Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Feb 21;15(2):e0229140. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229140

Synchrotron “virtual archaeozoology” reveals how Ancient Egyptians prepared a decaying crocodile cadaver for mummification

Camille Berruyer 1,2,*, Stéphanie M Porcier 3,4, Paul Tafforeau 1
Editor: William Oki Wong5
PMCID: PMC7034907  PMID: 32084197

Abstract

Although Ancient Egyptians mummified millions of animals over the course of one millennium, many details of these mummification protocols remain unknown. Multi-scale propagation phase-contrast X-ray synchrotron microtomography was used to visualise an ancient Egyptian crocodile mummy housed at the Musée des Confluences (Lyon, France). This state-of-the-art non-destructive imaging technique revealed the complete interior anatomy of the mummy in three dimensions. Here, we present detailed insight into the complex post-mortem treatment of a decaying crocodile cadaver in preparation for mummification. Except for the head and the extremities of the limbs, everything beneath the skin of the crocodile (i.e. organs, muscles, and even most of the skeleton) was removed to cease further putrefaction. This unexpected finding demonstrates that earlier knowledge obtained from textual and other archaeological sources does not sufficiently reflect the diversity of mummification protocols implemented by Ancient Egyptians.

Introduction

From the end of the Late Period (ca. 722–332 BC) into the Roman era (around the third century AD), Egyptians mummified millions of animals as part of their animal cult [17].

Ancient votive animal mummification was conducted using a wide range of protocols. A wealth of research into the topic and direct analyses of animal mummies, demonstrated that a large diversity of animal remains was preserved in these mummies. Some mummies contain a single animal (e.g. [810]). Of the 152 animal mummies analysed by L. McKnight to date, 86 (57%) contained a single complete individual [9, 11].

Votive animal mummies were not exclusively created from complete and well-preserved carcasses. Some bundles were made from several complete young individuals (especially in crocodiles mummies) [12]. Cases have been described where bundles contained detached body parts or parts of decaying animals [9,1113]. Most of these mummies contain parts of a single specimen, although some of them preserve parts of several individuals of the same species, or elements of several individuals from different species [9, 1113].

Nevertheless, to the extent of our knowledge, no detailed insights into the mummification techniques used for preserving largely putrefied cadavers have been reported. Crocodile mummy MHNL 90001850 presented here represents such a preparation protocol and reveals a thus-far unknown procedure for manufacturing votive mummies.

Material

The studied crocodile mummy (MHNL 90001850; Fig 1) is housed in the Musée des Confluences, Lyon, France, no permit were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations. The mummy is preserved in two parts. The anterior (head) part measures 21.1 cm and the posterior (body) part, lacking the tip of the tail, measures 40.4 cm. It is housed in the animal mummy collection of the Musée des Confluences in Lyon, France. This collection is the largest of its kind outside Egypt. The collection was gathered between 1897 and 1909, mainly by L. Lortet with assistance of G. Maspero [1416]. Exploratory analyses on the collection (e.g. the unwrapping of mummies, isolating individual animals from mummies composed of multiple specimens, and cleaning of skeletons) were performed in the beginning of the XXth century by L. Lortet and C. Gaillard [16]. However, these analyses were either not properly recorded, or the documentation has been lost. Spatial and temporal provenance are unknown for MHNL 90001850, although L. Lortet and C. Gaillard mention that this specimen may have originated from either Esna or Kom Ombo [17]. Although radiocarbon dating may be used to indicate the age of the mummy, this destructive technique was not available to us within the scope of the present study.

Fig 1. Crocodile mummy MHNL 90001850.

Fig 1

a. Visible light picture of the specimen, b. UV fluorescence picture of the specimen showing in brown and dark green the parts of skin without balm, in light green the exposed skin where the body and the head are separated [1, 2], in light green the exposed osteoderms and eggshell fragments, in orange the palm-tree wood [4] and in yellow several remaining parts of the original textiles [3]. The violet parts are reflections of the lamp on shiny dark surfaces of balm.

Although M. Nicolotti and L. Robert (1994) already described MHNL 90001850, we made several observations conflicting their 1994 report. We therefore propose the following updated description. The mummy is completely unwrapped and the crocodile body is broken into two parts. Only the distal part of the tail is missing. The skull is well preserved and lacks visible fractures. The body is fully covered with an uneven layer of dark-coloured mummification balm that is notably thicker along the caudo-ventral aspects. Several fabrics, a rope, plant shoots, and a few small egg shell fragments are partially embedded in this thick layer of balm, as can easily be seen on photographs or revealed through UV illumination (Fig 1, 1–4). This demonstrates that a complex structure originally covered the crocodile mummy, which was removed or damaged, possibly during the exploratory unwrapping. Notably, the visible part of rope shows that it was used to arrange and stabilise the crocodile during the mummification process. The extremities of the four limbs are not visible because they are tucked in skin folds. A single incision is visible from the throat to the base of the tail (Fig 1 and Fig 2). Carcass separation into two parts probably occurred quite recently, possibly during the unwrapping at the beginning of the 20th century, because the dividing fracture appears fresh under UV illumination and the fracture planes are not covered with balm. This fracture allows direct observation that the viscera, flesh, and bones were likely removed from the body, at least in the anterior part.

Fig 2. 3D rendering of crocodile mummy MHNL 90001850.

Fig 2

a. Nearly perfect 3D match of the two preserved parts of the crocodile in dorsal (top) and ventral (bottom) view. b. 3D rendering of complete specimen with the thick balm in dark brown in dorsal (top) and ventral (bottom) view, c. 3D rendering of complete specimen without balm in dorsal (top) and ventral (bottom) view after removal of the structures overlaying the skin. Ventral view shows the incision used to prepare the body (red arrow and red broken line).

Method

MHNL 90001850 was imaged using Propagation Phase-Contrast X-ray Synchrotron microtomography (PPC-SRμCT) with a multi-scale approach [10]. Numerous scans were performed at beamline BM05 of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF; Grenoble, France). The isolated head was imaged at a voxel size of 24.37 μm, whereas the body was imaged at voxel sizes of 53.19 μm and 24.37 μm. Particular details of interest were subsequently visualised at voxel sizes of 6.37 μm and 4.3 μm. All scanning parameters are declared in Table 1. Tomographic reconstructions were performed using a single distance phase-retrieval algorithm coupled with filtered back projection implemented in the PyHST2 software package [1819]. To aid specific analyses, notably those on textiles, we used an algorithmic texture enhancement that was described in the supplementary information of Cau et al. [2017; 20]. This data processing solution was used to facilitate segmentation of the rope embedded in the balm. All 3D renderings and segmentations were performed using VGStudioMax 3.1 and 3.2 (Volume Graphics, Heidelberg, Germany).

Table 1. PPC-SRμCT data acquisition parameters.

Voxel size (μm) 53.19 24.37 6.37 4.3
Sample Head Head / Body Endocast, complete insect Plants
Optic LAFIP 2 LAFIP 2 Hasselblad 100/100 diaphragm Hasselblad 150/100
Date 5 May 2016 6 July 2016 18 June 2016 6 April 2017
Average detected energy (KeV) ~101 ~139 ~114 ~120
Filters (mm) 10x Al 5, Mo 0.35 Mo 0.3, Cu 12 Cu 6, Mo 0.4 Al prof 15x5, Mo 0.35
Propagation distance (mm) 4000 4000 2600 2500
Sensor FreLoN 2K14 PCO Edge 5.5 PCO Edge 5.5 PCO Edge 4.2 CLHS
Scintillator LuAg 2000 LuAg 2000 GGG 500 meniscus LuAg 200 meniscus
Projection number 2799 4000 3999, 6000 5000
Scan geometry 360 degrees scans, vertical scan series with 2.5 mm translation Half Acquisition 600 pixels offset. Vertical scan series with 1.5 mm translation Local tomography, Half Acquisition 1000 pixels offset, Vertical scan series with 1.6 mm translation Vertical scan series with 4 mm translation
Exposure time (s) 0.025 0.02 0.035 5x0.01s
Number of scan 85 268 35 / 64 49/77
Reconstruction mode Single distance phase retrieval (Paganin 2002), vertical concatenation, ring artefacts correction, 16 bits conversion in jpeg2000 format Single distance phase retrieval (Paganin 2002), vertical concatenation, ring artefacts correction, 16 bits conversion in jpeg2000 format texture recoding Single distance phase retrieval (Paganin 2002), vertical concatenation, ring artefacts correction, 16 bits conversion in jpeg2000 format Single distance phase retrieval (Paganin 2002), vertical concatenation, ring artefacts correction, 16 bits conversion in jpeg2000 format

All tomographic data and segmentation files used for this study are available through the open access tomographic database of the ESRF (http://paleo.esrf.eu).

Results

1. Description from synchrotron X-ray imaging

PPC-SRμCT allowed for the evaluation of various anatomical details preserved in the crocodile mummy. The anterior and posterior parts of the specimen were first retrofitted in 3D. This revealed a nearly perfect fit of the two pieces (Fig 2A), which confirmed that they indeed represent two parts of the same specimen and corroborated that no substantial intermediate portion is missing. As such, this observation indicates that the separation between the head and the postcranium is likely quite recent. Once matched, the body measures 55 cm in preserved length (Fig 2B). The skin envelope is virtually empty. All organs and most of the bones have been removed through to the single incision that runs along the ventral part of the crocodile from the throat to the tail. This incision is clearly resolved on the 3D renderings after virtual removal of the covering structures (Fig 2C). The bones still present in the body, i.e. the skull, the phalanges, and the osteoderms (Fig 3A), all represent elements that could not be removed without damaging the skin further.

Fig 3. 3D rendering of the preserved bones inside crocodile mummy MHNL 90001850.

Fig 3

a. Locations of preserved bones (skull, phalanges, parts of metatarsal bones, and osteoderms) inside the mummy (here rendered as semi-transparent surface), b. details of the limb bones still present in the body: b1. right manus in dorsal view, b2. left manus in palmar view, b3. right pes in palmar view, b4. left pes in palmar view; red arrows indicate cut marks, c. locations of cut marks in the mandible, c1. detail in dorsal view, c2. detail in ventral view, d. and e. cut marks on the metacarpal IV (d.) and digit I (e.) of the left manus.

3D segmentation revealed cut marks on the proximal aspects of nearly all remaining limb bones (red arrows in Fig 3B and 3C). Cut marks lacking striations are present on the anterior left metapodials I, II, III, IV (Fig 3B2), anterior right metapodials II, III, IV (Fig 3B1), posterior left metapodial I (Fig 3B4), posterior right metapodials I, IV (Fig 3B3), and several posterior left and right tarsals (Fig 3B3 and 3B4). These cut marks are associated with bones fractures. We also observed cut marks on the retroarticular processes of the mandible (Fig 3C, red arrows) [21].

2. Vegetal infillings of the emptied limbs

Beside inference of carcass preparation protocols for mummification, PPC-SRμCT data also allowed for recognition of the various foreign elements that were added to the body during the mummification process.

The emptied limbs have been stuffed with a variety of plants, most of them grasses (Fig 4). Although conclusive identification of these plants was outside of the scope of this study, several specimens are well preserved (Fig 4C and 4D) and could therefore probably be determined down to generic or even specific level. Conclusive recognition in future studies would offer additional information on the surroundings and context of this peculiar mummification practice.

Fig 4. Details of the filling of the crocodile mummy MHNL 90001850.

Fig 4

a. 3D rendering of the crocodile highlighting the filling, b. tomographic slice showing vegetal limb stuffing and thickness of the balm, c. and d. 3D renderings (left) and tomographic slices (right) of two of the well-preserved ears of grass within the filling.

3. External additions

Some remains of the original linen bandages are still visible on the surface of the mummy (visible in yellow on the ventral side under UV light in Figs 1 and 3), or embedded in the balm (Fig 5C). In addition, a distinct textile layer can be recognised separating two different layers of balm (Fig 5C and 5D). The innermost balm layer contains numerous dense inclusions whereas the top layer is nearly devoid of inclusions (Fig 5D).

Fig 5. Details of the inclusions present inside the crocodile mummy.

Fig 5

a. general 3D rendering of the inclusions and their locations, b. 3D rendering and tomographic slice of the rope embedded in the balm (dark brown) and putative location of the missing parts of the rope inferred from the constrictions of the skin (green arrows), c. 3D rendering of the fabrics present inside the balm, d. tomographic slide showing the denser mineral inclusions (white spots in balm) below a layer of fabric (highlighted in pastel yellow) and the date palm leaves in green, e. tomographic slide of the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) leaves rachis.

Fragments of vegetal shoots were encountered still embedded in the balm and on the surface of the balm (Figs 1 and 4, visible in orange under UV illumination, Fig 5E). Their transverse microstructures, visible on the tomographic data, suggest that they represent leafstalks from the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) [22].

The balm present on the caudoventral part of the crocodile has a maximum thickness of 21 mm (Fig 4B).

The rope used to keep the crocodile skin in the desired arrangement is not only present on the surface, but also resides partially embedded in the balm (Fig 5B). Constrictions marks on the skin at certain locations indicate the original trajectory of this rope around the animal (Fig 5B) before it was mostly removed during the unwrapping process, which probably occurred during previous studies.

4. Insects

Within the mummy, insect remains are exclusively present in skull cavities of the crocodile (Fig 6). Among these is a complete adult coleopteran specimen that has been tentatively identified as the hide or leather beetle (Dermestes maculatus) [23] (Fig 6D, S1 Movie). It is preserved suspended from the cartilaginous interorbital septum of the crocodile, indicating that it resided there before the carcass was dehydrated during mummification [24]. Its internal anatomy, although strongly desiccated, is preserved (S1 Movie). Other insect remains include the other developmental stages of Dermestes preserved as desiccated eggs and larvae (Fig 6A and 6E). Most of the eggs are hatched and measure 3.2 mm and 0.9 mm in average length and diameter, respectively. All insect remains were encountered located in cranial cavities (Fig 6A), with only few small fragments additionally observed in mandibular cavities. Notably, the balm layer or remaining soft tissues in the head of the mummy do not preserve any indications for the presence of insect entrance or escape burrows. Crucially, insect traces are completely absent in the oral cavity and the skin of the crocodile.

Fig 6. Insect remains encountered in the skull of crocodile mummy MHNL 90001850.

Fig 6

a. locations of the remains: the only adult specimen appears in green, the larvae in brown, the eggs in light blue, b. transverse tomographic slice of the skull through the orbits illustrating the location of the adult specimen (red arrow) suspended upside down from remains of the interorbital septum, c. location of the interorbital septum in a modern desiccated crocodilian (red arrow), d. 3D rendering of the adult specimen of Dermestes maculatus, e. 3D rendering of a larva attributable to the same taxon.

5. Mineral inclusions in the first layer of balm

Although the balm in the mummy has not yet been chemically analysed, information inferable from tomographic data provide certain clues on the material properties of the balm. Despite the tomographic data having been acquired using a polychromatic beam, simulation of the detected X-spectrum shows a negligible effect of beam hardening. This enables relatively accurate measurements of the linear attenuation coefficients (μ, in cm-1) of obscured media, as if the scans would have been performed using a monochromatic beam. A first estimation of effective energy based on spectrum simulation (139 keV) was refined by calibrating the measured absorption of cortical bones (μ = 0.274 cm-1) in the mummy with the measured mineral (hydroxyapatite) density of a modern clean and dehydrated three-year-old Crocodylus niloticus humerus (1.8 g/cm3). This calibration indicated an effective energy of 146.1 keV. This higher estimation can be attributed to the diffusion of light in the crystalline scintillator of the detector. Since effective energy was calibrated against a known sample, this deviation is not problematic for subsequent measurements. We compared the range of measured μ values for mineral inclusions (average μ = 0.297 cm-1, maximum μ = 0.334 cm-1) against calculated theoretical μ values of the main constituting minerals of natron salt used for desiccation practices in ancient Egypt (i.e. Na2CO3.10(H2O), NaHCO3, NaCl, Na2SO4.10(H2O), and Na2CO3.NaHCO3.2H2O [2528]). For the X-ray energy range used, we found that the encountered mineral inclusions exhibit μ values agreeing with those of the main constituting minerals of natron (Table 2).

Table 2. Details and properties of the main constituting minerals of natron.

mineral composition density (g/cm3) μ at 146.1 keV (cm-1) mineral name
Na2CO3.(0 to10)(H2O) 2.54–1.44 0.345–0.21 sodium carbonate (from anhydrate to decahydrate)
NaHCO3 2.21 0.3050 sodium bicarbonate, nahcolite
NaCl 2.17 0.3130 sodium chloride
Na2SO4.(0 to10)(H2O) 2.664–1.464 0.373–0.215 sodium sulphate (from anhydrate to decahydrate)
Na2CO3.NaHCO3.2H2O 2.11–2.17 0.298 trona, trisodium hydrogendicarbonate dihydrate

Discussion

1. Experimental archaeology

To better understand the unusual pre-mummification preparation protocol recorded in MHNL 90001850, we performed an experimental test. We used a Caiman crocodilus individual that anatomically matches the Nile crocodile with the notable additional presence of ventral osteoderms, which are absent in the Nile crocodile. This specimen died unexpectedly at the “Reptilarium des Landes” in Labenne, France, and was preserved frozen for a several months. First, we made an incision from the throat down to the base of the tail. To negotiate the ventral osteoderms, which grant much higher ventral skin rigidity than in Nile crocodiles, we made two more incisions. These were placed perpendicularly to the longitudinal cut, with the first one positioned a few centimetres posteriorly to the anterior limbs and the second one a few centimetres anteriorly to the posterior limbs (Fig 7A). Using a regular stainless steel knife, we removed all organs, muscles, and accessible bones (Fig 7B) in one mass. This was achieved by reverting the skin (i.e. turning it inside out) after having separated the skull from the vertebral column by inserting the blade between the atlas and the occipital condyle. The limbs were prepared in a similar fashion by turning the skin inside out to expose the muscles and bones as much as possible. It was possible to reach the metapodal level in the distal limbs. As this specimen was intended for an osteological preparation, metapodal elements were not broken as in the Egyptian mummy, but carefully separated at the level of their proximal joints. The skin of the tail was separated from muscles and bones up to one third of the length of the tail, but this could have been continued further down. When all the remaining contacts between the skin and the rest of the body were severed, the skin was placed back in its original orientation. The emptied limbs were stuffed with locally sourced plant material (dried grasses) (Fig 7C). The specimen was secured in its ultimate pose using a rope (Fig 7D and 7E). Performing the described preparation on a small Nile crocodile would have certainly been less demanding than on a circa 150-cm-long caiman, as the skin would have been thinner and more flexible.

Fig 7. Experimental preparation of a caiman cadaver.

Fig 7

a. The skin is separated from all other tissues, b. After separating the skull from the neck, the skin is turned inside out to facilitate its separation over the dorsum and enable evacuation of the limbs, c. The limbs are stuffed with plants (grasses) d. The limbs are tucked inside the skin and the body is “shaped”, e. Comparison between the result of the experiment and the 3D rendering of the genuine Egyptian mummy.

2. Shape and aspect of the mummy

As also seen with the caiman experiment, filling the limbs with dried plants and tucking them inside the body outline appears to offer a very efficient solution to shaping a crocodile skin and grant it body contours that look almost natural in dorsal view (Fig 7E). This method does not require sewing, which would be difficult and time consuming to perform due to the rigidity of crocodile skin. The associated bandages, the twigs, and the posture in which the body was arranged suggest that this crocodile was elaborately prepared with textile to give it the appearance of a mummified crocodile.

3. Cut marks

As MHNL 90001850 is nearly empty and presents clear cut marks on the bones that do remain, it is evident that the body was purposely cut and extensively cleaned by Ancient Egyptians.

Geometry and location of the cut marks can be explained by a single move repeated several times when the bones were not separated after the first cut. The more distal cut marks appear as cracks, which may indicate a percussive action rather than a slicing movement [29]. Multiple cut marks in a single bone indicate that the manual digits were severed by repeated cuts at the level to which the metapodal bones could be reached when the skin was reversed as much as possible (there are no cut marks on the skin at the corresponding levels). The smoothness of the cut marks and their V-shaped profiles appear more consistent with the use of a metallic tool, as opposed to rougher marks that would be expected following employment of lithic blades [30, 31]. However, scans at higher resolutions would be required to offer more certainty regarding the type of tools used on this specimen. Cut marks on the skull are different in that they appear more like break marks than cut marks. They probably reflect multiple blows of the tool used to separate the skull from the neck to enable reversal of the skin.

4. Insects

Dermestes are commonly found in mummies. They usually accessed the carcass during or after mummification [32]; sometimes even very recently in cases of non-adapted storage conditions. However, in the case of the mummy MHNL 90001850, we propose that Dermestes colonised the crocodile carcass before mummification but following an episode of advanced decay. [33] Remains of these insects, including their eggs and larvae, are exclusively found in the cranial region (i.e. cranium and mandibular cavities), but are absent elsewhere, notably including the oral cavity. In case of infestation during or after the mummification process, the insects would be present throughout most of the specimen, and certainly in the oral cavity, rather than being restricted to exclusively isolated cranial cavities. In addition, the adult Dermestes individual was found sticking to a cartilaginous membrane in the skull (the interorbital septum), although such a structure would have lost adhesive properties after completion of the dehydration process. Finally, the insect body itself has clearly experienced mummification through rapid dehydration alongside the crocodile cadaver. We therefore interpret that the decaying crocodile remains represented a cadaver of several days or even weeks old when it was used to manufacture the mummy. The complete body was emptied, thereby removing all body parts that could continue to decay, with exception of those skeletal elements that were too closely associated with the skin (i.e. the skull, mandible, digits, and probably the unpreserved distal caudal vertebrae). As we find insect remains only in the cranial cavities but not in the oral cavity, we can deduce that the body was thoroughly cleaned after removal of all muscles, internal organs, and skeletal elements, except where cleaning was not possible; i.e. the inaccessible cranial cavities. The cadaver was prepared into a cleaned skin with only the skull and digits still in place, as they could not be removed without further damaging the skin. Since there was no further infestation by insects after cleaning procedure and we did not observe any entrance or escape tunnels through the balm or the remaining soft tissues, we deduce that the insects must have perished during the cleaning process or during the following desiccation in natron that resulted into the inadvertent mummification of the adult Dermestes individual.

5. Manufacturing stages

Through the various inclusions encountered within the balm layer, we can propose a protocol explaining how this particular mummy was manufactured. Most organs and tissues were removed from the crocodile body, the skin was washed (Fig 8A), and the limbs were stuffed with plants (Fig 8B) before the carcass was fixated with rope (Fig 8C). As we observe natron salt in direct contact with the skin (Fig 8D), we conclude that a first desiccation procedure was carried out that involved placing the corpse in solid natron. Then, a first layer of balm (Fig 8E) was applied and covered with textile (Fig 8G). This balm contained natron (or a mineral mixture with similar X-ray absorbing properties), possibly to enhance desiccation of the specimen and avoid further decay. The distribution of natron inclusions throughout the entire balm layer, rather than mostly in direct contact with the skin, is more compatible with the intended application of a balm-natron mixture than with contamination of the balm following application on a specimen that was not cleaned of all natron used for initial desiccation. The crocodile carcass was treated while being positioned its ventral side. Higher natron concentrations are present in the lower regions (i.e. around the ventral aspects of the crocodile) of the first balm cover (Fig 8F), which we interpret to reflect natron settling during solidification of this balm. Following this stage, a second layer of balm (Fig 8H), not enriched with natron, was applied on mainly the ventral aspects of the crocodile cadaver. Finally, the embalming priests added parts of palm leaves (Fig 8I) and textiles (Fig 8J) to achieve more rigidity and to achieve the intended shape. This approach is often observed in small crocodile mummies and occasionally in larger specimens [12, 34]. The mummy was finally wrapped in various bandages to achieve the desired appearance.

Fig 8. Tomographic slides from posterior limb region, in sagittal view, illustrating the different steps in the manufacturing process of this particular crocodile mummy.

Fig 8

The colour gradient corresponds to the successive stages of the manufacturing protocol for this mummy (From a. to j., see main text for stage description).

Conclusions

Votive animal mummies were not always created from a single well-preserved animal cadaver. Cases have been described were mummies contained decayed animal body parts. Nevertheless, the peculiar preparation process of the MHNL 90001850 crocodile mummy represents a very efficient approach to manufacturing a mummy with a cadaver in an advanced stage of decomposition. By removing the decaying parts infested by necrophagous insects as much as possible, Ancient Egyptians reduced the risks of continued decay after finalisation of the mummification process, resulting de facto in a preparation quite similar to taxidermy. This hypothesis explains all our observations, but we can evidently not rule out that this manufacturing process was (also) linked to a specific religious practice or idea.

The lack of archaeological provenance and context for this specimen renders it very difficult to conclusively place it in a chrono-cultural context. Richardin et al. published radiocarbon dates for several samples from the collection of the Musée des Confluences [7]. All crocodiles dated in that study brought results between 2255±30 BP and 1845±30 BP (i.e. from the end of the Late period to the middle of the Roman period), which corresponds to the period when the animal mummy industry in Ancient Egypt was active at a very large scale. Within this context, being able to use any available cadaver would have been beneficial to secure the supply of material for the production of animal mummies. As demonstrated by our experiment on the modern caiman, this protocol would have offered a quite simple and efficient solution to make an opportunistically discovered decaying cadaver available for mummification. The future availability of more reliable temporal information as well as the study of similarly prepared mummies (if any) with known context should grant more comparative insight into this unusual mummification protocol.

Supporting information

S1 Movie

(MP4)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the “Musée des Confluences”, and in particular Didier Berthet, for having given us the opportunity to work on MHNL 90001850. We thank “La Ferme au Crocodiles”, especially Samuel Martin, for their support and assistance during initial phases of the project. We thank Laura Jarnias who assisted us during data segmentation. We are grateful to Thierry Loeb and the Reptilarium des Landes for allowing us to perform the actuo-archaeological experiment on the specimen of Caiman crocodilus. We are grateful to the ESRF, and the BM05 team to have granted the in-house beamtime used to perform multiple scans of this very special mummy. We also acknowledge David Lefèvre and Frédéric Servajean for their support to the MAHES project. We are very grateful to Dennis Voeten who dramatically improved the English quality of the present text. Finally, we are grateful to the editor, Jana Jones and the anonymous reviewer for their constructive comments and suggestions. All the tomographic data and segmentation files used for the present study are available through the open access tomographic database of the ESRF (http://paleo.esrf.eu).

Data Availability

All the tomographic data used for the present study are available through the open access tomographic database of the ESRF (http://paleo.esrf.eu).

Funding Statement

This research was carried out within the framework of the ESRF (ESRF-CFR-423), and the MAHES Project (Momies Animales et Humaines EgyptienneS) supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche through the «Investissement d’Avenir » program ANR-11-LABX-0032-01 LabEx ARCHIMEDE.

References

  • 1.Ikram S., 2017. Animals in ancient Egyptian religion: belief, identity, power, and economy In: Albarella U., Rizzetto M., Russ H., Vickers K., Viner-Daniels S. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 452–465. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199686476.001.0001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ikram S. Speculations on the Role of Animal Cults in the Economy of Ancient Egypt. Appriv Sauvag Wild CENiM 11. 2015;3:211–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ikram S. Mummification. UCLA Encycl Egyptol. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ikram S. The loved ones: egyptian animal mummies as cultural and environmental indicators. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas. 2005. p. 240.
  • 5.Kessler D, Nur el-Dim A el H. Tuna al-Gebel: Millions of Ibises and Other Animals In: Ikram S, editor. Divine Creature, Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt. The American University in Cairo Press; New York; 2015. p. 120–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nicholson PT, Ikram S, Mills S. The Catacombs of Anubis at North Saqqara. Antiq Publ. 2015;89(345):645–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Richardin P, Porcier S, Ikram S, Louarn G, Berthet D. Cats, Crocodiles, Cattle, and More: Initial Steps Toward Establishing a Chronology of Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummies. Radiocarbon. 2017;59(02):595–607. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ikram S. Divine Creature: Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt. The American University in Cairo Press; New York; 2015. 274 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.McKnight L, D. Atherton-Woolhman S, E. Adams J. Imaging of Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummies. RadioGraphics. 2015;35(7):2108–20. 10.1148/rg.2015140309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Porcier S, Berruyer C, Pasquali S, Ikram S, Berthet D, Tafforeau P. Wild Crocodiles Hunted to Make Mummies in Roman Egypt: Evidence from Synchrotron Imaging. J Archaeol Sci. 2019;110. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Atherton-Woolham SD, McKnight LM. Post-mortem restorations in ancient Egyptian animal mummies using imaging. Pap Anthropol. 2014;23(1):9–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Atherton-Woolham S. Imaging Ancient Egyptian Crocodile Mummies from Hawara. In: Current Research in Egyptology 2014: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium. Oxbow Books. 2014. p. 181.
  • 13.Gaugne R, Porcier S, Nicolas T, Coulon F, Hays O, Gouranton V. A digital introspection of a mummy cat. In: Proceeding of the Third International Congress “Digital Heritage” New Realities: Authenticity & Automation in the Digital Age. San Francisco, United States; 2018. p. 1–9.
  • 14.Nicolotti M, Postel L. L’animal et le monde de l’au-delà les momies du muséum d’histoire naturelle de lyon. 1994;8:35–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gaillard C. La vie et les travaux de Louis-Charles Lortet. Arch Muséum Hist Nat Lyon. 1912;tome 11(1):3–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lortet L, Gaillard C. La faune momifiée de l’ancienne Égypte II [Internet]. Lyon: Henri Georg; 1905. [cited 2019 Mar 14]. (Archives du Museum d’Histoire naturelle de Lyon). Available from: https://katalog.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/titel/66960946 [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lortet L, Gaillard C. La Faune momifiée de l’ancienne Egypte et recherches anthropologiques III. 1909. (Archives du Muséum d’histoire naturelle de Lyon; vol. III).
  • 18.Paganin D, Mayo S, Gureyev TE, Miller PR, Wilkins SW. Simultaneous phase and amplitude extraction from a single defocused image of a homogeneous object. J Microsc. 2002;206(1):33–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mirone A, Brun E, Gouillart E, Tafforeau P, Kieffer J. The PyHST2 hybrid distributed code for high speed tomographic reconstruction with iterative reconstruction and a priori knowledge capabilities. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect B Beam Interact Mater At. 2014;324:41–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cau A, Beyrand V, Voeten DFAE, Fernandez V, Tafforeau P, Stein K, et al. Synchrotron scanning reveals amphibious ecomorphology in a new clade of bird-like dinosaurs. Nature. 2017;552(7685):395–9. 10.1038/nature24679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Shaker NA, El-Bably SH. Morphological and radiological studies on the skull of the nile crocodile (crocodylus niloticus). Int J Anat Res. 2015;3(3):1331–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bouchaud C, Thomas R, Tengberg M. Optimal use of the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) during Antiquity: anatomical identification of plant remains from Madâ in Sâlih (Saudi Arabia). Saguntum Papeles Lab Arqueol Valencia. 2012;(13):173–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.De Geer C. Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire des insectes. Hesselberg Stockh. 1774; [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Klenner S, Witzel U, Paris F, Distler C. Structure and function of the septum nasi and the underlying tension chord in crocodylians. J Anat. 2016;228(1):113–24. 10.1111/joa.12404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Abdel-Maksoud G, El-Amin A-R. A review on the materials used during the mummification processes in ancient egypt. Mediterr Archaeol Archaeom. 2011;11(2):129–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bondetti M, Porcier S, Ménager M, Vieillescazes C. Une analyse chimique de la composition de baumes de momies animales égyptiennes conservées au musée des Confluences (Lyon, France). In: Porcier S, Ikram S, Pasquali S, editors. Creatures of Earth, Water, and Sky Essays on Animals in Ancient Egypt and Nubia Proceedings of the International Symposium on Animals in Ancient Egypt, ISAAE 1 (01–04 Juin 2016, Lyon/France). Sidestone Press. Leiden; in press.
  • 27.Edwards HGM, Currie KJ, Ali HRH, Jorge Villar SE, David AR, Denton J. Raman spectroscopy of natron: shedding light on ancient Egyptian mummification. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007. June 1;388(3):683–9. 10.1007/s00216-007-1249-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ménager M, Azémard C, Vieillescazes C. Study of Egyptian mummification balms by FT-IR spectroscopy and GC–MS. Microchem J. 2014. May 1;114:32–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lewis JE. Identifying sword marks on bone: criteria for distinguishing between cut marks made by different classes of bladed weapons. J Archaeol Sci. 2008;35(7):2001–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Boschin F, Crezzini J. Morphometrical Analysis on Cut Marks Using a 3D Digital Microscope. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2012;22(5):549–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Greenfield HJ. The Origins of Metallurgy: Distinguishing Stone from Metal Cut-marks on Bones from Archaeological Sites. J Archaeol Sci. 1999;26(7):797–808. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ikram S. Experimental archaeology: from meadow to em-baa-lming table In: Graves-Brown C, Goodridge W, editors. Egyptology in the Present: Experiential and Experimental Methods in Archaeology [Internet]. The Classical Press of Wales; 2015. [cited 2020 Jan 6]. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctvvnbgg [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Schroeder H, Klotzbach H, Oesterhelweg L, Püschel K. Larder beetles (Coleoptera, Dermestidae) as an accelerating factor for decomposition of a human corpse. Forensic Sci Int. 2002;127(3):231–6. 10.1016/s0379-0738(02)00131-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Nicolotti M, Robert L. Les crocodiles momifiés du Muséum de Lyon. Nouv Arch Mus Hist Nat Lyon. 1994;(32):4–62. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

William Oki Wong

16 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-24542

Synchrotron “virtual archaeozoology” reveals how Ancient Egyptians prepared a decaying crocodile cadaver for mummification

PLOS ONE

Dear Camille Berruyer,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 27 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

William Oki Wong, 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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure 7 includes an image of a participant in the study. 

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Please see my Review uploaded as attachment, many thanks.

Reviewer #2: PONE crocodile cadaver mummy

This a very interesting article, but there are a few issues. Firstly the language needs revision by a native speaker. Then, other points: The type of preservation of this animal is very interesting. The experimental work is a great plus. However, the arguments for the fact that a semi-decomposed cadaver was used are not compelling. Perhaps the authors would revise the English (perhaps some of the arguments loose their clarity due to language issues), and also revisit their conclusions, maybe presenting the cadaver theory as a possibility, but not the only one. Also, the authors should explore why the ancient Egyptians would have removed all of the bones—even if they were using a slightly putrefied cadaver, one would expect the flesh and internal organs to be removed, not the bones. Speculation would be fine.

Specifis (including language issues)

-Do not capitalise Ancient (as in Ancient Egyptian should be ancient Egyptian)

l. 29 granted completely continuous access is awkward phrasing

l. 40-46 somewhat unclear in meaning, mainly due to language issues

l. 50 better if: several individuals representing the same species were to read several individuals of the same species

l. 53 Instead of mummification preparation protocol the authors should say mummification, or alter the phrasing. Also, awkward phrasing: involving cessation of putrefaction has been brought forward.

l. 61 should say provenanced. Would be useful to have the dimensions of the animal (skull and post-cranial)

l. 64 not driven by…. Choose another word

l. 66 unclear: alathough (17)) do mention both Esna…

l. 67-68 no proof that bandaging provides chronological data or provenance data

l. 68 should read on the period of the..

l. 81 maybe better to say dark coloured mummification materials (balm) and then refer to it as balm thereafter

l. 82 Unclear: The limbs are hidden in skin folds

l. 83 Provide more precise details of the location of the incisions. Maybe on an image? Also, break, not brake, and indeed, the whole sentence following from ‘brake’ needs to be revisied for clarity (clearly a problem with language).

l. 85-87 Unclear: Fractures into the balm layer and the scattered remains of textile, rope, 85 plants shoots, and other isolated elements indicate that certain parts of the original external layers were removed from the mummy.

l. 110 Not sure about anatomical properties

l. 136: Thus, only osteoderms, phalanges, skull preserved, almost all with cut marks? But then l. 137 mentions metapodia. Maybe authors should provide a list of all the bones that appear in fig. 3

l. 146 maybe vegetal or a variety of plant matter rather than floral? It is only a quibble.

l. 157 Abrupt introduction of rope…

l. 168 Awkward English

l. 181 English issues : dorsal aspects is stick to a remaining part of the cartilaginous

l. 278 When mummies are being produced dermestids can enter the body, as seems to be the case with this animal. Sometimes, even when the animal is covered with natron, these beetles can enter the body and carry out their entire life cycle during the course of desiccation. See: Ikram, S. 2015. ‘Experimental Archaeology: From Meadow to Em-baa-lming Table’, in C. Graves-Brown (ed.) Egyptology in the Present: Experiential and Experimental Methods in Archaeology, pp. 53-74. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales. The authors have to argue more convincingly that the crocodile had been dead for some time when it was eviscerated and basically turned into a taxidermied crocodile in term of having most of the bones, flesh and organs removed and being stuffed with grassed (but after being traditionally desiccated using natron, and then covered with the conventional balm?).

l. 290 the skin was cleaned—maybe the authors could suggest with what?

l. 293 Possible that the natron was not well cleaned off the body, which is why it stayed on, rather than having the balm mixed with natron. Perhaps analyses of the balm in these areas would clarify the situation. SEM?

l. 300 Palm leaves, particularly the ribs, and textiles are traditionally used to make crocodiles (and sometimes humans) more rigid and stackable. Generally this is more common in immature crocodiles, but is also known in mature animals.

**********

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: Yes: Jana Jones PhD

Macquarie University

Sydney Australia 2106

Reviewer #2: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-24542 review.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Feb 21;15(2):e0229140. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229140.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Jan 2020

Response to reviewer

We are very grateful to the editor and to the reviewers for their constructive comments and corrections. As the English level was clearly a problem, we asked to one of our colleague to revise the whole text to improve its quality. As a result, the version with track changes will show a huge amount of modifications, but the vast majority are linked to this English improvement. For all the other questions and comments not directly linked to the general English level, we reply point-by-point hereafter to the best of our capacities.

Reviewer #1

-l. 42 Delete ‘content’, substitute ‘composition’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 62 Delete space after ‘information’ and before the full stop.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 66 insert ‘Lortet and Gaillard (17.)’ Just the reference number is not sufficient.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 67 ‘However, as all the textiles have been removed, it is now impossible to reliably derive the origin …. through manufacturing techniques’. It would not have been possible to ‘reliably derive the origin’ unless there was evidence of an especially unusual and datable weaving or spinning technique. I would suggest: ‘it is now impossible to gain insights into the origin of this mummy through any distinctive manufacturing techniques’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 68 Delete ‘elucidate on’, insert ‘reveal’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 77 Delete ‘relative to’, substitute ‘in’

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 77 Delete ‘hence we propose hereafter …’ insert (new sentence) ‘Hence we propose the following updated description’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 78 Delete ‘already’, insert ‘have’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 81 ‘plants’. Delete ‘s’, = singular ‘plant shoots’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 82 Delete ‘stick’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 83 Delete ‘brake’, insert ‘break’. Misspelling.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 84 Delete ‘indicating’, insert ‘indicate’. Delete ‘corps’, insert ‘corpse’, or better still, ‘body’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-L. 85 Delete ‘into’, insert ‘in’ the balm layer’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 169 Insert space after ‘surface’ and before ‘Figure 1’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 181 ‘Its dorsal aspects is stick’. Delete s = singular ‘dorsal aspect. Delete ‘is stick’, insert ‘adheres’, i.e. ‘Its dorsal aspect adheres’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-ll. 196-211 NBB The composition of the ‘balm’ has not undergone chemical analysis. This should be acknowledged in the manuscript, as only the mineral inclusions that constitute natron have been identified (ll. 196-211, and Table 2.)

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 238 Delete ‘maintained., substitute ‘secured’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 255 ‘posture given to the body’ Suggest ‘position in which the body was arranged’.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 265 Delete ‘is’, insert ‘are’ (plural)

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 352 Delete ‘Univeresety’, insert ‘University’. Misspelling.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 359 Ibid. ‘University’

→ Done, please see in the modified text

------------

Reviewer #2

The line numbers are given for the “track change” document.

-Do not capitalise Ancient (as in Ancient Egyptian should be ancient Egyptian).

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 29 granted completely continuous access is awkward phrasing.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 40-46 somewhat unclear in meaning, mainly due to language issues.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 50 better if: several individuals representing the same species were to read several individuals of the same species.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 53 Instead of mummification preparation protocol the authors should say mummification, or alter the phrasing. Also, awkward phrasing: involving cessation of putrefaction has been brought forward.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 61 should say provenanced. Would be useful to have the dimensions of the animal (skull and post-cranial).

→ Done, please see the addition in the modified text

-l. 64 not driven by…. Choose another word.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 66 unclear: although (17)) do mention both Esna…

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 67-68 no proof that bandaging provides chronological data or provenance data

→ Removed from the text

-l. 68 should read on the period of the…

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 81 maybe better to say dark coloured mummification materials (balm) and then refer to it as balm thereafter

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 82 Unclear: The limbs are hidden in skin folds

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 83 Provide more precise details of the location of the incisions. Maybe on an image? Also, break, not brake, and indeed, the whole sentence following from ‘brake’ needs to be revisied for clarity (clearly a problem with language).

→ Done, please see in the modified text and on the revised figure 1

-l. 85-87 Unclear: Fractures into the balm layer and the scattered remains of textile, rope, 85 plants shoots, and other isolated elements indicate that certain parts of the original external layers were removed from the mummy.

→ Done, please see in the modified text and on the revised figure 1

-l. 110 Not sure about anatomical properties

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 136: Thus, only osteoderms, phalanges, skull preserved, almost all with cut marks? But then l. 137 mentions metapodia. Maybe authors should provide a list of all the bones that appear in fig. 3

→ Done, added in the caption of the figure 3

-l. 146 maybe vegetal or a variety of plant matter rather than floral? It is only a quibble.

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 157 Abrupt introduction of rope…

→ Done, the rope is mentioned in the introduction part (l.91) of the revised document

-l. 168 Awkward English

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 181 English issues : dorsal aspects is stick to a remaining part of the cartilaginous

→ Done, please see in the modified text

-l. 278 When mummies are being produced dermestids can enter the body, as seems to be the case with this animal. Sometimes, even when the animal is covered with natron, these beetles can enter the body and carry out their entire life cycle during the course of desiccation. See: Ikram, S. 2015. ‘Experimental Archaeology: From Meadow to Em-baa-lming Table’, in C. Graves-Brown (ed.) Egyptology in the Present: Experiential and Experimental Methods in Archaeology, pp. 53-74. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales. The authors have to argue more convincingly that the crocodile had been dead for some time when it was eviscerated and basically turned into a taxidermied crocodile in term of having most of the bones, flesh and organs removed and being stuffed with grassed (but after being traditionally desiccated using natron, and then covered with the conventional balm?).

→ Done, please see in the modified text paragraph 4. Insects

-l. 290 the skin was cleaned—maybe the authors could suggest with what?

→ Unfortunatly, nothing in the data can bring us solid argument regarding how this cleaning was performed. It could have been purely mechanical or using water, but in both cases, no visible traces could be retrieved. Hence, we prefer not to bring any hypothesis on this specific point.

-l. 293 Possible that the natron was not well cleaned off the body, which is why it stayed on, rather than having the balm mixed with natron. Perhaps analyses of the balm in these areas would clarify the situation. SEM?

→ We propose a mixture of balm with natron because of the 3D repartition of natron inclusions inside the balm. Indeed, the skin was not perfectly cleaned of its natron (we can see a thin layer of natron in direct contact with the skin surface) but it is also possible to see a “direction” where the natron in suspension in the balm “fell” during the drying, due to a decantation process that occurred before the full solidification of the balm. We modified the text to make this explanation clearer.

-l. 300 Palm leaves, particularly the ribs, and textiles are traditionally used to make crocodiles (and sometimes humans) more rigid and stackable. Generally this is more common in immature crocodiles, but is also known in mature animals.

→ We added this point to the text as it is indeed a very common feature in small crocodile mummies.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewer.docx

Decision Letter 1

William Oki Wong

31 Jan 2020

Synchrotron “virtual archaeozoology” reveals how Ancient Egyptians prepared a decaying crocodile cadaver for mummification

PONE-D-19-24542R1

Dear Camille Berruyer,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

William Oki Wong, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

William Oki Wong

6 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-24542R1

Synchrotron “virtual archaeozoology” reveals how Ancient Egyptians prepared a decaying crocodile cadaver for mummification

Dear Dr. Berruyer:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. William Oki Wong

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Movie

    (MP4)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-24542 review.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewer.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All the tomographic data used for the present study are available through the open access tomographic database of the ESRF (http://paleo.esrf.eu).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES