On a Wing and a Prayer: Ibis Mummies in Material Culture at Abydos

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The scientific quality of this work is excellent, with a relevant scientific value; the bibliography is updated and inclusive of the main resources and current debates. The introduction presents a well-structured description and a clear synthesis of the state of art related to the topic of the contribution. The aims and the results of the article presented  strong original contribution; the publication of the article will be an important addition to the literature.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 135: would like to see some discussion about any accession material from the Museum of Fine Arts or any alternative donation theory other than directly from Peet & Loat or Whittemore.  Having directed a collection with similar types of objects, there were often circuitous routes to donation (for example from Petrie to Collector Gibbs to estate auction to Professor Sawhill to collection as estate gift).  It is mentioned that similar items were often collected by tourists as a momento, perhaps tying this in with how these specific items came to be at the MFA Boston.

Chart on Line 218: please left justify information for ease of reading (alignments of data).

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

I have included a paragraph about the recorded collection history of the MFA mummies - namely those donated by Granville Way in 1872. Sadly, accession information beyond this and Whittemore is non-existent for the animal mummies. 

I have left justified the data in the table as requested.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a fascinating paper that has been very well written. The research design is strong and the data analysis is well presented. The research is novel and important to our understanding of ancient Egyptian material culture. The discussion is lively and thought provoking, leading the reader to ponder the future of research in this field.  Well done.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting paper which is, in my view, worthy of publication. There is considerable interest in the subject and the Abydos mummies are less well known than they deserve to be.

There are a few minor points which should be addressed:

P2 L45 needs references to Mariette's work.

P2 L48 implies that the 1913-14 work is by the E.E.S. but should make this clear and name the director as well as give references.

P3 Fig 2 caption is of a part of the mummy concerned, not the whole mummy - should be revised.  It would be better to show the image of the whole mummy with the label as an inset.

P4. L90 For 'unbaked' read 'unfired'. Also give Loat's first name and follow with life dates.

P4 L102 and elsewhere has references to (Author et al) unless ARTS requires anonymity this should be cited as the author's name.

P6 L131 refers to modern conservation practice - but needs a reference to support statement.

P.6 L134 refers to the published report, this should be followed by text reference.

P6 L142 regarding military service for Peet and Loat requires citation of evidence for this.

P8 L185 Are the types of vessel regarded by the excavators as Roman still regarded as such my modern ceramicists?  A reference or evidence that a recent ceramicist has examined / commented on them would be helpful.

P.9 L227 Readers may be puzzled that these are True Mummies without being introduced to the concept of Pseudo Mummies more fully.

P.13 Line 358 needs reference to the publication of the Archive of Hor by Ray.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

This is an excellent paper, that covers and discusses all aspects of the study of animal remains:

• their origins both in ancient times (how they came to be manufactured in the first place) and in modern times (how they made their way into the collections of many museums around the world).
• Challenges faced by researchers with the study of these remains.
  • access to artifacts themselves and then access to scientific techniques and equipment to study them)
• Importance of noninvasive studies and benefits of applying medical imaging.
• presentation of the use of a relatively new method, that of dual-energy scanners. 
• the potential of the study of these remains: archaeologically, culturally, for landscape and zoological studies, etc.
• emphasis on the importance to, whenever possible, conduct a visual analysis of the remains rather than rely solely on catalogs, as demonstrated by the misidentification of some of the remains.
• good presentation of the scientific methodology applied and the various steps followed along the way. 
• Good descriptions of the contents of the mummies.
  • was there an attempt to identify whether the mummies contained sacred and/or glossy ibises?
  • was there anything other remains in the bundles, such as food packages, nest material, etc, as has been attested elsewhere?

The only element I would have liked to see is a comparison of the MFA mummies with other mummies from Abydos, just to further confirm that their provenience - such as a comparison of the decorative patterns (if I recall Whittemore article included a table of them) with some of the Abydene mummies that we know of in other museum collections. However, I should mention that the author has successfully proven the Abydene origin of these mummies and can be congratulated for enriching the documentation of the specimens from the MFA Boston.

A small detail: 

Change LeSeur with Bailleul-LeSuer. It is also missing in the references at the end of the essay.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx