The tools of the trade Beyond the human physical evidence, both tattooing and branding are practices which require the use of specific implements. In the case of tattooing, identifying these tools has been fraught: anthropological research indicates that tattoos can be incised with nearly any pointy implement.37 Before the advent of the modern tattoo machine in the late nineteenth century, most tattoos were embedded in the skin through the ‘puncture method’: any sharp implement is used to break the skin, with pigment either applied to the tip of the sharp implement or inserted after the skin has been broken. This appears to be the method employed in Egypt,38 but the evidence for tattooing tools from Egypt are questionable at best. Several sharp tools have been variously identified as tattoo needles in scholarship, though only one tool fits Deter-Wolf’s ‘toolkit’ theory, i.e. that a tattoo needle can only be conclusively identified if it is part of a toolkit including other objects.39 The other objects potentially included in such a toolkit could include: pigments and ingredients to prepare tattoo ink, a mortar and pestle (or similar item) to grind the pigment and mix the ink, an ointment or oil to prepare the skin or to promote healing, tools with which to draw the design on the skin before incision, and perhaps ritualistic objects like incense or amulets.40 In 2003, Tassie attempted to outline criteria for the positive identification of tattoo needles in the archaeological record, stating that a find should meet at least one of the following: contain traces of blood or pigment, be attached to additional needles to create a ‘bundle’, and be found with female-oriented items.41 In theory, this is a logical framework. However, there are a number of issues: first, many of the possible tattoo needles are housed in museums and not discovered in situ, meaning that they would certainly have been cleaned; second, a ‘bundle’, if it indeed was used as Tassie suggests, would have likely been held together by organic materials now long gone;42 third and finally, though women are usually tattooed, there is no evidence that they were the ones doing the tattooing.43 A decade after Tassie’s article, Deter-Wolf updated the criteria by adding that it is also possible to identify tattoo needles through use-wear analysis to determine whether the implement’s wear pattern is similar to that of a known tattoo needle.44 However, this analysis would apply to organic tools only (e.g., sharpened bone awls) and not the metal implements found in Egypt and identified as tattooing needles. Thus far, three sharp implements have been identified as tattooing needles, all metal. The first are a set of seven bronze points, collectively UC 7790, three of which are tied together, excavated by Petrie in Gurob in 1880.45 Petrie originally described these needles as prick points for thorn removal, on the basis of their similarity to Graeco-Roman tools used for that purpose,46 but a later assessment suggested that these tools were not fine enough for thorn removal and instead should be classified as tattoo needles.47 Further examination—and some experimental archaeology involving actual tattooing—proved that although these needles can create a tattoo, the process is painstaking and unusual, since indigenous tattooing overwhelmingly used organic materials for tattooing, not metal.48 The second potential set of tattoo needles, also uncovered by Petrie,49 is a microlith set in a wooden handle dating to the First Dynasty. Bianchi dismissed this idea without too much explanation,50 though Tassie seems to think that it could have been used for tattooing. Either way, the evidence was inconclusive. No blood or pigment remained on the microlith to allow for testing. Finally, the most recent discovery of possible tattoo needles is a set of five metal awls, one eyed and one notched;51 it is most likely that these were actually a sewing kit, with the notched awl used for making netting.52 In all of these cases, the sharp implements are only tentatively identified as tattoo needles. Certainly, the tattooed mummified women mentioned earlier in this article were tattooed by a specialized set of instruments. However, the lack of positively identified tattoo needles warrants some consideration in a discussion of the practice. The identification of branding-irons is far easier, since they are predictable in their shape and can only be used for one purpose (in contrast with needles or any sharp implement). I have identified eight branding-irons, six from the Petrie Museum Collection and two from the British Museum. These irons have been correctly labelled as ‘branding-irons’ in museum collections, and the general assumption is that they are intended for use on cattle. However, their size indicates that they were most likely for another purpose: branding human beings. It is perhaps unsurprising that cattle were branded as a mark of ownership, and the unquestionable depiction of cattle branding in the tomb of Nebamun (fig. 1)53 has attracted little remark. In this scene, one attendant heats a square branding-iron upon a brazier on the floor while two attendants actively brand two trussed cattle on the right shoulder with identical branding-irons

Although the branding-irons in that scene are square, brands were varied in shape, representing a deity, place-name, or perhaps an owner. In the fragmentary P. Varzy,54 a description of cattle branding replicates the brand in large-scale:55 a rwḏ sign (T12) surrounding a ỉwn-column (O28), meant to represent ‘long may Heliopolis endure!’.56 Cattle sale documents of the Saite and Persian Periods record at least six distinct brands in nine different instances. Occasionally, the shape of the brand and its meaning are both included (e.g., nt ỉȝb n pȝ tḫn pȝ ỉȝb n ỉmn ‘who is branded with the obelisk, the brand of Amun’57), but more frequently either the shape alone is referenced (nt ỉȝb n pȝ bk ‘who is branded with the falcon’58) or the deity (nt ỉȝb n pȝ ỉȝb ỉst ‘who is branded with the brand of Isis’59). The shapes described in these documents are in line with the branding-irons currently housed in museum collections (table 1), which are in the form of animal representations of deities, or, in one instance, a cartouche. The majority of these branding-irons are from the Egyptian collection at University College London and were published by Petrie himself in 1917; he dated the collection of irons to the Nineteenth through the Twenty-Fifth Dynasties.60

Modern guidelines stipulate that a standard branding-iron for cattle branding should have characters at a minimum height of 10.6 cm, or else risk losing legibility once the calf ages.66 These brands (with the exception of UC 63717 and BM. EA 57321) are far too small for that purpose, averaging around 2 x 4 cm in height. There are three possibilities for this discrepancy: first, that these were intended for smaller animals such as goats, donkeys, or horses; second, that these were model tools replicated in miniature; or third, that their intended use was for human branding. Although horses are known to have been branded in the Graeco-Roman world,67 we have no evidence that this was the case in Egypt, nor is there any evidence of branding goats.68 However, there is some evidence that donkeys were branded.69 The absence of evidence of horse branding need not necessarily indicate that the practice did not exist, since donkeys were indeed branded. Nevertheless, the other options should also be explored. While model tools are a known practice, the corpus is surprisingly small70 and can be divided into the following categories: building tools, toilet implements (e.g. mirrors and razors), weaving tools, leatherworking tools, hunting tools (generally fish-hooks), and weapons (axes, arrowheads, daggers).71 In the Old Kingdom, these model tool hoards were part of a burial assemblage, but by the Middle Kingdom the practice was mostly limited to building tools as part of a foundation deposit.72 If this collection was indeed model branding-irons from the Late Period, it would be very unusual. No model brands (including the ones above) have been found in model tool assemblages, and none of the above tools come from a mortuary context. In light of the above conclusions, I suggest that these branding-irons were not intended for cattle, but rather for the practice of branding human beings as chattel. Further supporting this point is evidence from the more recent instance of human branding during the Transatlantic slave trade. Human branding-irons from the mid- and late-nineteenth century parallel the size and shape of the smaller branding-irons discussed here: a height of approximately 1 x 1 inches (2.54 x 2.54 cm) and a length of approximately 7 inches (17.78 cm).73 It is, however, still possible that the larger of these branding-irons (namely BM EA 57321, UC 63717, and ECM.1771-2010) were intended for use on horses or donkeys.

(continued in replies)