The potential of X-ray computed tomography for xylological and dendrochronological analyses of Egyptian mummy labels

François Blondel; Gisela Bélot; Christophe Corona; Sabine R Huebner; Markus Stoffel

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303695

. 2024 Jun 28;19(6):e0303695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303695

The potential of X-ray computed tomography for xylological and dendrochronological analyses of Egyptian mummy labels

François Blondel ^1,^2,^*, Gisela Bélot ³, Christophe Corona ^1,⁴, Sabine R Huebner ⁵, Markus Stoffel ^1,^6,⁷

Editor: Dario Piombino-Mascali⁸

PMCID: PMC11213358 PMID: 38941322

Abstract

X-ray computed tomography (XRCT) imaging allows non-destructive visualization of the structure of various materials. Applied to wooden objects, it allows determination of their morphologies or manufacturing techniques, but also measurement of growth ring widths. We have applied XRCT to a selection of 38 mummy labels. This funerary furniture, made up of endemic or imported tree species, has survived thanks to environmental conditions in very large quantities in regions in Middle and Upper Egypt and is featured now in museum collections across the globe. Mummy labels thus represent a unique and abundant data source to build floating or absolutely dated dendrochronological chronologies for this period. Here we discuss the possible contributions and limitations of XRCT for the analysis of these artifacts and show that the approach allows identification of discriminating markers for the identification of certain species on the transverse plane, but that the insufficient resolution of the tangential and radial planes normally prevents formal identification of species. By contrast, XRCT undeniably enhances the visibility of toolmarks (in terms of numbers and depth), and thereby allows highlighting marks that remain invisible to the naked eye; XRCT also provides key insights into cutting methods and the calibers used and yields new information on silvicultural practices and the knowhow of Egyptian craftsmen. Finally, the measurement of ring widths on XRCT imagery is also more accurate than what can be achieved by traditional dendrochronological measurements, especially in the case of cuts realized on a slab. The approach also confirms the limited potential of local broadleaved species for dendrochronological approaches due to unreadable or poorly visible tree rings and mostly short tree-ring sequences.

Introduction

Dendrochronological analyses are sometimes performed on wooden objects from museum collections [1]: these may include architectural wood (e.g., boats, construction wood) [2, 3], domestic objects [4, 5] or pieces of art [6, 7]. Analyses on objects conserved in museums are performed on woods from the Neolithic to the Common Era. They necessarily have to rely, however, whenever possible, on non-destructive approaches [1] such as high-resolution digital photography, hyper-spectral imaging, fast ion beam analysis [8] or X-ray computed tomography (XRCT). The latter allows visualization of the internal structure of wood without affecting its integrity [4, 7, 9–11]. It allows an internal view of the anatomy of the species used, but also provides archaeological (i.e. cutting and collection methods, calibers exploited) and socio-environmental (e.g., silvicultural practices) information [12–14]. At the same time, XRCT also allows highlighting the dendrochronological potential of tree species [9]. The latter depends in particular on the presence of discernible rings boundaries, but also on the annual character of growth rings. In this study, XRCT was tested on a batch of mummy labels from Roman Egypt. Mainly dated from the 1^st to the 4^th centuries, these wooden objects can provide information on the shaping techniques used, the selection of wood species for funerary purposes and the position of cuts within the trees used [15]. Middle and Upper Egypt, located at the interface between inhabited territories and the desert, are auspicious regions for the discovery and study of “organic archives” (e.g., papyrus, wood, leather) thanks to their arid environment in which objects have been conserved over millennia. The objective of this article is to assess and describe the potential of XRCT to study the wood anatomy, toolmarks and dendrochronological potential of 38 mummy labels at the National and University Library (BNU) of Strasbourg. Due to the origin of the wood used, assessing the dendrochronological potential of the available species would eventually allow the construction of reference chronologies from the Eastern Mediterranean for the Roman period, for which only floating chronologies exist for the time being [16–19]. Yet, the creation of such reference chronologies remains challenging given the importance of wood reuse in Egyptian craftsmanship [28].

Materials and method

Mummy labels from the BNU in Strasbourg

The BNU of Strasbourg has 256 mummy labels and various documentary wooden labels [20]. The collection was assembled between 1895 and 1913 by the Egyptologist Wilhelm Spiegelberg, and contains mainly labels from Sohag and Akhmim in Egypt dating to the Greco-Roman period (i.e. from 323 to 30 BC for the Ptolemaic period and from 39 BC to 330 AD for the Roman period).

Spiegelberg acquired 206 mummy labels (HO20-HO225; HO256) from Robert Forrer (archaeologist, writer, collector) after 1893 and made further acquisitions of labels inscribed in demotic and Greek-Demotic between 1895 and 1913. The latter include tax receipts and accounting records from Gebelein (Pathyris) and Akhmim (Panopolis) as well as 8 labels inscribed in hieratic. The Strasbourg mummy label also was an important source for Spiegelberg’s onomastic study of the Ägyptische und Griechische Eigennamen [21]. Many Egyptologists, including F. Preisigke (between 1913 and 1922) and U. Kaplony-Heckel (in 1966) contributed to the regular edition of the texts of the collection, but it was necessary to wait for the publication of S. P. Vleeming to have a real compendium of the edited texts of the Demotic and Greek labels, including the collection at BNU Strasbourg [22].

These labels, most often made of wood, were pierced at one end to be attached to the embalmed mummies with a thread when the latter were moved from the place of mummification to the place of burial [23] (Fig 1). The great diversity of shapes, materials (wood, stone, terracotta, enameled glass), wood species used and inscriptions do not always allow identification of the origin of the manufacturers (mummification workshops, families or wood craftsmen) [15]. Most often, however, the labels contain basic information about the deceased: name and origin (filiation), age and profession, sometimes a name of a town or region, the mummification method, or a burial destination [23]. The text is in Greek or Demotic, often both. It may be written in black ink (more rarely red), or engraved [15, 20]. These labels served two main functions, that is identification of the body until burial as well as religious and protective functions to accompany the deceased to the afterlife.

The labels vary greatly in shape: they were classified using the typology proposed by Blondel et al. [15], which in turn was inspired by Quaegebeur [24], Gaudard et al. [23] and Worp [25]. They are sometimes made from recycled wood as attested by toolmarks (i.e. remnant of a groove, dowel hole, nail hole) that are unrelated to the purpose of the label [15]. Labels are most often sawn, and then, for the most part, flattened to be inscribed or engraved. Some clumsiness in writing repeatedly attests to the limited expertise in funerary establishments, woodworking shops, or families. Other labels show a perfect mastery of woodworking, writing, and even drawing (e.g., representations of religious symbols). The latter labels do not come from the most disadvantaged social strata because they also belonged to deceased who underwent an expensive mummification process [26].

X-ray computer tomography

An EasyTom 150/160 X-ray tomograph (RX Solutions) was used in this study on a selection of mummy labels from the BNU as it can scan objects up to 380 mm in height and 180 mm in diameter. Placed on a support that guarantees protection and stability, each label was placed on a rotating plate located between the X-ray source and the 2D detector (Fig 2) and then X-rayed at 360°. The scanner parameters for the session carried out on the mummy labels were set at 90 Kv with an intensity of 195 mA for an acquisition resolution varying between 11 and 42 μm with 2016 projections (that is about 20 images on average per projection) with a frame rate of 12,5 and a temperature of 28°C. Each image was reconstructed by filtered retroprojection using the XAct software (RX Solutions). The acquired images were then visualized and processed with the VGStudio Max software (VolumeGraphics) to restore a 3D view of the object. The tomograph and software also allowed working in 2D on the transverse, tangential and radial planes to visualize the internal structure of the wood and to highlight its anatomical characteristics without physical cutting.

Selection of tomographed labels

The selection of tomographed mummy labels was based on their anatomical (i.e. taxonomic) diversity (by distinguishing between local broadleaved, imported and conifer using binocular observation of the transverse plane) or their dendrochronological potential (i.e. number of rings present to perform dating). We selected 38 labels from a body of imported coniferous (n = 11), imported broadleaved (n = 10) and local (n = 17) species. Tomographic acquisitions were taken on a small portion of the label to obtain a complete dendrochronological sequence at very high resolution. The resolution varied according to the width (32–95 mm) and thickness (5–16 mm) of the labels due to the absorption of the X-ray beam. The detailed description of each of the selected labels is provided in Table 1. Dated mainly on the basis of style, inscription, and place of provenance, they cover a period from the 1^st to the 4^th century CE and originate for the most part (27 out of 38) from the necropolis of Sohag (n = 21), Bompae (n = 3), and Panopolis (n = 3) located in Upper Egypt. A vast majority of the labels (n = 27) are rectangular in shape, nine are trapezoidal, one is in the shape of a stele with a handle and one is in the shape of a Tabula Ansata (see Blondel et al., 2023 [15] for details on mummy label styles and shapes).

Table 1. Inventory of mummy labels selected for XRCT with key descriptive information and regarding CT resolution.

Museum inventory	First Edition	Period	Provenance	Format	Tree genus	Dimensions (in cm)			Resolution	No. of projections
Museum inventory	First Edition	Period	Provenance	Format	Tree genus	Length	width	Thickness	Resolution	No. of projections
Ho / PH / T. 018	Short Texts 1 496	Unknown	Unknown	Rectangular	local broadleaves?	14,4	4,1	0,9	30 μm	1293
Ho / PH / T. 028	Short Texts 2 822, SB 1 5441, C.Étiq.Mom. 1730	225–275 CE	Sohag	Rectangular	local broadleaves?	12,1	6,45	0,95	40 μm	1285
Ho / PH / T. 033	SB 1 5398, T.Spiegelberg 82, C.Étiq.Mom. 421	I—IV CE	Sohag	Rectangular	imported conifers	11,5	4,5	0,8	27 μm	1259
Ho / PH / T. 041	Short Texts 2 756, SB 1 5448, C.Étiq.Mom. 1731	225–275 CE	Sohag	Rectangular	local broadleaves	13,2	5,95	0,65	36 μm	1206
Ho / PH / T. 042	SB 1 5449, C.Étiq.Mom. 1732	100–299 CE	Sohag	Rectangular	imported broadleaves?	11,85	5,1	0,65	31 μm	1265
Ho / PH / T. 043	Short Texts 2 703, SB 1 5450, C.Étiq.Mom. 1733	200–225 CE	Sohag	Rectangular	imported conifers	13,2	5,6	0,8	35 μm	1264
Ho / PH / T. 047	SB 1 5396, T.Spiegelberg 80, C.Étiq.Mom. 419	I—IV CE	Sohag	Rectangular	local broadleaves	11,9	5,9	1,05	35 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 058	SB 1 5372, T. Spiegelberg, 55	Unknown	Unknown	Rectangular	local broadleaves	12,4	5,35	0,8	32 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 061	SB 1 5455, C.Étiq.Mom. 459, T.Spiegelberg 95	Unknown	Unknown	Rectangular	local broadleaves?	12,25	5,4	0,8	32 μm	1302
Ho / PH / T. 065	SB 1 5458, C.Étiq.Mom. 461	Unknown	Unknown	Trapezoidal	imported broadleaves?	12,2	5,3	1,15	31 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 068	SB 1 5389, T.Spiegelberg 73, C.Étiq.Mom. 414	I—IV CE	Sohag	Rectangular	imported broadleaves?	15,5	7,1	0,8	40 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 069	SB 1 5393, T.Spiegelberg 77, C.Étiq.Mom. 417	I—IV CE	Sohag	Rectangular	local broadleaves	14,85	5,5	0,8	30 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 085	SB 1 5373, T.Spiegelberg 56, C.Étiq.Mom. 401	I—IV CE	Unknown	Rectangular	imported conifers	11,5	5,5	0,8	35 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 095	SB 1 5470, C.Étiq.Mom. 1903	100–299 CE	Sohag	Rectangular	local broadleaves	14,4	5,65	1,35	34 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 097	SB 1 5472, C.Étiq.Mom. 1742	100–299 CE	Sohag	Rectangular	local broadleaves	11,2	5	1,05	32 μm	1265
Ho / PH / T. 104	SB 1 4192, T.Spiegelberg 14, C.Étiq.Mom. 1707, Short Texts 2 824	200–299 CE	Bompae	Rectangular	local broadleaves	12,2	6,4	0,95	37 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 105	SB 1 5397, T.Spiegelberg 81, C.Étiq.Mom. 420	I—IV CE	Sohag	Rectangular	local broadleaves	11,25	4,35	1,25	26 μm	1268
Ho / PH / T. 106	Short texts 1 594	Unknown	Unknown	Rectangular	imported conifers	13,7	4,1	1,15	15 μm	1048
Ho / PH / T. 108	SB 1 5417, T.Spiegelberg 101, C.Étiq.Mom. 436	I—IV CE	Sohag	Trapezoidal	imported conifers	11,95	6,35	1,2	20 μm	960
Ho / PH / T. 111	SB 1 4186, T.Spiegelberg 7, C.Étiq.Mom. 343, Short Texts 2 637	100–299 CE	Bompae	Rectangular	local broadleaves?	16,1	4,8	0,75	30 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 112	SB 1 5385, T.Spiegelberg 69, C.Étiq.Mom. 411	I—IV CE	Sohag	Trapezoidal	local broadleaves?	14,4	6,5	1,05	36 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 117	SB 1 5480, SB 1 5410, C.Étiq.Mom. 472, T.Spiegelberg 94	I—IV CE	Sohag	Trapezoidal	local broadleaves?	10,4	6,45	1	38 μm	1231
Ho / PH / T. 132	SB 1 5487, C.Étiq.Mom 1926	100–299 CE	Sohag	Trapezoidal	local broadleaves	14,55	6,5	1,35	38 μm	1263
Ho / PH / T. 137	Short Texts 2 664, SB 1 5489, C.Étiq.Mom. 478	100–299 CE	Sohag	Rectangular	imported broadleaves	11,4	4,4	0,5	32 μm	1646
Ho / PH / T. 138	Short Texts 2 794, SB 1 5490, C.Étiq.Mom. 479	200–299 CE	Sohag	Trapezoidal	imported broadleaves	10,45	5	0,85	31 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 141	SB 1 5492, C.Étiq.Mom. 481	100–299 CE	Sohag	Rectangular	imported broadleaves?	11,3	4,8	0,65	30 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 162	SB 1 5502, C.Étiq.Mom. 488	100–299 CE	Sohag	Rectangular	local broadleaves	17,7	5,7	1,4	34 μm	1266
Ho / PH / T. 170	Short Texts 2 683, SB 1 5506, C.Étiq.Mom. 1753	200–225 CE	Sohag	Trapezoidal	imported conifers	14,7	5,8	1,05	33 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 172	SB 1 4194, T.Spiegelberg 17, SB 1 5507, C.Étiq.Mom. 348, C.Étiq.Mom. 490, Short Texts 2 757	220–299 CE	Panopolis (?)	Rectangular	imported conifers	13,5	6,9	1,2	42 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 182	SB 1 4200, T.Spiegelberg 23, C.Étiq.Mom. 1709, Short Texts 2 684	200–250 CE	Bompae	Rectangular	imported conifers	11,9	4,8	0,9	30 μm	1279
Ho / PH / T. 184	SB 1 5511, C.Étiq.Mom. 1754, Short Text 2 750	100–299 CE	Panopolis/Bompae (?)	Rectangular	imported conifers	11,9	5,2	1,1	32 μm	1269
Ho / PH / T. 199	T.Spiegelberg 41, Short Texts 2 574	III CE	Panopolis (?)	Trapezoidal	imported broadleaves	8,3	3,2	0,5	11 μm	1079
Ho / PH / T. 210	SB 1 5525, C.Étiq.Mom. 502	Unknown	Unknown	Stela-shape with handle	imported broadleaves	12,55	8	0,85	28 μm	1112
Ho / PH / T. 211	SB 1 5526, C.Étiq.Mom. 1978, T.Spiegelberg 107, SB 1 5423 descr.	I—IV CE	Sohag	Trapezoidal	imported conifers	12,8	6,1	1	35 μm	1310
Ho / PH / T. 225	SB 1 5536, C.Étiq.Mom. 510, Short Texts 2 741	100–299 CE	Panopolis (?)	Rectangular	imported conifers	10,3	5	0,85	30 μm	1248
Ho / PH / T. 226	SB 1 5537, C.Étiq.Mom. 2122	Unknown	Unknown	Tabula ansata	local broadleaves	23,55	9,5	1,2	32 μm	1062
Ho / PH / T. 229	SB 1 5538, C.Étiq.Mom. 1936	Roman	Unknown	Rectangular	imported broadleaves	15,75	9,25	1,6	31 μm	1140
Ho / PH / T. 255	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Rectangular	local broadleaves?	11,4	7,7	0,6	26 μm	949

Open in a new tab

Anatomical identifications

Due to the insufficient resolution of XRCT for the analysis of wood structures along the tangential and radial planes [9], we limited analyses to the transverse plane as it allows for optimal visualization of growth rings. In the case of broadleaved species, anatomical markers included pore numbers shape, and distribution as well as the distinction between earlywood and latewood, ring boundaries, the presence or absence of parenchyma, as well as ray widths. In the case of conifer species, we limited analyses to the transition from earlywood to latewood, the presence of resin ducts and signs of traumatic cell structures.

On the basis of these anatomical markers, we propose several hypotheses concerning the species used. These hypotheses are then validated against (1) different species identified on several types of Roman Egyptian furniture (e.g., mummy labels, mummy portraits, everyday objects; [27–30]; as well as (2) wood anatomy and macroscopic wood characteristics (John [Unpublished]) [31–35].

Size estimation and technological observations

The estimation of the caliber of the processed wood allows highlighting possible selection criteria of a tree for the cutting of the mummy labels. The estimation of the distance to the pith was performed from the convergence of the radii and the curvature of the rings from the cross-sectional planes obtained with XRCT [12, 36–38] (Fig 3). Because tree growth is not perfectly concentric, the distance to the pith is calculated as an average between possible minimum and maximum values. Tree age could not always be estimated due to poorly visible ring boundaries in some species.

The cutting methods can sometimes be identified by the naked eye on the ends of objects. However, toolmarks or secretions sometimes limit these observations. We used XRCT to extend these observations to all tomographed labels. Finally, the 3D model obtained from the XRCT images was also used to highlight toolmarks. These were compared to the visual observations made on the labels to evaluate a possible added value of XRCT images.

Ring width measurements

On labels made of conifer wood, the ring widths could be measured conventionally because of the distinct ring boundaries visible on the label’s surface. Yet, we measured ring widths only on labels containing more than 30 rings. Measurements (0.01 mm) were made using (1) a Lintab 5 measuring table equipped with a binocular magnifier and Tsap Win v. 4.82b2 software [39] or (2) from high-resolution photographs (300 dpi minimum) using CooRecorder software [40]. To prevent errors related to illegible, partial or false rings [41], measurements were made on the flat or on both sides of each object and along several transects (Fig 4). The different series were then synchronized using Tsap Win software. These ring series were compared to the series made on the transverse plane of the XRCT images. The latter were made and synchronized in the same way, on at least two or three transects using the CooRecorder and TSAPWIN software.

Results

Identification of the species used

Using the anatomical criteria visible in the transverse plane of XRCT images, we can distinguish imported broadleaved species from those endemic to Egypt as well as from imported conifer species. We were also able to hypothesize the exact species used for 27 out of the 38 labels (Fig 5). Although the anatomy of labels HO18 and HO255 appears to be similar, we could not identify the species in these cases.

Fig 5 — Detailed view of the wood anatomy, highlighting the limits of the resolution of XRCT resolutions.

For the imported broadleaved species, we hypothesize that labels HO137, 199, 210 and 229 are made from beech (Fagus sp.). This hypothesis is linked to the presence of diffuse pores, a semi-porous zone, and the presence of uniserial or multi-serial woody rays that thicken at the edge of rings, with the latter being perfectly legible. Similarly, using the criteria described in Table 2, labels HO42 and 141 appear to be made of willow (Salix sp.) wood while label HO138 is potentially made from elm (Ulmus sp.) wood.

Table 2. Detailed description of the different anatomical markers identified on the transverse plane of the XRCT images and–to a lesser extent–based on observations made on the mummy labels.

Imported hardwood
Museum inv. num.	Pore arrangement	Rays width	Limit of tree-rings	Other anatomical markers	Hypothesis species
Ho / PH / T. 42	Diffuse pores, radially bonded with a slightly semi-porous area	Uniseriate	Distinct	Groups of 2 to 3 pores radially	Salix sp.
Ho / PH / T. 65	Diffuse pores (small pores), sometimes with a slightly porous area in the initial wood	Uniseriate?	More or less distinct		Undetermined
Ho / PH / T. 68	Diffuse pores (small pores), sometimes with a slightly porous area in the initial wood	Uniseriate?	More or less distinct		Undetermined
Ho / PH / T. 112	Diffuse pores sometimes clustered together or radially, with a semi-porous zone	Uniseriate or 2 seriate?	More or less distinct		Undetermined
Ho / PH / T. 137	Diffuse pores with a semi-porous zone	Uni- and multiseriate	Distinct	Wider woody rays at the boundary of the ring	Fagus sp.
Ho / PH / T. 138	Porous zone composed of a single series of pores	Wide rays	Distinct	Several bands of tangential pores, sometimes slightly oblique with parenchyma	Ulmus sp. Minor
Ho / PH / T. 141	Diffuse pores with a semi-porous zone	Uniseriate?	More or less distinct		Cf. salix
Ho / PH / T. 199	Diffuse pores with a semi-porous zone	Uni- and multiseriate	Distinct	Wider woody rays at the boundary of the ring	Fagus sp.
Ho / PH / T. 210	Diffuse pores with a semi-porous zone	Uni- and multiseriate	Distinct	Wider woody rays at the boundary of the ring	Fagus sp.
Ho / PH / T. 229	Diffuse pores with a semi-porous zone	Uni- and multiseriate	Distinct	Wider woody rays at the boundary of the ring	Fagus sp.
Local hardwood
Ho / PH / T. 18	Diffuse pores, grouped by two or three	2 seriate or more	More or less distinct	Numerous xylophagous galleries	Undetermined
Ho / PH / T. 28	Diffuse pores, grouped from two to three pores and/or radially, sometimes with a semi-porous zone	Wide to very wide	More or less distinct	Expansion of the radii at the boundary of the ring	Tamarix sp.
Ho / PH / T. 41	Diffuse pores, grouped from two to three pores and/or radially, sometimes with a semi-porous zone	Wide to very wide	More or less distinct	Expansion of the radii at the boundary of the ring	Tamarix sp.
Ho / PH / T. 47	Diffuse pores, with group of pores by two or three sometimes arranged radially	Wide rays	unreadable	Alternating parenchyma bands and fiber	Ficus sp.
Ho / PH / T. 58	Diffuse pores, with group of pores by two or three sometimes arranged radially	Wide rays	unreadable	Alternating parenchyma bands and fiber	Ficus sp.
Ho / PH / T. 61	Diffuse pores (small pores) not very close together	Uniseriate?	unreadable		Undetermined
Ho / PH / T. 69	Diffuse pores, grouped from two to three pores and/or radially, sometimes with a semi-porous zone	Wide to very wide	More or less distinct	Expansion of the radii at the boundary of the ring	Tamarix sp.
Ho / PH / T. 95	Diffuse pores, grouped from two to three pores and/or radially, sometimes with a semi-porous zone	Wide to very wide	More or less distinct	Expansion of the radii at the boundary of the ring	Tamarix sp.
Ho / PH / T. 97	Diffuse pores, with group of pores by two or three sometimes arranged radially	Wide rays	unreadable	Alternating parenchyma bands and fiber	Ficus sp.
Ho / PH / T. 104	Diffuse pores, grouped from two to three pores and/or radially, sometimes with a semi-porous zone	Wide to very wide	More or less distinct	Expansion of the radii at the boundary of the ring	Tamarix sp.
Ho / PH / T. 105	Diffuse pores, with group of pores by two to four arranged radially, rarely isolated	Uniseriate?	More or less distinct	Thin band of parenchyma	Ziziphus sp.
Ho / PH / T. 111	Diffuse pores, with groups of pores by two or in clusters and sometimes presenting a semi-porous zone	Wide rays	unreadable	Alternating parenchyma bands and fiber	Cf. Ficus ou acacia
Ho / PH / T. 117	Diffuse pores	Uniseriate	unreadable		Undetermined
Ho / PH / T. 132	Diffuse pores, grouped from two to three pores and/or radially, sometimes with a semi-porous zone	Wide to very wide	More or less distinct	Expansion of the radii at the boundary of the ring	Tamarix sp.
Ho / PH / T. 162	Diffuse pores, with groups of pores by two or in clusters and sometimes presenting a semi-porous zone	Wide rays	More or less distinct	Alternating parenchyma bands and fiber	Cf. Ficus ou acacia
Ho / PH / T. 226	Diffuse pores, grouped from two to three pores and/or radially, sometimes with a semi-porous zone	Wide to very wide	More or less distinct	Expansion of the radii at the boundary of the ring	Tamarix sp.
Ho / PH / T. 255	Diffuse pores with a semi-porous zone in the initial wood	Uniseriate or 2 seriate?	More or less distinct	Numerous xylophagous galleries	Undetermined
Imported conifers
Museum inv. num.	Presence of resin canals	Limit of tree-rings	Transition from initial to final wood	Particularity	Hypothesis species
Ho / PH / T. 33	Yes	Distinct	Abrupt transition from initial to final wood	Resin canals predominantly in the final wood and thin final wood	Cf. Pinus
Ho / PH / T. 43	No	Distinct	Abrupt transition from initial to final wood	Thin final wood, sometimes tangential parenchyma	Cf. Cupressus ou Cedrus
Ho / PH / T. 85	No	Distinct	Gradual transition from initial to final wood	Traumatic canals and tree-rings more or less thin	Cedrus sp.
Ho / PH / T. 106	No	Distinct	Abrupt transition from initial to final wood	Very thin tree-rings, thin woody rays (3–5 cells)	Juniperus sp.
Ho / PH / T. 108	No	Not always distinct	Gradual transition from initial to final wood	Traumatic canals	Undetermined
Ho / PH / T. 170	Yes	Distinct	Abrupt transition from initial to final wood	Resin canals predominantly in the final wood and thin final wood	Cf. Pinus
Ho / PH / T. 172	No	Distinct	Gradual transition from initial to final wood	Traumatic canals	Cedrus sp.
Ho / PH / T. 182	Yes	Distinct	More or less abrupt transition between the initial and final wood	Resin canals predominantly in the final wood	Cf. Pinus
Ho / PH / T. 184	Yes	Distinct	More or less abrupt transition between the initial and final wood	Resin canals predominantly in the final wood	Cf. Pinus
Ho / PH / T. 211	Yes	Distinct	Abrupt transition from initial to final wood	Resin canals predominantly in the final wood	Cf. Pinus
Ho / PH / T. 225	No	Distinct	Gradual transition from initial to final wood	Fast growing, very thin final wood	Undetermined

