved in the form and size of a goose with the head, feet, and wing-tips cut off
(fig. 9). The exterior of the case is covered with a thick layer of white plaster, giving the appearance
of limestone. The interior was also plastered, and then lots of black tacky material was applied to the
interior using a thick brush. The thickness of the black layer varies, with some areas being extremely
viscous and showing evidence for drips. The black material actually covered the sealing edge of the
case. The lid, which does not seem to be in the museum (and might not have been recovered by Lan-

36 Ikram, “Portions of an Old Kingdom Offering List Reified,” 167–74.

37 Goodman, “Victual Egyptian Bird Mummies,” 70–71.
 IKRAM 129

sing originally), was affixed with crude wooden ten-

ons that were stuck into the tail and neck area of the
case. The case is roughly modelled so that it gives a
realistic impression of a goose. It might have once
had a hieratic inscription on its exterior, like those
of Tutankhamun.
The bird lies within the box, with the sternum side
up. It is wrapped in at least four layers of linen ban-
dages. The bandages are, for the most part, colored
a dark brown, and the quality of linen is fine. The
left leg is broken off and is not in the case, while the
right leg is also broken near the proximal femur, but
it still lies within the case. On both counts the break
is post mortem, and probably post-mummification,
either during excavation or during the transporta-
tion of the object. The flesh below is plucked clean
of all feathers and is dark, as if had been cooked
in some fashion. Rizzo’s tests show that beeswax
and pistacia resin were used in its manufacture as
well as the presence of markers suggesting spices.
Wypyski’s electron microscopy/energy dispersive
x-ray spectroscopy indicates that it was desiccated
with natron—dry-cured, in fact. It is possible that the
wrappings that are dark brown in color might also
Fig. 10. Radiograph of poultry mummy, 19.3.280. have been impregnated with natron, as well as some
The head was messily removed and one of the legs is bro- other material. The left humerus has some plaster
ken. Photograph courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art. affixed to the bandages at the distal end suggesting
that the plaster, perhaps used in sealing (?) the case
was wet when the bird was put into it, or perhaps it
brushed against some wet plaster in the workshop.
Radiographs show that it was a mature bird (fig. 10). The head, wing-tips, and feet were all severed
from the body, as is echoed in the case. It is unclear as to which precise species of goose this is as the
morphology of the bones of the different species is fairly similar, with differentiation between the spe-
cies being based on size. Of course, this is also influenced by the sex (males are larger) and maturity of
the bird, and can complicate identifications. The two most probable candidates are the White fronted
goose, Anser albifrons, or perhaps the Greylag Goose, Anser anser, although it seems a bit too small to be
this species. Both have been found amongst victual mummies of the New Kingdom. 38

19.3.281a,b Bird-shaped Case

Case Measurements: L 42 W 21 Th 1–2.5 Depth 5–6
The case is empty.
This empty goose shaped coffinet is carved so that one side is deeper than the other, presumably to
accommodate the exaggerated sternum of the bird. The box was carved to show a headless bird whose
wing-tips and feet were also removed (figs. 11 and 12). There is some modelling at the end of the leg
bones, hinting at the articulation of the femoral bones. The body of the bird is more elegantly carved,
38 Goodman, “Victual Egyptian Bird Mummies”, 67–77.
130 JARCE 48 (2012)

Fig. 11. Exterior view of the coffinet for a poultry mummy, 19.3.281a,b, with a
thin layer of plaster covering the exterior. The tail is particularly pronounced.
Photograph courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art.

allowing one to see the modelling of the bones and flesh. The ancient artisans ran into some trouble
when carving one of the wingtips—probably due to a knot in the wood—and had to repair it with plas-
ter and a bit of maneuvering. Other knots in the wood are heavily plastered (e.g., a piece to the right
of the sternum, and another on the right side of the back). Both the interior and the exterior were
plastered, with the interior being further covered by a layer of black gooey substance that was painted
on—Pistacia resin and beeswax, according to Rizzo. In some areas it is thicker than in others and has
formed driblets. Some tiny fragments of vegetal material and twine are caught in the black material in
one area, presumably when they blew, or were accidentally dropped into the case while the black coat-
ing was still wet. This black material, in all likelihood identical to that of 19.3.280, was also used to seal
the coffinet as it runs around the thickness of its edges. Two tenons hold the two parts of the coffinet
together, one in the tail, and the other in the neck.

19.3.289a,b Poultry Case

Case Measurements: L 20.5 W 11 H 10.5 Th 0.3–2 Depth 4–5
The case was empty.
This wooden case is carved in the shape of a small bird that has been prepared for eating, with
the head, wing-tips and feet removed. The exterior of the case was plastered (fig. 13). The interior is
very thinly plastered save at the joins located at the feet and neck. The plaster is covered by a thick
 IKRAM 131

Fig. 12. Interior view of the coffinet for a poultry mummy, 19.3.281a,b, with
the layer of black substance spread over a thin layer of plaster. Photograph
courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art.

application of black material in which the lines left by the individual filaments of the paintbrush are
very clearly visible (fig. 14). This black substance, presumably the same combination of beeswax and
Pistacia resin identified by Rizzo, served to seal the case together, thereby more firmly securing the box
that had been closed using tenons located at the head and tail end. One side of the case is flat, while
the other is carved with the sternum, just as it would appear in a real bird. The ends of the legs (distal
femur) are roughly carved to look like the ends of real bones. The size and carving style are in keeping
with a pigeon/dove or a small duck, such as a garganey (Anas querquedula). Other examples of garganey
were identified by Goodman as being part of this assemblage. 39

Discussion

The victual mummies from the burial of Prince Amenemhat Q in the MMA that have been subject
to macroscopic, radiographic, and chemical analysis provide valuable insights into the technicalities of
the manufacture of this genre of mummy, their significance in burials, as well as aspects of trade and
economy linked with their production.

39 Goodman, “Victual Egyptian Bird Mummies,” 68–75.

132 JARCE 48 (2012)

Fig. 13. Exterior view of the coffinet for a poultry mummy, 19.3.289a,b, with a thin
layer of plaster covering the exterior, and a pronounced curve suggestive of a sternum.
Photograph courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Wypyski’s analyses of the victual mummies have served to securely establish the mode of their prepa-
ration. One of the questions that scholars have posed frequently about such mummies was whether or
not they were cooked before undergoing mummification, or if they were only salted. From Wypyski’s
analysis one can infer that those examined were not cooked, but rather dry cured in a traditional way
for mummies, using natron. Although it is possible that all such offerings were not uniformly prepared,
it seems rather unlikely that only a selection were salted and cured. Thus, it appears that the meat and
poultry were prepared as they would have been for cooking, and then salted instead of cooked. The
poultry mummies enjoyed the extra conceit of having the liver and, in some instances, the giblets,
reintroduced into the body cavity, as is done with birds purchased from the butcher or grocery store
today, so that these too could be enjoyed in the hereafter, either as gravy or as delicacies to be enjoyed
on their own.
After being desiccated, the victual mummies were probably rubbed with vegetable oils and maybe
even spices, as has been suggested by Rizzo’s results, particularly those from 19.3.280. She found com-
ponents from aromatic plants in both the meat and the binder of the wrapping, suggesting that the
meats might have been treated with these in the form of essential oils and/or spices. Unfortunately
the precise species of plants cannot be determined at this time, although she did suggest aniseed
(Pimpinella anisum L.), which might have existed in ancient Egypt. 40 More tests are required, although

40 L. Manniche, An Ancient Egyptian Herbal (London, 1989), 135.

 IKRAM 133

Fig. 14. Interior view of the coffinet for a poultry mummy, 19.3.289a,b, with a thick
covering of black substance. Photograph courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art.

the present state of chemical analysis still might not be able to determine the spices used in the pres-
ervation of these victual mummies. Based on modern Egyptian usages of spice in meat preservation
(basterma), it is quite possible that fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) as well as other spices were
used—certainly its presence is attested in ancient Egypt, 41 and in modern Egypt it is currently used to
preserve meats not just for its flavor, but because it is believed to have antibacterial properties.
According to Rizzo’s analyses, the brownish colored binder of the wrappings of these mummies
consisted mainly of a polysaccharide gum (fruit gum) that incorporated protein and degraded animal
fats, with occasional inconsistent components of oxidized Pistacia resins. The fats doubtless come from
the meat/poultry, while the traces of resin are from the resinous coating of the boxes that contained
the mummies, and have been found in other similar instances, such as the food mummies of Yuya and
Tjuyu. 42 The gum is interesting as a similar binder was identified on another victual mummy from this
assemblage. In that case the investigators speculated that the bandages “had been saturated with an
oily or resinous substance, perhaps even honey, intended to enhance both the preservation and the
flavor of the food.” 43 Although honey can be used for the preservation of meats, this identification
might be due to the presence of beeswax (see below) in the coffinets’ preparation, rather than the use
of honey in preservation. Indeed, one might argue that the beeswax mixed with the resin might be

41 Manniche, Egyptian Herbal, 151–52.

42 Ikram and Iskander, Catalogue Général, and K. Clark, personal communication.
43 S. D’Auria, P. Lacovara, and C. Roehrig, Mummies and Magic, the Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt, (Boston, 1988), 142, n. 5.
134 JARCE 48 (2012)

the source of the gum. 44 However, there is a slight possibility that the polysaccharide gum could be a
degraded by-product of oils that were used either in mummification or as flavour enhancers. Addition-
ally, it is also possible that this result was due to the mummies being anointed with a sealant made of a
combination of hot resin mixed with vegetable oils—this author has experimented with this method to
see what the resulting substance looks like (very similar to what appears on the victual mummies), but
has yet to have it tested to see if the results show the same polysaccharide gums as do the Amenemhat
Q offerings.
The coffinets were generously painted with a black substance that Rizzo’s analyses identify as a
heated mixture of beeswax and Pistacia resin that served as a sealant and preservative for the meat.
The wax might have played a ritual as well as practical role in the proceedings as it, together with resin
objects, appears in the corpus of funerary materials (including being used to model amulets). On a
practical level, tree resins are known for their antiseptic and insect repellent properties. Pistacia resins,
particularly those rich in balsams such as Pistacia terebinthus, P. palaestina and P. atlantica, although not
native to Egypt, could have been easily imported from neighboring areas, and have been identified in
human and animal mummies as well. 45
It would be useful to run similar tests on other victual mummies from several different tombs to see
if they yield similar results in terms of their components. If so, this would indicate a standardization of
preparation that remained static for 100 years or more, whether due to religious conviction or a dearth
of new recipes. If there are significant variations in the preparation of these victual mummies, it could
argue for diachronic change in preparation methodology, variations in recipes between ateliers, or
might even signify the individual taste of the deceased.
A study of these mummies does not only produce fresh information regarding the technology used
to create them, but also sheds light on the socio-economic aspects of death. Equipping a tomb was a
significant financial undertaking and it is interesting that actual food offerings played such a significant
role. Clearly the deceased took his/her sustenance very seriously in the Afterlife.
As mentioned above, in this assemblage the number of poultry mummies (45) is greater than the
beef mummies (34), all of which could conceivably have come from a single animal. This suggests that
though the burial was rich, it was not quite as lavish as the burials of kings that tended to contain more
than one cow/ox, animals that were higher status than poultry (e.g., KV62 and KV34–35). It should be
noted that none of the other tombs provided with victual mummies contained as many poultry offer-
ings as did Amenemhat Q. 46 However, although the poultry offerings were an investment, they prob-
ably were not equal to a second cow/ox.
In addition to the raw materials in terms of acquiring the animals, slaughtering them, and preparing
them for consumption/mummification, there are also the costs of their mummification to consider.
Natron and oils each had a cost and a value, although it is probable that their cost was less than that
of the cow/ox, as well as some of the other items used to produce the mummies. Certainly, linen ban-

44 Ikram, Choice Cuts, 169–71.

45 S. Buckley, A. Stott, and R. Evershed, “Studies of organic residues from ancient Egyptian mummies using high temper-
ature-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and sequential thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and
pyrolysis-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry,” Analyst 124 (1999), 443–52; S. A. Buckley and R. Evershed, “Organic Chemistry
of Embalming Agents in Pharaonic and Graeco-Roman Mummies,” Nature 413 (2001), no. 6858, 837–41; S. Buckley, K. Clark
and R. Evershed, “Complex organic chemical balms in Pharaonic animal mummies,” Nature 413 (2004), 837–41; M. Serpico and
R. White, “The Botanical Identity and Transport of Incense during the Egyptian New Kingdom, Antiquity 74 (no. 286) (2000),
884–97; B. Stern, I. Heron, M. Corr, M. Serpico, and J. Bourriau, “Compositional Variations in Aged and Heated Pistacia resin
found in Late Bronze Age Canaanite Amphorae and Bowls from Amarna, Egypt,” Archaeometry 45.3 (2003), 457–69.
46 Ikram, Choice Cuts, 200, fig. 59.
 IKRAM 135

dages would be less of an investment as it is clear from the analysis of many mummies, both human
and animal, that all sorts of rags were used for these. 47
The most expensive items associated with the victual mummies were probably the resins and the
wood for the coffinets. It is generally thought that imported resins were not cheap. It is possible that
they were more of a luxury item in the post-Second Intermediate Period and early Eighteenth Dynasty
than later on when there was a marked increase in trade in luxury goods between Egypt and the Medi-
terranean, as well as other parts of Africa and even possibly Yemen. Thus, its lavish use in the coffinets
is indicative of a high degree of wealth and status on the part of the tomb owner. Additionally, the
high status of the tomb owner is indicated by the fact that wood was used for each coffinet, and that
they did not skimp on this material as each container echoed the shape of its contents, thus using more
wood than would be necessary for a simple box, such as those used in the burial of Maiherpri. The
quality of the wooden boxes was high as they were well crafted, each one showing care and attention
to the details in its carving, thus both the use of wood and the quality of carving indicate a significant
investment by the tomb owner.
It is clear that the re-examination of victual mummies, using more scientific tools that elucidate the
materials and technology of their production, increases our understanding of the socio-economic and
technical aspects of mummification and provisioning of tombs for the hereafter.

American University in Cairo

47 S. Ikram and A. Dodson, The Mummy in Ancient Egypt: Equipping the Dead for Eternity (London, 1998), 153–65.