Export Pages Classification in AE

Sonja Gerke
All Creatures Great and Small – The Ancient

Egyptian View of the Animal World
Summary: Animals formed in many ways a basis of daily life in ancient Egypt. This
is evident from their presence in numerous fields like mythology and religion, in the
hieroglyphic script or in magic and medicine, to cite only a few examples. This out-
standing interest in the animal world is accompanied by a very special attention to
details which makes it possible (in most cases) to determine exactly what animals
are depicted in reliefs, paintings and three-dimensional images or even in written
descriptions, according to modern zoological- and taxonomic criteria. Such a detailed
view of the animal world implies a differentiated, explicit interest which leads beyond
simple attention to the given natural facts.
Thus, the question arises of whether this particular interest leads to some kind of
classification or categorization of the animal world and, if so, on which concepts,
models or types this classification is based. Furthermore, this leads to the question of
whether a system of hierarchy and canonization can be determined and these are the
subjects the present paper deals with.
1 The Egyptian categorization of animals – primary

thoughts
The main challenge in tracing some kind of a system of animal-categorization lies – as
is often the case – in the involvement of a modern point of view or the transfer of what
are modern approaches, systems or models to ancient sources. Especially in the case
of animal-categorization, it seems very hard to abandon the clear, regular modern
taxonomic system that was created primarily by Carl Linnaeus, and the nomenclature
and perception of the animal world that are still taught nowadays, even at primary
school level. It has to be kept in mind, – especially when dealing with concepts of
the animal world, – that every view of the ancient sources is in some way biased by
modern thoughts and interpretations, even though we are aware of these problems
and try to eliminate them.
DOI 10.1515/9783110538779-004
68 Sonja Gerke
From the start, it has to be considered that the ancient Egyptians had no educational
texts1 dealing with the animal world such as those known, for example, from Classical
Antiquity, written by Aristotle or Pliny the Elder.2 This means that it is hardly possible
to find some kind of ancient Egyptian self-definition or -statement concerning this
subject, and therefore the investigation of the ancient Egyptian view of the animal
world can only be a modern construct, derived from several ancient sources. The dis-
tinct selection of the sources consulted is, – as will be shown in the conclusions of
this paper, – very influential on the results of the investigation.
The sources that the present paper deals with are taken from three different levels
of evidence that can give information about ancient Egyptian concepts: 1. Textual
sources; 2. iconographical sources; and 3. the combination of both. Considering the
textual sources – as said before – there are no zoological texts as such; however, some
ancient Egyptian texts correspond to this in very broad sense. These are texts that
simply list the specific names of animals (onomastica), on the one hand, and, on the
other, such texts that describe them in a more detailed way (lexica3), though their
context or usage is quite insecure. Apart from these few distinct texts, which will be
discussed below, when considering the question of the ancient Egyptian categoriza-
tion of animals, it is important to look for sources that do reveal information on the
matter in a more covert sense. This means, for example, figurative scenes on tomb- or
temple-walls, whose primary purpose was not to communicate distinct knowledge
about animals, but which do it nonetheless by the way in which animals are depic-
ted, e.g. subspecies (to use the modern vocabulary) are differentiated by iconographi-
cal details. In some cases it is also possible to match language and image, meaning
nomenclature and depiction, for example when – again in the scenes of temple- and
tomb-decoration – a painting or relief of an animal carries its name in hieroglyphs as
an addendum nearby.
The broad subject Egyptian animal-categorization cannot be covered in its enti-
rety within the scope of this paper. The ambition is rather to give an overview of the
topic in general and to present some ideas and concepts of the ancient Egyptian view
of the animal world. The examples treated in the following text are thus not to be seen
1 This excludes texts such as the so-called teachings / instructions which can be seen as educational
texts (wisdom or advice considering good behaviour and references for life in general, but which give
no reference to animals at all). For these texts and further reading see e.g. Burkard and Thissen 2003:
72–109 and id. 2008: 99–140.
2 It should be noted of course that in the case of the texts by Aristotle or Pliny, too, it is still questio-
nable as to whether they can actually be seen as educational or scientific texts. But here it is important
to point out the difference between the sources from Egypt and those from Greece and also the diffe-
rences in recording or maybe even the transfer of knowledge within the society.
3 In the present context, the term lexicon is used after Fischer-Elfert 2008: 115 f., note 5, in contrast to
onomasticon, which gives only single words or names see Gardiner 1968: 1 f.
All Creatures Great and Small 69
as a complete compilation of sources. However, the cited examples can be seen as

more or less representative to outline some general chains of thought.4
1.1 Textual sources – onomastica and lexica
Only very few texts exist which include information about animals in particular. First
of all, there are the so-called onomastica, simple lists consisting of words that contain
specific names/nomenclatures of persons, tribes, occupations, towns, specific pro-
ducts or plants, etc., without any further information (Gardiner 1968: esp. 1–5; Osing
1982: 572, and Pommerening 2015: 125–166). Until now, strictly speaking, only two
texts are known that list the names of animals: the so-called Ramesseum Onomasti-
con5 from the Middle Kingdom (18th–17th cent. BC6; Gardiner 1968: 6–23), and a papyrus
from Tebtynis7 from the Roman Period (Tebtynis I; 2nd cent. AD; Osing 1998: 121–140,
Taf. 9–11). Both texts list names of animals that are obviously grouped together
according to specific attributes or common criteria. The (identifiable) animals in
the Ramesseum Onomasticon (Gardiner 1968: 9 and pls. I f.) are part of the following
groups: birds,8 fish,9 again birds10, and quadrupeds11 (see fig. 1), whereas Tebtynis I
(Osing 1998: 121–140, Taf. 9–11) lists cattle,12 small animals, livestock, and the like,13
predators,14 snakes and other vermin, insects,15 birds,16 fish, and finally turtles. The
naming of those groups with general terms such as ‘birds’ or ‘fish’ might be somehow
misleading, as none of these groups is separated from the other clusters or carries a
specific heading. The only exceptional case is the fish-group in Tebtynis I, where the
4 Note that this paper does not deal with animal categorization in the hieroglyphic script by determi-
native/classifier; see instead the paper by Orly Goldwasser in this book.
5 pBerlin 10495.
6 The chronological dates of this paper are based upon Hornung, Krauss and Warburton 2006: 490–
493.
7 pCarlsberg 180+pBerlin 10465 u. 14475+PSI I 76; in the following called Tebtynis I after Osing 1998.
8 E.g. (122) rꜤ ‘bean goose’, (123) trp ‘greater white-fronted goose’, (127) mnt ‘swallow/dove (?)’, (132)
ḳḳ ‘cuckoo (?)’, (133) wšꜢ.t ‘fattened fowl’.
9 E.g. (137) nꜤ[r] ‘catfish‘, (138) jms[kꜢ?] ‘Nile perch’, (146) Ꜥḏ ‘mullet‘.
10 E.g. (154) ḏꜢ.t ‘crane‘, (155) dšr ‘flamingo’, (160) bjk ‘falcon’.
11 E.g. (163) gḥs ‘gazelle’, (166) šsꜢ.w ‘hartebeest’, (167) jbꜢ.w ‘barbary sheep’, (169) mmj ‘giraffe’, (170)
b[f…] ‘monkey (?)’.
12 Probably sequenced by age/size as supposed by Osing 1998: 121 see also his note 546.
13 E.g. (N 9,23) jꜤꜢ ‘donkey’ šꜢj ‘pig’, (N 9,24) sẖꜤ.t ‘hare’.
14 E.g. (N 11,2) [m]Ꜣj.t ‘lioness’, (N 11,3) ḥtm.t ‘bear’, (N 11,7) ḫfw ‘crocodile’.
15 E.g. (O 2,1) fnd ‘worm’, (O 2,4) kꜢr ‘chameleon (?)’, (O 2,5) pꜢw … n ṯsm.t ‘dog flea’, (O 2,11) ḥḏr ‘jerboa
(?)’ ḳꜢdy ‘cockroach (?)’, (O 2,15) hfj ‘snake’.
16 E.g. (O 2,16) rꜤ ‘bean goose’, (O 2,17) [tr]p ‘white-fronted goose’, (P 3) ḥnw.t ‘pelican’, (Z 1) sḥsḥ
‘heron (?)’, (Z 3) mrrw ‘stork (?)’.
70 Sonja Gerke
beginning has a headline in red ink (S2.18) rm.w ‘fish’ and at the end of
the section a short summary: (U 14) [rm] nb(t) jmj.w mw
rn=w ‘all [fish], that are in the water, their name […]’ (Osing 1998: 121, and 136, Taf. 11
(U 14)). Also noteworthy on this Roman onomasticon is the bird-section. The birds’
names are not only listed, but the birds are described occasionally, with short expla-
nations or addenda concerning the colour of their plumage or their natural habitat,
which gives this section the form of a lexicon (see below).17
Fig. 1: Animal section of the Ramesseum Onomasticon
In the case of the Ramesseum Onomasticon, it is also interesting to note that the
whole layout of the papyrus refers to the grouping of animals, as some space is made
between the actual name of the animal and the last sign, the so-called determina-
tive or classifier (bird , fish , sitting Seth-animal , recumbent hartebeest ,
hide and tail and monkey ),18 which gives the text a clear structure (see fig. 1).
This would have probably allowed the reader to scan the text and search for special
words or groups of words more easily.
17 On the fragments O and P 3 f., only the birds’ names are simply listed as in the other animal-groups
of the papyrus, whereas on fragments R, Q S 1 and perhaps P 1 the explanatory additions are made.
For the term lexicon see note 3. The text is in most parts very fragmentary, as an example here some
better preserved lines: (R 2,14) jsm (?) sdm […] rn=f wnn=f m jnm ḥḏ km dšr jj[.n=f] (R2,15) ḥndj(?) Ꜥ
Ꜣ(?) Ꜥnḥbw(?) rn=f wnn=f m jnm km ḥḏ ẖ.t=f mj […] ‘(R 2,14) jsm (?) sdm: ‘[…-goose] is his name. He is
of white, black and red colour. [He has] come. (R 2,15) Great kingfisher (?): Pied kingfisher (?) is his
name. He is of black and white colour. His belly is like […]’.
18 In the Egyptian script this is – in most cases – a single sign that appears at the end of a word and
gives specific information on the meaning of the related word. The categorization of animals in the
Egyptian hieroglyphic script is omitted in this paper, for the work with and the analysis of classifiers
and their significance for classification, see the paper by Orly Goldwasser in this book.
Besides these two texts, two further lists exist, but, their animal-sections are slightly
different from those in the previously cited documents. The first text was inscri-
bed on a wooden writing board found in Giza and dating back to the Old Kingdom
(2400–2100 CE; Brovarski 1987: 27–48, plate I; Reisner 1910).19 It lists, in hieroglyphic
columns, the names of kings, gods, and places, each repeated several times; at the
end – again in vertical columns – twelve small depictions of six birds and six fishes
can be seen.20 It is doubtful whether the name ‘onomasticon’ is appropriate for this
writing board, due to the repetition of words and especially the images of animals,
instead of listing their names, which is why the board could be seen as a ‘product of
the schoolroom’ or some kind of ‘copy book for the scribe, with lists of difficult signs
for the learner to copy’ (Brovarski 1987: 51).21 E. Brovarski however states that the
board shows the clear ‘tendency to fuller record’ and an ‘interest in classification’
(Brovarski 1987: 51) as can also be seen in the almost contemporary ‘chamber of the
seasons’ in the sun temple of Neuserre (2400–2370 BC; Edel 1961; id. 1963; Edel and
Wenig 1974; see also below), or other true onomastica found from the Middle Kingdom
onwards (see Gardiner 1968: 1–5).
Another text to be cited in this context is the so-called Onomasticon of Amenemope
(Gardiner 1968: 24–63)22 from the New Kingdom (1200–1100 BC). It is special, as it lists
not animal-names, but parts of animals, such as jwf ‘meat’, ḏꜢḏꜢ ‘head’ or nḥb.t ‘neck’
19 Cairo, Egyptian Museum, JE 37734.

20 Description after Brovarski 1987: 47 f.: ‘The drawings of six different birds in division 4 are too
schematic to assure identification in any one instance. The outlines are confidently drawn but taxo-
nomic features such as colour or character of feathers which distinguish the species from one another
are necessarily abbreviated on so small a scale. In spite of the fact that it has neither crest nor wattle,
the overall feathering of the first bird allows the possibility that a Sennar Guinea-fowl is depicted.
The absence of a wing outline also differentiates this bird from the succeeding (…). The relative size
of the other five birds suggests three geese followed by two ducks. On the basis of tail-profile alone,
the fourth bird might be a greylag (…) or white-fronted (…) goose. Considering the slightly longer
central rectrices of the penultimate fowl, a pintail duck might be represented. (…) The compartments
in division 5 contain three different fish (repeated 2 times). Even though he has done better by the
fishes than the birds, the scribe has erred in several particulars. While the posterior dorsal fin is sup-
pressed, the silhouette of the body, as well as the pinous anterior and rounded causal fins of the first
fish, argue that a Nile perch is depicted (…). The body of the second fish is stream-lined like a mullet
rather than deep-bodied like Barbus bynni, but the placement of the dorsal fin near the middle of the
back with the anal fin about under it on the lower side of the body, the pectoral fin behind the head
placed rather low, and the forked caudal fin suggests this species of carp is intended (…). The third
fish, Tilapia nilotica with its dorsal fin of strong spines and soft rays and its rounded caudal fin, is
difficult to mistake (…).’
21 Onomastica in the sense of Gardiner 1968: 5, and Osing 1982: 572, are attested since the Middle
Kingdom, so the writing-board from Giza is the first known onomasticon-like list (considering ani-
mals) from the Old Kingdom.
22 The text is preserved in several manuscripts, see Gardiner 1968: 26, and also Liszka 2010: 316,
with note 8.
72 Sonja Gerke
(Gardiner 1968: 237*–238*, N°s. 579–581), to cite only the first three entries, which are
written as a rubrum in red ink to mark the beginning of a new section.23 A very similar
list is also found on the already mentioned Ramesseum Onomasticon (Gardiner 1968:
15–19, and plates III–IV, N°s. 271–311).24
It seems bizarre, when looking at these four texts, that each originates from
one of the four great eras of Egyptian History – the Old Kingdom (writing board),
the Middle Kingdom (Ramesseum Onomasticon), the New Kingdom (Onomasticon
of Amenemope), and the Roman period (Tebtynis I). These texts, then, could show a
useful average throughout Egyptian history, if it were not for their uniqueness, which
narrows, or rather disables their scientific representativeness. The use and purpose
of these lists are largely uncertain, but all are supposed to be some kind of handbook
or compendium for priests or scribal students.25
The onomastica show a clear intention to group specific animals together to bring
them into groupings by special attributes or characteristics they have in common.
However, it must be noted that obviously no effort has been made (or there was no
need?) to give these groupings some kind of headline or superscription, e.g. with a
generic term that subsumes the species listed.
In addition to the onomastica, there also exist the lexica of animals, as already menti-
oned above. These lexica differ from the former by the explanatory additions presen-
ted after each animal name, but again very few examples of these texts have survived
down to the present day. The most popular one is the so-called Snake Papyrus from
the Late Period (650–330 BC; Sauneron 1989; Leitz 1997; von Lieven 2004: 156–160).26
This papyrus lists and describes distinct species of snakes? in 38 (only 25 are preser-
ved) paragraphs according to their physical appearance, how dangerous they are,
23 Those terms are sometimes also used for parts of the human body, but as Gardiner 1968: 237*
states: ‘That parts of an ox are here intended, not parts of the human body, seems clear, not only from
the three kinds of meat with which On.Am. comes to an end (Nos. 593.597.604) are not found anywhere
in the many lists of human limbs and organs that we possess, whereas they do occur in connection
with slaughtered oxen.’
24 The spatially separated classifier is in all cases the sign for meat.
25 See e.g. Brovarski 1987: 51: ‘Indeed William Stevenson Smith saw the writing board (…) as a copy
book for the scribe, with lists of difficult signs for the learner to copy. He was, however, undecided
whether it represented a sample original to serve as a guide or a student’s practice tablet [reference to
Smith, History of Egyptian Sculpture and painting, 358].’
Tebtynis I is called ‘Onomasiologisches Wörterbuch und Kompendium priesterlichen Wissens (Ono-
mastikon)’ by Osing 1998: 25, and further id., 17: ‘Es handelt sich um Handbücher priesterlichen
Wissens, wie es in römischer Zeit in Ägypten gültig war, sonst aber nur sehr selten auf Papyrus, etwas
häufiger dagegen in die Dekoration von Tempelwänden umgesetzt überliefert ist.’ (For the dispatch of
such handbooks on temple walls see von Recklinghausen 2014, and Pries 2014).
26 Brooklyn Museum inv. 47.218.48+85.
and especially according to the gods which are connected to, or manifestations of, the
specific snakes, for example (Sauneron 1989: 9, 26–27):
(I.16) jr ḥf ꜤꜢ n ꜤꜢpp27 (§15)28 What concerns the great snake of Apophis:29

wnn=f dšr.t(j) r-ḏr=f ẖt=f ḥḏ She30 is entirely red, her belly is white.
jw (j)bḥ.w 4.t m rꜤ=f There are four teeth/thorns in her mouth.
psḥ=f sj mt=f ḥr-Ꜥ When she bites a man, he will die at once.
(II.6) jr fjj šrj (§29) What concerns the small viper:31

wnn jnm=f mj pꜤr nn wp.t ḥr tp=f Her colour is like (the colour of) a quail, without
a horn on her head.
wnn Ꜥ.t nb n ẖr.t=f ktkt Every limb of whom has been bitten by her (lit.
‘who is under him’) is shaking.
jw=k r nḥm=f You will rescue him.
ꜤḥꜤ=f n Ḥr He stands for (i.e. is a manifestation of) Horus.
This part of the papyrus has been interpreted as some kind of handbook of a phy-
sician, to give quick information about the toxicity of several snakes and possible
prognosis for the bitten person.32 In this context, it is probably very important for the
physician in charge and the patient to know the god or gods which are associated with
the specific snakes, to exactly address a prayer or offering to the right deity.33
The link to religion and mythology is also visible in the other preserved texts of
this genre, for example, the dog-section of pJumilhac (Greek-Roman Period).34 This
papyrus represents a compilation of mythological details of one specific Egyptian
nome, typical for the Graeco-Roman period – a so-called Gaumonographie – listing
holy places, plants, objects or animals of a distinct region. Within this text, a section
appears where altogether ten dog species are described in a very similar way to the
Snake-Papyrus, giving information about which deity is manifested in which dog,
27 The first sentence of each paragraph is written in red ink (rubrum) to mark the beginning of a new
section.
28 The numeration in paragraphs is taken from Sauneron 1989.
29 This snake can be identified as Naja haje (Egyptian cobra/uraeus-snake), see Leitz 1997: 52–58.
30 The Egyptian word for snake ḥf is male, so the suffix =f is used, whereas in English the female
pronoun has to be used.
31 This snake can be identified as Cerastes vipera after Leitz 1997: 72–78.
32 The cited description of 38 snakes are followed by medical instructions for the treatment of the
wounds.
33 But von Lieven 2004: 160, indicates rightly that snakes whose bite is fatal have an assigned deity,
so according to her ‘der Gedanke mediko-magischer Nutzanwendung ist also durchaus nicht von der
Hand zu weisen, greift aber zu kurz’.
34 Paris, Musée du Louvre E17110: von Lieven 2004: 160–162; Vandier 1960: 81–96; 127f.
74 Sonja Gerke
where the animal is worshipped, where and how it shall be buried and in some cases
also a mythological explanation for the colouring or behaviour of a specific dog.35
However, one has to admit that these two very specific texts – pBrooklyn and pJumil-
hac – are the only two known texts that describe animals in such a detailed way.36 A
few more texts have been recognized, in some cases quite fragmentary lexica such
as pHal. Kurth37 (Ptolemaic Period; Fischer-Elfert 2008: 123–127), the Geographic
Papyrus38 from Tanis (Roman Period; Griffith and Petrie 1889: 21–25), or Tebtynis II39
(Roman Period; Osing 1998: 257–258; von Lieven 2004: 162 f.) that also list animals.
Still, in these cases, the animals are simply allocated to specific deities, as in pHal.
Kurth (Fischer-Elfert 2008: 126):
II, y+14 hꜢb Ḏḥw.ty pw Ibis: It is Thoth.

II, y+15 bnw RꜤ pw ... (?) [...] Heron: It is Ra ...(?) [...]
II, y+16 nrj.t jr.t RꜤ pw ... (?) [...] Female vulture: It is the eye of Ra ...(?) [...]
II, y+17 Ꜣḫ.t jr.t RꜤ pw ...(?) [...] Female northern bald ibis: It is the eye of Ra ...(?) [...]
It thus becomes clear that all lexica that list animals also position them in a context
that is somehow religious or mythological, the only exception being the specific part
of the above-mentioned ‘bird-section’ of Tebtynis I (Osing 1998: 124–136), where no
gods occur.40 However, in this case, the religious component is given by the general
context of the papyrus, which is to be seen in connection with a priestly or temple
35 For example: (XVI.2) (...) jr ṯsm (gloss: km) ḥḏ.t nḥb.t jw/r ẖ.t=f ttb/tbtb(?) (XVI.3) =f tp s n (??)
sd=f wbḫ ꜤḥꜤ=f n Ḥr-sꜢ-Ꜣs.t jr pꜢ wbḫ nḥb.t=f ḥnꜤ ẖ.t=f sḏw(?) n ḥbs pw ḏr n (XVI.4) nsb=f ḥꜤ.w jt=f Wsjr
m wꜤb.t jw=f (ḥr) nmms=f jm=f jw=f (ḥr) mr=f r ḫḫ=f (…) ‘Concerning the (gloss: black) ṯsm-dog with
white neck (down) to (?) his belly (?). His enemy (?) head for (??) and his tail is bright. He stands for
Harsiese (i.e. Horus, son of Isis). Concerning the brightness of his neck and his belly, he is (??) in this
garment because of his licking of the limbs of his father Osiris in the hall of embalming. He wrapped
himself in it (i.e. the mummy-linen). He bound it as far as to his throat (…).’ For this section see also
Quack (2008: 15).
36 Another text that could be cited in this context is another passage from the already mentioned
Ramesseum Onomasticon, where a list of 20 sorts of cattle (differentiated by colour) is presented (see
Gardiner 1968: 22 f.; III, pl. V). The animals are listed one after the other, each allocated to a spe-
cial sign or combination of signs at the beginning of the line. The meaning of these signs is unclear,
perhaps they ‘served as abbreviations in inventories’, as Gardiner 1968: 22, supposes. For another,
hitherto unpublished text, see von Lieven 2004: 167, note 39.
37 University of Halle-Wittenberg, Robertinum (formerly private collection Julius Kurth), inv. 33 A–C.
38 pLondon 10673.
39 pCarlsberg 182+PSI I 77. The fact that this text has parallels in Tebtynis III, pTanis and an un-
published hieroglyphic text shows, according to Osing 1998: 220: ‘(…) dass dieser Text standardisiert
war und sowohl in Tanis wie in Tebtunis, wahrscheinlich sogar in ganz Ägypten Geltung hatte. Auf
die Dekoration einer Tempelwand übertragen, findet sich die materia sacra der ägypt. Gaue, wie sie
in Abschnitt 2 der Papyri aufgeführt ist, ja auch in Edfu.’
40 See note 17. But this could also be due to the very fragmentary state of preservation of the papyrus.
environment, to which actually all cited texts can be linked. This can be explained
on the one hand by the fact that temple and priesthood in ancient Egypt represent
the centres of knowledge and education; hence, it is not surprising to find such
documents in this context or to link them with it. On the other hand, the connection
between animals and gods or mythology lies in the ‘divinity of nature’, which was
confirmed and worked out by von Lieven. She states:41
Alle relevanten Quellen gehören, soweit überprüfbar, in das Umfeld der Tempel. Dieser Glaube
entspringt also nicht etwa zurückgebliebenen Unterschichten, sondern findet sich gerade
auch in höchsten Kreisen der wissenschaftlichen und priesterlichen Elite (…). Der Tierkult in
seiner bekannten (…) Form ist nur eine logische Weiterentwicklung der Vorstellung von einer
allgemeinen und grundsätzlichen Göttlichkeit der Natur. Die Tierköpfe der ansonsten anthropo-
morph dargestellten Götter, die so charakteristisch sind für die religiöse Ikonographie des Alten
Ägypten, vervollständigen das Dreieck zutiefst miteinander verflochtener Konzepte (von Lieven
2004: 167).
In summary, it can be stated that the textual sources do reveal some kind of catego-
rization of the animal world – at least this can be said for the onomastica that group
distinct animals together: fish, birds and quadrupeds. However, these groupings of
animals do not seem to need any further explanation or titles/headings, but are seen
to be self-explanatory. Because of the very few and unique examples of such texts to
have survived, it is very difficult (or speculative) to make any generalized propositions
on this basis, considering the whole of ancient Egyptian culture and history.
1.2 Iconographical sources – scenes of tomb decoration
Ancient Egyptian culture is famous for its richness of images and pictures as is hardly
any other ancient civilization. Whether in two-dimensional decoration of tomb- or
temple-walls, or three-dimensional statues, statuettes or other sculptures: animals
are present in any genre of figurative representations, be it as part of dramatic scenes,
as sacrificial offerings, or in connection with a metaphorical meaning (see e.g.
Guichard 2014). For these themes, especially the scenes of tomb decoration of the
Old Kingdom (c. 2500–2100 BC), reveal a richness of detail, which primarily becomes
obvious in the very detailed and natural depiction of animals that remains unsur-
passed in the following periods of Egyptian history (Arnold 1995: 61).
41 For a general overview about animals in connection with the ancient Egyptian religion see Vernus
and Yoyotte 2005: 20–49.
76 Sonja Gerke
As mentioned before, animals can appear in many different contexts in the scenes of
tomb decoration. However, the following remarks will focus on the dramatic scenes
in which animals act with or beside other animals or humans.42 For this case it is
possible to differentiate between two types of animal representations. On the one
hand, there are depictions of animals which stand by themselves, and on the other
hand, depictions which have written addenda nearby, revealing the Egyptian names
of those animals (for the latter see below). Why particular depictions, and which, in
the scenes of tomb decoration are accompanied by inscriptions and which are not, is
still a matter for debate; no prove or evident explanation has yet been found. At this
point, it can only be stated that it is a fact that some animals never have addenda,
whereas others do.43
Fig. 2: Fishing in the marshes, Tomb of Mereruka (Saqqara)
42 For all scene-types of tomb decoration of the Old Kingdom cited below, the reference to the on-
line Database Oxford Expedition to Egypt: Scene-details Database; Linacre College, Oxford, 2006
will be given (in the following abbreviated: Scene-details Database plus the particular subject hea-
dings), [http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/oee_ahrc_2006/ (DOI: 10.5284/1000009;
accessed: 2/2015)].
43 But even for those animals which do have their names as addenda (see below), there is no consis-
tency recognisable in consequent use, e.g. with all depictions of a specific animal species.
Animals which never have an addendum are, for example, the different fishes44 that
are depicted in fishing-scenes with several fishermen45 or scenes that show the tomb-
owner fishing in the marshes (see fig. 2).46 Although they cannot be identified by their
Egyptian names, it is nevertheless possible to determine the exact species, owing to
the very detailed and natural realization of the depictions (Sahrhage 1997: 60–62,
figs. 19 f.; Gamer-Wallert 1970: pls. I f., and VII).47 In some cases, it is also obvious
that the people who painted the scenes or who were responsible for the design were
aware of the specific behaviour and habitus of distinct animals. For example, in
several scenes a fish is depicted that is obviously upside-down in the water (Kanawati
2011: pls. 67 f.).48 What appears at first glance quite bizarre or somehow a mistake
or carelessness on the part of the designer, turns out to be a very detailed observa-
tion of nature when examined more closely. This fish can be clearly identified in all
examples as the Nile catfish (Synodontis batensoda), which possesses the very pecu-
liar characteristic of swimming on its back, especially underneath the surface of the
water, to scavenge for food (Houlihan 1996: 43 f.; Gamer-Wallert 1970: 12, 52; Sahr-
hage 1997: 57 f., 70). This behaviour can only be observed in free-swimming speci-
mens, since animals that feel endangered or threatened do not show this. To depict
such a peculiar behaviour of fish in the scenes of tomb decoration (Gamer-Wallert
1970: 52) assumes very exact observation of the fish, beyond what would be expected
in fishing. It obviously appears to be a clear intention to differentiate between the
particular fish-species and not to portray just a fish or a prototype49 of a fish, although
both would be possible by highlighting some ‘typical’ characteristics, e.g. fish-tail,
fins and scales. The illustrations are carried out in such a detailed way that an exact
identification of the species is easily possible, even without the written tagging of the
specific fish-name.
44 Nevertheless, the names of fishes are known from other sources, see Gamer-Wallert 1970: 16–46.
45 See Scene-details Database (note 42), 1.15–1.21: dragnet or seine-netting scene; fishing with a large
net, set from boats; fishing with a funnel trap; fishing with a rounded basket trap, or carrying fish in
a basket trap; fishing with a hand-held net; boatmen spear-fishing in a marsh (excluding the major
figure); angling from a boat. See also Klebs 1982, 74–76.
46 See Scene-details Database (note 42), 1.1: Spear-fishing and/or fowling scene. See also Klebs 1982: 37.
47 This is also true for three-dimensional representations of fish, see e.g. Guichard 2014: 60 f,
cat. 45a–g).
48 Saqqara, 6th dyn. (ca. 2300 BC). For further examples, see Sahrhage 1997: 54, fig. 16; 60 f., fig. 19;
pl. 14.
49 On the use and significance of the term prototype see Lakoff 1987: 5–11, and Goldwasser 2002:
19–24.
78 Sonja Gerke
Similar predications can be stated for dramatic scenes where birds appear in connec-
tion with human interaction, that is, fowling scenes,50 or when birds are shown as
inhabitants of the papyrus marshes51 while the tomb owner is shown e.g. fishing or
carrying out other related activities. The most popular scene in this context is proba-
bly the hippopotamus-hunting scene in the tomb of Ti at Saqqara (5th dynasty; Wild
1953/1939/1966: pl. CXV–CXIX; Houlihan 1996).52 Here, the oversized tomb owner is
shown standing in a papyrus boat poled by two other men. Next to him, two smaller
boats can be seen. While the left boat is manned with just one person fishing with a
string and a club, the four men in the right boat are hunting a hippopotamus with
long spears. Below the boats, a small waterway is shown with some of its inhabi-
tants: ten fishes (representing nine distinct fish species)53 and four hippopotami (one
of the latter has a crocodile between its jaws). The much bigger part of the scene – all
in all, four and a half meters high (Houlihan 1996: 20) – is occupied by the actual
background illustration, the thicket of high papyrus stems and the inhabitants of
this: about seventy different birds, two genets and several butterflies. The birds in
the lower parts are sitting in their nests, in some cases protecting their eggs with
their wings, or some nestlings crying for food are visible, while the two genets are
scavenging for prey. In the upper parts of the scene, the birds are depicted flying or
sitting on the papyrus flowers. Here again, the multiplicity of animals is represented
in such a detailed and differentiated way that it is possible (in most cases) to identify
the animals, as has been done by Houlihan (1996: 24–48). Furthermore, none of the
animals – no matter whether flying or sitting within the papyrus thicket or swimming
in the water – carries an addendum or an inscription that would reveal its ancient
Egyptian name.
It is also noteworthy that, even in scenes where animals are shown with inscrip-
tions (see below), other animals may also appear which are not labelled and never
have been. This phenomenon shall be outlined briefly in the following, and clari-
fied by a specific example: the hedgehog. As von Droste zu Hülshoff pointed out, the
hedgehog is an animal that is present in many sectors of Egyptian life and plays a not
unimportant role, as the quantity of small amulets, figurines and vessels in the shape
of hedgehogs, which can be found throughout Egyptian history (von Droste zu Hüls-
hoff 1980; Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 145 f.; Aufrère and Erroux-Morfin 2001; Leonard
Jr. 2000). Additionally, the hedgehog is also present in many scenes of tomb decora-
50 See Scene-details Database (note 42), 1.1: Spear-fishing and/or fowling scene; 1.13. clap-net or
bird-trapping scene. See also Klebs 1982: 35; 38; 70–74.
51 See Scene-details Database (note 42), 1.2. Pleasure, cruise in a marsh.
52 Similar scenes, but much smaller in size, with fewer animals depicted, can be found e.g. in the
tomb of Mereruka at Saqqara (6th dynasty; Kanawati 2011: pls. 67–70).
53 Clarias anguillaris (or Clarias lazera), Synodontis batensoda, Labeo niloticus, Citharinus sp.,
Malapterurus electricus, Mugil sp., Anguilla vulgaris, Gnathonemus cyprinoides, Tilapia sp. after
Houlihan 1996: 43–47.
tion, e.g. in desert hunting scenes,54 where it may be depicted in its natural habitat
as a desert dweller in or beside its burrow55 or while eating an insect (e.g. a locust).56
Those scenes seem to be some kind of frame depiction for hunting in the desert to
show the natural environment (Gerke 2014: 48 f.). However, other scenes clearly show
that the hedgehog can also be a beast of prey itself (Droste zu Hülshoff 1980: 22 f.,
81–92), when it is depicted with other small animals in baskets being transported to
the city57 or presented as an offering to the tomb owner.58 The appearance of hedge-
hogs in offering scenes leads to the assumption that these animals were also used as
a daily food resource (Droste zu Hülshoff 1980: 23, with note 4). It seems astonishing
that the name of this little animal – although it is depicted quite often in two and
three-dimensional representations – is only known from two medical recipes from
the New Kingdom.59
With this small example, it should have become clear that the tagging of animals
with their names in hieroglyphs in the scenes of tomb decoration cannot be explained
only by the economic relevance60 or importance of the particular animal within Egyp-
tian society, but has to be seen in a broader context, and also probably individually
for each example (see also below).61
To sum up, it can be said – as has been stated above and also for the textual sources –
that a clear will or need for categorization and classification is traceable in the scenes
of tomb decoration, meaning that it is important to differentiate between distinct fish
or bird species, and not only to depict fish or birds. But it has to be kept in mind
that the focus of these scenes lies not in the depiction of animals, but in the particu-
lar topic of the scene, including the human interaction (in most cases involving the
tomb owner or his relatives and staff), meaning, for example, fishing and fowling in
the marshes or hunting in the desert etc., so that the human actors form the actual core
54 Droste zu Hülshoff 1980: 17–21, 53–92.

55 E.g. in the tomb of RꜤ-m-kꜢ (Saqqara, 5th dynasty), see Droste zu Hülshoff 1980: 61, Nr. 7, Abb. 8;
Decker and Herb 1994: 302, J23 (here with detailed bibliography).
56 E.g. in the tomb of Ptḥ-ḥtp (Saqqara, 5th dynasty), see Droste zu Hülshoff 1980: 63, Nr. 9, Abb. 10;
Decker and Herb 1994: 304, J30 (here with detailed bibliography).
57 E.g. in the tomb of Ptḥ-ḥtp (Saqqara, 5th dynasty), see Droste zu Hülshoff 1980: 82, Nr. 31, Abb. 27;
Decker and Herb 1994: 307, J31 (here with detailed bibliography). For the action-chain hunting – trans-
portation – slaughtering see also Herb and Förster 2009.
58 In most cases, the hedgehogs are also presented in baskets, e.g. in the tomb of Ꜣḫt-ḥtp (Saqqara, 6th
dynasty), see Droste zu Hülshoff 1980: 87, Nr. 37, Abb. 32.
59 However, the correlation hedgehog = ḥntꜢ is very insecure, as this term could also be the name for
porcupine, see Droste zu Hülshoff (1980: 13–16), and also Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 146.
60 For animals and their economical relevance, see esp. Herb and Förster 2009: 25–33, with fig. 14.
61 Note the addendum for a hare (sẖꜤ.t) in the desert hunting scene in the tomb of Baqet III, unique
to my knowledge, see below (Newberry 1893: 47, pl. IV; Decker and Herb (1994: 319 f.; J66; Taf. CXLVI.
J66).
80 Sonja Gerke
of the scenes, whereas the animals are more or less to be seen as an attachment – a
necessary and important attachment, but nonetheless second-rank.
1.3 Combination of image and text
As mentioned above, scenes of temple and tomb decoration can be found which show
animals with addenda, giving the names of the specific species in hieroglyphs. The
most famous example for this is the so-called chamber of the seasons (Edel 1961;
id. 1963; Edel and Wenig 1974) in the sun temple of Neuserre, that has been mentioned
above already in the context of the organization of knowledge (with regard to onomas-
tica and lexica) and ‘interest in classification’ (Brovarski 1987: 51). The iconographic
program of the chamber of the seasons consists of natural scenes which show specific
events happening cyclically during the different seasons,62 e.g. the mating and birth
of animals, the migration of fish and birds, as well as agricultural activities carried
out by men, such as sowing and harvesting. In the case of the scenes which show
animals, it is conspicuous that nearly all depictions have an addendum with the spe-
cific animal names, for example, the scenes where different animals give birth paral-
lel to each other in space (which means at the same time) during the šmw-season (i.e.
summer) (see fig. 3) (Edel 1961: 245; Edel and Wenig 1974: Taf. 14).63 The animals are
described as smꜢ.t ‘wild cow’, nwḏ.w ‘antelope (addax)’, gḥs ‘gazelle’, bꜢ ‘leopard’,
and nṯr.t ‘cheetah’. Especially in the cases of the two felines, the inscriptions are very
helpful, as they are hard to distinguish from each other only by means of iconography
(see Kleinsgütl 1997).
Fig. 3: Giving birth of different animals in the chamber of the seasons (Abu Gurab)
62 šmw = summer; Ꜣḫ.t = inundation. The third ancient Egyptian season (pr.t = winter) is missing in
the reliefs.
63 Relief Z 250, Berlin 20036.
Other examples of tagged animals derive again from the huge number of scenes of
tomb decoration. Here, hunting scenes especially that show the tomb owner and his
sons hunting in the deserts offer, in many cases, tagged animals, e.g. the desert hunt
of Baqet III of Beni Hassan (Newberry 1893: 47, pl. IV; Decker and Herb 1994: 319 f.,
J66).
The different desert animals are depicted in most cases in pairs, one after the
other, and nearly all of them have short addenda that give the names of the single
animals or describe in a few words the portrayed action.64 However, not all animals
show an addendum, for example, the gazelle on the left or the animals at the outer
right end of the scene lack descriptions. In contrast, even the three – to modern thin-
king non-existent – mythical creatures Seth-animal, griffin and serpopard that appear
quite naturally among the real desert animals, have their names as a supplement.65 In
this scene, the name for the hare (sẖꜤ.t) can also be found. Except for this example in
the tomb of Baqet III, only two other sources for sẖꜤ.t are known: the first one is from
a further contemporary tomb in Beni Hassan (Newberry 1893: pl. XIII),66 the second
from the already mentioned onomasticon Tebtynis I (Osing 1998: 121 (N 9, 24)).67 The
whole hunting-scene makes the impression of some kind of list, in which the animals
in most cases are shown by pairs with their names written nearby, but primarily it
represents a dramatic scene depicting human and animal interaction.
Another significant and somehow comparable example of animal classification
can be found in two scenes in the lower half of the same tomb wall of Baqet III:68 In
the lowermost register of this wall, some aquatic activities are depicted, showing men
on boats fishing with nets, tearing out papyrus-stems (‘Papyrusraufen’), or poking
each other with poles (‘Fischerstechen’).69 In the waterway beneath the boats, dif-
ferent fishes (as well as one hippopotamus) can be found again. Above the fisher-
men hover altogether 29 different birds and three bats70 (two in top-view, the one in
the middle in side-view). All animals are standing on four small half-registers, which
64 The inscriptions from right to left are: jb ‘goat’, wnš ‘jackal’, sꜢb ‘jackal’, bꜢ-šmꜤ ‘Upper Egyptian
leopard’, bꜢ-mḥ ‘Lower Egyptian leopard’, šsꜢ ‘bubalis antelope’; nḏr ḥbn ‘seizing the antelope’, sẖꜤ.t
’hare’, hnn ‘deer’, jꜢm.t ‘female ibex’, nrꜢ.w ‘ibex’, bꜢ ‘leopard’, nḏr […] ‘seizing […]’, šꜢ ‘Seth-animal’,
sfr ‘griffin’, s(w)ḏꜢ ‘serpopard’; Ꜣbw ‘elephant’; nḏr.t nrꜢ.w mꜢ-ḥs ‘seizing the ibex (by) the lion’; sṯt
‘pouring out the semen’.
65 For the name of the griffin and its meaning as animal in ancient Egypt see Gerke 2014.
66 See also Erman and Grapow 1955: IV, 268.11.
67 The few sources for the name of the hare is comparable with the missing nomenclature of the
hedgehog, mentioned above. The hare also played a small, but not unimportant role in ancient Egypt,
and also found its way into the hieroglyphic sign-system (E34); interestingly, this never stands for the
hare itself but is used only as phonetic sign wn. See also Brunner-Traut 1977: 1023 f.
68 Newberry 1893: 47, pl. IV.
69 For these scene-types, see Herb 2001.
70 Davies 1949: 14, calls the depicted animals ‘bats’, but the more precise zoological term would
probably be ‘fruit bats’ or ‘megabats’.
82 Sonja Gerke
are not in a scenic context and have no point of contact to the surrounding scenes,
and are therefore even more obviously to be seen as some kind of listing (Hoffmann
2005: 197). All animals have their names written nearby; most of them could be taxo-
nomically identified by N. M. Davies (Davies 1949: 15–20). Very interesting is the com-
pilation of bats – flying mammals – with birds in one context, leading to the conclu-
sion that these different species were seen by the ancient Egyptians as connected or
even related to each other, as they are put together in one context.71
Sources that include a combination of image and text reveal similar conclusions
concerning the categorization of animals as the investigation of the textual and ico-
nographical sources. The examples cited above show that distinct animals in distinct
situations or contexts can be accompanied by their names as hieroglyphic inscrip-
tions, which shows a clear will and need for differentiation between animals or dis-
tinct animal species. But there is no system or standard visible that could reveal a
general use or ‘non-use’ of these addenda. Furthermore, examples like the ‘chamber
of the seasons’ or the bird list of Baqet III are unique examples that have, as yet, no
equivalent counterpart. Even the hunting scene of Baqet III (see fig. 5) represents a
peculiarity with a lot of inscriptions and the list-like representation of animals by
pairs.
2 Models of categorization
Following the investigation of the different levels occasionally showing classifications
of animals in ancient Egypt, the question arises of whether the ancient Egyptians
classified or categorized the animal world according to distinct models or systems.
2.1 Categorization by habitat
E. Hornung states in his paper on the meaning of the animal in ancient Egypt:
Es entspricht dem Sinn des Ägypters für klare, großzügige Gliederung, dass sich seine Systema-
tik des Tierreiches in erster Linie an den Lebensbereichen der Tiere orientiert, also an den großen
Linien der Schöpfungswelt, nicht an einzelnen Merkmalen der Lebewesen selbst (Hornung
1967: 69 f.).
Actually, the categorization of animals by habitat seems to be the most obvious

and can be traced throughout all Egyptian epochs (Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 15). J.
Assmann, for example, identifies a clearly visible categorization of the animals men-
71 The depictions of bats in ancient Egypt are very rare, see Störk 1977: 263 f.
tioned in the Egyptian hymns in creatures of the water, creatures of the sky, and crea-
tures of the earth, while creatures of the earth are again sub-divided into creatures
that live upon the earth (cattle, small livestock, etc.) and creatures that live in the
earth (mice, vermin, etc.; Assmann 1983: 206, note n).
The three great environments earth, sky, and water are also represented in hiero-
glyphic signs ( , , ) and this system can also be retraced in the nomenclature
of animals itself. This can occur, for example, in paraphrasing terms:
jmj.w-mw ‘those who are in the water’ (Erman and Grapow 1955: I, 74.7;
TLA Lemma-Nr. 25480). The two classifying signs fish and crocodile
show that the expression includes both types of animals, which
share the common habitat water.72
jr.w-p.t ‘those who belong to the sky’ (Erman and Grapow 1955: I,
104.4; TLA Lemma-Nr. 28640). It must be noted here that the classi
fier ‘bird’, can also be used for other flying animals like
insects, which could therefore also be meant by this expression
(see e.g. Meeks 2010: 273 f.).
jmj-tꜢ ‘those who are in the earth’ (Erman and Grapow 1955: I,
75.17; TLA Lemma-Nr. 25860). Although this one has no specific
animal-classifier, the context clarifies an interpretation of this
expression as one to be used for snakes.
Additionally, further terms which name specific animals do exist, as seen in the fol-
lowing two examples:
sꜢ-tꜢ ‘son of the earth’,73 a name for a snake.

gr-n-p.t, which means literally ‘the fowl of the sky’, but is said to
develop later to Demotic grmp (Erichsen 1954: 585) and Coptic
(Crum 1939: 828), which means dove and is probably
already used with this connotation in the New Kingdom (Erman
and Grapow 1955: V, 181.1 f.; Vernus and Yoyotte, 2005: 81)
Finally, two examples shall be cited here to exemplify that specific animals are not
thought to be limited to only one habitat:
72 But this term may also appear with only one classifier (fish), as within a hymn on a stela of
Ramses IV (Cairo JE 48831; 20th dynasty): Kitchen 1983: 404.8, l. 4; Assmann 1999: Nr. 220, l. 9, see below.
73 Later Coptic snake/basilisk (Crum 1939: 359), see Erman and Grapow 1955: III, 410.16 f.; TLA
Lemma-Nr. 126130; Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 81.
84 Sonja Gerke
Ꜣpd.w-n-mw ‘the birds of the water’ (TLA Lemma-Nr. 113) shows

that the birds are not only limited to the sky, but that there is some
kind of waterfowl.
jmj-tꜢ-mw ‘those who are in the earth and in the water’ (TLA
Lemma-Nr. 500045) makes clear that snakes can live both on the
earth and in the water.
2.2 Categorization by appearance
Despite the statement of E. Hornung that the ancient Egyptians classified their
animals only ‘an den großen Linien der Schöpfungswelt, nicht an einzelnen Merkma-
len der Lebewesen selbst’ (Hornung 1967: 70), classification by the outward appea-
rance of several animals can also be proved to have existed in ancient Egypt. This
becomes particularly apparent, for example, in the administrative title
jmj-rꜢ Ꜥb wḥm(.t) šw(.t) nšm(.t) ‘Overseer of horned, hoofed, feathered and scaled’,
which is attested for officials of the Middle and New Kingdoms (Ward 1982: Nr. 64;
Ayedi 2006: Nr. 68; Loret 1916 f.; Quirke 1996: 666–669).74 For this title, a significant
part of four specific animals (horn, leg with hoof, feather and scale) is used and
stands pars pro toto for the whole creature, or rather the whole species, like cattle,
bird or fish. However, it is not entirely certain which actual duties the official who
bore this title had to perform,75 nor what specific creatures are meant exactly by the
abbreviations. The connections between ‘horn and cattle’, ‘feather and bird’, or ‘scale
and fish’ in general seem to be quite obvious, although the distinct kinds of animals –
which kind of cattle, bird or fish is supposed exactly – must remain uncertain. In
the case of the hoof (or the hoofed leg, respectively), the identification of the linked
animal is much more problematic. In his hieroglyphical sign-list, A.H. Gardiner
claims the sign (F25) to be the ‘leg and hoof of an ox’, but states that it can also be
transferred to donkeys (Gardiner 1957: 464). Given the fact – or better the assump-
tion – that the horn stands for cattle, it would not be reasonable to cite another part
for cattle. Clearly a much wider range of animals that could be meant by exists,
especially when looking at iconographical sources, where the legs of cattle, ibex,
gazelles, sheep, donkeys or even horses are depicted in a way very similar to each
74 See also Jones 2000: Nr. 338: jmj-rꜢ Ꜥb nb ‘Overseer of all horned’; Ward 1982: Nr. 62: jmj-rꜢ Ꜥb.w
‘Overseer of horned’, and Nr. 63: jmj-rꜢ Ꜥb wḥm(.t) ‘Overseer of horned and hoofed’ (= Ayedi 2006,
Nr. 66); Ayedi 2006: Nr. 67: jmj-rꜢ Ꜥb jmj-rꜢ wḥm.t šw.t ‘Overseer of horned, overseer of hoofed and
feathered’, and Nr. 69 jmj-rꜢ ob jmj-rꜢ šw(.t) nšm.w ‘Overseer of horned, feathered and scaled’.
75 Quirke 1996: 669, suggests that the person thus designated was ‘an official charged with transport
of livestock and/or meat’.
other and resembling the sign .76 It is also possible that the ‘exact’ nomenclature of
the species was not important at all, and so the terms wḥm(.t) šw(.t) nšm(.t) can be
seen as some kind of ‘generic terms’.
2.3 Categorization by locomotion
A third possibility of animal-classification is the classification by locomotion. So

the paraphrase ntj nb ḥr tꜢ šm.w ḥr rd.wj ntj m Ꜥḫ ḥr pꜢjj m ḏnḥ.w=sn ‘all which is on
earth and walks on its feet and which is ‘on high’ and flies with its wings’ (Assmann
1999: Nr. 92 [l. 81 f.]; Sandman 1938: 93–96 [l. 8])77 shows clearly the differentiation
between ‘walking’, i.e. movement on the ground with legs and feet, and ‘flying’ i.e.
movement off the ground with wings. This again is reflected in the nomenclature of
creatures, for example:
pꜢj as a verb means ‘to fly’ (Erman and Grapow 1955: I, 494.1–12;
TLA Lemma-Nr. 58780) but it is also used as a general term for
birds pꜢjj.t (Erman and Grapow 1955: I, 494.13) resp.
pꜢjj.w (Erman and Grapow 1955: I, 494.15–17; TLA
Lemma-Nr. 59070) ‘those who fly (up)’ often with the addition
ḫnn.t ‘those who come down’ (Erman and Grapow 1955,
III, 288.4–6, see also Erman and Grapow 1955: 494.14; TLA Lemma-
Nr. 118310).
ḥfꜢ ‘to snake/twist’ (Erman and Grapow 1955: III, 73.6–8; TLA
Lemma-Nr. 104340) resp. ḥf ‘to revere/praise‘ (Erman and
Grapow 1955: III, 73.9–12; TLA Lemma-Nr. 104350)78 becoming with
ḥfꜢ.t (Erman and Grapow 1955: III, 72–73.5) a general
term for vermin, snakes and worms.
Those three briefly presented models of animal classification represent a very selec-
tive choice; many more types of models could be added here, for example, classi-
76 In modern taxonomy cattle, ibex, gazelle and sheep belong to the order of ‘even-toed ungulates’,
whereas donkeys and horses belong to the ‘odd-toed ungulates’. Though the hoof-forms of both or-
ders are easily and visibly distinguishable from each other, in Egyptian reliefs and paintings they are
obviously hardly differentiated. This may be because the animals are always shown in side-view and
so whether the foot has one or two toes is not visible.
77 Great Hymn to Aten, New Kingdom, 18th dynasty (Amarna).
78 The connection between the two meanings of the word may derive from the crooked or submission
posture while praising, which can be compared with creeping on the ground.
86 Sonja Gerke
fication by gender, by purpose, or by function.79 Nevertheless, it becomes obvious

that in classification by habitat, appearance and locomotion – although these are
seen separately and clearly distinguished from each other – each also determines the
other. This means, strictly speaking, whatever lives on the ground needs feet to walk,
whatever lives in the air needs wings and feathers to fly, and whatever lives in the
water needs the ability to swim and usually has scales. In simple words: there is no
bird with scales, no fish with legs, and no quadruped with wings.80
3 Hierarchy and canonization – the hymns of the

New Kingdom
The last part of this paper deals with the question of whether some kind of Egyptian
hierarchical system can be traced which would arrange the animal world in a depen-
dant order (also considering the connection to other creatures, such as mankind
and gods) and whether this system, or rather the whole ancient Egyptian view of the
animal world, can be looked at as a standardized or canonized concept.
To turn to the creation of hierarchy regarding the animal world in general,
some textual sources appear to be quite appropriate owing to their general struc-
ture, meaning the listing of animals within a continuous text: the Geschöpfkataloge
(meaning catalogues of creatures), so called by J. Assmann, considers specific sec-
tions especially within the hymns of the New Kingdom (Assmann 1983: 206, note n;
id. 1999, 254).81 Hymns and prayers to gods and goddesses can be found throughout a
period of more than 2500 years in ancient Egypt, written on tomb and temple walls, on
papyri, statues, stelae, ostraca and coffins. As variable as the text media are the texts
themselves. Generally, they praise the god or the goddess they are addressed to, for
his or her effectiveness as the sun, life or creation deity and therefore form a medium
of communication between gods and humans (Knigge Salis and Luiselli 2013: 145 f.).
The texts are grouped together by the appearance of special keywords which can be
found at the beginning of each text and have something to do with adoration, worship
or veneration.82 Some of these texts, especially from the New Kingdom, include small
chapters in which the creation initiated by the addressed deity – in most cases the sun
79 See in particular Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: Bestiaire, 15–19; 62–93.

80 Excluded are mythical creatures such as the griffin, which has four legs (feline body) and the
wings and head of a bird (in most cases that of a falcon); for this, see Gerke 2014 on the treatment of
fantastic animals, in general, see also Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 632–697.
81 Here called ‘Listen der Geschöpfe’.
82 In most cases, the term dwꜢ is used.
god – is praised. This praising is expressed by an enumeration of the specific deeds

and creatures the deity has made, such as gods, men, animals, plants, towns, etc.
Lists, however, are predestined to function as markers of hierarchies, or at least
are supposed to be. When listing several objects, topics or creatures, the human mind
searches automatically for a deeper sense, an organization or a meaningful order in
the structure – be it chronological, alphabetical, hierarchical, or whatever. The ‘cata-
logues of creatures’ can vary extremely in their length, as well as in the number and
order of the creatures and topics listed. For hymns including catalogues of animals,
J. Assmann cites only five examples (Assmann 1999: 254)83 but it is possible to add
more texts, which, however, cannot be discussed entirely within the scope of the
present paper.84 At this point, only a few examples will be given, which make no claim
to completeness. Nevertheless, it is still possible to discuss some general chains of
83 Tomb of Tjanefer, pBoulaq 17, Hibis 2, stela of Baki and pChester Beatty IV. For references, see the
following note 86.
84 Hymns of the New Kingdom that include lists of animals:
1. pBoulaq 17 (for further sources of this text, see Luiselli 2004, XX–XXI; 17th/18th dynasty): Luiselli
2004: I.18–20, I.24, III.30–39, III.66–68; Assmann 1999: Nr. 87A (l. 15–25), 87E (l. 107–120), 87F
(l. 145–148).
2. Tura-Hymn (18th dynasty): Bakir 1943, 83–91 (l. 16; l. 22–23); Assmann 1999: Nr. 88 (l.40 f.,
l. 55–58).
3. Hymn in the Tomb of Merire, (further sources: Ahmes, Haia; 18th dynasty): Sandman 1938: 7
(l. 1 f.); Assmann 1999: Nr. 95 (l. 8–10).
4. Tomb of Apy, Small Hymn to Aten (further sources: Merire, Ani, Mahu, Tutu; 18th dynasty): Sand-
man 1938: 11–12 (l. 3); Assmann 1999: Nr. 91 (l. 16–20).
5. Tomb of Aya, Great Hymn to Aten (18th dynasty): Sandman 1938: 94 (l. 8); Assmann 1999: Nr. 92
(l. 79–82).
6. Stela of Baki (Louvre 2660; 18th dynasty): Moret 1909: pl. XIX (l. 3, l.5 f., l. 12); Assmann 1999:
Nr. 170 (l. 10–14, l. 30 f.).
7. pLeiden I 344 (18th/19th dynasty): Zandee 1992: Taf. 2 (l. II.1–3); Assmann 1999: Anhang Nr. 1,
4–13.
8. Tomb of Tjay / TT 23 (19th dynasty): Assmann 1983: Nr. 16 (l. 3 f.); Assmann 1999: Nr. 104 (l. 7–11).
9. Book of the Dead of Hunefer / pBM 9901 (19th–20th dynasty): Budge 1899: 8 (l. 7–10); Assmann
1999: Nr. 42A (l. 7–12).
10. pChester Beatty IV (19th–20th dynasty): Gardiner 1935: pl. 15 (rto l. 7.5–7); Assmann 1999:
Nr. 195 (l. 115–123).
11. Tomb of Amenmessu / TT 373 (19th–20th dynasty): Assmann 1983: Nr. 253 (l. 18–25); Assmann
1999: Nr. 97 (l. 20–27).
12. Tomb of Tjanefer / TT 158 (20th dynasty): Assmann 1983: Nr. 156 (l. 20–26); Assmann 1999:
Nr. 108 (l. 20–26).
13. Stela of Ramses IV. (Kairo JE 48831; 20th dynasty): Kitchen 1983: 404.8 (l. 4–5); Assmann 1999:
Nr. 220 (l. 9–11).
88 Sonja Gerke
thought even by comparing only a few texts85 which are interesting for the topic of
classification and creation of hierarchy of the animal world.
To show the general structure of these texts, two examples are cited here:86
(16) jr=k rmṯ.w Ꜥw.t You made men, small cattle and cattle, all that came into
mnmn.t ḫpr.t wnn.t nb.t being and all that exists. (…)
(...)
(22) jr=k n=sn Ꜥw.t You made for them small cattle [and cattle and eve-
[mnmn.t] pꜢjj [ḫnn nb] (...) rything], which flies up [and lowers down(?)] (…)
[Tura-Hymn (18th dynasty)]
(VII.5) (...) {m} ḏd (VII.6) (...) He who spoke with his mouth and those who exist
<m> rꜤ=f ḫpr m wn.w m came into being: Men and gods, cattle and all small cattle
rmṯ.w nṯr.w mnmn.t Ꜥw.t nb together with all that flies up and lowers down.
mj-ḳd=st pꜢjj.t ḫnn{=j}(.t) [pChester Beatty IV (19th–20th dynasty)]
(VII.7) r-Ꜣw
J. Assmann suggests that the creatures listed in this context are to be seen as the
‘children of the deity’ (Assmann 1999: 254) and he outlines the structure of the cata-
logues with a more or less hierarchically organized scheme including (I) men, (II)
gods, and (III) animals, the latter being further subdivided into animals of the water
(fish), animals of the air (birds), and animals that live in the earth (vermin, mice, and
fleas) or on the earth (cattle and small livestock), respectively (Assmann 1983: 206,
note n; see also above). Furthermore, he emphasizes that ‘Auffallend ist der Vorrang
der Menschen vor den Göttern’ (Assmann op.cit.)87, leading him to the question: ‘Sind
die Menschen vor den Göttern entstanden?’ (Assmann op.cit.).88 Thus, according to
J. Assmann, these catalogues obviously carry hierarchical information about the
14. pBerlin 3048 (22nd dynasty): Möller 1970: Taf. 42, l. VIII.2; Assmann 1999: Nr. 143, l. 156–158.
The examples cited are not to be seen as a complete catalogue of sources for Geschöpfkataloge. As said
before, those lists of creation-acts and animals can also be found in other contexts. A famous example
is a section in the Teachings for Merikare (cf. Assmann 1999: 29 with note 27), where a hymn-like
speech is embedded that also includes a small catalogue of creatures, naming, among others, cattle,
birds, and fish. The reason for the limited focus solely on the sections of the hymns of the New King-
dom lies with the limited space of the present paper, but as the hymns of the New Kingdom represent
a reasonable and comprehensible, more or less self-contained selection, they are suitable for a se-
parate and, within this scope, manageable investigation. They were chosen after the compilation by
Assmann 1999.
85 See note 84.
86 For particular bibliography, see note 84.
87 However, a few exceptions are cited here.
88 Here with reference to Sauneron and Yoyotte 1959: 75.
creatures listed, at least as far as their chronological order of creation is concerned.89

But can those text-sections really fulfil these expectations?
When comparing the above-mentioned fourteen text-sections90 to come to proba-
ble conclusions concerning the order or hierarchy of the listed elements, it is neces-
sary to take a closer look at the particular creatures, which shall be done in the fol-
lowing, taking J. Assmann’s scheme (as mentioned above) as a basis (the numbers in
brackets show the number of appearances in the fourteen investigated texts, see note
86):91
I. Men:
92 / 93 / 94 / 95 / 96 rmṯ.w ‘men’.
This term is the most common term used to describe mankind and appears in nearly
all text passages. In most cases, it is used in parallel – or rather: contrast – to the
gods, e.g ḳd rmṯ.w jr nṯr.w ‘he who built men, he who made the gods’97 (the precedence
can vary, see below), but it can also be mentioned alone, especially in the texts of the
Amarna period. (12/14)
98 / 99 / 100 ḥnmm.t,
often translated as ‘heaven’s folk‘ or ‘sun-folk’. The origins of this designation are not
altogether clear, but it is also used as a collective term for mankind, maybe in a more
89 See also Assmann (1983: 354, note n): ‘Konzeptionen einer Reihenfolge der Schöpfung, wie sie
z.B. das 6-Tage-Schema der Genesis darstellt sind in ägyptischen Texten äußerst schwer faßbar. (...)
Die wenigen Texte, die einen narrativen Bericht und daher eine zeitlich entfaltete Konzeption der
Schöpfung geben, wie z.B. der Turahymnus ÄHG Nr. 88 und der Hymnus Hibis 32 (=ÄHG Nr. 129)
lassen zuerst die Götter als die Glieder, Worte, Gedanken des Schöpfergottes entstehen (vgl. zu Text
149), sodann den Raum mit Himmel und Erde und schließlich die Lebewesen, wobei die Menschen
den Anfang machen.’
90 See note 86.
91 The particular references of the different dictions are given in the footnotes; the line numbers refer
to the editions cited in note 86. Only the creatures (men, gods and animals) are cited in the following.
Other elements, such as plants, trees, cities or abstract terms (e.g. ‘all that exists’), are omitted.
92 pBoulaq, I,18; III, 39; Tura-Hymn, 16. The hieroglyphs as shown here are adopted from Bakir 1943.
The specific signs are not recognisable on the photographs, so the exact spelling must remain uncer-
tain; Stela of Baki, 3, 5; Book of the Dead of Hunefer, 10; pChester Beatty IV, 7.6; Stela of Ramses IV.,
4; pBerlin 3048, VIII.2.
93 Hymn in the Tomb of Merire, 1.
94 Tomb of Apy ‘Small Hymn to Aten’, 3; Tomb of Aya ‘Great Hymn to Aten’, 8.
95 pLeiden I 344, II.1.
96 Tomb of Tjanefer, 3.
97 pLeiden I 344, II.1 f.
98 pBoulaq III.31; pLeiden I 344, II.3.
99 Tomb of Tjay, 3.
100 Tomb of Amenmessu, 7.
90 Sonja Gerke
mythological context (Serrano 1999; Nibbi 1991; Assmann 1983: 354, note n; a new
lexicographical study is Jacoby 2015, unpublished master’s thesis ‘Zur Identität des
sogenannten Sonnenvolkes (ḥnmm.t)’). In most cases of the appearance within the
catalogues, the nourishment of the ḥnmm.t is mentioned.101 (4/14)
102 rḫjj.t, lit. ‘peewit (people)’,

is traditionally to be seen in the sense of subject, concerning the people who subjects
of the king, meaning again mankind (see Kaplony 1980: 417–422). (1/14)
II. Gods:
103 / 104 / 105 nṯr.w ‘gods’.
This term is always used in plural and in most cases in parallel – or rather: contrast –
to mankind (see rmṯ.w). (6/14)
III. Animals:
of the water:
106 / 107 / 108 rm.w ‘fish’ (2/14)
109 jmj.w mw ‘those who are in the water’ (1/14)
of the air:
110 / 111 / 112 Ꜣpd.w ‘birds’ (2/14)
113 ḫnws ‘gnat(?)’114 (1/14)
101 But in the Tomb of Amenmessu, 7, the term by context seems to be used as a synonym for rmṯ.w:
(7) ḫpr.n ḥnmm.t (8) ḥr-sꜢ ḳmꜢ.n=k ḫpr.n Ꜥw.t nb.t ḫft-wḏ.n=k ‘The sun-folk came into being after what
you created, all small livestock came into being in accordance to what you commanded’.
102 Book of the Dead of Hunefer, 7.
103 Stela of Baki, 3; Tomb of Tjanefer, 3.
104 pLeiden I 344, II.2; pChester Beatty IV, 7.6; pBerlin 3048, VIII.2.
105 Stela of Ramses IV., 4.
106 pBoulaq III.32, here with the addition: jtr.w ‘(of) the stream’, see also note 110 (stela of Baki).
107 Stela of Baki, 6.
108 Stela of Baki, 12, here with the addition: ḥr jtr.w ‘in the stream’, see also note 108 (pBoulaq).
109 Stela of Ramses IV, 4.
110 pBoulaq III.33, here with the addition: gnẖ p.t ‘which fly (in) the sky’.
113 pBoulaq III.36.
114 See Erman and Grapow 1955: III, 290.2 f. and TLA Lemma-Nr. 117830.
115 pwjj ‘flea’ (1/14)

116 ḳjj ‘bug(?)’117 (1/14)
118 / 119 / 120 / 121 / 122 / 123pꜢjj
‘what flies up’ (6/14)
124 / 125 / 126 / 127 ḫnn ‘what comes down’ (4/14)
128 ntj m Ꜥḫ Hr pꜢjj m ḏnḥ.w=sn ‘what is ‘on high’ and
flies with his (lit. their) wings’ (1/14)
in the earth:
129 sꜢ Ꜥpnn.t ‘son of the Ꜥpnn.t-snake(?)’ (1/14)

130 pn.w ‘mouse’ (1/14)
131 / 132 ḏdf.t ‘vermin/snakes’ (2/14)
133 ḥfꜢ.t ‘vermin/snakes’ (1/14)
115 pBoulaq III.37. Assmann 1983: 206, note n, counts the flea among the animals that live in the
earth (together with mice). But the determinative supposes that the ancient Egyptians saw fleas as
more related to the birds, i.e. the flying animals, and they are therefore here counted as animals of
the sky.
116 pBoulaq III.39, here with the addition m ḫt nb.t ‘in every wood/tree’.
117 Luiselli (2004: 30) translates ‘birds’ according to Erman and Grapow 1955: V, 17.2; here the trans-
lation of Assmann 1999: 87E l. 120 ‘bug’ is preferred by context.
118 Tura-Hymn, 22. The hieroglyphs as shown here are adopted from Bakir 1943. The specific signs
are not recognisable on the photographs, so the exact spelling must remain uncertain.
121 Tomb of Tjay, 3.
122 pChester Beatty IV, 7.6.
123 Stela of Rames IV., 4.
126 Tomb of Tjay, 3.
128 Tomb of Aya, Great Hymn to Aten, 8.
129 pBoulaq III.35.
130 pBoulaq III.38, here with the addition m bꜢbꜢ=sn ‘in their holes’.
131 pBoulaq III.37.
92 Sonja Gerke
on the earth:
134 / 135 / 136 / 137 / 138 / 139 / 140 /
141 / 142 / 143 / 144 / 145 / 146 Ꜥw.t ‘small livestock’
(10/14)
147 jwꜤ ‘small cattle(?)’148 (1/14)
149 ḥw.t ‘small cattle(?)’150 (1/14)
151 / 152 / 153 / 154 / 155 /
156 / 157 mnmn.t ‘cattle’ (8/14)
158 ntj nb ḥr tꜢ šm.w ḥr rd.wj ‘all which is on earth and
walks on its feet’ (1/14)
134 pBoulaq I.18.

135 pBoulaq III.66.
136 pBoulaq III.68 here with the addition nt ḫꜢs.t ‘of the desert’.
139 Hymn in the Tomb of Merire, 1 (determinative uncertain).
140 Tomb of Apy, Small Hymn to Aten, 3.
144 pChester Beatty IV, 7.6; Gardiner 1935: pl. 15 gives the hieroglyphic transcription with, but notes
that ‘(...) is represented by a sign completely identical with (...)’.
145 Tomb of Amenmessu, 8; after this entry appears a gap, where originally also some kind of cattle
must have been quoted: [Ꜥw.t] nb ḥr-tp ḫꜢs.wt=sn ‘every [type? of small livestock?] within their deserts’.
148 Probably alternative writing for Ꜥw.t, see TLA, Lemma-Nr. 22370; Erman and Grapow 1955: I,
50.6 f. quote one text source from the 20th dynasty and three sources from the Late Period.
149 pBerlin 3048, VIII.2.
150 Probably alternative writing for Ꜥw.t, see TLA 102380; Erman and Grapow 1955: III, 45.7 quote
only this text.
151 pBoulaq III.30. On this exceptional and unique writing, see also Goldwasser 2002: 74.
152 pBoulaq I.20; Tura-Hymn, 16. The hieroglyphs as shown here are adopted from Bakir 1943. The
specific signs are not recognisable on the photographs, so the exact spelling must remain uncertain.
153 Tomb of Apy, Small Hymn to Aten, 3.
154 Tomb of Aya, Great Hymn to Aten, 8; Book of the Dead of Hunefer, 10; Tomb of Tjanefer, 3.
The compilation of the several elements of the catalogues of creatures shows the enor-
mous variation of creatures mentioned and their nomenclatures. pBoulaq 17 can cer-
tainly be seen as the most detailed text, giving detailed and partly unique examples of
creation, from men to cattle and mice to bugs and fleas. However, as e.g. pBerlin 3048
shows, the act of creation (of living creatures) can also be described with only three
elements: ḳd nṯr.w rmṯ.w Ꜥw.t nb ‘He who built gods, men and all small livestock’. But
not only the number of creatures mentioned and the general length of the catalogues
may vary; even when the same elements appear in different texts, they can change
positions. Elements that often appear together in pairs are e.g. mnmn.t ‘cattle’ and Ꜥw.t
‘small livestock’159 as well as nṯr.w ‘gods’ and rmṯ.w ‘men’.160 In the case of the former
pair, mnmn.t appears in five of seven texts in the first place, in the case of the latter
pair nṯr.w stands first in three of six cases, which shows that there seems to be no
purpose of order or no purpose of hierarchy in the listing of elements, as J. Assmann
(among others) has supposed, concerning the chronological order of creation of men
and gods (Assmann 1983: 206, note n; Sauneron and Yoyotte 1959: 75).
Another inconsequence lies in the different nomenclature for several creatu-
res, i.e. the use of paraphrases for e.g. rm.w ‘fish’ (jmj.w mw ‘those who are in the
water’) and Ꜣpd.w ‘birds’ (pꜢjj ‘what flies up’; ḫnn ‘what comes down’; ntj m Ꜥḫ ḥr pꜢjj m
ḏnḥ.w=sn ‘what is on high and flies with his (lit. their) wings’).
But also the subjects of creation differ from text to text (and also sometimes
within one and the same text). The first issue is the creation of beings for their own
sake, as in the Tura-Hymn (16) jr=k rmṯ.w Ꜥw.t mnmn.t ‘You made men, small livestock,
and cattle’. The second one is the creation of the beings for someone, as again in the
Tura-Hymn (22) jr=k n=sn Ꜥw.t ‘You made for them small livestock’.161 The third subject
is the creation of nutrition or supply for the beings, as e.g. in pLeiden I 344, II.3 jr Ꜥnḫ
m ḥnmm.t pꜢjj ḫnn nb ‘he who makes the supply for the sun-folk (as well as for) those
who fly up and lower down’.162
Finally, there are different techniques visible, exemplifying how the listed crea-
tures came into being. This is expressed by different Egyptian verbs.163 There is the
159 In Tura-Hymn, 16; Tomb of Apy, Small Hymn to Aten, 3; Tomb of Aya, Great Hymn to Aten, 8; stela
of Baki, 5; pLeiden I 344, II.2; pChester Beatty IV, 7.6; Tomb of Tjanefer, 3.
160 In stela of Baki, 3; pLeiden I 344, II.1 f.; pChester Beatty IV, 7.6; tomb of Tjanefer, 3; stela of
Rames IV, 5; pBerlin 3048, VIII.2.
161 The context gives no clear information about who is meant in this context with =sn ‘them’.
162 Nearly the same line is to be found in the tomb of Tjaj, 3.
163 The variation of verbs is also to be seen in the context of textual semantics and rhetorics, as there
is no concept recognisable of which verbs are used in which context.
94 Sonja Gerke
active creation with verbs such as jrj ‘to make’,164 ḳd ‘to build’165 or ḳmꜢ ‘to create’,166
whereas in some cases it seems as if the creatures literally ‘come into being’ on their
own without any further assistance – expressed by the verb ḫpr167 – or they do it
with assistance expressed by the causative form of the same verb sḫpr ‘to bring into
being’,168 and additionally, life may simply exist as it is expressed with the Egyptian
verb wn.169
As has been shown with this brief examination and comparison of these texts
and their elements, it becomes clear that every catalogue differs from every other to
a greater or lesser extent and in many features. Nevertheless, they can obviously and
easily be compared to each other by the same subject and contents, i.e. the creation of
the world and its inhabitants by a deity. For this purpose, it does not seem to matter
which specific creatures are named and in which order they are put. What was impor-
tant was the emphasizing of the act of creation in general, so a long, detailed list of
created beings and things or a short expression like ‘he who made all that exists’
can, after all, express the same message, which can be understood in both ways quite
clearly.
4 Conclusions – the Ancient Egyptian view of the

animal world?
At the beginning of this paper, the questions were asked of whether some kind of
classification or categorization of the animal world can be traced in ancient Egypt,
on which concepts, models or types this classification could be based, and whether
a system of hierarchy and canonization can be found within the sources. As has been
stated already at the beginning, to answer these questions the selection of sources
is basically decisive. As the particular sections of this paper have shown, examples
of animal classification in image and script and also classification models by which
animals were categorized can actually be found.
However, these examples were found because they were specifically searched for.
The cited examples show classifications and models that are basically needed when
wanting to depict or talk about animals, but they have no intention to sequence, put
164 Tura-Hymn, 16, 22; Tomb of Merire, 1; Tomb of Apy, Small Hymn to Aten, 3; pLeiden I 344, II.2,
3; Tomb of Tjay, 3.
165 pLeiden I 344, II.1; pBerlin 3048, VIII.2.
166 Tomb of Apy, Small Hymn to Aten, 3; Tomb of Aya, Great Hymn to Aten, 8; Book of the Dead of
Hunefer, 7; Tomb of Amenmessu, 8.
167 Stela of Baki, 3; pChester Beatty IV, 7.6; Tomb of Amenmessu, 7, 8.
168 Stela of Baki, 3; Book of the Dead of Hunefer, 9; Tomb of Tjanefer, 3.
in order, or examine the animal world, and are all taken from different contexts that
have primarily nothing to do with knowledge about animals. The physical description
of animals in some textual sources (lexica) is not primarily to be seen as being for the
animal’s own sake, but must be looked at in the broader, superordinate context of
theology and mythology which are tightly linked to it. Furthermore, it should be noted
that such examples as the list of birds in the tomb of Baqet III have no parallels at all;
the same is true for many text examples or quotations given in this paper.
I have tried to emphasize in this paper that it is very important to differentiate
between single examples and generalized statements or assumptions. It is indisputa-
ble that all examples cited above show a will to differentiate between several animals
and subspecies. But they also show their diversity, that there was no general or the
ancient Egyptian view of the animal world, and there was no standardized or centra-
lized canonization of nomenclature or hierarchy of animals, as this was obviously not
needed.
Egyptological papers dealing with the view of the animal world often commu-
nicate the impression that the ancient Egyptians had a very clear and structured
system of the animal world (see e.g. Hornung 1967; Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: 15–19,
62–93; Hoffmann 2005), an impression which can easily be made by choosing and
citing adequate sources, as was also shown in the present paper. But what look like
general models or types are, in fact, special, and in most cases, single phenomena
that depend on and are determined by their specific context and purpose, and which
form both the basis and the deciding factor for the need of a categorization or a clas-
sification model.
References
Arnold, Dorothea. 1995. An Egyptian Bestiary. (The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 52, 4) New
York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Assmann, Jan. 1983. Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern. (Theben, 1) Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern.
Assmann, Jan. 21999. Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis) Freiburg/
Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Aufrère, Sydney H., and Marguerite Erroux-Morfin. 2001. “Au sujet du hérisson: aryballes et
préparations magiques à base d’extraits tirés de cet animal.” In Encyclopédie religieuse de
l’univers végétal: croyances phytoreligieuses de l’Égypte ancienne 2, edited by Sydney H.
Aufrère, 521–533. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier III.
Al-Ayedi, Abdul Rahman. 2006. Index of Egyptian administrative, religious and military titles of the
New Kingdom. Ismailia, Egypt: Obelisk Publications.
Bakir, Abd el-Moḥsen. 1943. “A hymn to Amon-Rē’ at Ṭura.” Annales du Service des Antiquités de
l’Égypte 42: 83–91.
Brovarski, Edward. 1987. “Two Old Kingdom writing boards from Giza.” Annales du Service des
Antiquités de l’Égypte 71: 27–52.
Brunner-Traut, Emma. 1977. “Hase.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie Band II, edited by Wolfgang Helck,
1023 f. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
96 Sonja Gerke
Budge, Ernest A. Wallis. 1899. The Book of the Dead, Facsimiles of the Papyri of Hunefer, Anhai,
Kerâsher and Netchemet with Supplementary Text from the Papyrus of Nu. London: British
Museum.
Burkard, Günter, and Heinz-Josef Thissen. 2003. Einführung in die altägyptische Literaturgeschichte.
I: Altes und Mittleres Reich. (Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie, 1) Münster: Lit.
Burkard, Günter, and Heinz-Josef Thissen. 2008. Einführung in die altägyptische Literaturgeschichte.
I: Neues Reich. (Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie, 1.) Münster: Lit.
Crum, Walter E. 1939. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Davies, Nina M. 1949. “Birds and Bats at Beni Hassan.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 35: 13–20.
Decker, Wolfgang, and Michael Herb. 1994. Bildatlas zum Sport im Alten Ägypten. Corpus der
bildlichen Quellen zu Leibesübungen, Spiel, Jagd, Tanz und verwandten Themen. Teil 1: Text
und Teil 2: Abbildungen. Leiden: Brill.
Droste zu Hülshoff, Vera von. 1980. Der Igel im Alten Ägypten. (Hildesheimer Ägyptologische
Beiträge, 11) Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.
Edel, Elmar. 1961. “Zu den Inschriften auf den Jahreszeitenreliefs der ‘Weltenkammer’ aus dem
Sonnenheiligtum des Niuserre, I. Teil.” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 8: 209–255.
Edel, Elmar. 1963. “Zu den Inschriften auf den Jahreszeitenreliefs der ‘Weltenkammer’ aus dem
Sonnenheiligtum des Niuserre, II. Teil.” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 4/5: 89–217.
Edel, Elmar, and Steffen Wenig. 1974. Die Jahreszeitenreliefs aus dem Sonnenheiligtum des Königs
Ne-User-Re. (Mitteilungen aus der Ägyptischen Sammlung, 7) Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Erichsen, Wolja. 1954. Demotisches Glossar. Kopenhagen: Munksgaard.
Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Grapow. 1955. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache Bände I–V. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
Fischer-Elfert, Hans-Werner. 2008. “Weitere Details zur Göttlichkeit der Natur – Fragmente eines
späthieratischen Lexikons (Pap. Hal. Kurth Inv. 33 A-C (Halle/Saale)).” Zeitschrift für ägyptische
Sprache und Altertumskunde 135: 115–130.
Gamer-Wallert, Ingrid. 1970. Fische und Fischkulte im alten Ägypten. (Ägyptologische
Abhandlungen, 21) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Gardiner, Alan Henderson. 1935. Chester Beatty Gift, Vol. 2. (Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum
Ser. 3) London: British Museum Press.
Gardiner, Alan Henderson. 31957. Egyptian Grammar. Being an introduction to the study of
hieroglyphs. London: Oxford University Press.
Gardiner, Alan Henderson. 1968. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, 3 vols. London: Oxford University
Press.
Gerke, Sonja. 2014. Der altägyptische Greif. Von der Geschichte eines “Fabeltiers”. (Studien zur
Altägyptischen Kultur, Beihefte 15) Hamburg: Buske.
Goldwasser, Orly. 2002. Prophets, lovers and giraffes: wor(l)d classification in ancient Egypt.
(Classification and Categorization in Ancient Egypt, 3. Göttinger Orientforschungen, 4. Reihe:
Ägypten, 38) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Griffith, Francis Ll., and William M. Flinders Petrie. 1889. Two hieroglyphic papyri from Tanis: I. The
sign papyrus (a syllabary) / by F. Ll. Griffith. II. The geographical papyrus (an almanack) / by W.
M. F. Petrie. With remarks by Heinrich Brugsch. (Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund) London:
Trübner.
Guichard, Hélène (ed). 2014. Des animaux et des Pharaons. Le règne animal dans l’Égypte ancienne
[cet ouvrage accompagne l’exposition Lens, Musée du Louvre-Lens, 5 décembre 2014–9 mars
2015; Madrid, CaixaForum, 31 mars 2015–23 août 2015; Barcelone, CaixaForum, 22 septembre
2015–10 janvier 2016]. Paris: Somogy Éditions d’Art.
Herb, Michael 2001. Der Wettkampf in den Marschen: Quellenkritische, naturkundliche und
sporthistorische Untersuchungen zu einem altägyptischen Szenentyp. (Nikephoros Beihefte 5)
Hildesheim: Weidmann.
Herb, Michael, and Frank Förster. 2009. “From desert to town: The economic role of desert game in
the Pyramid Ages of ancient Egypt as inferred from historical sources (c. 2600–1800 BC). An
outline of the workshop’s inspiration and objectives.” In Desert animals in the eastern Sahara:
status, economic significance, and cultural reflection in antiquity. Proceedings of an interdisci-
plinary ACACIA workshop held at the University of Cologne, December 14–15, 2007. Colloquium
Africanum 4, edited by Heiko Riemer, Frank Förster, Michael Herb and Nadja Pöllath, 17–44.
Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut.
Hoffmann, Friedhelm. 2005. “Das Göttliche in der Natur – Biologie im alten Ägypten.” Matthias-
Grünewald-Gymnasium Würzburg, Jahresbericht 2004/2005, Wissenschaftliche Beilage 4:
196–205.
Hornung, Erik. 1967. “Die Bedeutung des Tieres im alten Ägypten.” Studium Generale 20: 69–84.
Hornung, Erik, Rolf Krauss and David A. Warburton (eds). 2006. Ancient Egyptian Chronology.
(Handbuch der Orientalistik, erste Abteilung: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 83) Leiden: Brill.
Houlihan, Patrick F. 1996. “A guide to the wildlife represented in the great swampland scene in the
offering-chapel of Ti (No. 60) at Saqqara.” Göttinger Miszellen 155: 19–53.
Jones, Dilwyn. 2000. An index of ancient Egyptian titles, 2 vols. (BAR International Series, 866 (1 f.))
Oxford: Archaeopress.
Kanawati, Naguib. 2011. Mereruka and his family. III.1 The tomb of Mereruka. (Australian Centre for
Egyptology: Reports 29) London: Aris & Philipps.
Kaplony, Peter. 1980. “Kiebitz(e).” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie Band III, edited by Wolfgang Helck,
417–422. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. 1983. Ramesside inscriptions, vol. VI. Oxford: Blackwell.
Klebs, Luise. 1982. Die Reliefs des alten Reiches (2980–2475 v. Chr.). (Abhandlungen der
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 3) Hildesheim
(et al.): Olms.
Kleinsgütl, Dagmar. 1997. Feliden in Altägypten. (Veröffentlichungen der Institute für Afrikanistik
und Ägyptologie der Universität Wien, 80; Beiträge zur Ägyptologie, 14) Wien: Afro-Pub.
Knigge Salis, Carsten, and Maria Michela Luiselli. 2013. “Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete.” In
Hymnen, Klagelieder und Gebete, edited by Daniel Arpagaus, 145 f. (Texte aus der Umwelt des
Alten Testaments, NF 7) Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago (Ill.): University of Chicago Press.
Leitz, Christian. 1997. Die Schlangennamen in den ägyptischen und griechischen Giftbüchern.
(Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse/Akademie der Wissen-
schaften und der Literatur in Mainz, 6) Stuttgart: Steiner.
Leonard Jr., Albert. 2000. “Why a hedgehog?” In The archaeology of Jordan and beyond essays in
honour of James A. Sauera, edited by Lawrence E. Stager, Joseph A. Greene and Michael D.
Coogan, 310–316. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
von Lieven, Alexandra. 2004. “Das Göttliche in der Natur erkennen: Tiere, Pflanzen und Phänomene
der unbelebten Natur als Manifestation des Göttlichen; mit einer Edition der Baumliste P. Berlin
29027.” Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 131: 156–172.
Liszka, Kate. 2010. “‘Medjay’ (no. 188) in the onomasticon of Amenemope.” In Millions of Jubilees:
Studies in Honor of David P. Silverman, vol. 1, edited by Zahi Hawass and Jennifer Houser
Wegner, 315–331. Cairo: Conseil Suprême des Antiquités.
Loret, Victor. 1916–1917. “Le titre .” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie
égyptiennes et assyriennes 38: 61–68.
98 Sonja Gerke
Luiselli, Maria Michela. 2004. Der Amun-Re Hymnus des P. Boulaq 17 (P. Kairo CG 58038). (Kleine
ägyptische Texte, 14) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Meeks, Dimitri. 2010. “De quelques ‘insectes’ égyptiens: entre lexique et paléographie.” In
Perspectives on ancient Egypt: studies in honor of Edward Brovarski, edited by Zahi A. Hawass,
Peter Der Manuelian and Ramadan B. Hussein, 273–304. Cairo: Conseil Suprême des Antiquités
de l’Égypte.
Möller, Georg. 1970. Hieratische Papyrus aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. II: Hymnen an
verschiedene Götter. Zusatzkapitel zum Totenbuch, edited by Adolf Erman (unveränd. fotomech.
Nachdr. d. Ausg. Leipzig 1905). Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR.
Moret, Alexandre. 1909. Catalogue du Musée Guimet. Galérie égyptienne: Stèles, Bas-reliefs,
Monuments divers. (Annales du Musée Guimet, 32) Paris: Leroux.
Newberry, Percy E. 1893. Beni Hasan II (Archaeological Survey of Egypt: Memoir 2) London: Egypt
Exploration Society.
Nibbi, Alessandra. 1991. “A note on the Hnmmt.” Discussions in Egyptology 21: 49–57.
Osing, Jürgen. 1982. “Onomastika.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie Band IV, edited by Wolfgang Helck,
572. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Osing, Jürgen. 1998. Hieratische Papyri aus Tebtunis I, The Carlsberg Papyri 2. (CNI Publications, 17)
Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Pommerening, Tanja. 2015. “Bäume, Sträucher und Früchte in altägyptischen Listen – eine
Betrachtung zur Kategorisierung und Ordnung.” In Die Liste. Ordnungen von Dingen und
Menschen in Ägypten, edited by Susanne Deicher, 125–166. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos.
Pries, Andreas Henning. 2014. “Onomastika und Soubassements: erkennbare Wege einer intertex-
tuellen Bezugnahme.” In Altägyptische Enzyklopädien. Die Soubassements in den Tempeln
der griechisch-römischen Zeit: Soubassementstudien I.2, edited by Alexa Rickert and Bettina
Ventker, 1001–1015. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Quack, Joachim Friedrich. 2008. “Lokalressourcen oder Zentraltheologie? Zur Relevanz und
Situierung geographisch strukturierter Mythologie im Alten Ägypten.” Archiv für Religionsge-
schichte 10: 5–29.
Quirke, Stephen. 1996. “Horn, feather and scale, and ships: on titles in the Middle Kingdom.” In
Studies in honour of William Kelly Simpson 2, edited by Peter Der Manuelian, 665–677. Boston:
Dept. of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian and Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts.
von Recklinghausen, Daniel. 2014. “Monographien in den Soubassements.” In Altägyptische
Enzyklopädien. Die Soubassements in den Tempeln der griechisch-römischen Zeit: Soubasse-
mentstudien I.1, edited by Alexa Rickert and Bettina Ventker, 29–50. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Reisner, George A. 1910. “A scribe’s tablet found by the Hearst Expedition at Giza.” Zeitschrift für
ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 48: 113 f.
Sahrhage, Dietrich. 1998. Fischfang und Fischkult im alten Ägypten. (Kulturgeschichte der Antiken
Welt 70) Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Sandman, Maj. 1938. Texts from the time of Akhenaten. (Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca, 8) Bruxelles:
Édition de la Fondation Égyptologique.
Sauneron, Serge, and Jean Yoyotte. 1959. “La naissance du monde selon l’Égypte ancienne.” In
La naissance du monde: Égypte ancienne – Sumer – Akkad – Hourrites et Hittites – Canaan –
Israel – Islam – Turcs et Mongols – Iran préislamique – Indie – Siam – Laos – Tibet – Chine,
edited by [Anonymous], 17–91. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Sauneron, Serge. 1989. Un traité égyptien d’ophiologie: Papyrus du Brooklyn Museum No. 47.218.48
et .85. (Bibliothèque Générale, 11) Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale.
Serrano, Jose M. 1999. “Origin and basic meaning of the word Hnmmt (the so-called ‘sun-folk’).”
Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 27: 353–368.
Störk, Lothar. 1977. “Fledermaus.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie Band II, edited by Wolfgang Helck,
263 f. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Vandier, Jacques. 1960. Le Papyrus Jumilhac. Paris: Le Centre national de la recherche scientifique.
Vernus, Pascal, and Jean Yoyotte. 2005. Bestiaire des Pharaons. Paris: Agnès Viénot Perrin.
Ward, William A. 1982. Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom.
With a Glossary of Words and Phrases Used. Beirut: American University of Beirut.
Wild, Henri. 1953/1939/1966. Le Tombeau du Ti. (Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut
Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, 65) Le Caire: Imprimerie de l’Inst. Français
d’Archéologie Orientale.
Zandee, Jan. 1992. Der Amunhymnus des Papyrus Leiden I 344, Verso. Bände I–IV. (Collections of the
National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden, 7) Leiden: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden.
Figures
Fig. 1: After Gardiner 1969, pls. I f.
Fig. 2: After Sahrhage 1998, 61, fig. 19.
Fig. 3: After Edel and Wenig 1974, pl. 14.

Export Pages Classification in AE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Export Pages Classification in AE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sonja Gerke

All Creatures Great and Small – The Ancient

1 The Egyptian categorization of animals – primary

as a complete compilation of sources. However, the cited examples can be seen as

1.1 Textual sources – onomastica and lexica

Fig. 1: Animal section of the Ramesseum Onomasticon

19 Cairo, Egyptian Museum, JE 37734.

(I.16) jr ḥf ꜤꜢ n ꜤꜢpp27 (§15)28 What concerns the great snake of Apophis:29

(II.6) jr fjj šrj (§29) What concerns the small viper:31

II, y+14 hꜢb Ḏḥw.ty pw Ibis: It is Thoth.

1.2 Iconographical sources – scenes of tomb decoration

Fig. 2: Fishing in the marshes, Tomb of Mereruka (Saqqara)

54 Droste zu Hülshoff 1980: 17–21, 53–92.

1.3 Combination of image and text

2.1 Categorization by habitat

Actually, the categorization of animals by habitat seems to be the most obvious

sꜢ-tꜢ ‘son of the earth’,73 a name for a snake.

Ꜣpd.w-n-mw ‘the birds of the water’ (TLA Lemma-Nr. 113) shows

2.2 Categorization by appearance

2.3 Categorization by locomotion

A third possibility of animal-classification is the classification by locomotion. So

fication by gender, by purpose, or by function.79 Nevertheless, it becomes obvious

3 Hierarchy and canonization – the hymns of the

79 See in particular Vernus and Yoyotte 2005: Bestiaire, 15–19; 62–93.

god – is praised. This praising is expressed by an enumeration of the specific deeds

creatures listed, at least as far as their chronological order of creation is concerned.89

102 rḫjj.t, lit. ‘peewit (people)’,

115 pwjj ‘flea’ (1/14)

129 sꜢ Ꜥpnn.t ‘son of the Ꜥpnn.t-snake(?)’ (1/14)

134 pBoulaq I.18.

4 Conclusions – the Ancient Egyptian view of the

You might also like