Open in a new tab

In the case of the endemic broadleaved species, seven labels (HO28, 41, 69, 95, 104, 132, and 226) show (1) groups of two to three diffuse pores, sometimes arranged radially, (2) an earlywood with a semi-porous zone, and (3) broad woody rays, sometimes widening at the ring boundaries. Based on these characteristics, they were probably made of tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) wood. Using further discriminating criteria (Table 2), labels HO47, 58, and 97 are likely made of fig (Ficus sycomores) wood, whereas labels HO111 and 162 are likely acacia (Acacia sp.), although a distinction between the two species is sometimes complex when relying on the transverse plane alone. Last but not least, label HO105 seems to be made of jujube (Ziziphus spina-christi) wood.

For conifer species, discriminating markers are poorly present on the transversal plane, rendering species determination complex (Table 2). Five labels (HO33, 170, 182, 184 and 211) are potentially made of pine (Pinus sp.) because of the presence of resin ducts in the latewood and a fairly abrupt transition from early- to latewood. Two labels (HO85 and 172) without resin ducts in their anatomy, but with traumatic tissues and a gradual transition from earlywood to latewood are probably cedar (Cedrus sp.). The anatomical markers of label HO43 are similar to cedar, but the sample also exhibits false rings and an abrupt transition between the early- and latewood, with the latter being very thin; we thus suppose that this label was made of cypress (Cupressus sempervirens). Finally, on label HO106, resin ducts and traumatic ducts are absent, the transition from earlywood to latewood is abrupt and the growth is very slow, it therefore probably was made from juniper (Juniperus sp.) wood.

Toolmarks identified in XRCT images

Toolmarks, identified by positioning the labels at varying angles and different light orientations, were compared to those detected in the XRCT images. In general, the XRCT images validate the visual observations, but allow a finer interpretation on the orientation of the tool and penetration into the wood.

Several types of traces were regularly observed: sawing traces and marks left by sharp tools (i.e. axe, adze, plane and chisel or simply plane) (Fig 6, Table 3). The sawing marks are visible on the rough faces which normally does not contain inscriptions. Exceptions, however, such as the label HO106, which is inscribed on the roughly sawn face (Fig 6). A total of 21 labels shows traces of cutting tools, but the precise identification of the tool used remains complex. However, given the small size of many of the labels, plane-type tools seem to be much most suitable for flattening the face or faces intended to receive the inscription (Fig 6). Three other labels show both types of toolmarks (i.e. sawing and cutting tools). Eleven labels do not show any preserved toolmarks at all, probably because of wear or erosion of their surfaces or simply because of a completed finish.

Table 3. Description of the various data relating to the mode of cutting, traces of tools and the estimate size of the trees used (i.e. diameter, in cm).

Museum inventory number	Genus	Hypothesis species	Anatomical morphology	Cutting method	Tool marks	Type of inscription	Estimated diameter (in cm)
Ho / PH / T. 18	Local hardwood?	Undetermined	Cambium	On a slab	cutting tools and saws	in ink	4,8
Ho / PH / T. 28	Local hardwood?	Tamarix sp.		On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	18,6
Ho / PH / T. 33	Imported conifers	Cf. Pinus		On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	suparallel
Ho / PH / T. 41	Local hardwood	Tamarix sp.		On a slab	saw	in ink	14
Ho / PH / T. 42	Imported hardwood	Salix sp.		On a slab	/	in ink	7
Ho / PH / T. 43	Imported conifers	Cf. Cupressus ou Cedrus		On mesh	/	in ink	20
Ho / PH / T. 47	Local hardwood	Ficus sp.		On a slab	/	in ink	31,4
Ho / PH / T. 58	Local hardwood	Ficus sp.		On a slab and a mesh	/	in ink	suparallel
Ho / PH / T. 61	Local hardwood?	Undetermined	Bark	On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	8,3
Ho / PH / T. 65	Imported hardwood?	Undetermined	Nearby pith	On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	8
Ho / PH / T. 68	Imported hardwood?	Undetermined		On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	11,8
Ho / PH / T. 69	Local hardwood	Tamarix sp.		On a slab	saw	in ink	22,8
Ho / PH / T. 85	Imported conifers	Cedrus sp.		On mesh	cutting tool	in ink	27,8
Ho / PH / T. 95	Local hardwood	Tamarix sp.		On mesh	cutting tool	in ink	suparallel
Ho / PH / T. 97	Local hardwood	Ficus sp.		On mesh	/	in ink	13
Ho / PH / T. 104	Local hardwood	Tamarix sp.		On a slab	saw	in ink	17,8
Ho / PH / T. 105	Local hardwood	Ziziphus sp.	Pith	On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	4,4
Ho / PH / T. 106	Imported conifers	Juniperus sp.		On mesh	cutting tools and saws	in ink	suparallel
Ho / PH / T. 108	Imported conifers	Undetermined	Pith	On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	9,4
Ho / PH / T. 111	Local hardwood?	Cf. Ficus ou acacia	Pith	On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	6,4
Ho / PH / T. 112	Local hardwood?	Undetermined		On a slab	cutting tools and saws	in ink	8,2
Ho / PH / T. 117	Local hardwood?	Undetermined		On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	10,4
Ho / PH / T. 132	Local hardwood	Tamarix sp.		On a slab and a mesh	/	in ink	13,4
Ho / PH / T. 137	Imported hardwood	Fagus sp.		On a slab and a mesh	cutting tool	in ink	suparallel
Ho / PH / T. 138	Imported hardwood	Ulmus sp. Minor		On a slab	/	in ink	19,6
Ho / PH / T. 141	Imported hardwood?	Cf. salix		On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	9,6
Ho / PH / T. 162	Local hardwood	Cf. Ficus ou acacia	Cambium	On a slab	cutting tool	engraved	8,2
Ho / PH / T. 170	Imported conifers	Cf. Pinus		On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	21,7
Ho / PH / T. 172	Imported conifers	Cedrus sp.		On a slab	cutting tool	in ink	19,1
Ho / PH / T. 182	Imported conifers	Cf. Pinus		On mesh	cutting tool	in ink	suparallel
Ho / PH / T. 184	Imported conifers	Cf. Pinus		On a slab and a mesh	cutting tool	in ink	46,8
Ho / PH / T. 199	Imported hardwood	Fagus sp.		On mesh	cutting tool	in ink	suparallel
Ho / PH / T. 210	Imported hardwood	Fagus sp.		On a slab	cutting tool	engraved	31
Ho / PH / T. 211	Imported conifers	Cf. Pinus		On mesh	/	engraved	37,4
Ho / PH / T. 225	Imported conifers	Undetermined		On a slab	/	engraved	12,7
Ho / PH / T. 226	Local hardwood	Tamarix sp.		On a slab	cutting tool	engraved	22,6
Ho / PH / T. 229	Imported hardwood	Fagus sp.		On a slab	/	in ink	24,6
Ho / PH / T. 255	Local hardwood?	Undetermined		On a slab	/	in ink	8,6

Open in a new tab

Some arrangements, difficult to discriminate with the naked eye, are perfectly visible on the XRCT images. A hole with its peg still in place is, for example, found on label HO108 (Fig 6). The shape and undulations of the peg hole are clearly visible on the XRCT images, suggesting that it was drilled by a spoon drill. Finally, the XRCT images allow us to confirm that some inscriptions were carved into the wood with small chisels or punches. It was also possible to determine the number of chisel strokes required and the depth of the cuts (see, for example, labels HO162 and HO226 in Fig 6). Detailed analysis of the engraved inscriptions on label HO226 shows that all Greek letters, except for "pi" and "mu" (for which a 4 mm chisel was used) were made with a minimum of strokes using an 8 mm chisel (Fig 7). Some letters required at least two chisel strokes in the extension of the first one to form the longest strokes, such as the bars of "nu" or the sides of "alpha". The letters engraved in the center of the label and on the edges have a different depth (2.5 and 1 mm).

Fig 7 — In addition, we can distinguish the use of at least two chisels with different widths.

Timber size estimation

Original wood sizes were estimated from XRCT images based on the convergence of woody rays and/or ring curvatures. In the case of three labels, HO18, HO61, and HO162, we could even take advantage of the presence of the cambium or bark to accurately determine the size of the tree used. For most of the labels, the outermost rings were absent, and the tree sizes presented here have to be considered a minimum estimate. Finally, as labels HO33, HO58, HO95, HO106, HO137, HO182, and HO199 were obtained from radial cuts, the low curvature of growth rings did not allow any estimation of tree size.

For the remaining 31 labels, the minimum tree diameters ranged from 44 to 468 mm (Table 3). Despite the small sample size, a distinction can be made between imported broadleaved, endemic broadleaved and imported conifer species. The sizes of imported conifers (94–468 mm, avg. 244 mm, n = 8) were significantly larger than those of imported broadleaves (70–310 mm, avg. 159 mm, n = 16) and especially of endemic broadleaves (44–314 mm, avg. 133 mm, n = 7) (Fig 8) These results must be qualified, however, by the method of cutting. Cutting on a slab from endemic broadleaves, imported broadleaves and conifers, labels had average diameters of 133, 159 and 157 mm respectively. The conifer labels made on mesh are from trees with larger diameters (average 284 mm).

Conventional vs. XRCT dendrochronology

In general, tree-ring widths can be measured with different approaches depending on the visibility of growth rings. Measurements based on photographs are ideal if rings on the face or the flat side of mummy labels were wide and easily visible. In cases where tree rings were too narrow, the use of a measuring table was more appropriate. On many labels, neither of these two approaches could be used easily due to (i) ring boundaries that were difficult to identify, (ii) rings that were too narrow (e.g., in the case of label HO106 for which average ring widths of 0.24 mm were recorded) or (ii) the presence of a coating (e.g., paint, wax, grease, patina of use) or inscriptions (engraved or inked) (see e.g. HO211) In these cases, XRCT images were the only non-destructive way to acquire and accurately delineate rings boundaries and to measure ring widths.

To analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the different methods, we compared ring-width measurements obtained from photographs or by using the measurement table with those measured on the transverse plane of XRCT images. As a rule of thumb, and with the exception of label HO182, the traditional measurements were superior to those made on XRCT images. Differences between methods, however, only rarely exceeded a few 0.01 mm and depended mainly on the cutting. In the case of radial (“on mesh”) cutting (e.g. labels HO43, HO85, HO182 and HO184) close to the radial growth of rings, differences were very small (Fig 9). The discrepancy between the acquisition methods was maximal in those cases where cutting was made on slabs or close to the pith (e.g., HO172 and HO170). In the case of HO170, the traditional methods exceeded on average by 117% the widths measured on XRCT images. However, this difference was heterogeneous and more important close to the pith or in the first growth rings, and also varied according to the orientation and curvature of the rings [8].

Discussion

In this paper, 38 mummy labels were selected from the BNU Strasbourg collection and analyzed with X-ray computed tomography (XRCT) imagery. We evaluated the potential of XRCT images for an anatomical identification of wood species, the detection of toolmarks, assessment of original wood diameters and the measurement of ring widths and compared results with those obtained with traditional visual observations, optical (binocular, microscope) and digital (high resolution photography) analyses.

Contribution of XRCT images to wood anatomy

XRCT images allows more precise insights into the morphology of certain anatomical markers of wood such as wood rays or the distribution, shape and number of pores, but also aid to better visualize ring boundaries. Yet, analyses are limited to the transverse plane because the resolution of XRCT images is too low to properly assess anatomical markers on the tangential and radial planes. Magnifications of 100x to 400x would be required to facilitate recognition of anatomical markers [31], which is well beyond the current resolution of XRCT images. This limitation prevents formal identification of most species except for a few imported broadleaves with ring-porous zones (elm) or diffuse pores (beech, willow). For local species, XRCT images suggest that some labels are made of tamarisk, fig, acacia, or jujube, but a definitive identification will only be possible if one could measure the widths and heights of woody rays in the tangential and radial planes [33–34]. In the case of conifers, the presence of resin ducts and the transition from earlywood to latewood was used on XRCT images to differentiate species groups. Despite the undeniable benefits of tomography, species detection is not possible without the sampling of a small wood piece on the label [9].

A corpus of 420 mummy labels with identified species, from the collections of the British Museum (n = 250, https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/), the Louvre (n = 122, https://collections.louvre.fr/; [42], and the Mediterranean Archaeology Museums of Marseilles (n = 44) and Amiens (n = 4) [29], supports some of our hypotheses (Fig 10). In particular, it confirms the existence of labels made of cedar (Cedrus libani or atlantica, n = 77, 41% of conifer labels) and pine (n = 68, 36%). Whereas cypress (n = 8, 4%) and juniper (n = 10, 5%) are much less represented, the proportions of species conserved in these museum collections seem to be consistent with our results (n = 1 for either of the species).

In the case of imported and local broadleaved species, a validation of our hypotheses is less obvious. Beech (Fagus sp.) is well represented in the collections (n = 13, or 46% of the imported broadleaves) as it is at the BNU in Strasbourg. The single elm (Ulmus sp.) label is attested by only one other occurrence in the British Museum collection (n = 1, 3.5%). In addition, the presence of a single row of pores in the well-characterized pore zone of label HO128 and wood rays that are 2–5 cells wide suggests the tree that was used to produce the label was a mounting elm (Ulmus glabra) [36].

In the case of the endemic species, fig (Ficus sycomores, n = 44, 27.5% of local broadleaves), tamarisk (Tamarix sp., n = 66, 41%) and jujube (Ziziphus spina-christi, n = 37, 23%) are well represented in our analyses (n = 3 for fig, n = 7 for tamarisk, n = 1 for jujube) and in the museum corpus containing 420 labels. On the other hand, we identified two acacia labels, while this species only represents 4% of the labels from local broadleaves, which may call our initial attribution into question.

Finally, willows (Salix sp.) are fairly well represented both in the museum collection (n = 27, 59% of imported and/or local broadleaved species) and in our analyses (n = 2). However, the complex identification of this diffuse-porous species in no way allows for a definitive attribution. Furthermore, the broad taxonomic spectrum [31, 34–35] includes more than ten different willow species for the two willow labels in the corpus. Some species, such as the Egyptian willow (Salix subserrata) identified on a mummy label from the Louvre [42] is endemic to Egypt, yet a distinction between imported and endemic deciduous is therefore impossible on the basis of XRCT images.

Toolmarks on and tree sizes used for mummy labels

For a majority of the clear and visible toolmarks, the added value of XRCT as compared to observations under a binocular is relatively limited. In both cases, the distinction is focused to the traces of saws and cutting tools such as axes, adzes, planes, chisels and planes, all of which have been employed in ancient or Roman times [28, 36, 43, 44]. The interest of XRCT is, however, undeniable for the detection of faint or invisible toolmarks. In the case of the peg hole of label HO108 (Fig 6), for instance, tomography allows to confirm a recycling of the wood. That is, the pointed shape and undulations of the peg hole, clearly visible on the XRCT images, also suggest that it was drilled from a spoon bit, a tool known both in the Roman Empire [45, 46] and in ancient Egypt [47, 48]. Similarly, detailed analysis of the engraved inscriptions on label HO226 allows new insights into the gestures and practices of woodworking skills. The varying depths of the Greek letters, for example, may be related to a slight concavity of the label which ensures a good adhesion of the central part on the working surface but renders the chiseling more complex on the edges. The minimal number of chisel strokes also suggests that the inscription was made by a person (e.g., craftsman, scribe) with a perfect mastery of woodworking.

The added value of XRCT images in highlighting cutting methods and estimating sizes is especially important at the level of the ends of labels, which are often only poorly legible. Still underdeveloped [12, 14], this approach is crucial as it can help to better information on collection practices in a wood-importing country due to wood resources that are limited to the Mediterranean coast, the Nile Delta, the banks of the Nile and the main oases [49]. Despite the limitations of the small sample size, our analysis shows correlations between the cutting methods used, the size of trees and the species used to produce the mummy labels. These results show that the largest diameters estimated (on average 245.5 mm) are most often cut on mesh (probably by splitting) from conifers (n = 5). In the case of some labels (n = 7) with radial cutting, an estimation of the diameter was not possible because of the subparallel aspect of the wood rays and the weak curvature of rings, but in any case, these labels were cut from large caliber trees [38, 50]. Medium- to small-sized calibers (135 mm on average) are most often cut on a slab by sawing local broadleaved species. In the absence of traces corresponding to a length sawing, it is reasonable to think that the latter was carried out by means of a handsaw, known as a "pull saw", widely used in ancient Egypt [47] but not very adapted for large calibers. It should be noted, however, that reworking of wood, very common in Egypt [15], likely biases interpretations, as an initial cutting on a mesh can be reworked later with a saw, especially in the case of dry wood. Finally, the frequent use of saws on local woods indicates that these woods, which are gnarled and very dense due to rapid and continuous growth, are not suitable for cutting by splitting due to the lack of a preferential splitting plane. Different craft practices are therefore used depending on the origin of the wood exploited and the tools used.

Ring-width measurements based on different approaches and the dendrochronological potential of species endemic to Egypt

The measurement of ring widths was realized on images, with classical ring-width measurements on a table on the flat side of the mummy labels and by using XRCT images. Significant differences exist in the quality of results, depending on the cutting mode used. These differences are largest in the case of cutting on a slab close to the pith (HO170 and 172). Despite the small size of our sample, we hypothesize that dendrochronological analyses realized previously on the flat side of other mummy label collections may thus potentially be biased. However, the absence of a reference for the eastern Mediterranean basin in Antiquity does not allow quantification of the impact of these biases on sample dating. Regarding inter-series synchronization, only labels HO182 and HO184 show Student’s T values >5 and r correlation values >0.7 for an overlap of 28 years, suggesting the use of contemporary woods. For these two labels, correlations obtained between the ring-width series measured on XRCT images (r = 0.764, T = 5.3) are higher than those obtained between XRCT and traditional tree-ring measurements (r = 0.717 and 0.763, T = 5.151 and 4.824) or between traditional dendrochronological measurements (r = 0.715, T = 4.691). These results obviously need to be replicated but suggest an added value of XRCT for the measurement of tree-ring widths as well as the synchronization and dating of series, most certainly due to perfectly oriented measurements along the transverse plane.

XRCT images also confirm the limited dendrochronological potential of endemic species. For the construction of dendrochronological time series, a sufficiently large number of distinct, annual rings is needed for different series to be synchronized with each other [51]. None of the species identified with XRCT images appear to meet these requirements for the time being. XRCT analyses did neither allow identification of ring boundaries in sycomore (Ficus sycomorus) or common (Ficus carira) fig, nor in the case of the acacia labels. Consistent with observations by Kuniholm et al. [17], Creasman [13] and El Sherbiny [52], the parenchyma bands visible in the XRTC images do not, unfortunately, correspond to ring boundaries. In the case of fig, this is confirmed by the distribution of pores which are either isolated or radially abutting, but mostly distributed between fiber and parenchyma bands. The seven labels potentially made of tamarisk and the label produced from jujube sometimes show distinct rings, as described by Gale & Cutler [33], but the legibility of rings is very heterogeneous and the number of rings is often below 20. This is in line with observations made on living trees in Africa and the Near East on several species, including acacia and tamarisk [53–61], showing rapid growth and short series that are difficult to use for the elaboration of dendrochronological references. Therefore, imported conifers and broadleaved species remain the best candidates for the construction of reference chronologies for this part of the Mediterranean [17, 19, 62–64].

Conclusions

The results obtained from 38 mummy labels from the BNU in Strasbourg confirm the potential of X-ray computed tomography (XRCT) for the analysis of archaeological material [9]. Even if species could not be formally identified due to the insufficient resolution of the XRCT images on the longitudinal planes [9]. The results obtained on the transverse planes show that 11 labels are probably from imported conifer, 10 from imported broadleaved and 17 from local broadleaved species.

XRCT is not indispensable for the recognition of toolmarks. It does, however, undeniably improve observations of the number and depth of tool blows, highlighting developments invisible to the naked eye and providing an unambiguous view on cutting methods. It constitutes, therefore, an innovative approach to provide new information on the silvicultural practices and skills of Egyptian craftsmen.

As far as the dendrochronological approach is concerned, XRCT, by its non-destructive character, appears particularly adapted to the analysis of museum collections. XRCT images of the transverse plane offer a clear view of possible ring boundaries [7–9] that are often difficult to observe and measure using traditional methods. XRCT therefore allows insights into objects and exploration of the full potential of archaeological materials for dendrochronological purposes. Highly-resolved XRCT images can thereby also contribute to the elaboration of solid reference chronologies that can then be used for dating purposes or the analysis of past climates.

In terms of accuracy, measurements made on the flat side of conifer labels from traditional approaches and on the transverse plane of XRCT images do not show significant differences in the case of radial cutting of labels. If, however, labels were cut on a slab, differences are sometimes significant near the pith or for the first rings depending on the orientation of the rings, with likely impacts on the synchronization of ring widths. It would be relevant to develop approaches further to correct these differences for measurements made on the flat side of objects.

In terms of potential, XRCT images confirm the limited dendrochronological potential of several local species (fig, tamarisk, acacia, jujube) as they do not show distinct rings, rarely visible rings, or only a small number of rings (<20) insufficient for cross-dating and the construction of robust reference chronologies. Although other approaches could be tested (such as quantitative wood anatomy) to increase the dendrochronological potential of these local species, our results suggest that future work should focus on imported conifer labels, which are easier to measure radially and likely to provide longer series [15].

Acknowledgments

We warmly thank the engineers of the Institut Charles Sadron, CNRS—UPR22 of Strasbourg, Damien Favier and Antoine Egele, for their professionalism and for taking the time to process all the selected mummy labels. We would like to thank Victoria Asensi Amorós for her advice concerning anatomical identifications and the exploitation of tomographic images.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from: Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/10376111 https://zenodo.org/records/10384262.

Funding Statement

Yes. This article is part of a post-doctoral project funded by the SNSF, project n°192176 "The Roman Egypt Laboratory: Climat Change, Societal Transformations, and the Transition to Late Antiquity" web page project: https://ancientclimate.philhist.unibas.ch/en/project/ Web page SNSF: https://www.snf.ch/fr The funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection or analysis, neither did they influence the decision to prepare or publish the manuscript.

References

1.Lavier C. Archéodendrométrie sur objets et œuvres d’art à support-bois: savoir-faire technique, capacités, obstacles et alternatives. Sciences analytiques. 2013; 292: 67–73. [Google Scholar]
2.Guibal F, Pomey P. Ancient shipwrecks, naval architecture and dendrochronology in the western Mediterranean. In: Bockius R, editor. Between the seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of Boat and Ship Archaeology (ISBSA 11), Mainz 2006. Mainz: Verlag des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums, RGZM-Tagungen Bd 3; 2009. pp. 219–226.
3.Gassmann P, Lambert G, Lavier C. Pirogues et analyses dendrochronologiques. In: Arnold B. Pirogues monoxyles d’Europe centrale: construction, typologie, évolution, tome 2. Neuchâtel: Musée cantonal d’archéologie, Archéologie neuchâteloise 20; 1996. pp. 89–127.
4.Heginbotham A, Pousset D. The Practical Application of Dendrochronology to Furniture: The Cas of the J. Paul Getty Museum’s Renaissance Burgundian Cabinet. Wooden Artifacts Gr Postprints. 2006; 26–35.
5.Cherubini P, Carlson B, Talirz W, Wiener HM. Musical string instruments: potential and limits of tree-ring dating and provenancing to verify their authenticity. Dendrochronologia, 2022; 72. [Google Scholar]
6.Fraiture P. Contribution of dendrochronology to understanding of wood procurement sources for panel painting in the former Southern Netherlands from 1450 AD to 1650 AD. Dendrochronologia. 2009; 27(2): 95–111. [Google Scholar]
7.Dominguez-Delmas M, Bossema GF, Dorscheid J, Coban SB, Hall-Aquitania M, Batenburg J, et al. X-Ray computed tomography for non-invasive dendrochronology reveals a concealed double paneling on a painting from Rubens’studio. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16(8). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Bossema FG, Dominguez-Delmas M, Palenstijn WJ, Kostenko A, Dorscheid J Coban SB, et al. A novel method for dendrochronology of large historical wooden objects using line trajectory X-ray tomography. Nature, portfolio, scientific report. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9.Grabner M, Salaberger D, Okocki T. The need of High Resolution u-X-ray CT in Dendrochronology and in wood Identification. In: Carini A, Uhl A, Loncaric S, Zinterhof P, editors. ISPA 2009—Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis, Salzburg, Austria, 16–18 september, 2009. Salzburg & Zagreb: IEEE–University of Sazlburg & University of Zagreb; 2009. pp. 359–362.
10.Jackson JB, Mourou M, Labaune J, Whitaker JF, Duling IN III, Williamson SL, et al. Terahertz pulse imaging for tree-ring analysis: a preliminary study for dendrochronology applications. Meas Sci Technol. 2009; 20. [Google Scholar]
11.Preuss P, Christensen K, Peters K. The use of computer-tomographical X-ray scanning in dendrochronology. Nor Archaeol Rev. 1991; 24: 123–130. [Google Scholar]
12.Girardclos O, Petit C. Dendro-archaeological contribution to the history of forest exploitation: a case of the Gallo-Roman settlement of Oedenburg (Alsace, France) between 10 and 180 AD. In: Fraiture P, editor. Tree Rings Art Archaeology, Proceedings of an international conference, Brussels, Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, 10–12 February 2010. Brussels: Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage; 2011. pp. 77–97.
13.Creasman PP. The potential of dendrochronology in Egypt: Understanding Ancient Human / Environment Interactions. In: Ikram S, Kaiser J, Walker R, editors. Egyptian Bioarchaeology, humans, animals and the environment. Leiden: Sidestone Press; 2015. pp. 201–210. [Google Scholar]
14.Blondel F, Labbas V, Shindo L. La dendrochronologie: potentialités et nouveaux enjeux pour l’archéologie préventive. In: Carpentier C, Arbogast RM, Kuchler P, directors. Bioarchéologie: minimum méthodologiques, référentiels communs et nouvelles approches, actes du 4e séminaire scientifique et technique de l’Inrap, 28–29 novembre 2019. Sélestat: Inrap; 2020.
15.Blondel F, Huebner SR, Pearson C, Markus S. Mummy labels: a Witness to the Use and Processing of Wood in Roman Egypt. IJWC. 2023.
16.Kuniholm PI, Kromer B SW, Manning M, Newton CE, Bruce L, Bruce MJ. Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220–718 BC. Nature. 1996; 381: 780–783. [Google Scholar]
17.Kuniholm PI, Newton M, Sherbiny H, Bassir H. Dendrochronological Dating in Egypt: Work Accomplished and Future Prospects. Radiocarbon. 2014; 56(4): 93–102. [Google Scholar]
18.Creasman PP. Tree Rings and the Chronology of Ancient Egypt. Radiocarbon. 2014; 56 (4): 85–92. [Google Scholar]
19.Creasman PP, Dean JS, Babst F. Eine Einführung in die Dendrochronologie für Ägyptologen. Göttinger Miszellen. 2015; 245: 49–66. [Google Scholar]
20.Bornemann D. Les collections égyptologiques et papyrologiques de la Bnu. La Revue de la BNU [Online]. 2010; 2.
21.Spiegelberg W. Aegyptische und griechische Eigennamen aus Mumienetiketten der römischen Kaiserzeit, auf Grund von grossenteils unveröffentlichtem Material gesammelt und erläutert. Leipzig: JC Hinrichs; 1901. [Google Scholar]
22.Vleeming SP. Demotic and Greek-Demotic mummy labels and other short texts gathered from many publications (short texts II 278–1200). Leuven & Paris: Peeters; 2011. [Google Scholar]
23.Gaudard F, Martin Hernandez R, Torallas Tovar S. Mummy label Database (MLD). The oriental institute, Annual Report. 2008–2009: 96–100.
24.Quaegebeur J. Mummy labels: An Orientation. In: Boswinkel E, Pestman PJ, editors. Textes grecs, démotiques et bilingues. Papyrologia Lugduno-Batava.1978; 19: 232–259. [Google Scholar]
25.Worp KA. Greek, Greek/Demotic and demotic mummy labels: A survey, Death on the Nile Online Publications, Version 2.0. March 2017.
26.Firon F. La mort en Égypte romaine. De l’encadrement par le pouvoir romain à la gestion personnelle (de 30 av. J.-C. au début du IVe siècle apr. J.-C.). Milan: SilvanaEditoriale; 2020.
27.Lucas A, Harris JR. Ancient Egyptian, materials & industries. 3e ed. London: Edward Arnold publishers LTD; 1948. [Google Scholar]
28.Gale R, Gasson P, Hepper N, Killen G. Wood. In: Nicholson PT, Shaw I, editors. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 334–371. [Google Scholar]
29.Asensi Amoros MV. L’étude du bois et de son commerce en Égypte: lacunes des connaissances actuelles et perspectives pour l’analyse xylologique. In: Neumann K, Butler A, Kahlheber S, directors. Food, Fuel and Fields: Progress in African Archaeobotany. Köln: Heinrich & Barth institute; 2003. pp. 177–186. [Google Scholar]
30.Cartwright CR. Understanding Wood Whoices for Ancient Panel Painting and Mummy Portraits in the APPEAR Project through Scanning Electron Microscopy. In: Svoboda M, Cartwright C, editors. Mummy Portraits of Roman Egypt. Emerging Research from the APPEAR Project. Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum; 2020. pp. 14–23. [Google Scholar]
31.Schweingruber FH. Anatomie microscopique du bois. Zurich: F Fluch-Wirth; 1990. [Google Scholar]
32.Schweingruber FH. Anatomy of European woods. Bern & Stuttgart: Verlag Paul Haupt; 1996. [Google Scholar]
33.Gale R, Cutler D. Plants in archaeology. Identification manual of artefacts of plant origin from Europe and the Mediterranean. Kew & West Yorkshire: Westbury & Royal Botanic Gardens; 2000. [Google Scholar]
34.Neumann K, Schoch W, Détienne P, Schweingruber FH, Richter HG. Woods of the Sahara and the Sahel: An Anatomical Atlas. Bern, Stuttgart & Vienna: Haupt; 2000. [Google Scholar]
35.Akkemik Ü, Yaman B. Wood anatomy of Eastern Mediterranean Species. Remagen-Oberwinter: Kessel Publishing House; 2012. [Google Scholar]
36.Applequist MB. A simple pith locator for us with off-center increment cores. F. For. 1958; 56: 151. [Google Scholar]
37.Rozas V. Tree age estimates in Fagus sylvatica and Quercus robur: testing previous and improved methods. Plant Ecology. 2003; 167: 192–212. [Google Scholar]
38.Blondel F, Girardclos O. Approche dendroarchéologique de l’approvisionnement de la ville antique d’Augustonemetum (Clermont-Ferrand–Puy-de-Dôme) en bois d’œuvre et exploitation forestière. ArcheoSciences, Revue d’Archéométrie. 2018; 42(1): 17–33. [Google Scholar]
39.Rinn F. Eine neue Methode zur Messung von Jahrringparametern. Diplomzulassungsarbeit am Institut für Umweltphysik, Universität Heidelberg, September 1986—February 1988; 1986.
40.Larsson LA. Cybis CooRecorder–Image Coordinate Recording Program & CDendro—Cybis Dendro Dating Program. Cybis Elektronik & Data AB; 2017.
41.Delwaide A, Filion L. Echantillonnage et datation dendrochronologiques (Chapitre 7). In: Payette S, Filion L, directors. La dendrochronologie. Principes, méthodes et applications. Québec: Presses de l’université de Laval; 2010. pp. 167–197. [Google Scholar]
42.Asensi Amoros MV, Détiennes P. Les bois utilisés pour les portraits peints en Égypte à l’époque romaine. In: Aubert MF, Cortopassi R, Nachtergael G, Asensi Amoros MV, Détienne P, Pagès-Camagna S, et al. Portraits funéraires de l’Égypte romaine, cartonnage, linceuls et bois. Besançon: Khéops & Musée du Louvre; 2008. pp. 28–40. [Google Scholar]
43.Bruwier MC. Le travail du bois. In: Bruwier MC, Cession-Louppe J, De Jongle D, Evrard-Derriks C, Gratien B, Kruchten JM, et al. Artisans de l’Égypte ancienne. Morlanwelz: Musée Royal de Mariemont; 1981. pp. 38–40. [Google Scholar]
44.Long DA. More Early Planes. An account of thirteen woodworking planes dating from the late second century AD to the eleventh century AD. Bulletin Instrumentum. 2006; 24: 15–18. [Google Scholar]
45.Tisserand N. Les outils en fer du site de Vertault-Vertillum (Côte-D’Or). In: Chardron-Picault P, director. Aspects de l’artisanat en milieu urbain: Gaule et Occident romain. Actes du colloque international d’Autun, 20–22 septembre 2007. Dijon: ARTEHIS (28^e suppl. à la RAE); 2010. pp. 251–265.
46.Ulrich RB. Roman Woodworking. New Have & London: Yale university press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
47.Bruwier MC, Cession-Louppe J, De Jongle D, Evrard-Derriks C, Gratien B, Kruchten JM, et al. Artisans de l’Égypte ancienne. Morlanwelz: Musée Royal de Mariemont; 1981. [Google Scholar]
48.Aldred C. Fine woodwork. In: Singer, Holmyard EJ, Hall AR. History of Technology. Vol1. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1954. pp. 684–703. [Google Scholar]
49.Deglin F. Wood exploitation in ancient Egypt: where, who and how? In: El Gawad HA, Andrews N, Correas-Amador M, Tamorri V, Taylor J, editors. Current research in Egyptology, Proceedinf of the Twelfth Annual Symposium. Oxford & Oakville: Oxbow books; 2012. pp. 85–96. [Google Scholar]
50.Marguerie D, Hunot JY. Charcoal analysis and dendrology; data from archaeological sites in north-western France. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2006; 34(9): 1417–1433. [Google Scholar]
51.Kaennel M, Schweingruber FH. Multilingual Glossary of Dendrochronology. Terms and definitions. Birmensdorf: Paul Haupt; 1995. [Google Scholar]
52.El Sherbiny HAA. Studies in dendro-Egyptology: the laboratory of tree-ring research Egyptian wooden collection. Thesis of Faculty of the Department of Geosciences, Master of Science, University of Arizona; 2015.
53.Gourlay ID. Growth ring characteristics of some African Acacia species. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 1995; 11: 121–140. [Google Scholar]
54.Gourlay ID. The definition of seasonal growth zones in some African acacia species–A review. IAWA Journal. 1995; 16(4): 353–359. [Google Scholar]
55.Eshete G, Staehl G. Tree rings as indicators of growth periodicity of acacias in the Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management. 1999; 116: 107–117. [Google Scholar]
56.Touchan R, Hughes MK. Dendroclimatology in the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean Region. In: Manning SW, Bruce MJ, editors. Tree-Rings, Kings and old world Archaeology and Environment. Papers presented in honour of Peter Ian Kuniholm. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2009. pp. 65–70. [Google Scholar]
57.Nicolini G, Tarchiani V, Saurer M, Cherubini P. Wood-growth eones in Acacia seyal Delile in the Keita Valley, Niger: Is there any climatic signal? Journal or Arid Environments. 2010; 74(3): 355–359. [Google Scholar]
58.Wils THG, Robertson I, Eshetu Z, Koprowski M, Sass-Klaassen UGW, Touchan R, et al. Towards a reconstruction of Blue Nile Baseflow from Ethiopian tree-rings. The Holocene. 2010; 20(6): 837–349. [Google Scholar]
59.Wils THG, Sass-Klaassen UGW, Eshetu Z, Bräuning A, Gebrekirstos A, Couralet C, et al. Dendrochronology in the dry tropics: the Ethiopian case. Trees. 2011; 25(3): 345–354. [Google Scholar]
60.Gebrekirstos A, Mitlöhner R, Teketay D, Worbes M. Climate-growth relationships of the dominant tree species from semi-arid savanna woodland in Ethiopia. Trees. 2008; 22: 631–641. [Google Scholar]
61.Gebrekirstos A, Bräuning A, Sass-Klassen U, Mbow C. Opportunities and applications of dendrochronology in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2014; 6: 48–53. [Google Scholar]
62.Cichocki O, Bichler M, Firneis G, Kutschera W, Wolfgang M, Stadler P. The synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium BC: Natural Science Dating Attempts. In: Buck CE, Millard AR, editors. Tools for Constructing Chronologies, Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries. London: Springer Science & Business Media; 2004. pp. 83–109. [Google Scholar]
63.Cichocki O. Libanesische Zedern als Datierungswerkzeug in der ägyptischen Archäologie. In: Czerny E., Hein I, Hunger H, Melman D, Schwab A, editors. Timelines, Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149, Bd. 1–3; 2006. pp. 293–299.
64.Touchan R, Meko DM, Anchukaitis KJ. Dendroclimatology in the Eastern Mediterranean. Radiocarbon. 2014; 56(4): 61–68. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303695.r001

Decision Letter 0

Dario Piombino-Mascali

3 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-11489The potential of X-ray computed tomography for a xylological and dendrochronological analysis of Egyptian mummy labelsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Blondel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 17 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dario Piombino-Mascali, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Yes.

This article is part of a post-doctoral project funded by the SNSF, project n°192176 "The Roman Egypt Laboratory: Climat Change, Societal Transformations, and the Transition to Late Antiquity"

web page project: https://ancientclimate.philhist.unibas.ch/en/project/

Web page SNSF :

https://www.snf.ch/fr”

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The tomographic analyses carried out on 38 mummy labels was financed in the framework of the SNSF project n° 192176 "The Roman Egypt Laboratory: Climate Change, Societal Transformations, and the Transition to Late Antiquity". We warmly thank the engineers of the Institut Charles Sadron, CNRS - UPR22 of Strasbourg, Damien Favier and Antoine Egele, for their professionalism and for taking the time to process all the selected mummy labels. We would like to thank Véronique Asensi Amoros for her advice concerning anatomical identifications and the exploitation of tomographic images.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Yes.

This article is part of a post-doctoral project funded by the SNSF, project n°192176 "The Roman Egypt Laboratory: Climat Change, Societal Transformations, and the Transition to Late Antiquity"

web page project: https://ancientclimate.philhist.unibas.ch/en/project/

Web page SNSF :

https://www.snf.ch/fr”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that Figures 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

6. We note that you have referenced (John J. Variation of wood anatomy in relation to environmental factors in two southern African broadleaves. Departement of Pure and Applied Biology, imperial College, London, Unpublished PhD Thesis; 1990) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please consider the recommendations of the reviewers, make the relevant changes, double check the reference style and have the paper edited by a native English speaker prior to resubmission. Thank you

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Nice piece of work. A few changes in terms of grammar and spelling (on mss that will be sent to the authors). A question: at the outset, how did the authors establish the type of wood, or was that a result of their work? A trifle unclear. Please clarify.

Reviewer #2: Dendrochronology remains underdeveloped in the context of Egyptian archaeology; therefore, this paper makes a significant contribution to the field of 'dendro-Egyptology.' However, the applicability of dendrochronology in ancient Egypt is hindered by the scarcity of trees with suitable rings for dating purposes in the region. Dendrochronology is most reliable when there is a continuous sequence of tree rings spanning a long period. In regions with limited tree growth, such as Egypt, this method becomes less practical due to the rarity of suitable tree species and samples. A primary challenge in 'dendro-Egyptology' is the limited availability of local wood resources, with wood reuse being a common practice. As mentioned in the paper, some of the examined labels originated from reused wood, which complicates dendrochronological analysis, not only here but in general in Egypt. Emphasizing this obstacle in the text is essential.

Nonetheless, mummy labels and wooden tablets with inscriptions bearing dates are of utmost importance for advancing dendrochronology in the region. Some wood identification methods can be invasive, and museum curators may be reluctant to employ them. Accurate species identification is crucial for dendrochronological examination, but it is often a challenging and sometimes impossible task. Therefore, this paper describes the available methodology, which may prove valuable to other scholars.

Over all I do not have negative comments and I do not see and flaws but regarding Table 1: it is stated that the dimensions are provided in millimetres. I believe there may be an error because it seems unlikely that these labels measure, for example, 14.5 mm in length; rather, it is more likely that they are 14.5 cm.

In other aspects, the paper appears sound. The discussion is clear, and the conclusion is acceptable.

Despite the limitations of the currently available equipment, studies like this one must be conducted as they hold the potential to refine our understanding of silvicultural practices, chronology, and local craftsmanship. The present study shows new possibilities for the application of XRCT while also highlighting its limitations. Negative results are equally valuable, and the authors provide valuable directions for further research, which should be pursued. Therefore, this paper provide a valuable contribution.

Beyond the aim of the paper it is worth mentioning that the methodology described has the potential to be applied to other projects examining wooden objects from various periods and regions. For instance, at the last International Congress of Egyptologists, T. Beck presented a very interesting talk titled 'From Style to Function: Wooden statues and their ritual entanglements,' revealing a previously unknown practice of creating depictions located in concealed parts of wooden statues. Applying the methodology presented here to search for such engraved depictions in joints of wooden objects could be applied in future research.

Reviewer #3: Dear authors,

you present a very interesting study about testing and illustrating the potential of X-ray computed tomography (XRCT) to investigate the production of mummy labels from the Roman Era. The focus of the research is to assess whether XRCT can be used to i) identify the wood species, ii) retrieve tool traces and iii) carry out non-invasive dendrochronology. Your manuscript is very well structured and clearly written and you highlight the limitations of the technique, which is a crucial point in this type of papers, and one very much appreciated by this reviewer. Having said that, and as much as I would like to see this article published swiftly, I wonder whether it is suited for PLOS ONE. I base this thought in that i) it deals with the implementation of a technique that is not novel to cultural heritage research in general (the novelty resides in the object to which it is applied to), and ii) it does not report major findings. Given its informative character about the implementation of a technique, it may be better suited for a journal such as Heritage Science, or Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.

In any case, since the article presents sound research, I will have recommended minor revision, and leave the decision to the editor. Should the editor accept it, I have some minor suggestions for improvements that you may want to address (also if you send it elsewhere):

- In the submission file you replied to the Data Availability statement that "Yes - all data are fully available without restriction". However, you have not indicated where this data can be found. This statement should be amended providing a link to the data repository.

- Replace non-destructive by non-invasive in the abstract and elsewhere, as a non-destructive intervention can still be invasive, but the work you describe here is non-invasive (which by definition is also non-destructive).

- In the abstract, mention the nr of labels that were examined, also in the introduction, as this is not explicitly said until the first paragraph of the discussion (38 labels). The number of researched labels contrasts with the one reported in the introduction for the collection in question (256 labels). “Here, XRCT was tested on a batch of 38 mummy labels from Roman Egypt”

- The references 1 to 5 in the introduction, and many other throughout the text, are biased towards French publications that are difficult (or impossible) to obtain online. E.g: 10, 11, 14, 24, 26, 29, 32, 39, 42 (there are several English publications to refer to the principles of Dendrochronology). References 43 and 44 are highly justified for this article, but for the other ones, nowadays there is a large corpus of scientific literature in English dealing with the research of wooden object from museum collections in Austria, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, etc. and about other topics related to this paper. PLOS ONE is a multidisciplinary journal read worldwide and providing English references wherever possible is an added value. I suggest that you replace those references as much as possible by scientific literature published in English.

- In the first paragraph of Material and Methods, please write what dates correspond to the Greco-Roman period, as this is not known by readers not familiar with Egyptian history.

- Also in the Methods, in the part about X-ray CT, please specify the X-ray settings used, as this is customary for X-rau CT studies, and is necessary for reproducibility of results. Also, please explain whether the same settings were used for labels of different dimensions (did you adjust the settings or used the same for all).

- Figure 1 is the same one as the one published in the article https://doi.org/10.1163/27723194-bja10017 by the same authors earlier this year: ‘Mummy Labels: A Witness to the Use and Processing of Wood in Roman Egypt’. I see that the article is published in the IJWC under license CC BY 4.0 Deed, therefore it is up to PLOS ONE whether they are OK with the figure being published there too.

- In the last paragraph of the point "Comparison of dendrochronological acquisition methods", you report a find that echoes what Bossema et al 2021 published too: « The discrepancy between the acquisition methods was maximal for cutting on slabs or close to the pith" (they show a figure of tree-ring measurements obtained from the board of a historical chest that clearly illustrates that discrepancy). Therefore I suggest that you refer here to their publication as well, as it will show that you are well acquainted with the current literature (you already have their publication in the reference list).

- In line 254 there is no need to use the acronym QWA, as this is not used later on.

Kind regards

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Wojciech Ejsmond

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-11489 mummy labels with notes.pdf

pone.0303695.s001.pdf^{(11.5MB, pdf)}

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 28;19(6):e0303695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303695.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

16 Jan 2024

Response to editor

Thank you for your comments on our revised article. We have made stylistic changes in line with the templates. We have added the financial information requested on the site and removed this information from the acknowledgements and placed it in the dedicated section. As you indicated, I have also modified the cover letter to read: This article is part of an SNSF-funded post-doctoral project, project n°192176 "The Roman Egypt Laboratory:

Climat Change, Societal Transformations, and the Transition to Late Antiquity" (Project website: https://ancientclimate.philhist.unibas.ch/en/project/ ; SNSF web page :

https://www.snf.ch/fr). The tomographic acquisitions of the 38 mummy labels were funded as part of SNSF project n°192176 "The Roman Egypt Laboratory. I also made it clear that the SNSF (the funders) did not influence the writing of the article and the results that followed from it.

Our intention was for the figures to be copyright free. This is simply an oversight on our part during our first submission, since all the figures were made for the article, with the exception of figure 1 already used in a previous article, but which is already in free access. They are therefore not subject to copyright. This error has now been corrected. We therefore authorize the publication of all figures under CC by 4.0 license. In detail, I would like to point out that Figure 1 is a photograph taken by S. R. Huebner, co-author of the article. Figure 2 is a composition based on a photograph of a label, which I took myself during the tomographic sessions in Strasbourg, and on the detail of a label from the BNU collection (which is one of the photographs from the collection of the BNU deposited on the zenodo server linked to the article). Figure 3 is a figure that I created from the extraction of a tomographic image that I made from the dataset available on the zenodo server as part of the article. Figure 4 was produced from a front and back montage of the HO184 label (available on the server) and the extraction of views from the tomographic dataset that I produced as well as the growth curves of my dendrochronological measurements. Figures 5, 6 and 7 are a tomographic imaging montage that I created from the entire tomographic image data and photographs of the tool marks that I made myself. Figures 8, 9 and 10 consist of graphs from the anatomical, dendrological and dendrochronological observations that I made.

All the tomographic images of the 38 labels and the photographs of the latter taken by the BNU of Strasbourg, but in open access (public data) and a table summarising the tomograph settings for each label, as well as the views used to make the ring width measurements, have been archived as a compressed file and made available on a public repository (Zenodo). A text detailing the approach and protocol has been drafted and will be submitted to you. Data available on Zenodo will be made available upon acceptance of this article.

We do not understand that the reference "John J. Variation of wood anatomy in relation to environmental factors in two southern African broadleaves. Department of Pure and Applied Biology, imperial College, London, Unpublished PhD Thesis; 1990" is not acceptable, even though it is considered as such and is accessible on the imperial college of london website. But to be on the safe side, we have marked it as unpublished in the text and highlighted it in the bibliography, based on your comments. We have written a response to each of the reviewers. Corrections taken into account by the reviewers are highlighted in green. Some additional corrections have been made by the authors and are shown in purple in the commented text version.

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer 1

Thank you for your proofreading and the grammar and spelling corrections. Everything has been taken into account. We have specified how we selected the mummy labels according to their taxonomic diversity on the basis of initial observations under binoculars. This detail has been included in the "selection of tomographed labels" section.

Reviewer 2

We would like to thank you for your review and for your comments on our article. We have added a sentence to the introduction to point out the difficulty of establishing dendrochronological references for Egypt in general, and for the Roman period in particular, due to the practice of reusing wood. We have also modified tables 1 and 3, where the dimensions are in cm rather than mm. It was indeed a mistake on my part.

Reviewer 3

Thank you for your review and your many comments and remarks. You are right about the unrestricted availability of the data, and this is also a request from the SNSF. All the tomographic images have been deposited on a dedicated server so that they are accessible and the results reproducible. We have replaced "non-invasive" with "non-destructive" throughout the article. We have corrected and indicated the number of labels analysed in the summary and specified in the introduction between those taken into account in this study and the collection as a whole. Most of the French references have been replaced by English references, but some remain difficult to replace. I am thinking in particular of Catherine Lavier's work on archaeometric approaches to wooden collections from archaeology or museum collections, as this is not a case study but a global approach to possible approaches to these collections, or Béal Arnold's work, which is a mass of data and information on dendrochronological approaches to pirogues discovered in Europe, which also has no equivalent in English. We specified the Greco-Roman period as requested. Indeed, we had not given all the scan settings. All these details have been added to the method, along with confirmation that the settings were the same for all 38 labels. It is true that Figure 1 is the same as the article published in the IJWC, but PlosOne does not seem to have objected to including it in this new article. The reference to Bossema et al. 2021 has been added as requested. Finally, we have removed the acronym QWA in the conclusion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebuttal letter Plos One-v2.docx

pone.0303695.s002.docx^{(16.1KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303695.r003

Decision Letter 1

Dario Piombino-Mascali

9 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-11489R1The potential of X-ray computed tomography for a xylological and dendrochronological analysis of Egyptian mummy labelsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Blondel,

==============================Please have the paper read by a native English speaker and adjust the reference style

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 25 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dario Piombino-Mascali, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please adjust the references according to the journal style and have the paper read by a Native English speaker one last time prior to resubmission. I will accept the paper immediately afterwards.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 28;19(6):e0303695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303695.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

20 Apr 2024

Dear Plos One editors,

I have taken into account all suggestions from previous revisions proposed by Plos One reviewers and editors. This new version of the manuscript concerns changes made by a native English speaker who over-keyed words and changed several turns of phrase. These modifications concern only the synthaxis. I have updated and checked the bibliographical references. In this new submission, I'm submitting a new version of the manuscript with tracked corrections and another just corrected as requested. I've added a paragraph in the "letter rebuttal" which presents these modifications along with all those already presented in my previous submissions.

Concerning the data used and the possibility of replicating results, I have deposited all my data used for this article on two zenodo links with a protocol. This solution seemed simpler than the one proposed by "in protocols.io", especially for tomographic imaging data.

I hope that this submission will comply fully with PlosOne's requirements.

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebuttal letter Plos One-v4.docx

pone.0303695.s003.docx^{(16.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303695.r005

Decision Letter 2

Dario Piombino-Mascali

30 Apr 2024

The potential of X-ray computed tomography for a xylological and dendrochronological analysis of Egyptian mummy labels

PONE-D-23-11489R2

Dear Dr. Blondel,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dario Piombino-Mascali, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

thanks for all your hard work

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303695.r006

Acceptance letter

Dario Piombino-Mascali

29 May 2024

PONE-D-23-11489R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Blondel,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Dario Piombino-Mascali

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-11489 mummy labels with notes.pdf

pone.0303695.s001.pdf^{(11.5MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebuttal letter Plos One-v2.docx

pone.0303695.s002.docx^{(16.1KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: rebuttal letter Plos One-v4.docx

pone.0303695.s003.docx^{(16.4KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from: Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/10376111 https://zenodo.org/records/10384262.

[pone.0303695.ref001] 1.Lavier C. Archéodendrométrie sur objets et œuvres d’art à support-bois: savoir-faire technique, capacités, obstacles et alternatives. Sciences analytiques. 2013; 292: 67–73. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref002] 2.Guibal F, Pomey P. Ancient shipwrecks, naval architecture and dendrochronology in the western Mediterranean. In: Bockius R, editor. Between the seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of Boat and Ship Archaeology (ISBSA 11), Mainz 2006. Mainz: Verlag des römisch-germanischen Zentralmuseums, RGZM-Tagungen Bd 3; 2009. pp. 219–226.

[pone.0303695.ref003] 3.Gassmann P, Lambert G, Lavier C. Pirogues et analyses dendrochronologiques. In: Arnold B. Pirogues monoxyles d’Europe centrale: construction, typologie, évolution, tome 2. Neuchâtel: Musée cantonal d’archéologie, Archéologie neuchâteloise 20; 1996. pp. 89–127.

[pone.0303695.ref004] 4.Heginbotham A, Pousset D. The Practical Application of Dendrochronology to Furniture: The Cas of the J. Paul Getty Museum’s Renaissance Burgundian Cabinet. Wooden Artifacts Gr Postprints. 2006; 26–35.

[pone.0303695.ref005] 5.Cherubini P, Carlson B, Talirz W, Wiener HM. Musical string instruments: potential and limits of tree-ring dating and provenancing to verify their authenticity. Dendrochronologia, 2022; 72. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref006] 6.Fraiture P. Contribution of dendrochronology to understanding of wood procurement sources for panel painting in the former Southern Netherlands from 1450 AD to 1650 AD. Dendrochronologia. 2009; 27(2): 95–111. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref007] 7.Dominguez-Delmas M, Bossema GF, Dorscheid J, Coban SB, Hall-Aquitania M, Batenburg J, et al. X-Ray computed tomography for non-invasive dendrochronology reveals a concealed double paneling on a painting from Rubens’studio. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16(8). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref008] 8.Bossema FG, Dominguez-Delmas M, Palenstijn WJ, Kostenko A, Dorscheid J Coban SB, et al. A novel method for dendrochronology of large historical wooden objects using line trajectory X-ray tomography. Nature, portfolio, scientific report. 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[pone.0303695.ref009] 9.Grabner M, Salaberger D, Okocki T. The need of High Resolution u-X-ray CT in Dendrochronology and in wood Identification. In: Carini A, Uhl A, Loncaric S, Zinterhof P, editors. ISPA 2009—Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis, Salzburg, Austria, 16–18 september, 2009. Salzburg & Zagreb: IEEE–University of Sazlburg & University of Zagreb; 2009. pp. 359–362.

[pone.0303695.ref010] 10.Jackson JB, Mourou M, Labaune J, Whitaker JF, Duling IN III, Williamson SL, et al. Terahertz pulse imaging for tree-ring analysis: a preliminary study for dendrochronology applications. Meas Sci Technol. 2009; 20. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref011] 11.Preuss P, Christensen K, Peters K. The use of computer-tomographical X-ray scanning in dendrochronology. Nor Archaeol Rev. 1991; 24: 123–130. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref012] 12.Girardclos O, Petit C. Dendro-archaeological contribution to the history of forest exploitation: a case of the Gallo-Roman settlement of Oedenburg (Alsace, France) between 10 and 180 AD. In: Fraiture P, editor. Tree Rings Art Archaeology, Proceedings of an international conference, Brussels, Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage, 10–12 February 2010. Brussels: Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage; 2011. pp. 77–97.

[pone.0303695.ref013] 13.Creasman PP. The potential of dendrochronology in Egypt: Understanding Ancient Human / Environment Interactions. In: Ikram S, Kaiser J, Walker R, editors. Egyptian Bioarchaeology, humans, animals and the environment. Leiden: Sidestone Press; 2015. pp. 201–210. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref014] 14.Blondel F, Labbas V, Shindo L. La dendrochronologie: potentialités et nouveaux enjeux pour l’archéologie préventive. In: Carpentier C, Arbogast RM, Kuchler P, directors. Bioarchéologie: minimum méthodologiques, référentiels communs et nouvelles approches, actes du 4e séminaire scientifique et technique de l’Inrap, 28–29 novembre 2019. Sélestat: Inrap; 2020.

[pone.0303695.ref015] 15.Blondel F, Huebner SR, Pearson C, Markus S. Mummy labels: a Witness to the Use and Processing of Wood in Roman Egypt. IJWC. 2023.

[pone.0303695.ref016] 16.Kuniholm PI, Kromer B SW, Manning M, Newton CE, Bruce L, Bruce MJ. Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220–718 BC. Nature. 1996; 381: 780–783. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref017] 17.Kuniholm PI, Newton M, Sherbiny H, Bassir H. Dendrochronological Dating in Egypt: Work Accomplished and Future Prospects. Radiocarbon. 2014; 56(4): 93–102. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref018] 18.Creasman PP. Tree Rings and the Chronology of Ancient Egypt. Radiocarbon. 2014; 56 (4): 85–92. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref019] 19.Creasman PP, Dean JS, Babst F. Eine Einführung in die Dendrochronologie für Ägyptologen. Göttinger Miszellen. 2015; 245: 49–66. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref020] 20.Bornemann D. Les collections égyptologiques et papyrologiques de la Bnu. La Revue de la BNU [Online]. 2010; 2.

[pone.0303695.ref021] 21.Spiegelberg W. Aegyptische und griechische Eigennamen aus Mumienetiketten der römischen Kaiserzeit, auf Grund von grossenteils unveröffentlichtem Material gesammelt und erläutert. Leipzig: JC Hinrichs; 1901. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref022] 22.Vleeming SP. Demotic and Greek-Demotic mummy labels and other short texts gathered from many publications (short texts II 278–1200). Leuven & Paris: Peeters; 2011. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref023] 23.Gaudard F, Martin Hernandez R, Torallas Tovar S. Mummy label Database (MLD). The oriental institute, Annual Report. 2008–2009: 96–100.

[pone.0303695.ref024] 24.Quaegebeur J. Mummy labels: An Orientation. In: Boswinkel E, Pestman PJ, editors. Textes grecs, démotiques et bilingues. Papyrologia Lugduno-Batava.1978; 19: 232–259. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref025] 25.Worp KA. Greek, Greek/Demotic and demotic mummy labels: A survey, Death on the Nile Online Publications, Version 2.0. March 2017.

[pone.0303695.ref026] 26.Firon F. La mort en Égypte romaine. De l’encadrement par le pouvoir romain à la gestion personnelle (de 30 av. J.-C. au début du IVe siècle apr. J.-C.). Milan: SilvanaEditoriale; 2020.

[pone.0303695.ref027] 27.Lucas A, Harris JR. Ancient Egyptian, materials & industries. 3e ed. London: Edward Arnold publishers LTD; 1948. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref028] 28.Gale R, Gasson P, Hepper N, Killen G. Wood. In: Nicholson PT, Shaw I, editors. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 334–371. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref029] 29.Asensi Amoros MV. L’étude du bois et de son commerce en Égypte: lacunes des connaissances actuelles et perspectives pour l’analyse xylologique. In: Neumann K, Butler A, Kahlheber S, directors. Food, Fuel and Fields: Progress in African Archaeobotany. Köln: Heinrich & Barth institute; 2003. pp. 177–186. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref030] 30.Cartwright CR. Understanding Wood Whoices for Ancient Panel Painting and Mummy Portraits in the APPEAR Project through Scanning Electron Microscopy. In: Svoboda M, Cartwright C, editors. Mummy Portraits of Roman Egypt. Emerging Research from the APPEAR Project. Los Angeles: J Paul Getty Museum; 2020. pp. 14–23. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref031] 31.Schweingruber FH. Anatomie microscopique du bois. Zurich: F Fluch-Wirth; 1990. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref032] 32.Schweingruber FH. Anatomy of European woods. Bern & Stuttgart: Verlag Paul Haupt; 1996. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref033] 33.Gale R, Cutler D. Plants in archaeology. Identification manual of artefacts of plant origin from Europe and the Mediterranean. Kew & West Yorkshire: Westbury & Royal Botanic Gardens; 2000. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref034] 34.Neumann K, Schoch W, Détienne P, Schweingruber FH, Richter HG. Woods of the Sahara and the Sahel: An Anatomical Atlas. Bern, Stuttgart & Vienna: Haupt; 2000. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref035] 35.Akkemik Ü, Yaman B. Wood anatomy of Eastern Mediterranean Species. Remagen-Oberwinter: Kessel Publishing House; 2012. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref036] 36.Applequist MB. A simple pith locator for us with off-center increment cores. F. For. 1958; 56: 151. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref037] 37.Rozas V. Tree age estimates in Fagus sylvatica and Quercus robur: testing previous and improved methods. Plant Ecology. 2003; 167: 192–212. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref038] 38.Blondel F, Girardclos O. Approche dendroarchéologique de l’approvisionnement de la ville antique d’Augustonemetum (Clermont-Ferrand–Puy-de-Dôme) en bois d’œuvre et exploitation forestière. ArcheoSciences, Revue d’Archéométrie. 2018; 42(1): 17–33. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref039] 39.Rinn F. Eine neue Methode zur Messung von Jahrringparametern. Diplomzulassungsarbeit am Institut für Umweltphysik, Universität Heidelberg, September 1986—February 1988; 1986.

[pone.0303695.ref040] 40.Larsson LA. Cybis CooRecorder–Image Coordinate Recording Program & CDendro—Cybis Dendro Dating Program. Cybis Elektronik & Data AB; 2017.

[pone.0303695.ref041] 41.Delwaide A, Filion L. Echantillonnage et datation dendrochronologiques (Chapitre 7). In: Payette S, Filion L, directors. La dendrochronologie. Principes, méthodes et applications. Québec: Presses de l’université de Laval; 2010. pp. 167–197. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref042] 42.Asensi Amoros MV, Détiennes P. Les bois utilisés pour les portraits peints en Égypte à l’époque romaine. In: Aubert MF, Cortopassi R, Nachtergael G, Asensi Amoros MV, Détienne P, Pagès-Camagna S, et al. Portraits funéraires de l’Égypte romaine, cartonnage, linceuls et bois. Besançon: Khéops & Musée du Louvre; 2008. pp. 28–40. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref043] 43.Bruwier MC. Le travail du bois. In: Bruwier MC, Cession-Louppe J, De Jongle D, Evrard-Derriks C, Gratien B, Kruchten JM, et al. Artisans de l’Égypte ancienne. Morlanwelz: Musée Royal de Mariemont; 1981. pp. 38–40. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref044] 44.Long DA. More Early Planes. An account of thirteen woodworking planes dating from the late second century AD to the eleventh century AD. Bulletin Instrumentum. 2006; 24: 15–18. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref045] 45.Tisserand N. Les outils en fer du site de Vertault-Vertillum (Côte-D’Or). In: Chardron-Picault P, director. Aspects de l’artisanat en milieu urbain: Gaule et Occident romain. Actes du colloque international d’Autun, 20–22 septembre 2007. Dijon: ARTEHIS (28^e suppl. à la RAE); 2010. pp. 251–265.

[pone.0303695.ref046] 46.Ulrich RB. Roman Woodworking. New Have & London: Yale university press; 2007. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref047] 47.Bruwier MC, Cession-Louppe J, De Jongle D, Evrard-Derriks C, Gratien B, Kruchten JM, et al. Artisans de l’Égypte ancienne. Morlanwelz: Musée Royal de Mariemont; 1981. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref048] 48.Aldred C. Fine woodwork. In: Singer, Holmyard EJ, Hall AR. History of Technology. Vol1. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1954. pp. 684–703. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref049] 49.Deglin F. Wood exploitation in ancient Egypt: where, who and how? In: El Gawad HA, Andrews N, Correas-Amador M, Tamorri V, Taylor J, editors. Current research in Egyptology, Proceedinf of the Twelfth Annual Symposium. Oxford & Oakville: Oxbow books; 2012. pp. 85–96. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref050] 50.Marguerie D, Hunot JY. Charcoal analysis and dendrology; data from archaeological sites in north-western France. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2006; 34(9): 1417–1433. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref051] 51.Kaennel M, Schweingruber FH. Multilingual Glossary of Dendrochronology. Terms and definitions. Birmensdorf: Paul Haupt; 1995. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref052] 52.El Sherbiny HAA. Studies in dendro-Egyptology: the laboratory of tree-ring research Egyptian wooden collection. Thesis of Faculty of the Department of Geosciences, Master of Science, University of Arizona; 2015.

[pone.0303695.ref053] 53.Gourlay ID. Growth ring characteristics of some African Acacia species. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 1995; 11: 121–140. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref054] 54.Gourlay ID. The definition of seasonal growth zones in some African acacia species–A review. IAWA Journal. 1995; 16(4): 353–359. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref055] 55.Eshete G, Staehl G. Tree rings as indicators of growth periodicity of acacias in the Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management. 1999; 116: 107–117. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref056] 56.Touchan R, Hughes MK. Dendroclimatology in the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean Region. In: Manning SW, Bruce MJ, editors. Tree-Rings, Kings and old world Archaeology and Environment. Papers presented in honour of Peter Ian Kuniholm. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2009. pp. 65–70. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref057] 57.Nicolini G, Tarchiani V, Saurer M, Cherubini P. Wood-growth eones in Acacia seyal Delile in the Keita Valley, Niger: Is there any climatic signal? Journal or Arid Environments. 2010; 74(3): 355–359. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref058] 58.Wils THG, Robertson I, Eshetu Z, Koprowski M, Sass-Klaassen UGW, Touchan R, et al. Towards a reconstruction of Blue Nile Baseflow from Ethiopian tree-rings. The Holocene. 2010; 20(6): 837–349. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref059] 59.Wils THG, Sass-Klaassen UGW, Eshetu Z, Bräuning A, Gebrekirstos A, Couralet C, et al. Dendrochronology in the dry tropics: the Ethiopian case. Trees. 2011; 25(3): 345–354. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref060] 60.Gebrekirstos A, Mitlöhner R, Teketay D, Worbes M. Climate-growth relationships of the dominant tree species from semi-arid savanna woodland in Ethiopia. Trees. 2008; 22: 631–641. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref061] 61.Gebrekirstos A, Bräuning A, Sass-Klassen U, Mbow C. Opportunities and applications of dendrochronology in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2014; 6: 48–53. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref062] 62.Cichocki O, Bichler M, Firneis G, Kutschera W, Wolfgang M, Stadler P. The synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millenium BC: Natural Science Dating Attempts. In: Buck CE, Millard AR, editors. Tools for Constructing Chronologies, Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries. London: Springer Science & Business Media; 2004. pp. 83–109. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0303695.ref063] 63.Cichocki O. Libanesische Zedern als Datierungswerkzeug in der ägyptischen Archäologie. In: Czerny E., Hein I, Hunger H, Melman D, Schwab A, editors. Timelines, Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, OLA 149, Bd. 1–3; 2006. pp. 293–299.

[pone.0303695.ref064] 64.Touchan R, Meko DM, Anchukaitis KJ. Dendroclimatology in the Eastern Mediterranean. Radiocarbon. 2014; 56(4): 61–68. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

The potential of X-ray computed tomography for xylological and dendrochronological analyses of Egyptian mummy labels

François Blondel

Gisela Bélot

Christophe Corona

Sabine R Huebner

Markus Stoffel

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and method

Mummy labels from the BNU in Strasbourg

Fig 1. Examples of mummy labels from the collection of the BNU of Strasbourg.

X-ray computer tomography

Fig 2. Location of a label (HO137) on its support/vice in the tomograph between the X-ray source and the 2D detector and detail of the tomographed area on the label (Coll. and photogr. BNU de Strasbourg).

Selection of tomographed labels

Table 1. Inventory of mummy labels selected for XRCT with key descriptive information and regarding CT resolution.

Anatomical identifications

Size estimation and technological observations

Fig 3. Methodology applied for the estimation of the size of trees selected for the cutting of mummy labels from the transverse plane of label HO229.

Ring width measurements

Fig 4. Presentation of the two methods of measuring ring widths on label HO184: One directly on the object and the other from XRCT images, as well as the comparison of the ring widths of the two synchronizations obtained (coll. and photogr. BNU de Strasbourg HO184).

Results

Identification of the species used

Fig 5. Tomographic images of the transverse plane of six mummy labels made of different endemic and imported species.

Table 2. Detailed description of the different anatomical markers identified on the transverse plane of the XRCT images and–to a lesser extent–based on observations made on the mummy labels.

Toolmarks identified in XRCT images

Fig 6. Various toolmarks and features recognized on the mummy labels.

Table 3. Description of the various data relating to the mode of cutting, traces of tools and the estimate size of the trees used (i.e. diameter, in cm).

Fig 7. Analyses of various chisel strokes and cutting depths as identified on a single label to make the inscription.

Timber size estimation

Fig 8. Distribution of mummy labels by cutting method and tree family type, as well as estimated tree diameters used to produce the labels.

Conventional vs. XRCT dendrochronology

Fig 9. Comparison of differences in ring-width values obtained from high-resolution photographs and CooRecorder, conventional measurements with a moving table and from XRCT images.

Discussion

Contribution of XRCT images to wood anatomy

Fig 10. Taxonomic variety of species identified in the mummy label collections of the British Museum, the Louvre, the Musée de Picardie in Amiens and the Musée Archéologique de Marseille.

Toolmarks on and tree sizes used for mummy labels

Ring-width measurements based on different approaches and the dendrochronological potential of species endemic to Egypt

Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Dario Piombino-Mascali

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Dario Piombino-Mascali

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Dario Piombino-Mascali

Roles

Acceptance letter

Dario Piombino-Mascali

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases