Cited by 42Ancient Egypt and ArchaeologyArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesAncient and Medieval Archaeology Studies

Funerary Sacrifice of Animals in the Egyptian Predynastic Period

Flores, Diane Victoria·2003·University of Michigan Press eBooks

Abstract

The principal focus of this study is an analysis of "independent animal burials", as they are most often indiscriminately interpreted as early evidence for a religiously symbolic significance of the species that occur. Such a cultic interpretation only rarely is offered for the other category of burial, that of animals interred in or, in its later developed form, directly associated with human graves. These animals have generally been considered merely another form of grave goods. However, this type of animal burial, in the form of subsidiary burials, can be tracked into the early First Dynasty and beyond. Thus the diachronic development of this particular category of burial exhibits an uninterrupted continuity between the predynastic and early historic periods. The geographical scope extends from Upper Egypt (Badarian and Naqada Cultures), to Lower Egypt (Neolithic and Maadi-Buto Culture), and Lower Nubia (A-Group), and detailed appendices cover a Gazetteer of independent animal burials, animals in human graves; elite cemeteries; food offerings; and cemetery maps.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.30861/9781841715230

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An inner ring of graves around tomb 16 was reserved for human burials, while an outer perimeter contained an eclectic range of carefully interred animal burials, including aurochs, baboons, an elephant, cats, and a hartebeest, along with 35 dogs.

    “An inner ring of graves around tomb 16 was reserved for human burials, while an outer perimeter contained an eclectic range of carefully interred animal burials (Flores 2003;Friedman et al. 2011), including aurochs, baboons, an elephant, cats, and a hartebeest, along with 35 dogs.”

    From The Egyptian Predynastic and State Formation (2016) · cites this paper as Flores 2003

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • The Egyptian Predynastic and State Formation

    Stevenson, A. (2016) · Journal of Archaeological Research · doi:10.1007/s10814-016-9094-7 · Cited by 72 · see citing works

    “An inner ring of graves around tomb 16 was reserved for human burials, while an outer perimeter contained an eclectic range of carefully interred animal burials (Flores 2003; Friedman et al. 2011), including aurochs, baboons, an elephant, cats, and a hartebeest, along with 35 dogs.”
    Background

Authors
Flores, D. V.
Corresponding author
Flores, Diane Victoria
Venue
University of Michigan Press eBooks
Published
2003
OpenAlex
W633871121
Cited by
42
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.17
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
University of Michigan Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient and Medieval Archaeology Studies
Keywords
animal burials, Predynastic Egypt, Naqada culture, Neolithic Egypt, Lower Nubia, food offerings, animal symbolism, grave goods

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review